Sorry about insulting you and thousands of Americans Bakerstreet. I don't think I have a selected memory. As I recall the whole of Europe stood as one man behind GB in grabbing Osama. The Taliban is chased back, and UN troops are in Afghanistan, not only from America but from western european countries too. We helped. The Us wanted to lead. Don't blame us for not grabbing Osama, while your agencies haven't a clue where he is.
As for Iraq, it just shows you the culture difference between one US and a whole lot of countries in Europe. I don't buy the phrase: If you aren't with us you are against us. Where was America when the IRA was fighting a civil war in Ireland, where were they when ETA struck Spain, where were they when the RAF was operational in Germany I can ask you. Our Europe is far more instable than your United States. We have neighbours, we are small, we have to cooperate. I have nothing against the US, and frankly Europe was just as shocked as the US on 9/11. That Europe leads more liberal policies is democraticly chosen.
BC, although a crook too, tried to solve the civil war in Ireland, he tried to deal out a peaceful solution between Arafat and Rabin. And later with Barak and Arafat. Pity Arafat wanted war. Otherwise BC would have succeeded.
That you come up with the insult phrase, or someone else for that matter, is just what I feared. Sorry I gave a few comments on this thread.

Bakerstreet, Very well put...

Bush just wants to show his father that he can finish what he didn't.
It's been Bush's dream to go into Iraq way before 9/11.

This is not about the good or bad Americans people. It's about a president that only wants to prove himself better than his dad. Sorry to the Americans, I love you and I mean no disrespect to you. I just think your president has some personal problems.

So far, Iraq has done nothing to justify an invasion. Don't be fooled by media brainwashing and polital mumbo-jumbo. Let the UN take care of it. Send the inspectors. See what they find. Destroy the weapons if any are found.

I think some of you are missing some very salient points here.

Desert Storm could not be completed because the "Coalition" wouldn't support removing Saddam SPECIFICALLY.

The UN created the sanctions that have killed 500,000 Iraqi children in the last 10 years, and Saddam has shown no sign of complying with UN resolutions. Ask me again who is showing the United Nations to be irrelevant.

People, this is not some "woke up on Tuesday and decided to invade a Middle Eastern Country" situation. 4 years ago Saddam Hussein patently refused to let the UN inspectors do their jobs. What is he trying to hide? If he complies with the inspections the sanctions will be dropped. That's pretty simple, and it gets food for his people.

Oh yeah. Food for Oil. That's another UN program. And to sweeten the pot there's documentation that Iraq's been turning that food around and selling it to buy guns. What about the Iraqi People???

Which Europeans are currently helping to keep the peace and stabilize the government in Afghanistan, besides the UK? I know the answer, 2 points to you if you do also. One million points if you can tell who volunteered combat forces.

I'm still trying to figure out where you got the crap about the IRA. Do you honestly thing that Britain would have appreciated us landing troops on their soil to handle a problem they were dealing with already? The IRA didn't attack us, and Britain didn't ask for help, so we've kept our noses out of it.

Bosnia asked for help. Do we need to go into that fiasco?

Regardless, I've come to the conclusion that the Middle East hates the US because of what we are, and the numerous US citizens and EU citizens hate us because of what they were. It's a simplistic attitude, I admit, but if you make a few cuts with Occam's Razor that's what it boils down to.

Pax, that's got to be the silliest thing I've ever heard. Prove himself?

Iraq has defied the UN and shown them to be ineffective for 10 years. Until the inspectors were thrown out 4 years ago, they were very busy seizing WMD's.

You should note that the inpsectors, who've been on the ground and tried to work in Iraq, have supported Military intervention, because they are effectively hamstrung by the Iraqi government.

That's what this is all about. Hussein refuses to allow the inspectors access to several places, places that constitute 11 square miles of Iraq.

So don't believe media hype. Saddam has refused to comply with UN resolutions, and ignore's the sanctions despite the situation of his own people.

Lets back up here. I seem to see several misconceptions.

First, why do we need more UN resolutions? He has been flouting ones passed at the end of Desert Storm that allowed him to stay in power for almost 10 years. It was not a peace treaty, it was terms of surrender. What makes anyone think this will change?

Second, he is working to build weapons of mass destruction. Should we wait until he blows one up? I think not. That would be like handing killers a gun as they walk out of prison, telling them to behave and then being surprised when they use it.

Third, we still are in Afghanistan with no plans on leaving any time soon.

Fourth, "An unwritten policy exists (and has done so for at least 100 years)to the effect that 'Heads of State' are NOT to be targeted for liquidation, despite the US 'Keystone Cops' attempts on Castro over the years." I was listening to one of Bill Clinton's Security Council advisers the other day say that the US, Israel and other countries had been targeting Saddam since the beginning of the Gulf War. He is a very slippery and paranoid character.

Fifth, Several of his neighbors are with us on attacking him, Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey. The UK and Israel are also with us. This makes it not a single nation attacking him. It is a group of nations that agree he should be gone. Since this doesn't include France and Germany we are being made out to be a loose cannon.

Sixth, I think it hurts our standing much more in that part of the world to claim to be angry and powerful but do nothing then to be angry, powerful and kicking butt. To do nothing appears weak willed and open to attack.

Seventh, We did not remove Saddam the first time around because our Arab and European allies thought that was improper. Many of the same ones that still want to try yet more resolutions.

Eighth, Setting a precedent for attacking other nations. I think history is full of such precedents.

datarat, I'd agree with you if Saddam didn't turn around and accepted the return of UN inspectors without condition. That's what it was all about to begin with. Why now that Saddam complies, is it still question of invading Iraq?

I don't like Saddam, nor do I like his government. But in accordance with international law, one country canot attack another sovereign country without provocation. Doing so, you stop being a victim and start being the bullie yourself.

But that's my point. He didn't accept them without condition. If you read the letter that was sent to the UN carefully, it says that they will unconditionally discuss the return.

In subsequent statements (like last week)Saddam reiterated that Iraq's sovereignty must be respected, and that the inspectors will not be allowed in places that he deems inappropriate. Namely the Presidential Palaces.

Which puts us right back were we were a year ago...

Lecrayon, you put the European point well, a very valuable contribution.
I doubt you can lay blame at the feet of Mr Bush, a political party makes policy, the elected representative presents that policy via an address, scripted with care.
To be fair, the Clinton/Rabin/Arafat agreement was making progress, at the risk of getting dumped on I must point out the fact that Mr Rabin was assasinated by one of his own, and in light of the present Gaza policy his death has a distinct smell of a Star Chamber Conspiricy about it.
Bakerstreet, Clinton "far left"?????
Mate, you should check out the previous Prime Minister of Oz, one Paul Keating ....
More left wings than a Staffel of Fokker Triplanes!
As for the 'thousands of Americans in harms way in Afghanistan', it is just another part of the job in the Green Machine.
Given your remarks it would appear that the Australian and British special forces along with the French Paras are sunning themselves and having an all round break from the monotony of training, or perhaps it could be the lack of CNN coverage on troops other than US????
Believe me, if troops in the field are 'visible' then they are not doing their job correctly.
One very good way of getting the UN off it's butt as well as giving the US some real credibility would be for Uncle Sam to pay the rather large and very long overdue funds it owes the UN!
Maybe said organisation would have to get its act together.
My general view of the United Nations is jaundiced at best, a flawed concept in the beginning and now rife with political correctness and no small amount of corruption.
Any organisation that is intent on fielding an operation (as in the former Jugoslavia) that is placed on a 'watching brief' armed with nothing more than sidearms deserves to be treated with disdain.
UN Weapons Inspection teams are a first concession and can only be seen in that way, however, they might keep Iraqi attention diverted for a short time if covert ops were to be instigated, and then only for a team of 'unofficial investigators' who would be charged with finding some hard evidence.
La Belle France can hardly be charged with inaction re the Algerian crisis, today's 'terrorist' is tomorrow's 'freedom fighter', and if memory serves me, many Algerian Nationals were French Citizens at the time, this during the reign of CDG, aka Napolean the Greatest!
Lecrayon might care to correct me on this.
Dangeruss, right!
One can only wait for an unjustified strike to mount an appropriate and deadly response, real life is not a video game.
BTW, would you be the same 'Russ' who built some of the very best bike models (as portrayed in SAE) I have ever seen?

"One can only wait for an unjustified strike to mount an appropriate and deadly response, real life is not a video game"

Are you seriously suggesting that we need to wait until a nuclear bomb goes off in an American city before we can respond? Or did I just read that wrong?

i'm not according to the POLL. There's a site about customization, and i don't like to see politic polls on the start page!
I don't agree the 'cowboy' and i don't agree the 'radicalist' too!
And i don't like to se your president (and the president of all the world, due to 'collateral effects) actuating like a children. The XXI century will be more civilizated.

ANd a note for all US people (Or all world people): The terrorism not started at sept 11. We (in SPain and in other countries) are living terrorism any day or any week (i lived a terrorist act, and my town isn't a special politic or strategic place for terrorism). Don't use the Arabian culture for having more armamentistic inversions and reasons for attack other countries.

i have just one question...how many active duty personnel are on this board?

everyone except them should shut the hell up, because they are the ONLY ones with the possibility of being in direct action. everyone spouting their fanatic opinion is just flapping their yap in the breeze. words accomplish jack and !@#$ when uttered by those with a lack of authority. quit getting your skirt in a ruffle and either do something about it or shut up and go skin something.

history is written by those who win, the truth is never completely visible, and no one cares what your personal opinion is.

go skin something. this site shouldn't be a place to turn people against each other for moral, political, racial, religious, whatever, reasons. go skin something and drop it, already.

Griffinme, #1, Agreed, no contest. #2, Assumed, possible, even probable but unproven. #3, I believe that is what the Russians assumed, and was this to be "Liberation" not "Occupation"? #4, Interesting, the US, Israel and 'other countries'? See #7. #5, You don't think Iraq's "neighbours" might be a tad keen on extending their boundaries at all? #6, This is about keeping up appearances? Really??? #7, see #4 .... au contraire? #8, Sure, Granada, Panama come readily to mind.

datarat, 'Food for Oil', a flawed concept indeed, but one can only guess where the bulk of the oil ends up, not that it would take much imagination.
The UN did not 'kill 500,000 Iraqi children', the Iraqi regime can claim credit for that.
I'll take the points thank you, when are you departing for Afghanistan as a matter of interest?
The IRA, certainly the Brits would be unhappy with an expeditionary force landing in the Emrald Isle, however, perhaps they would have appreciated less Trans-Atlantic funding of the opposition.
Bosnia was a typical example of the usual late arrival routine allied to the video game approach.
"Damn! They looked like troops on that bridge!!"
One point that I find illuminating, and I would be keen to know if this is indeed true, the Gulf War CinC has been notable for his (apparant) silence ... one man who's opinion I would value.

Wombat1 - yes I am indeed the very same fellow

"No person or group or society or government has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against anyone. We have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense". (Ayn Rand)

Honored more in the breach than in the keeping, to be honest.

That being said, I agree most with Dangeruss on this. From an ETHICAL standpoint, we have no justification to initiate a military attack against Iraq. The fact that Saddam *might* use a WMD against any target is no more valid an excuse than if I were to kill someone because I don't like the way they look and I think they *might* pull a knife on me. The fact that this person may actually have a knife on him does not sufficiently justify the initiation of violence.

Granted, we cannot accept that U.N. inspections, etc., will be of any meaningful value. Whatever it started out to become, the U.N. is currently a mostly ineffective body in terms of actual accomplishment. The internal corruption, politicking, and bias guarantee that inaction is the only likely result of U.N. involvement, especially in this case.

If we're going to use the rhetoric of the possibility of being attacked with a WMD as justification for initiating our own attack, we have plenty of targets to choose from, not the least of which is China. While an attack from China is a very low probability, we know, FOR A FACT, that they not only possess these weapons, but they are actually aimed at us. While Saddam would probably be much more likely to attempt to use these types of weapons, we have much less certainty about the existence and capabilities of such weapons in his possession.

My personal opinion is that we probably should have taken him out in 1991, even given the likelihood of negative reactions from some coalition members. If we attempt to do so now, we risk a greater negative reaction that will hinder us in legitimate pursuits, and we risk it with much less justification than we had then.

I'm a little biased because of my job, but a couple of things.

1) The war never ended there is a "Cease Fire" in effect that has been violated by Iraq more than 400 times at last count. He has not allowed weapons inspectors into country for over 4 years. Either and both of which are justification to resume hostilities, since they both violate the terms of the "Cease Fire"

2) The United States and the United Kingdom have enforced the "No Fly" zone for over 10 years with little to no help from our "Allies". And both countries jets get shot at nearly every time, and mostly do not return fire. The current rules of engagement for the Coalition forces are so strict that unless there are NO civilians within X amount of miles they may not return fire under any circumstances.

3) It was mentioned that the US gets 900+ ships worth of gas from Iraq via Turkey every week. I would love to know where that came from, since Iraq can't even come close to that number of ships in a month under the "Oil for Food" program. Oh, and the pipeline between Iraq and Turkey has never been finished.

4) If you think that us members of the US military want to go into Iraq and get rid of Sadam you would only be half right. We want him gone more than anyone on the planet probably with the exception of his own people that he routinely abuses. Why you might ask, well when was the last time you spent any time living in a tent in Turkey or living in the Sand of Saudi? When was the last time you missed every major holiday and special occasion with your family. If he was gone our lives would be much nicer, and the same can be said for our British counterparts. Now if he can be made to leave without direct military intervention that is the best option bar none. Unfortunately I don't think that anyone will debate the fact that dear old Sadam has no plans to retire to a nice little island in the South Pacific. If he does not leave via peaceful means, then it is time to ask him to the door with other less pleasant means.

6) What ever the UN and the United States Decide that is not backed up with the threat of Force will be ignored by Sadam, just as he has ignored every other toothless mandate that has been sent to him over the past 11 years. When was the last time he showed anything but contempt for the rest of the world.

So like I said at the start I’m a little biased but in the end I would much rather spend Christmas with my Wife and Son than in a tent eating a MRE (Meal Ready to Eat sort of). I may sympathize with the feelings of those in Europe and other locations, but as they say here in the States, you are no more than “Arm Chair Quarterbacks” unless you wear a uniform. No matter which country you are from just ask someone in uniform from your country and I think that you will get an opinion that is a little different than that of the Media.

Peace

Christopher Conley
Gunnery Sergeant
United States Marine Corps

PS: Anyone who ever says that war is a good thing has NEVER been there. War is NEVER good but sadly it is somtimes the only viable course of action.

wombat_1:

I wasn't trying to say no other countries had a part in Afghainstan, just the opposite. I was addressing LeCrayon's implication that the US had bombed them to an oblivion and ran off to bomb Iraq. That was a UN action, so I think efforts for rebuilding Afghanistan should be laid at the feet of the UN, not thrown in the face of the US who is still there. Most of the ruins we will help rebuild in Afghanistan were made by the Soviet Union.

Noble try for France there, btw, but there is a good reason that they, and the rest of Europe have lived with terrorism for so long. Europe spent hundreds of years in all these countries pounding the occupants into submission, and now, the fruits of their labor are evident. Lecrayon sez about Europe "we are small" and yet there was enough might at one time to section off most of the world. Lucky for Europe that the newest of the downtrodden are just as apt to forget their own history and jump on the 'Great Satan' bandwagon.

Wombat:

The other countries that Griffinme is referring to are Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, an Turkey.

The US has been repeatedly accused of causing the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq over the last decade, usually by Iraq and other international groups.

You've taken my response to you question about other terrorist situations and twisted them. The comment I made about Bosnia was primarily to illustrate the difference between the UK, which did not ask for our assistance, and Bosnia, which did. I did not mean to begin a discussion on the relative effectiveness of the two situations. I'm not sure precisely which funding the IRA got from the US, but it's outside of the scope of this conversation and I'd be happy if you'd enlighten me elsewhere.

One last thing: your analogy is wrong regarding a man who MIGHT have a knife. Try this one, along the same line:

A man breaks into his neighbors house, steals everything he can get his hands on, kills half the family and forces the rest to run screaming from the house.

The Neighbors get together, and the biggest guy and a couple of his friends go in and beat the crap out of this guy, take away his knife, and march him back to his house and put him under house arrest.

Every once in a while somebody goes in to make sure he hasn't made a gun or a knife, but he won't let the guards check his bathroom, kitchen, or a spare room that he says is his entertainment room.

Meanwhile, he continues to torture his OWN family, and pets.

Finally, the guards are told they are not allowed to come back any more, and he locks the door, only answering it when some decidedly shady characters show up. Some people know that the shady types are known for selling guns, instead of knives.

All this time, the guy can be seen in his window occasionally, screaming vengeance at the big neighbor and his friends, threatening to kill his family.

Now, what would you do? Do you think it's reasonable to force him to submit to inspection of his hidden areas? Or are you willing to wait until he steps out his front door and starts killing people, or your family ends up dead at his hands?

The difference between Iraq and any other nation that currently has WMD's is that he has, without hesitation, used them on his own people. He has invaded neighboring countries. He has attempted to purchase Uranium. And he has ignored and rebuffed all attempts to prove he is innocent.

listen to Grog...

Semper...

Williams DA
Sergeant
United States Marine Corps
(FORMER)

(I also saw a Master Sergeant stroll through here a while back, I believe he was. And there is another skinner I haven't seen in about a year and a half...Buzzhog, still active, I think.)

ya'll want some peace of mind... http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,351094,00.html ...dig in.

oops...

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/article/0,12543,351094,00.html

i wonder why it chops the part after the first comma? it'll probably do it again here...

aaaargh...


http : // www . popsci.com / popsci / science / article / 0 , 12543 , 351094 , 00 . html

ok, here it is...just copy it to the browser and dump the spaces...man this is irritating. anyways, it is about the US (possibly) going to minature nuclear precision bombing for bunker busting on non-nuclear countries since nothing else (bunker busting bomb wise) works...

datarat,

I'm not advocating inaction. That's often worse than the disease.

And while your analogy is apt, my problem with some of the proposed actions are that an ad hoc removal of Saddam would not necessarily ameliorate the situation.

To further your analogy, we could rush in, grab the man, kill him (or whatever) and feel that we've fixed the problem. But then, what if another member of that family now takes advantage of the situation to put himself in the same position as the one we just removed? I'm guessing that you aren't advocating demolishing the entire house, family and all. Do we arbitrarily pick a family member to look after the house, and hope they won't be as bad? And do you think that we would unequivocally find every possible WMD and deal with them?

That Saddam needs to be dealt with is a given in my book. What I have an ethical disconnect about is the manner in which we do it, and what our real goals in doing it are. But to further abuse your house analogy, are we really going in to correct the issue, or just to make ourselves feel like we've done something, without actually fundamentally changing anything?

I'm not anywhere naive enough to believe that the U.N. has any hope of addressing the problem, they're about as effective as trying to cut down a tree with chopsticks.

The big problem I have is that we have a faction that is all fired up to go get Saddam, but no significant thought has been applied to what happens after.

Ethics and motivations matter, both in execution and in follow through, and I'm not convinced that we're giving that enough consideration. We don't want to look ineffective, so we rush in with a zeal to fix something, but we're not really focused on what it is we're trying to fix, and we're not thinking about the aftereffects of our actions.

datarat, you're right. I had read that he accepted without conditions. But indeed the "without conditions" had one exception, his presidential property.
Well, my opinion hardly counts, but I believe Saddam will probably remove that exception when military pressure starts to be imminent. I just hope that if/when he does comply that the US and allies will not send troup anyway.

And also, concerning your comment about a nuclear bomb dropped on the US, it is not likely to happen anytime soon. A report from the US intelligence estimates to 2010 the year when Iraq will be capable of building neclear weapons. The threat right now is not nuclear but possibly chemical and biological, which is hardly better.

2010 was their original estimate, but the president said otherwise, if that was the case why is he so dead set on jumping the gun at this moment!
*sigh* I have no idea why I watched his speech everything between the lines sounds like he has his mind made up, but time will tell, I think he said by the end of this week or something of that nature not sure (cuz I was daydreaming that I wish I could take my kids and family and run to the moon away from this madness)cuz "Going to war or not" assures no peace here on this earth...