[NIGHTWATCH]

I say we have to re-think this. Buy some time and get him through to his second term. What do you good people think? :rolleyes:

[Sean Smith]

After the state of the union address, I'm convinced Bush will go forward with war against Iraq under almost any circumstances within the next month or so. I think he actually belives that it is necessary, i.e. it is not a political ploy in and of itself.

Military action against North Korea would be an unmitigated disaster, not so much because North Korea would win in the long run, as because Seoul would be turned into a charnel house in the first 1/2 hour of the war. Just using tube artillery the NKPA can turn it into a contaminated wasteland.

The problem with North Korea is that I really think Kim Jong-Il is a totally irrational actor. As nasty as Saddam or the Ayatollahs running Iran are, their actions make some kind of sense on a certain level once you understand their goals and motives. I think they are incredibly wrong-headed, but they are more or less comprehensible. North Korea is the psychotic crackhead of the international community.

[WilderBill]

It should have been done and over with 6 months ago.

[SodaPop]

We are not going to attack Iraq. I seriously doubt we will ever attack them at all. It should have been done and over with a year ago. This is completely and totally going to turn into the Crusades because Bush took to long to destroy our enemies. Unless he is planning an onslaught against all of these Arabic countries we are going to be attacked all around the world from every faction of Islam if we attack Iraq.

Its coming down to this:

Do we attack all of our enemies at once? I mean China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran ect..

Or do we wait for them to attack us?

This voice recording of Bin laden saying "America can be beaten" is completely and totally correct.

Just in the last few days Iran has started rumbling and North Korea is getting worse. What next...Cuba?? China??

[Blackhawk]

1. Who is telling Iraqis that the U.S. is going to attack Iraq? (Saddam)

2. Who is telling Iraqis WHY the U.S. is going to attack? (Saddam)

3. Who is telling Iraqis THEY have to die to protect Iraq? (Saddam)

4. Who is telling Iraqis that Iraq will fight to the last Iraqi to prevent the U.S. from taking over Iraq? (Saddam)

5. What other news is coming to Iraqis about the pending war? (France & Germany's opposition filtered through Saddam)

6. What were the Iraqis told about Kuwait and GWI? (Iraq would prevail in the Mother of All Battles.)

7. What happened in GWI after Iraqis were told that the U.S. alliance would kill all the mothers, children, and Iraqi civilians if they were not stopped by the incomparable Iraqi military? (Nothing of the sort.)

This is like a pig and chicken talking about total committment versus a contribution to a ham and eggs breakfast. War and dying for family and country is one thing, but doing it for Saddam is something else again.

Fact: If the U.S. goes into Iraq, and WMDs or other proscribed weapons are used, the need to take Saddam out is proven.

Fact: If Iraq does not unleash NBCs or other proscribed weapons as the U.S. moves in, the "inspectors" pursuant to the GWI ceasefire will have arrived, and the regular Iraqi military will be surrendering to anything in sight.

In either event, Saddam is finished, and the Iraqis will be liberated.

Does the U.S. have the right to do that under International Law considering that Iraq is a sovereign nation? Yes, because Iraq willingly put itself under the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement, so Iraq has subjugated its self determination to that agreement.

Too many still ignore that GWI was never concluded -- it was just put on pause....

Not only had the Iraqis better hope that Saddam is ousted, but also Saudi Arabia, and every other hoaky dictatorship in the area dependent on the U.S. economy.

The stage is set for the Iraqis to throw his head over the wall or force him into exile, and they are going to catch on to that sooner or later. If later, it might take the war to do the trick. If sooner, they'll move at about the time that the dissidents within Iraq murmer the question: "Why will we die for Saddam who tortures and kills us for his own pleasure?"

If you want first hand unbiased views of the situation in Iraq, look up "Smoker" on TFL. His posts were based on experiences from ground zero.

[jmbg29]

I say we have to re-think this. Buy some time and get him through to his second term. What do you good people think?I think you may be thinking about what the Demorats would do in a situation like this. As an example, every third sign in yesterday's "peace" march was an "Impeach Bush" sign. For the pinko bedwetters, this war is about politics.

For conservative patriots like Dubya and myself, this war is all about the only thing war should ever be about. AMERICAN LIVES.

We are at war. Iraq is simply the next major battle. No amount of liberal-pig whining is going to stop it.

So to all the "peaceniks" out there in lurker land, :cuss: you!

[priv8ter]

I couldn't vote in the poll, because none of the choices reflected my opinion.

I feel that this should have been done and over with MONTHS ago. We should have done it as a US action. By letting the UN get involved, we have allowed ourselves to be handcuffed. I hate that.

Truth be told, I don't care if it to prevent terrorism, or get us Oil. Saddam needs to go away. We should do what we want and let the UN try to stop us.

I am rapidly becomming tired of what the rest of the world thinks.

:fire: :fire:

I guess it's a good thing for all involved that I am not the guy in the Oval Office.

[Delmar]

I hate to think of having to depend on the UN for anything, but I think GW was right to present it in front of the council just to let them know we have the goods on this maniac. Don't care what they have to say about it. They are not in charge. I do think that in the end, America is going to gain some respect for the fact that we are doing what we say we are doing.
In a way, I'm glad the UN is not going to give it a unanimous vote because I don't want their slimy hands in this in any way, shape or form. All they are going to do is put down a bunch of stupid rules, and we have more than enough stupid politicians who can't wait to hamstring our military as it is.
I do hope the soldiers who are going have the go-ahead and stomp a mudhole into the chest of the Ba'ath party without hindrance, and who ever catches up to this terrorist punk cuts his head off and puts it on a pike.
These folks see compromise as weakness and we can not afford to look as anything but a teed off giant.
The terrorists, whom ever and where ever they are, need to know that we are going to hunt them down and kill them.

[DeltaElite]

North Korea needs to be dealt with first, IMHO, but the Prez forgot to ask me. :p

[Gary H]

WilderBill has it right. Bush made a strategic mistake in going to the U.N. I thought so then and I know so now. Bush missed his best opportunity and will now suffer from his choices. He needs to get this done and stop jawboning. Having bases that are central to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria is critical to our war on terror.

Bush has made an even greater mistake. He has really blown it with "Homeland Security."

[Butch]

I say we go in now & if we have any kind of terrorist attack on americans, we leave the whole country looking like the pictures of Heroshima or Dresden.


http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/WBtazani.gif

[Ninj500]

North Korea needs to be dealt with first,

North Korea is not a threat. China won't let the North truly provoke the US because they can't afford to have a highly successful pro-US capitalist government that close to their border. North Korea will huff and puff, they've done so for 50 years, but will never act. Unlike the Middle East, which doesn't have a unifying powerful county to keep everyone in line, Asia is held together by China. None of the major Asian powers can afford the damage a war would do to their economy. The only exception economically is North Korea; but as a satellite of China they can't afford it either. The Middle East is in a constant unstable state with all the regional powers trying to be king of the hill. There isn’t anyone to slap Iraq or Iran back into place if they get out of line. History shows this to be a breeding ground for war.

[hops]

Bush has publicly raised the rhetoric over the past year to such a level that he must go to war, or the U.S. will loose major face. Had Bush kept the rhetroic down in public, then perhaps the U.S. could back off.

His only out, if Sadaam calls his bluff, now is to say he did not have UN approval. But that even will still result in a limited loss of face.

[Malone LaVeigh]

Does anyone around here know the first thing about writing a poll? You're supposed to give people a meaningful choice.

Sorry, but you didn't include "I wouldn't trust GWB as far as I could throw a pig by it's tail."

[aikidoka-mks]

I say we do it now. Removing Saddam will have to be done sooner or later. If we dont do it now it will be much more difficult and costly later. If Bush lets the UN control our military timetable then he has made a mistake. Right now I think he is just letting the world see how irrelevant those weasals are while we get all of our assets into place.

North Korea is an example of why we need to take action against Saddam now.

Mark

[standingbear]

i agree with what ninj500 said in that north koreas dictator(little man) IS similar a child throwing a tantrum fit in a supermarket.ignore him,maybe hell just go away.

[jmbg29]

"I wouldn't trust GWB as far as I could throw a pig by it's tail."I rest my case.

[trapshooter]

Current status:

1. Last poll I heard of (tonight on Fox News), 69% of the respondents give GW a free ticket to fist city with Iraq, at least.

2. Congress is for it (a majority, anyway).

3. All of NATO but a part-time wannabe (France), Germany and Belgium are for it. (Count is 16 for, two against, the French don't count in NATO).

4. Who gives a rip about the likes of Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., at the UN. For that matter, who cares about the UN.

5. The Chinese are only against it because we're for it, but they probably don't really care about Iraq either way.

6. The Russians have got a ton of money in Iraq, as do the French and German gov'ts/countries. OK. That's just money, (remembering that money, to a Frenchman, is more important than wife, kids, mom, wine, cheese, bad meat, sauce, honor, ethics, and everything else, except being dead, because if you're dead, you have no money). Still, a solvable situation, in the end.

So. GW has more going for him in this instance than any President since FDR. All he's doing at the UN is making the US look ok. He's doing this because force requirements aren't met yet in theater, so fooling around at the UN doesn't matter, at this point. On the day force requirement factor equals 1, and Hussein has not fully complied with 1441, it's going to be bombs away.

So what's the problem?

[Standing Wolf]

Whether we like it, dislike it, or want to squat down in a corner to write cute little poems about it, we're in World War III.

I think we should fight it. I think we should win it. I think we should treat the defeated Islamic terrorist states exactly as we treated Germany and Japan after World War II.

[NIGHTWATCH]

My thinking is that there is a lot more for us to do on the homefront that will be lost if the dems gain control again. Im all for war with Iraq. If Bush goes in I will support him. Im just thinking about his second term. I will support him, but will the american sheeple? We must regain our RKBA. :fire:

[wQuay]

That poll is loaded, and your sig is way too big nightwatch.

[NIGHTWATCH]

Sorry, I will scale it down. Also, Im not a professional pollster. Just putting a thought out there. If you have a different spin on things than go for it. ;)