The 'Nuge opposes war in Iraq?

[Lancel]

If the reasons you chose to support the war in Irag haven't worked out, pick some new ones. There were so many.

If WMD was your sole reason then go pick on France. It has plenty and its not friendly.
Larry

 

[dsgrntldPW]

Didn't support the idea of the war before, don't support it now. I have yet to hear or see how this quagmire will make the US a safer and more secure country. The justifications for this war keep shifting. They're admitting now that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. WMD? Where's the Beef? The previous internal strife in Iraq should be the concerns of its neighbors, not us. Let them handle it. As long as they know the US will step in and take care of their problems, neighboring countries like Kuwait and the Saudis will not spend their mega-fortunes or sacrifice their people to protect themselves or stabilize their region. If they don't care, I don't care.

The outcome so far was predictable. We are the Worlds' 800 pound gorilla. Of course we could go into Iraq and oust Saddam and scatter his military in short order. But the trick was always how to keep it. We had to win over their hearts and minds, which we have failed to do. We have gone from being their liberators to being their occupiers. These people do not see things in the long term, they want everything done for them now. They want our money but not our ideas, or our ideals. As long as the resistance can pull off their guerrilla warfare to slow our efforts we will be seen as weakening in their eyes, and our efforts will probably never be accepted by much of their population.

I see winners and losers in in this war. The winners include the friends and supporters of Bush & Co. such as Raytheon, Haliburton, Bechtel and others who stand to make billions in the rebuilding efforts. Losers include the US taxpayer, US military personnel and the real security of this country. We have been asked to cough up almost $150 billion for this operation so far. Imagine how much more secure our southern border with Mexico could be if a portion of this money was spent there. Spend some more to better inspect all ships and cargos coming into our ports. Spend more to better track immigrants in the US and to oust illegal aliens.This would do more to protect our country than ousting Saddam from Iraq.

There are better ways to deal with these problems today than full scale invasion. Saddam could have been eliminated for the cost of some good intelligence information and an Executive Order authorizing his demise. Would probably have cost a lot less American lives too. Money got us his two sons and enough of a reward will convince someone to give up Saddam too.

Some say that in order to support our troops we must support the war. I prefer to support our troops, those that are still alive, by trying to get them "the flock outta Dodge" ASAP and let the Middle East police and rebuild itself. Those troops could be better used here to secure our borders, which I thought our government was supposed to be doing in the first place. Instead the Administration will only pay lip service to it.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I guess I'm just a warmonger. Iraq supported terrorism, along with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Arafat's guys in Israel. They have all supplied refuge, training, money, documents, equipment and intelligence to any terrorist group that asked. Now, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan do not support terrorists and the remainder of the countries in the area have essentially gone quiet on the subject except for the suicide bombers in Israel and the radicals in Iraq.

Since we have embarked on this path, there has been no successful terrorist attacks in the US and only a couple of attacks on foreign soil. The remaining nations in the region now fear to give aid and comfort to terrorist groups, so those groups are severely limited in what they can accomplish. In fact, the nations in the region were so scared following the invasion of Iraq Arafat halted ALL terrorist attacks against Israel and Iran was on the telephone to make sure we were aware they had nothing to do with Saddam, WMD or 9/11.

Thanks to the Democrats and liberal media, the terrorist groups feel reasonably safe to resume their activities. They are succeeding in the same way Hanoi did in the Vietnam war. They know they cannot win a war on the battlefield, so they win it by getting our country self-destruct on the issue.

50+ years of appeasement has not stopped the violence in the mideast and never will. The only way is to act from a position of power. Look how Arafat is bouncing off the walls because Bush won't give him the time of day. He was slobbering all over the place during his interview on the news yesterday, making all kinds of incoherent statements.

Of course, thanks to the wonderful morons at the UN with their resolution that Israel not seek to deport Arafat, he can feel brave and get on national TV so he can berate the US and Israel.

We can either take the fight to them or we can adopt the time honored strategy of the French, which is to pay extortion money to them so they will leave that country alone.

When Bush said that terrorists and the countries that harbor them are our enemy and will be dealt with, he meant it.

 

[redneck2]

I really can't believe what I read....

guess some just don't understand. To my way of thinking, it isn't really about our "imperialism" or what we've done in the past

They're of the same mindset as people in the KKK with Jews and blacks. They hate us because of who we are. There's only one, and I mean one way they will be satisfied, and that's if all non-Muslims are dead. Period. I remember the videos showing the Taliban taking women into the soccer fields and shooting them in the head. This is their own people. Think what they'd do to our women.

Somehow we have citizens that believe the "Barney the Dinosaur" song.....I love you, you love me, we're as happy as can be....

Pull out now and the innocents will be slaughtered by the tens of thousands. Odd that people who have such a "religious" fervor are so bent on killing innocent people.

Another thing I totally don't understand are the fools that laugh at the WMD issue. You know Saddam had them in 1992. What do you think happened to them?? 10,000 litres of anthrax don't just dissappear. We'll find them sooner or later...one way or another.

Everyone was so gung-ho on September 12th. I'm sure as hell glad we've got some people in this country (leaders and military) that want to follow through.

 

[Jeff Timm]

megcatia asked:

And I have one question: What is the mission?

Eliminate Iraq as a source of support for terrorism. Haven't you been paying attention?

Geoff
Who thought the President put it well.

 

[Jeff Timm]

Kamicosmos asked:

I can't have a DD214 for physical or medical reasons. I'm less of a citizen than you because of that?

It's not your fault, but you are less of a citizen than someone willing to risk life and limb for the principles of the nation.

Geoff
Who understands the world isn't perfect.

 

[Jeff Timm]

bountyhunter said all sorts of interesting things which boil down to:

I want my husband back safe and sound!
I want everyone in perfect agreement before we do anything!
I want Bush to be the God-King-on-Earth with perfect foreknowledge of everything!
I want no one to die!

Me too.

But it isn't gonna happen in the real world. Even after the attack on Pearl Harbor one member of congress voted against the declaration of war.

 

[Bainx]

My opinion of Ted Nugent just soared!

 

[BryanP]

It's not your fault, but you are less of a citizen than someone willing to risk life and limb for the principles of the nation.

There's almost no response to that statement that wouldn't get this thread locked.

By your logic my maternal grandfather who was repeatedly turned down for military service in WWII (he was 100% deaf in both ears from an early age) was "less of a citizen" than my paternal grandfather who carried a BAR in the Pacific theater.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I agree with BryanP, lack of military service has no bearing on a persons status as a citizen. While the concept is interesting, as in Starship Troopers, it is still not reality.

It is a persons actions that determine whether or not they are a "better" citizen than others, but there is no such thing as one person being "more" of a citizen than others.

 

[Marko Kloos]

It's not your fault, but you are less of a citizen than someone willing to risk life and limb for the principles of the nation.

The principles of the nation are not blind obedience and lockstep march to the command of the President, right or wrong. The principles of the nation are not playing cop in every third-world hellhole, and getting our young boys killed on street corners just so our CinC can say he's "tough on terrorism".

If this war was truly about fighting terrorism and eliminating WoMDs, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and then North Korea, instead of Iraq. Now we've committed the majority of our fighting strength in Iraq, and we have nothing to show for it except body bags coming home every week.

I am starting to understand how Vietnam turned into the mess it did. Then and now, the troops are just pawns in a game, and the people at home who call the shots and their constituents are men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

 

[hso]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,...

If citizenship should be restricted to those who serve in the military then who's supposed to build the weapons, vehicles, electronics, make the uniforms, boots, glasses, grow the food? Would you extend citizenship to those that served the state in critical strategic industries? What about the R&D folks developing material and weapons? Would you reserve citizenship to folks that only served in combat arms MOSs? Would you deny women citizenship? Would you exclude the 90% of the population needed to create the economy to support the military?

I don't think that "We" part was supposed to be restricted to a military oligarchy.

 

[madmike]

Just a correction, Vod: The US had nothing at all to do with training the Taliban.

The Taliban came out of Pakistan in the 1990s.

The Mujahidin, whom we trained, are the Northern Alliance, FIGHTING the Taliban.

And had we given them more support in the interim, Osama with his $500 million would have gone elsewhere to train.

And Osama supports our troops...er...at least I think he does. He's always wearing an M-65 field jacket.

 

[madmike]

"Imagine how much more secure our southern border with Mexico could be if a portion of this money was spent there."

Wetbacks don't have nukes, and don't pay off the families of suicide bombers.

It's about oil. If Hussein were ZimBobwe, he'd not be worth mentioning. But he WAS atop the largest supplies of crude currently, he DID have nukes, gas and germs, and DID use them, and DID pay terrorists, and DID have a human rights record worse than Hitler's. No exaggeration.

Now, he has none of those things.

It might be that he'd ditched the WMDs before then, and was just posturing. So what? If you shoot someone, then walk into a bank and claim you have a gun in your pocket, the denizens are legally and morally right to blow you away on the spot, based on your record and threats.

Saddam atop an oil field is a threat to stability none of us need.

Which doesn't mean I agree with how they're approaching it.

But Bush at his worst at least ACTS like an executive. Refreshing, after 8 years without a president.

Now, if we could just make him SMARTER and make him READ THE CONSTITUTION.

 

[Jeff Timm]

hso said:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,..If citizenship should be restricted to those who serve in the military ..

I've never advocated citizenship for veterans only, though in the days of mass armies 1900 - 1960, my father did.

I do think citizenship should be harder for immigrants to get, at least as hard to get as a building permit and business license, and equally expensive.

We have a surplus of people in this country who have nothing but contempt for those who volunteer, unfortunately, many have been elected to public office.

Geoff
Whose cowardly congress cretin is running for President...the mind boggles.

 

[Jeff Timm]

BryanP opined:

By your logic my maternal grandfather who was repeatedly turned down for military service in WWII (he was 100% deaf in both ears from an early age) was "less of a citizen" than my paternal grandfather who carried a BAR in the Pacific theater.

Exactly.

Geoff
Who doesn't find the concept mind boggling.

 

[Jeff Timm]

Marko Kloos trotted out the usual cliche's including:

If this war was truly about fighting terrorism and eliminating WoMDs, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia and then North Korea, instead of Iraq. Now we've committed the majority of our fighting strength in Iraq, and we have nothing to show for it except body bags coming home every week.

So, why aren't you running for office on a "Declare War on SA and PRK" platform?

The use of the "Principles of America" and "Viet Nam" cliche just seem to me an excuse.

This is war. Our people were killed by the thousands. This is NOT A TV SHOW, where nobody really dies and you can read the whole script before taking a part.

Geoff
Who is astounded by people who can't comprehend, after thousands of years of human experience, that war is chaos.

 

[Marko Kloos]

This is war. Our people were killed by the thousands. This is NOT A TV SHOW, where nobody really dies and you can read the whole script before taking a part.

Geoff
Who is astounded by people who can't comprehend, after thousands of years of human experience, that war is chaos.

All but two of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, not Iraqi. Dubyah himself conceded that Saddam wasn't directly involved in 9/11. Iraq may have had WMDs, but North Korea definitely has them by their own admittance. (They also claim to have a delivery system that can reach the Western U.S., the Taedong-2 ballistic missile.)

Now, explain again to this uncomprehending cliche-monger why we invaded Iraq instead of North Korea or Saudi Arabia, why this was necessary for the security of this nation, and how we are now safer than before the invasion.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

explain again to this uncomprehending cliche-monger why we invaded Iraq instead of North Korea or Saudi Arabia

That's easy. North Korea has a border with Red China. No way is the US going to launch a military attack against them. The only way to control North Korea is to use pressure on China and have them control North Korea for us.

 

[dsgrntldPW]

The U.S. probably would have been better off going to war against Saudi Arabia. More oil and money to confiscate. They would have put up much less of a fight as they usually have US do their fighting for them. Much easier to spot THEM in those flowing white garments (and more difficult for them to run around and hide in) during battle. And we would have cut off the MAJOR source of funding for world terrorism by controling SA's assets.

On 9/11 thousands, Americans and people of other nationalities, died needlessly in acts of criminal terrorism. And while one death of this type is too many, approximately the same number of people die from medical/surgical mistakes in the U.S. every one and one-half weeks. The families, friends and country of those suffer no less of a loss.

And to say that someone who did not serve in the military is less of a citizen than one who did is just.....ignorant. Many people who were never soldiers have contributed much, if not more, to this country and its Constitution. People forget that often one goes into military service not really expecting to go to war to protect our country, but to learn a skill and get an education. Many will make a career of the military, and I commend them for their choice; but often people go into the service because it's the only job that will take them. It is only after incidents such as 9/11 that you see young "patriots" lining up to join the services. And they do it not because they are really looking to serve our country, but because it would be "Cool" to go kick some "raghead" butt. It is only after they sign their life away that they realize it was not what they thought it was going to be like. The image that all soldiers serve with patriotic altruism, and are somehow better citizens than others, is lame.

There will possibly be a time when we will need to focus all the military might this country possesses on an enemy capable of destroying our way of life. We have not seen a true threat like that since WWII. Iraq is not it. We are much better off fighting the current threats with smaller, limited specialized forcees in a more covert manner. To accomplish this we must use our resources to rebuild our intelligence capabilities throughout the world.

 

[seeker_two]

madmike:

Wetbacks don't have nukes, and don't pay off the families of suicide bombers.

No, but they DO show the people who have the nukes & the suicide bombers the best paths to enter our southern borders for "the right price". And it's pretty lousy that a group of civilians in camo w/ sporting rifles ( Ranch Rescue ) is doing more to stem the illegal infestation tide that our multi-billion dollar "Homeland Security" agency is...

Jeff Timm: Requiring someone to be a part of a government-sponsored organization in order to be "more of a citizen" and express opinions about national issues is morally reprehensible---whether that organization is the US Army, the Nazi Part, or the Communist Party.

When you read the signatures on the Declaration of Independence & on the US Constitution, please remember that few of those signers had served in a military role. Does that make THEIR opinions irrelevant?

 

[VOD]

Well, perhaps since Mr Timm is so in favor of needing military service before your opinion counts, perhaps we should tighten that up a bit...the only opinions worth their salt should be those of the people who's butts are CURRENTLY on the line. Once you're out, you don't count any more. However, you have to keep "donating" your taxes like a good....citizen.

As for the arguments about the mass graves that are being found: Saddam was doing that from day 1, even when he was a friend of ours whilst beating up on those nasty Iranians. Didn't matter to anyone at that time, did it? So, I guess offing your own citizens is a bad thing ONLY if you get on our bad side. Otherwise, as long as it's discreet, it's OK. Or, it's OK if you're so big that it'd be too costly for us...those Soviet gulags weren't exactly like the Riviera, you know? There's a concept called "national sovreignty"...we've used it here to say the UN has no business in poking into our internal affairs. Why is it a bad thing for the UN to tell us that guns are used for nothing but killing, but good to step into Iraq because Saddam is a schmuck (putting it mildly). Should the UN have jumped into Alabama and the rest of the South to force desegregation earlier? Should Canada have hopped into Seattle a couple of years ago to help out with the riots over the WTO meetings?

So, for all that want to keep us over there, I'm sure that there's someone over there right now that would be MORE than glad to trade with you. Prior service gives one an insight on how it feels to put one's life on the line. It does not, however, give one the right to commit other's lives.

 

[Lancel]

often people go into the service because it's the only job that will take them.

To bring you up to date:
For some years now, testing given at schools nationwide show that those in the armed forces have higher scores. (Because the services actively recruit those on the right half of the bell curve and deny entry to those on the far left).

Besides being screened for intelligence, it's common knowledge that successful recruits must also pass a thorough physical exam.

And thirdly, armed service personnel are screened for drug use and law violations.

Although the screening process isn't perfect, it's vastly greater than what's required to get a civilian job.

None of that is a comment on citizenship. The idea is to have the brightest and best defending the constitution (and therefore equal voting rights).
And that's as it should be.

Larry
(Edited to add emphasis and clarification in the spirit of Ted Nugent's support of the military.)

 

[gryphon]

I was going to respond to this thread, specifically about the portions instigated by Jeff Trimm. I decided against it because it is just not worth it. It's ideas like that which start off movements that cause people to be discriminated against.

This whole board has started going down hill ever since it stepped in to fill the void of TFL. If this kind of tripe is what I can keep expecting, then I might just have to give up this site. It used to be a place where, I thought, like minded people could come and converse on a civil level. Now I realize that this is only one man's opinion, and it is not the majority, but I happen to see a lot of bunk floating around along with useless silly threads and, "oh, feel sorry for me look what happened!" I'm not too big to say that at one time I might have contributed to this area, but now that I look at it, I don't think I ever will again.

I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!

 

[pax]

Y'know, when this thread started, it was about The Nuge -- making it just right for a General Discussion as long as it stayed focused on guns.

Now that it has deteriorated into yet another boring yet vitriolic support-the-war thread, it really belongs in Legal & Political.

I wouldn't be surprised if the L&P mods close it forthwith, however, given the declining level of civility.

pax