I serve in the Army, and if you really want to know about Iraq and any war against Iraq, every soldier I know is all for it. True we may die, but if we don't go over there and stop Saddam worse things could happen. See I have a higher level of clearance than you as civilians do so I know what he is doing to his own people, stuff that I can't reveal to you cause it would jepaordize our mission overseas. The United States is going to war regardless if the whole world protests it, we will take out saddam and we will destroy his army. I've heard rumors this is all about the oil, right. He only holds 10% of the world's oil, not a whole lot considering Kuwait sells us oil and they own more than Iraq does. As for the war itself, you may think it foolish that I would fight in a war that had nothing to do with me, maybe so but it is my duty, also there were thousands of Iraqis who supported the attacks on September 11th, Saddam being one of them. I personally don't like the fact that you have forgotten that so soon, when American soldiers died protecting you from further terrorist attacks. And Likely I may do the same, so next time you want to protest a war make sure that you know all the facts about that war.
If war comes [note the date] even despite the historic, tenacious, and comprehensive opposition now raging across the planet, the U.S. government will proclaim triumphantly that everyone who isn’t a traitor needs to rally around Washington to “support our troops.” Opponents of the war could opt for many possible replies.
We could point out that our troops in Iraq are barely in danger at all because they are assaulting a tenth-rate opponent that has no serious means to defend Iraq much less to attack the world’s sole superpower.
We could point out that while perhaps a few hundred U.S. troops will die in this war, way over 50,000 U.S. citizens will die in the next 12 months due to workplace accidents and death by industry-caused diseases and automobile accidents (not to mention the impact of pollution and unsafe products). We could then query why this massive yearly blight on our population, roughly 15 times as devastating as 9/11, doesn’t provoke a war on corporations’ profit-seeking violations of their employees’ and consumers’ health and safety.
Or we could point out that the lives of American troops are no more worthy of compassionate support than the lives of Iraqis, and that we didn’t kill Hussein a million times over with our decade-long sanctions but we instead killed a million Iraqis once each -- with Hussein getting stronger as each new corpse was added to the carnage.
And of course we could explain how unleashing a campaign to “shock and awe” a country is unjust and immoral, how it is an archetype example of the terrorism we say we are against.
But for myself, I think that perhaps a different approach might work better, and so if war does come, I intend to reply to the demand to support our troops by saying that yes, I too “support our troops.”
I will reply that I support our troops not having to kill people in Iraq.
I support our troops not being ordered to assault defenseless populations, towns, farms, and the infrastructural sinews of life that sustain a whole country’s citizenry.
I support our troops not having to carry out orders from Commander in Chief George Bush and then having to live the rest of their lives wondering why they obeyed such a barbaric buffoon rather than resisting his illegitimate, immoral authority.
And for the same reason, I support the Pope and the Dalai Lama going to Iraq in the place of our troops, as human shields and also to aid those Iraqis who have already suffered under our sanctions and bombs as well as under the violence of Hussein who was, of course, previously the recipient of U.S. military aid and even U.S. guidance in his horrible undertakings.
In fact, I support all rabbis and priests and other moral leaders going to Iraq as human shields – and all past Noble Peace Prize winners -- and all past winners of any big peace or humanitarian prize at all, anywhere -- and heads of state, for that matter.
I support our troops not dying in Iraq figuratively or literally, physically or psychologically. I support our troops coming home with their hearts not broken, retaining humanity and compassion essential to feeling true solidarity with those who confront tyrannical behavior abroad, or right here in the U.S. with its 30 million tyrannized poor.
I support our troops coming home with their minds ravenous to comprehend what is wrong with war for empire, what is wrong with war to obliterate international law, what is wrong with war to control oil and use it as a bludgeon against allies and enemies alike, what is wrong with war for profit, what is wrong with war to intimidate whole nations and continents, what is wrong with war to subordinate a planet and even to test and trumpet the tools of war.
What must it do to one’s mind and soul to engage as a soldier in a war in which the enemy is defenseless, in which the motives of one’s leaders are vile, and in which one’s own say over the events is nil?
I support our troops refusing to kill on behalf of politicians and profiteers. I support our troops rebelling against orders, not obeying them. I support our troops rejecting reasons of state. And I support our troops coming home to where their real battle is.
We must battle to reinvest our society with aspirations for justice and equality and with respect for diversity, solidarity, and self-management.
We must battle to eliminate the scourge of private ownership that makes a few people as rich as whole populations and that leaves many people less rich than the pets of profiteers.
We must battle to totally eradicate the racism and sexism that denigrate whole sectors of the population, to free sexuality and culture, to free creativity, and to sustain the environment.
Bush tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may have bombs. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq curtails freedoms. He tells us to bomb Iraq on grounds Iraq may be abetting terrorism.
What then should we do about a country that has by far the most bombs in the world and that uses them most widely—and that brags about it shamelessly?
What should we do about a country that is currently curtailing freedoms abroad and moving to do so at home with a dangerously escalating vigor—and that brags about it shamelessly?
And what should we do about a country that is producing terrorism most aggressively – both terrorism directed at others and also terrorism which will be unleashed against us in reply—and that brags about it shamelessly.
What should we do about the U.S.? We should curtail its belligerency, change its regime, and fundamentally revolutionize its centers of wealth and power.
Support our troops, bring them home.
Support our troops, provide them housing.
Support our troops, provide them health care.
Support our troops, provide them socially valuable jobs.
Turn military bases into industrial centers for the production of low cost housing, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, rail lines, inner city parks, and other social and public goods that can enrich rather than snuff out life.
Support our troops and one day they will join the fight for unlimited justice for all.
Now that U.S. strikes against Iraq have begun, we should get rid of one canard immediately, and that's the notion that criticism of the Bush administration and opposition to this invasion imply in some sense a lack of support or concern for the men and women who are under arms.
The names of too many of my friends are recorded on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial for me to tolerate that kind of nonsense. I hope that the war goes well, that our troops prevail quickly and that casualties everywhere are kept to a minimum.
But the fact that a war may be quick does not mean that it is wise. Against the wishes of most of the world, we have plunged not just into war, but toward a peace that is potentially more problematic than the war itself.
Are Americans ready to pay the cost in lives and dollars of a long-term military occupation of Iraq? To what end?
Will an occupation of Iraq increase or decrease our security here at home?
Do most Americans understand that even as we are launching one of the most devastating air assaults in the history of warfare, private companies are lining up to reap the riches of rebuilding the very structures we're in the process of destroying?
Companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger and the Bechtel Group understand this conflict a heck of a lot better than most of the men and women who will fight and die in it, or the armchair patriots who'll be watching on CNN and cheering them on.
It's not unpatriotic to say that there are billions of dollars to be made in Iraq and that the gold rush is already under way. It's simply a matter of fact.
Back in January, an article in The Wall Street Journal noted: "With oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, Iraq would offer the oil industry enormous opportunity should a war topple Saddam Hussein. But the early spoils would probably go to companies needed to keep Iraq's already rundown oil operations running, especially if facilities were further damaged in a war. Oil-services firms such as Halliburton Co., where Vice President **** Cheney formerly served as chief executive, and Schlumberger Ltd. are seen as favorites for what could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts."
There is tremendous unease at the highest levels of the Pentagon about this war and its aftermath. The president and his civilian advisers are making a big deal about the anticipated rejoicing of the liberated populace once the war is over. But Iraq is an inherently unstable place, and while the forces assembled to chase Saddam from power are superbly trained for combat, the military is not well prepared for a long-term occupation in the most volatile region in the world.
What's driving this war is President Bush's Manichaean view of the world and messianic vision of himself, the dangerously grandiose perception of American power held by his saber-rattling advisers, and the irresistible lure of Iraq's enormous oil reserves.
Polls show that the public is terribly confused about what's going on, so much so that some 40 percent believe that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. That's really scary. Rather than correct this misconception, the administration has gone out of its way to reinforce it.
I think the men and women moving militarily against Saddam are among the few truly brave and even noble individuals left in our society. They have volunteered for the dangerous duty of defending the rest of us. But I also believe they are being put unnecessarily in harm's way.
As a result of the military buildup, there is hardly a more hobbled leader on earth at the moment than Saddam Hussein. A skillful marshaling of international pressure could have forced him from power. But then the Bush administration would not have had its war and its occupation. It would not have been able to turn Iraq into an American protectorate, which is as good a term as any for a colony.
Is it a good idea to liberate the people of Iraq from the clutches of a degenerate like Saddam Hussein? Sure. But there were better, less dangerous, ways to go about it.
In the epigraph to his memoir, "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson quoted a 13th-century king of Spain, Alphonso X, the Learned:
"Had I been present at the creation I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe."
Hey Everyone! Its about the world, not just about america. Its about Kuwait who suffer from Suddam. Its about the Iraqies and the innocent lives in which will be killed. Its about the American, Australian and Great Britain troops. Its about the protesters who live in a democratic society, supposably . Suddam has been in their for 12 and a half years, why couldnt america give the inspectors another 30 days? It wouldnt have made a difference. Cheers Steve
So you want us to wait until we are attacked and lose a large number of American lives before we do anything? That's smart. The threat is present and must be eliminated before it is carried out.
I see no threat to the United States from Iraq at this time.
It is one thing to be prepared in the case of a terrorist attack. It is quite another to preemptively attack a country because we suspect them to be currently planning an attck on U. S. soil. Who's next on our hit list? Cuba? China? France? Let's wait until the supposed attack occurs; then, and only then, will we have the right to invade Iraq.
This whole thing is starting to feel like that lousy movie "Minority Report," in which citizens are permanantly jailed for their future crimes. We cannot punish a country for something it has yet to do.
this is an excerpt of me arguing with some **** who was threatening to fight a Viet Nam Vet, this is how I feel about all our troops, past and present.
quote: pip494 >>Well, as I have with every VIETNAME VET I must thank you sincerely for having served. It was a tough War for you guys and you didn't get your props until many years later; in my book still not enough. So as much as you're inclined to then please accept my gratitude.
BillyBarrio How can you possibly offer your gratitude to him now when you spit in the face of our soldiers today? Many years from now will you also be giving your gratitude to the soldiers of today for saving you from a nuclear, chemical and biological holocaust? I support and give all the graditude to every soldier who ever stood up for this country of morons like yourself, you don't know what you have, and I hope some day you don't lose it. From my Grandfather and the friends he lost at Pearl Harbor...to SlickNick and to my friends boardering Iraq as I write this....I will never forget what you have done for this country and most of the world.....
SlickNick >BillyBarrio, Thanks much for your very kind words about me and other Viet Nam vets. Your statement is appreciated more than you'll ever know. Cheers to you, my friend.
LostLegion, every post that I have read by you echoes my sentiments. I see no need to really reply to this topic because anything I said would be redundant.
Most of what forms us as human beings and as "thinkers" comes as a result of what we experience or suffer in our own personal lives along with whatever attention we may have paid in our education.
Here is some information for you from my own "personal" library:
THE PHILOSOPHY OF FREEDOM By Robert K. Woetzel with A DISCUSSION at the CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS published 1966 by OCEANA PUBLICATIONS, INC. DOBBS FERRY, NEW YORK Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number 65-27237 Manufactured in the United States of America
(First-intro page quote: "In that new way of living, and new form of society, which is born of the heart, and which is called the Kingdom of Heaven, there are no nations, there are only individuals." Boris Pasternak ____ )
The book is about international peace and the struggle for freedom. It is about 150 pages.
He is also the author of: THE NUREMBERG TRIALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, 1960 THE INTERNATIONAL CONTROL OF SPACE, THE NUREMBERG TRIALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW - REVISED - Postlude on THE EICHMANN TRIAL, 1962.
Another one I have is: "A lively and important book for everybody interested in the practical problems of peace in the nuclear age." _____ Adlai E. Stevenson. It is:
IN PURSUIT OF WORLD ORDER By Richard N. Gardner Published in the United States of America by Frederick E. Praeger, Inc. Publ. 1964 111 Fourth Avenue, New York 3 N.Y., U.S.A. 77-79 Charlotte Street, London W1, England Third Printing 1965 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 64-25587, Printed in the United States of America
The book outlines and explains U.S. Foreign Policy and International Organizations for the purpose of pursuit of peace with justice and pursuit of the General Welfare (Human Rights). It is about 250 pages long.
Richard Gardner was a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisation Affairs from 1961-1965. He later was Professor of Law, Columbia University. He is also the author of a book entitled: STERLING-DOLLAR DIPLOMACY
All that stuff I said that you've taken so much offense to, I said because I don't want to get into some ridiculous little e-drama (which we've now created). It just makes it no fun to use these boards. Really, does anyone get anything out of that? Maybe a weird ego trip, but whatever, I hate it.
Yes, of course I care. I care about you and your daughter and everything you've had to go through. I mean it, I'm not just saying that to come off as "Jenny, the lover" or whatever. When I said "I don't care", I meant that I'd like to disregard whatever personal issues you have and just learn something about your point of view. Honestly.
And no, I don't have a tan. I don't see how that has any relevance at all.
You know, I support our troops, but you know, the thing that really ticks me off is that just like Gulf War I, our guys are going to be given a dose of chemical/biological weapons.
THE SAME stuff we created, we manufactured and WE gave away.
Then, if this world is still here in 10, 20 years, after it's all said and done, Sept. 11 and Iraq and North Korea events will be exposed for what they really are.
Just like when documents released showed that FDR ORDERED ships to be put in Pearl Harbor the day of the "surprise attack" or the time (just last year) when the Gulf of Tonkin incident was found to have been completely STAGED (Tonkin officially got us into the Vietnam massacre).
Or just like when the 1992 JFK Assasination records starting revealing that it was a CIA hit that killed JFK and RFK.
When it's all said and done, we will not be a country anymore as we know it -- we will be a SLAVE to the New World Order Bush/Clinton/FDR and the international bankers so desperately wanted.
Time will tell.
<JoeyDauben>
Posted
quote:Later on he [Saddam] decides to take over Kuwait.
This is AFTER George H. W. Bush gave a "no opinion" to Iraq.
the Bush Administration said they had "no opinion" on whether or not Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The second he did, however, is when the U.S. "liberated" Kuwait.
guilty until proven innocent? while a pre-emptive strike is profitable in military terms, i'd rather avoid uniting the muslim world against us.
and the "rebuilding of iraq" is ridiculous. now we have pledged to create a democarcy where none has ever existed. great, so if we fail we give terrorists one more grievance against america. and by the time that rebuilding effort has utterly failed there will be a new president in the white house and everyone will be pointing fingers and playing the political cover-your-*** game while terrorists, not caring about political affiliation, strike against civilians.
the whole point is that america should never have been put into a position to declare that it would rebuild iraq. this should have been a military effort supported with global effort because of good evidence. now with our go-it-alone policy we have had to shoulder the impossible burden of "rebuilding" a nation to justify our current position of obliterating it. military effort will be necessary. i just wish our government hadn't been so damn bull-headed about it and jumped the gun with it.
I'm all for it if you want to crack open the books, but I'll give you a slight history lesson. In the Iran/Iraq war we decided it would be a good investment to help Saddam Hussein, we trained his troops and sent him weapons and supplies, he used them very effectively and defeated Iran. Later on he decides to take over Kuwait. The United Nations steps up and tells him he can't do it, and to back down or Military force will be used to stop him. Saddam does not back down and the UN creates a coalition of forces including the British, French, Saudi Arabians, and of course the United States. During the Gulf War, Saddam mistreated his soldiers, so badly in fact that 131 Iraqi Republican Guards surrendered to an unarmed U.S. Medical Company, roughly about 80 Medics. After the war the UN put certain restrictions upon Iraq, mainly Saddam had to stop his Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs. Saaddam agreed and complied, for about a month. After that however, he refused to obey the UN treaty and repeatedly refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq. Still you think that we should give him a chance to change, we've given him 12 years, if he hasn't changed by now then he won't change. So our next best option is to send in military forces, to eliminate the threat before it can full materialize. That is why we are going over seas and fighting a war in which many of these protesters claim we have no part.
Look, you didn't sound very sensitive to my situation. We had kids who were stranded in snow storms, returned to school a day late due toa northeaster, and there was no one on campus. There was no administration, very little security, and no cafeteria.
This was in a rural area, no buses running and no one had cars, or if they did, they were in snow banks and snow drifts.
You underestimate how important it is to kids to have someone care about whether they have something to eat/drink.
I am amazed that you are so insensitive since you pomote yourself as being so interested in the lives and wellbeing of many different people around the world.
I live on the east coast. You live on the west coast. My daughter is visiting there during spring break. I am concerned that she will not have a very good time, because although the northeast is sometimes though to be brash and callous, you are beginning to scare me. Is that what she can expect when she comes there next week?
A lot of countries have in the past gone after POW's and tried to recruit them as agents or as double agents. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
Also, just as the UK had been wherever in the world there was trouble and they can then later be complimented or blamed for some particular outcome, so are we (the U.S.) today in such a similar position.
Just know that alliances change. Relationships -intercountry- come and go or improve or deteriorate. Much like a marriage, either you change and move on with the times or the marriage suffers and divorce becomes necessary (for some).
Sometimes the people (country) you think is so great right now might not be held so highly in your mind next year. A good example of how alliances change is to look at US/Russia we were waging a bitter "cold war" and yet, now since Gorbechev who was a great leader of a strong nation, Russia had "seen the light" and decided to go toward a more democratic way of life.
If Russia "waffles" on its newfound friendship with the U.S., it will send a "chill" through the understanding and relationship.
A good example of changing alliances is the U.S.-France. Now that the European nations are trying to find themselves as a solid space, more or less a country of states together rather than separately, France is going to flex its muscles so that the European community will see them as possibly the best leadership within that new European community structure.
Frankly, I don't care where their leadership comes from. I hope they find good leadership and I hope they find it the sooner the better. At some point in time, you will see the U.S. slack off on some of its responsibilities in the world and we will demand that Europe absorb some of the responsibilities that we have undertaken since 1945.
I will be very happy to see a President of the United European States - the sooner the better. Besides, it would probably be someone better than Chirac.
Topics 
. Suddam has been in their for 12 and a half years, why couldnt america give the inspectors another 30 days? It wouldnt have made a difference.
