WAR Hu What is It Good For?

[taylorky]

wonder how many of these fools that want war will volunteer to fight it. we know bush did'nt have the balls to go to viet-nam,and i'm sure his right wing brethren of today are as gutless as he was then.oh well let's let the kids die and be maimed again........while the punks like bush,cheney,asscroft and the other gutless wonders sit on there fat old ass'es and count the body bags...........taylor@03:05-02/08/03

[+ Lucky]

taylor, that line could just as easily have been written in 1968. Except then, you didn't have to volunteer, they just took you.

[+ Lucky]

taylor, that line could just as easily have been written in 1968. Except then, you didn't have to volunteer, they just took you.

[Guest Merlin]

The Democrats want to reinstitute the draft. Sens Rangel and others are very insistant. And dont forget Clinton sent troops to Kosuvo for far less reason than protecting us from weapons of mass destruction.

[BewareofNick]

The situation in Iraq has been about two things since Dubya first created it:

 

1. A scapegoat to divert attention from the fact that we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden.

 

2. Dubya needing Daddy's approval by correcting his mistake in the Gulf War

 

As for protecting us from weapons of mass destruction:

 

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/luckovich/2003/images/02062003mike.jpg

[phage]

I believe the invasion is inevitable and probably necessary, but if there is going to be a large conflict, I think there should be a draft. The people making these decisions need to have a vested interest –- their own children’s safety –- in making sure that all other alternatives have been exhausted.

 

The volunteer military is a good thing during peacetime, but I did my stint in the enlisted ranks, and an overwhelming majority of people were there for economic reasons. I enlisted to finish college. Others wanted to learn a trade. Some had no other viable alternative.

 

If a conflict had broken out while I was serving, I would have expected to go as part of the bargain – education assistance for service. However the burden should not be unfairly shouldered by people seeking to get ahead while the people making the decisions can feel safe that their loved ones will not have to go.

 

I would feel much better about the decisions being made if each decision-maker had a son or daughter who was potentially at risk also.

[dick_nyc]

I can maybe agree with your first comment about one reason for the war. The second is, as usual, total hogwash. If you remember, the first Bush war was under ths auspices of the UN and was to kick the Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. It was never intended to be about getting rid of Saddam. This was added to the mix after the war by the demmies to try to capitalize on the high poll numbers wrought by the war. Bush accomplished what Congress and the UN stated were the reasons for the war. He thought that Saddam should be taken out, but this was not part of the initial agreement, so he didn't. Your statement is just part of the revisionist history to discredit Bush I.

[IM_Moore]

BON doesn't need to discredit Bush 1 he had already done so himself. As for war, why? We are not going to be any further forward than we are now. Just more children will be dead. So sad.

[IM_Moore]

>taylor, that line could just as easily have been written in

>1968. Except then, you didn't have to volunteer, they just

>took you.

 

You mean somebody here is as old as me?

[dick_nyc]

The point is that he did discredit Bush I. If you believe that Bush already had discredited himself, why do more. If you don't, why change history to discredit him. If you are going to discredit somebody, do it with the truth, not the half-truth.

[VaHawk]

IMO you make a good point. However, in my experience, it just doesn't work that way and you don't have to go any further back than the Vietnam debacle to verify that. The sons of the rich, the upper middle class and especially those in positions of political power and/or influence were able to avoid being drafted via student deferrals for college and if out of college by having daddy buy them a place in the state national guards. Not to hard to find an example of the latter - just go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and knock on the door of the big white house you see there.

 

As a consequence, the brunt of the draft and combat duties fell upon the lower economic, less educated, disadvantaged classes. Check out the percentage of the fatalities that was borne by young, poor Afro-American men and compare that to the percentage of the total American population that comprises them.

 

The draft was a totally unfair system that led to a great divisiveness for this country. Unless they make major revisions to how it works, I think it would be a big mistake to reinstate it. Put the majority of those drafted into non-combat duties and let those who volunteered bear the brunt of the combat duties. After all there is a big difference in attitude, commitment, preparation and training in those who choose and those who are drafted.

 

I could never understand why it was perfectly okay, that the children should bear the brunt of their fathers sins (isn't that mentioned in the Bible?). Especially considering that those under 21 do not even enjoy the same full benefits of American citizenship granted to those 21 and over.

[IM_Moore]

This dribble coming from a guy who picks "hawk" to be part of his screen name. why not VaDove? "Hawk" can only mean two things on this board, chicken or warmonger, your words do not reflect your screen name. You are a man of hate not compassion.

[woodlawn]

Good posts by phage and VaHawk.

 

My two cents:

 

If even half of what Powell this week is true, containment hasn't worked. Despite our efforts Hussein has managed to find ways to continue working on WMDs.

 

The truth is this war is a huge gamble. Bush is gambling that we can not only kick out Hussein, which is not much of a gamble given our military superiority, but re-create Iraq in the same way we re-created Germany in the 40s and 50s and for the same purpose, to transform the situation in an entire region of the world that has been a source of conflict and tension for decades. We'd all better hope it works, because the die is just about cast.

[phage]

> However, in my experience, it

>just doesn't work that way and you don't have to go any

>further back than the Vietnam debacle to verify that.

 

Good point. I was a little young and only have vague memories, but I do know about college deferments and other loopholes. To be fair and to have the desired effect, it would have to be absolute. I suppose our population is too large to have an Israeli style compulsory service period, but I think that would go far to reduce the resentment that draftees felt. I’m sure it was a bitter pill when they knew that wealthier or more connected men could avoid the draft even when their lottery number came up.

[tedbear]

I'm against us going to all out war, especially since to do so will insure that we'll have further terrorist attacks. However, just as a sort of devil's advocate, let me share something a friend recounted yesterday--The friend is also against us going to war, but said the only really chilly thing a pro-war person had said to her is "They had a chance to stop Hitler and they didn't..."

 

That statement triggered a slight shifting of viewpoint for me. I'm still against the war, because I can't believe Saddam or Osama or any person could be THAT evil and inhuman. Call me Pollyanna, since we know they're both far, far from being saints. Also, I'll admit if I'd been around when Hitler was first gaining power, I probably wouldn't have believed Hitler would become what he became or have the following he had.

 

Frightening, the whole thing--simply frightening. ;(

[dick_nyc]

When you look at a country that produced a Beethoven, a Goethe, a Schiller and then followed a Hitler, you wonder what he was like when he started. He came to power in a country with a totally screwed up economy where nothing worked. He stealthily started rebuilding the infrastructure. The people supported him until it was too late. Why do you find it so hard to see Osamam or Saddam in this kind of a picture? Hitler also killed a lot of his own people. So did Stalin. Yet when Stalin died, millions of people cried. What is so special about Saddam. He also killed a lot of his own people using chemicals. How many times do you have to be bitch-slapped to see what is in front of you?

[Guest Merlin]

There is no real question that Iraq has tried to gain WMD and clearly succeeded in gaining chemical and biological weapons--for which it has not accounted. North Korea apparantly has nuclear weapons. To a certainty, it is selling missles to whomever wants them. If allowed to do so it is only a matter of time before it sells nuclear weapons as well. Unless we find a way to stop them, we face a world in which all the bad guys will have stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missles to deliver them. Too many people and countries are simply burying their heads in the sand: If things look peaceful on the surface, lets not worry about what is going behind the scenes.(excuse the mixed metaphores). That unfortunately is what we have been doing. N Korea was taking our blackmail payments, so we assumed they were not developing nuclear weapons. Now they have them, so how do we prevent the spread? We can control Iraq, and can probably find a way to contain NKorea. But this is probably our last chance. If we let it slide much longer, the weapons will spread beyond control. The danger then is a really major, widespresd war with weapons of mass destruction.

[KY_TOP]

After the attack on the World Trade Center "W" promised this nation that we would not allow the "Evil Doers" to strike at us first again. He further promised to go after evil wherever it was and those that harbor them. This nation almost unanaimously stood and applauded the President for that promise. Now, almost a year and a half later we all seem to be surprised that he is living up to his promise... Man our memories are short! And if someone attacks us tommorrow we will say it's the Presidents fault... he didn't do enough. It looks to me like he is doing what he Promised this nation in September 2001.

[BewareofNick]

Bush accomplished

>what Congress and the UN stated were the reasons for the war.

>He thought that Saddam should be taken out, but this was not

>part of the initial agreement, so he didn't. Your statement

>is just part of the revisionist history to discredit Bush I.

 

No revisionist history required. I am well aware of what the mandate was for the Gulf War, but even though Bush the Elected did what they set out to do, it was still a mistake to not have taken Saddam down when we had the chance.

 

Bush the Appointed is still seekign Daddy's approval by correcting his one big mistake from the Gulf War.

[BewareofNick]

>After the attack on the World Trade Center "W" promised this

>nation that we would not allow the "Evil Doers" to strike at

>us first again. He further promised to go after evil wherever

>it was and those that harbor them. This nation almost

>unanaimously stood and applauded the President for that

>promise. Now, almost a year and a half later we all seem to be

>surprised that he is living up to his promise... Man our

>memories are short! And if someone attacks us tommorrow we

>will say it's the Presidents fault... he didn't do enough. It

>looks to me like he is doing what he Promised this nation in

>September 2001.

 

Again, refer to the cartoon above. Saddam is not a threat to us or anyone else. The real threat in the world is North Korea. But insted of rattling our sabre at them, we our doing it to Saddam for no other reason that he is Arab, it please the mindless masses who can't distinguish between Arabs and terrorists, and the war offers minimal risk in teh short term to the US, becasue the Iraqi army will more than likely fold the way they did in the Gulf War.

 

If Bush the Appointed was truly serious about routing the evildoers, North Korea would be first on the list. Until he tackles that one with the same take no prisoners attitude that he is using towards Iraq, it is all simply hot air. We have proof in North Korea. Where is it in Iraq?

[tedbear]

> He came to power in a country

>with a totally screwed up economy where nothing worked. He

>stealthily started rebuilding the infrastructure. The people

>supported him until it was too late. Why do you find it so

>hard to see Osamam or Saddam in this kind of a picture?

>Hitler also killed a lot of his own people.

 

I think you missed my point. However, beyond saying that, I'm not going to take this any further.

[dick_nyc]

I guess I did. Then what was your point if you can't equate Saddam to Hitler? What is the difference except for race and nationality?

[KY_TOP]

>Again, refer to the cartoon above. Saddam is not a threat to

>us or anyone else.

 

Saddam is a threat because he is known to have and used chemical and biological weapons on his neighbors. Now miraculously no one can find them BUT more important no one can find proof that they have been destroyed. How long before these weapons are in the hands of terrorist that WILL use them against the US, on US soil? Iraq has ignored or violated 17 UN resolutions concerning these weapons. If UN resolutions are useless and the UN does not have the backbone to back them up, then the UN should go the way of The League of Nations and disolve.

 

> The real threat in the world is North

>Korea. But insted of rattling our sabre at them, we our doing

>it to Saddam for no other reason that he is Arab, it please

>the mindless masses who can't distinguish between Arabs and

>terrorists, and the war offers minimal risk in teh short term

>to the US, becasue the Iraqi army will more than likely fold

>the way they did in the Gulf War.

 

I am not sure where one gets we are doing nothing about N.Korea. It is my understanding that we are working with Asian countries, like China who has ties to N. Korea, to try a diplomatic approach. They are more threatened than we are at this point. If it doesn't work I am sure we'll be rattling our sabre's at them soon enough.

 

>If Bush the Appointed was truly serious about routing the

>evildoers, North Korea would be first on the list. Until he

>tackles that one with the same take no prisoners attitude that

>he is using towards Iraq, it is all simply hot air. We have

>proof in North Korea. Where is it in Iraq?

 

Keep in mind that diplomacy has been tried with Iraq (17 UN resolutions ignored) before our latest round of sabre rattling.

 

War should ALWAYS be a LAST resort, but we must risk that against doing nothing. During many times in US history we have gone into Isolation. I sometimes wonder if we should return to that... ignore all the world outside our borders and say just leave us alone! But then we must balance that against the unchecked threats that develop while we ignore the world. As the only real Super power left, what are our responsibilities to sent money and troops around the Globe?

 

What if we left our MONEY and TROOPS at home, would the World be a better place?

[Guest nhl-nbaguy]

If nuclear non-proliferation is an idea that we seriously want to pursue, we are going to have to look at some of our "friends" too. This is old technology now, and it is more than a little foolish to believe the genie can be put back in the bottle. As North Korea demonstrates a policy of selective disarmerment will act as an impetus for more states to develop WMD. Can we really afford this fight? And when Rumsfels tells Congress that he does not believe that the use of non-lethal chemical weapons in Iraq by the U.S would be a breach of international law, do you think that encourages or discourages states from pursuing such programs?

[Guest Ant415]

GW Bush was involved in Vietnam. While in the Texas National Guard he kept the skies over Austin free of Viet Cong.