[quote]dvldog wrote:
What was so pressing about removing Saddam right then? That is a great question that probably doesn’t deserve a reply if you don’t know by now.
Did your buddies know what they signed up for when they joined the MARINES. Was there some confusion about the part that every Marine is a rifleman? I think that has been around for over 200 yrs.
If I recall it goes something like this " We will defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic" Do you remember that?
With an all volunteer military everyone that signs on the bottom line knows what they are getting into.
Yes it is sad people have to die. Our way of life has a price and there are many men and women that have paid it, they are the heroes.
[/quote]
Bro, you sound like the sterotypical brainwashed Marine. I had to deal with people like you for a while. It’s very frustrating. It’s like trying to explain to a Catholic that I am agnostic. I have no problems with war, except when it is a callous waste of life. It is a necessity. It is why humans are at the top of the food chain. But there should be a justifiable reason for it. I ask again: What was so pressing about removing Saddam right now? Because W is trying to fix what his dad couldn’t? I keep thinking about “Moby Dick”, except the son takes on the father’s cause. The “War on Terror” is a daunting enough task without commiting the majority of our Armed Forces to another theater. These resources could be more wisely applied to finishing the job in Afghanistan, as well as indentifying and eliminating potential terrorist threats, before starting another job. Saddam and his regime were a threat to the safety of the world. That isn’t much of a question. But do you think that they would have been a substantially greater threat 3, 4, or 5 years from now? Barring the immediate acquisition of WMDs, I don’t think they would have been able to do much harm. The military was still in a shambles from the Gulf War. Finish a job before you start another one. Besides, I think that Iran will be more of a problem than Iraq would have ever been. Think about all the facts.
The world has changed post 9/11, would you agree with that. If GW was finishing his dad’s job why did he wait 2 yrs. to do anything about it? I don’t think that is a very good argument. Don’t misconstrue that I am for war. Sometimes there is a need for it. Do we need to wait for something to happen to our country before we react. There is nothing wrong with being proactive, is there?
I’m confused as well. Did GW ok this war all by himself? or did he get the support of Congress? Did Kerry vote for the war?
You say you “don’t think” they would have been able to do anything with WMDs, What a great luxury you have to be an armchair QB. That would sound like a great answer from a President " I am sorry, I had the facts in front of me 3-5yrs ago but I didn’t think they would do anything, my bad!"
How does that sound?
Can you expand on how the military was in shambles after the 1st Gulf War?Were you on active duty at that time? Or did you read about it in a book or magazine? If you recall the job was to “LIBERATE” Kuwait.
I don’t know the exact count but I believe there are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 300,000 in both theatres. I don’t even think that is a 1/4 of the armed forces. Correct me if I am wrong. If you are so worried about being spread thin here is the # 1-800- MARINES
Ranger - I have thanked Elk for his services to our country long ago when we first started this whole debate. He thanked me, I don’t think I should have to thank him every post. The only post he uses is how if you support the war then be a man and go fight it. I am starting to question his ego stroking or lack of judgement. I come from a military family, I have 3 uncles in the service right now, Both of my grandfathers served in wars and MANY of my current friends are in the military. I respect a military man for his service to our country. I do not have to respect the rest of him if he is talking shit. Basically he is calling me a pussy for supporting the war and not joining the military. I can read through the lines maybe you guys can’t.
Elk - “You’re not elderly, you don’t have children, you don’t have a disability, your support rings hollow when you’re not willing to man up yourself!”
Like I said before you don’t know shit about me. I actually am two of the things on that list. This is why you shouldn’t spout shit about people on an internet forum.
I fight battles in ways other than force, Maybe some of you’re primitive minds don’t realize there are other ways to resolve conflict but I do. And I don’t have to answer to you, I have to answer to one person, Myself.
"There are many of us who feel very strongly that there are terrorists and dictators that need to be confronted with devastating force. Time and again, diplomacy does not reach them. Economic pressure is ineffectual. It is trully, “us versus them.”
You can’t reason with a terrorist. Hussein could not have been bought off.
Faced with this stark reality, I think it is understandable that some of us view people who oppose our current efforts as somewhat misguided."
Jeff, if I may say so, this is where the problem lies. There’s an inherent double standard here. I was FOR the intervention in Afghanistan, but against Iraq. I am a PhD student in Boston in International Relations. Here’s the double standard: the US and Britain (i’m a brit), supports dictators in Uzbekistan (where the president is as bad as Saddam, if not worse), Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Indonesia etc. If you’re going to confront dictatorships, and creat democracy, shouldn’t you do it everywhere?? Islam Karimov has in the last year recieved almost 2 billion dollars in US aid, as well as weapons. Yet he has killed anywhere between a million to 2 million of his own people in the last 5 years. Why don’t we depose him too? Why don’t we depose Musharraf. If you have a standard vis a vis dictators, you have to apply it across the board. The 9/11 hijackers came from SArabia. The Saudi royals fund Al-Qaeda. Why didn’t we take them down instead of Saddam?
To preempt you: that’s my standard…apply the same to EVERYONE. Don’t preach democracy in one place…but not in another!
No, no, no – this is my least favorite critique of Iraq, as it is only applicable in a perfect world of unlimited resources. In the real world, with limited resources, we must choose how to deploy those limited resources.
It’s a bit like criticizing a lifeguard for jumping in the water to save one guy who is drowning because there are 5 other guys drowning whom he can’t get to at the same time.
In addition, promotion of democracy is only one goal – advancing U.S. interests, taking out threats, stability in globally important areas, and other concerns also weigh in how we choose to deploy our resources.
Personally, I would like to see us exert some effort in the Darfur situation, but given all the criticisms on how we are undermanned in Iraq, I understand not moving into any new areas at the moment.
Well, Veg, I guess you’re disabled with children. I wonder if it is of the developmental variety. With your advanced mind, I’m dying to know the advanced methods you are contributing to the war effort?
Lumpy is guilty of the abusive ad hominem fallacy. Rather than attack the merits not being in Iraq, he makes a personal attack on those who disagree with him.
This is just lazy thinking because there are lots of great arguments to be made for not being there.
[quote]PtrDR wrote:
Nope Malonted…maybe it doesn’t make me more of a man…but I have “put up” vs. shut up…and shown that I am not a “fucking hypocrit” …quoting lympy…[/quote]
Gotcha. I was just curious on who the T-wussies were.
You stated: “If you’re going to confront dictatorships, and creat democracy, shouldn’t you do it everywhere??”
I’ll let you in on a little secret: We hope that our Iraqi/Afhganistan campaign scares the regimes straight so we don’t have to fight them all. It’s called deterrance. We do not like regimes that support terrorists and export dangerous weapons.
It’s worked wonders for U.S.-Libya relations. The Saudi’s are toeing the line. Finally, Pakistan has been launching offensives against Al Qaeda.
I’ll just add a couple of cents here… I think our Ranger in the column may have seen his share of bullets and RPGs but for the rest of you, I urge you to quit stroking your own egos. I AM in Iraq right now, been here close to 6 months with 6 more to go, and am in Baghdad. So far I’ve been mortared to the point where I don’t get jumpy anymore. I’ve been shot up in numerous ambushes and have pulled dead Americans from their burning trucks. I’ve seen all walks of life shot to hell. I’ve sent one trooper back home because a SUV exploded nearby and burned the skin off of his face. Now consider this when your spewing all of your bravado. Once you do it for real, your opinion on war will likely change. If I still haven’t scared you, then I invite you to come join the military in a combat-arms specialty and request a forward deployed unit in Iraq. Cheers
Would love to hear your suggestions on the War on Terror in general.
Just in case you missed it, there are plenty of ways to demonstrate personal courage without being in downtown Baghdad. Don’t make the mistake that Elk makes and try to shut down discussion by calling us cowards and hypocrites.
I pray for your safe return and success in your mission,
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
… You sound off why the war is so critical then you sit on your ass while others fight it! …[/quote]
Elk - Do you not have anything better to contribute than your standard “Unless you’ve been in the armed forces you can’t say shit about a war” crusade you seem to wage whenever the subject of Iraq, or the war on terror comes up?
It doesn’t lessen Bush’s ability to lead our nation as CIC because he wasn’t a war hero, nor does it enhance Kerry’s ability because he was.
Are you this angry at FDR? He never served, yet he instituted a draft, rationing, put Japanese in concentration camps, and sent over 400,000 americans to their deaths. Where is your outrage against him?
Clinton actively protested against Vietnam - on foreign soil no less. Where is your outrage at him for unilaterally putting our troops in harms way in Bosnia, Africa, and even Iraq?
Your hypocrisy is starting to speak louder than the words you write.
I have Ben Stein’s final article from E!online where he put off all other discussion and gave his salute to all those who serve America every day in our own towns and cities, as well as abroad. i wish I knew where the hell I put it at. I’ll find it eventually and post it up for you. In short he describes how the police, fire fighters, military, hard working doctors and scientists, all who sacrifice for their cause are the celebrities and that the people who lounge in their hotel suites getting their nails done by Vietnamese women aren’t the celebrities that we use to make them. That’s the gist anyway. The guy wrote the piece beautifully and I know you’ll appreciate his view whenever the hell I figure out where I put it away at. For my thoughts on the War on Terror? It’s always going to be a work-in-progress. The fight will likely shrink from full scale occupations and pitched urban warfare down to something less frightening, but it’s always going to be there, just like the war on drugs. It’s a worthy cause, since the terror isn’t only at our own doorstep. Take the incident in Russia where the children were slaughtered. It’s spreading, and it’s still in our own country right now.
Come out to LA and I’ll run your ass into the dirt. And then do 120situps, and 20 pull-ups. Then I’ll point out that I was honorably discharge with disability (that I don’t collect on.) for hearing loss from operations. That would be why I couldn’t be over there if I wanted to.
If you come out I’ll even pay for the hotel and food. PM me…
[quote]PtrDR wrote:
I AM in and ready to go. Could be this winter.
So, I have ALREADY put my money where my mouth is and I CONTINUE to support my COMMANDER IN CHIEF!
hows that lympy and fellow t-wussies?[/quote]
That’s great dude! You sound like just who they’re looking for!
But seriously, as a fellow human, be safe.
Maybe because the most vocal proponents (e.g. the neoconservatives) of the war on terror don’t have vested interests in Central Asia, South Asia or the Arabia peninsula. But they do in the Middle East.
BB limited resources? Like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes governments can always find enough money (i.e. they create it by decree) when it comes to war if they want to.