I personally voted no. Not that I wouldn't like to see Saddam get his @$$ kicked, but I don't think we're going to war for the right reasons. Why are we going to war? Because Saddam might have weapons? So might many countries that we wouldn't like having them. Take North Korea for instance. They're looking to get nukes, if they don't have them already. I don't see us mongering to go to war with them. IMHO, the reason why Bush wants war so badly is to take peoples' attention off the sorry state of affairs at home, and to 'fix' what his daddy started. We all live in this state. We know what the economy is like here. It's $#!+. Layoffs left and right, companies threatening to leave, people losing their benefits, or worse. What better way to wag the dog by distracting people than going to war with someone everyone hates, and at the same doing what his dear old dad failed to do 10 years ago? In my opinion, those aren't good enough reasons to go to war. We should focus on spending money at home to help get the economy out of its downward spiral, not spending billions of dollars bombing some third world country into the ground.

The case for taking out Sadam Hussein was made years ago. He is a brutal tyrant. He should have been dealt with a long time ago, and it's our fault for not finishing the job. He should have assumed room temperature over a decade ago. I'm bored an tired with all of this concensus cr*p. The rest of the world doesn't wait for concensus when they come knocking on the door for aid and food for their people. Why is it that most of them run for cover, unless their rumps are hanging out in the wind. Then the big, bad, evil, greedy Americans come marching in to save the day.

If/when we go to war, we owe it to our troops to support them 100% without fail. We are blessed to have fine young men and women in our armed forces to help protect our country and our interests abroad. Right, wrong, or indifferent, sack up and support our troops

On the other hand, we can wait for Iraq for to fully develop a full blown nuke or biological weapon, provide it to some terrorists, to unleash another round of terror on our country. I fully believe that Bin Laden and his cronies in (Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Kuwait, along with numerous other countries) would love the opportunity. Then we'll be b*tching about how we didn't do anything.

The bottom line is it is very easy to sit back in a chair and be critical of people who make decisions. You always have history, to say judge what could have been done. If it's a Republican/Democrat thing, then get off your A**, and vote at every local, state, and national election. Then you have the right to biatch. Our forefathers died to give you that right.

I'm done rambling now. Too much damn coffee this morning.

The democrats did not take Bin Ladden for what he was worth,let him bomb our embassys and even blow a whole in the Cole.What did the democrats do?Launch one stinking missle and say I am sorry I missed.Clinton was more interested in getting gays in the military than he was in protecting this country.

I for one am not willing to let any terrorist make any threasts and get away with it.You threaten us you pay the price.This sitting around and talking about is for the weak and america is not weak!I will stand behind both our soldiers and our pres. on this.

Todd....Well said...same ol partisan BS...Some opinions are soooo predictable. Oh geez Tom Daschle is on the news...I better go and see what an objective comment he has.

It's time to go in with guns a blazin'. We should have too Sadam from power in 91, then again in 95, then again in 98.....enough is enough! I didn't see the address unfortunately so I can't really say if Bush made his case or not, but the case has been made for sometime now!

A few thoughts that I've had:

I think you have to consider that this was a state of the union speech. As such, presidents use them to outline their vision of where the country is and what policies they want to initiate in the future. It's not a forum to go into great detail on what our "proof" is. But I do think the president articulated as well as I have heard Saddam's duplicity vis a vis the UN resolutions since the Gulf War. 108 inspectors are NOT going to find these weapons that Saddam has refused to account for. Unless he comes clean he remains in violation of the surrender terms that he signed at the end of the gulf war. So the question becomes, if he is not in compliance, what is the UN going to do about it? Is it a legitimate organization or just talk?

I think we need to wait and hear what Powell will present to the Security Console on Feb 5th. And I do think the US needs to do what it deems neccesary for it's national interests and security. We can't let the likes of France and Germany dictate to us what our national interests are.

Regarding Korea, one crisis at a time! That situation is very different from Iraq and needs to be handled a different way. Lets face it, the risk to S Korea is immense and it will require a different approach from Iraq.

I too, am puzzled as to why when Clinton blasted Iraq with cruise missiles and fixed wing planes a few years back, there were virtually NO protests in the streets. He did it without UN approaval and was condeemed in the UN, yet we saw no marching in the streets. But Bush trys to work with the UN and the protesters take to the streets. Must be a partisan thing...

On a final note, what did you think of Gov. Locke? I thought he looked like a used car salesman. That goofy grin and fake sincerity was embarassing.

I believe the reason Clinton got away with bombing Iraq is because he did it much less low-key than Bush is doing. Clinton didn't do the "war" thing. But it is a different situation. Bush is trying to rally the UN and other nations to war... the key word being "war." It's given the protestors too much time to organize, rationalize, hypothosize, and criticize.

If Bush would have attacked this situation from a different front, more convertly, he would have won over the American people, and other nations, more easily.

I almost never write about politics on this board because it's really a no winner type of topic. I hope that other members will not attempt to label this reply as "one party" or the other! This is NOT about any one party's position; it's about being an American.

First off, what would you do if you were the President of the United States? It's so damn easy for us to set back and criticize someone else, when we only know half of the story. Do you think that you would like to be the one who makes a life or death decision for your fellow Americans? Put your own party side aside for just a few minutes and think about what you would do if you were in President Bush's shoes, and knew what he is claims to know?

Why should the U.S. tell Sadam what the U.S. knows? Why do we need to tell Sadam or his friends in the U.N. about our "secret technologies", or the capabilities that we have to spy and verify what the rest of the world is really doing? What would be the purpose in telling Sadam or the U.N. that you knew "exactly where" he was hiding his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; just so he could have enough time to move them, or use them on our troops before the U.S. can destroy them? Everyone knows that as soon as you tell the U.N anything…. it goes right back to Sadam!

I believe that our President will "go public" with the appropriate information at the appropriate time (about 3 minutes after Sadan has both HERD and FELT America's reply!) Would you not do the same thing if you were the one that was responsible for the lives of "America's Best"… the people that are willing to die for you and me?

Why is it that America always has to be attacked first before we can defend our county? Why not tell the rest of the world now; that America will not ever again be blindsided like we were on 9-11? Why not tell the rest of the world that America is not to be "messed with" without paying a dear price?

Once America does that, I believe that the rest of the world will quit playing games with us and realize that they will no longer be able to jerk us around! People are crying; we should first be dealing with Korea instead of Iraq. You can bet money that once we take care of Iraq, the "others" will be thinking real hard about who may be next!

Well, I'm starting to sound like one of those hawks again! The way I see it, we can only be one of two things; either we're one of those "hawks"; or we're one those haft dead snakes that are being slowly eaten alive while being held in someone's talons!

Which one are you…snake or hawk?

Now you know how I really feel about Sadam.


Cowlitzfisherman

I agree, but covert operations aren't going to take Saddam out. It takes time to build up an invasion force. I think we can all agree that if Bush hadn't started rattling the sabres and building up an invasion force Saddam would have done what he has done all these years - nothing. Dictators only recognize and are intimidated by one thing - power.

CFM, nice post. We are in a unique time in history, America is the Rome of it's age. But unlike Rome, we temper our strength with responsibilty. Let us pray it always be so.

CFM said it all!

They march in the streets calling for death to America. We march in the streets calling for no war with Iraq.

If they could do it, they would do it. They being those in Iraq calling for death to America. It being an act of terror killing thousands of Americans. We can't afford that risk.

The President was right when he said that trusting in Saddamm is not a strategic policy and it's also not an option. The President was right when he said that America goes to war with a heavy heart knowing the price to be paid. We didn't pick this fight but we are going to finish it.

btw, well said hawk and cwf.

The speech was very moving. I don't think anyone's opinion changed. Those that were opposed to the Presidents point of view remain opposed, on all issues. I saw some get up and walk out (of the neighborhood pub;)) with their preformed ideas without even taking time to listen.

I believe that the case will be made, without doubt, as to what our course of action should, and will be on the 5th of February.

In regards to Mr. Locke's rebuttal, I couldn't help but think he seemed like the Oxen (Water Buffalo) in Apocolypse now. You remember that don't you?

In regards to Mr. Locke's rebuttal, I couldn't help but think he seemed like the Oxen (Water Buffalo) in Apocolypse now. You remember that don't you?

From someone in Oregon, I thought the Demo's choice for a 'rebuttle' speach was very strange, very strange indeed. Understand Locke's a very likeable guy, but given he's never held political office outside of Wash. State (Gov. or no), has zero foreign experience, etc., ..... very strange indeed.

President Bush strikes me as a mediocre man trying to be great. He is using a war with Iraq as his vehicle to go down as a great leader of the world. He chose Iraq because of several things. One, his military advisors tell hem he can win quickly. Two, he said it himself. Hussein tied to kill his daddy. Revenge. Three, control the oil you control the economy. He is trying to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons, a mediocre leader trying to be great.

No, I do not think Bush made his case for war against IRAK during this speech. I'm with EZ on this one.

Now, that being said, I DO think the Administration will de-classify information this week (or early next week) that WILL make his case.

From what I've been has been reported, it's almost a given that the US has classified intelligence that backs up what the UN weapons inspectors are saying - and that is that IRAK is hiding it's weapons and not being honest.

If that can be proven, than that's a violation of the UN Mandate. That get's my vote to go in and take out good ol' Sammy Houston in IRAK.

What troubled me the most about the speech was what Bush DIDN'T say to the US people.

What are the direct consequences if we do go to war?

It's estimated that if we wage war with IRAK, we will need to stay in that country for at least 5-7 (once the current regime is gone) years to stabilize and protect the new regime. Cost is estimated at 200+ billion, if not more! Ouch.

I don't think it is a matter of proving sadaam has weapons of mass destruction. We already knew that. Its up to sadaam to prove that he has destroyed those weapons. He is clearly skirting the issue. At what point do we take action against sadaam? Is it when a few thousand Americans die from a weapon that was created or bought from him? Or do we put a stop to now. It is called having a good offense. We will be going to war, now is the time to support our commander and chief, and the thousands of troops that he leads.


GOD BLESS AMERICA!! just my opinion

Oh yea I am new to this board. Hello everyone

Hello, Desert Rat.

Welcome to Political Pursuits' discussion board.

We need to definatly go in NOW and do away with the maggot! Im very suprised that more
american people are not standing by their president. What do people think Saddam has been doing the last 12 years, underwater basket weaving?! Lets get real If anyone is a good judge of this charicter is doesen't take a rocket scientist to figure out he has weapons of mass destruction and is just waiting for the right time to use them.He needs one between the eyes NOW!

Yo Ed,

That's the thing that makes America truly great. You are allowed to disagree with the president, and not end up dead or in prison. Just because someone may disagree with the way a foreign policy issue is handled, doesn't mean that they're any less patriotic than those who would follow blindly and not question.

Best part of being an American is you can disagree or jump on the band wagon with what our leaders are feeding us, Kind of like the biters in the rivers. He is a bad dude and hurts a lot of his own people in more ways than one, but how many of those good people will we have too kill to get him and will the country pull togrther for the leaders we install. Will it be a better place or more of the same or worst, who can really answer that? What about the other evil men leading thier countries, should we go get them? I didnt agree with Clinton on a lot of his foreign policy and I dont agree with this at this time, but if we go GOD BLESS OUR MEN AND WOMEM