Just for the record.....just exactly what will it take to convince the "anti-war analysts" that Bush and our soldiers did the "right" thing? Be specific, please.

Secondly, for those who respond.....Do you think that an apology would be in order, should your "requirements" (see above) be met?

Thirdly....Do you think/feel that our troops feel "supported" by you and/or your views?

Am I up for discussing these issues as much as the next guy.....also plead guilty to putting my share of NFR threads on the board, but this is getting ridiculous.

Is there any way we can agree to keep this conversation in the go/no go thread?

the soliders are doing the right thing...Bush is not!...simple as that!

If any chems or bios are used, we'll then know the truth of if we did the right thing or not. Maybe if it is all said and done and none of these were found, then we'll know we have no smoking gun. Then the question would be was he capable of building and using them? We already know that one. I figure not my place to second guess what is being done because there is no possible way I could ever know all the facts.

(no, no must resist) (but it burns us it burns) I agree (swallowing tongue noise) with H2O.

I agree with H20.... no sense in a new topic...

But, could make the question go the other way. What would convince you that Bush Doctrine is not in our best interest? (not really looking for an answer).

Gotta love the Piscatorial Pursuits' think tank.

No question our troops are doing the right thing. But given the fact that the U.N, most of the world and many of our previous allies, three U.S. diplomats who resigned in protest, the pope, and past president Carter alll disagree, should make any thinking person wonder.

Before you scream traitor, know that I served in the military, I love my country, and I am 100% behind our troops. So, am I still allowed to voice an opinion?

What we need to justify a war is a clear and present threat to our counrty. That never was shown in spitE of moths of weapons inspectors.

Answer this, if we had no intention of basing our actions on what the inspectors found why did we insist that they be allowed in? And if we had solid information about banned weapons why didn't we share that info with the inspectors, so they could find the smoking gun?

And lastly, why has this administration been unable to show any clear link between terrorist and Saddam? Bush keeps bringing up 9/11 but has never shown any clear link between Saddam and 9/11

Is Saddam an absolutly evil person? Absolutly? Is it our job to remove all the evil people in the world? NO!

God bless our troops and all the poor Iraq's who hate Saddam too, but will lose thier homes, and in many cases their lives.

C'mon G' -

You know as well as I do that if it weren't for our political differences we'd make pretty fine drinkin buddies. I bet the conversation would be enetertaining at the very least.

Surecatch

The weapons inspectors weren't sent to Iraq to play hide and seek with Saddam. They were sent there to verify that the weapons were gone. It was Saddams responsibility to prove that the weapons were destroyed. The terms of the ceasefire agreement and resolution 1441 are very clear on this point. The weapons inspectors found artillery shells capable of deilvering chemical weapons, they found missles (after Colon Powell told them that they existed) that exceeded the allowable renge as defiened in the ceasefire agreement. They also had proof that while Iraq was destroying a few missles for the weapons inspectors they were manufacturing new ones!!! Iraq is clrealy in material breach by the simple existance of these items.


Sparkey

How can you say that President Bush is doing the wrong thing? He is enforcing the resolution that the UN Security council passed 15-0.

Vic, the UN Security Council seems to disagree with you on that point..........

CWUgirl, the UN has said a number of times that they are not there to play hide and seek. That is why 1441 calls for the full cooperation of Saddam.

Why do you think NOT one country in the UN has or can say that Iraq is disarmed. Cause he NEVER proved to us he was. In 1441 it puts the burden on Saddam to prove that he doesn't have them. He is in material breach of 1441.

1441 states:

"3. DECIDES that, in order to begin to comply with its disarmament obligations, in addition to submitting the required biannual declarations, the government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programs to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material;

9. REQUESTS the secretary-general immediately to notify Iraq of this resolution, which is binding on Iraq; demands that Iraq confirm within seven days of that notification its intention to comply fully with this resolution; and demands further that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with UNMOVIC and the IAEA;"


This was his FINAL chance. Did he do what he needed to, to avoid war? Why blame Bush, when Saddam is the one to blame for this war.

It seems strange that those who are so eager to go to war are often quick to use the U.N. "mandate" of 1441 to justify the act. In fact, nothing in 1441 says war will be the result of non compliance.

If we are so certain that we must do as the U.N. says, wht didn't Bush go for the vote that he said he would aks for last week? And why do many feel that his actions are a clear violation of the U.N. charter?

I saw in the news tonight that many legal scholars beleive Bush may be commiting a crime by proceeding with a war against a U.N. member.

No man and no nation is above the law. I agree with Senator Byrd, this is a sad day in our history. I love my country and hate to see it make this awful mistake.

I swear this is the LAST WAR post I'm making:

Are we in the right??? As I posted earlier in one of the other war threads... I find it curious that many of the other countries that felt Saddam didn't have chemical/biological weapons, are the very ones that are now either passing out gas masks, or sending specialists in those areas to "support" the operation. Why bother if the man is disarmed? They also claim that we are the ones in it for oil. I would suggest France, Russa, and China are OUT of it for oil... Have your opinions, but dont lose common sense along the way. SADDAM IS A PSYCHOPATH, HE HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HE HAS WET DREAMS ABOUT USING THEM ON US. He will kill any of you with either opinion, just for the sheer fun of it.

DONE WITH THIS DEBATE...knock yourselves out!

As an 18 year Navy man the thought of going to war scares the hell out of me not only for my own safety but that of my family since now these idiots out there have found a way to hit our homes. I don't want to do it but will gladly go to defend my family. Not too sure about some of the people out there but for my family hell yes I'll go. So whether you agree or disagree just shut the hell up and support those poor souls over there giving you and your families the safety and freedom everyone deserves.

By the way I caught my first steelie last sunday and for the life of me can't figure out why we are not posting messages about fishing here. Come on guys get stoked there are fish in the rivers just looking for something to bite.

totaly agree steve,
Hell know one els goin call me I'll go with ya.
and congrats,
assy.

CWU Girl

Apparently the governments of 40 other nations (more than participated in the first gulf war) including some on the UN Security council agree with me.

Vic:

In the last war we had a coalition of nations who actually sent troops and who helped pay the huge cost of the war. last time Japan, Germany and several arab states wrote big checks to help out. This time not one other country has offerd to hepl pey the nut. It's all U.S. taxpayer this time.
Here's what one expert had to say

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."


No, karl rove didn't say this, nor did don rumsfeld nor dubya though
they might have. These are the words of another fine leader, Herrman Goëring

Made during the Nuremberg trials, march 1920.

Surecatch:

Your quote is getting a little wore out. If you are attempting to compare what we are doing in Iraq to what the Germans did during the 2nd world war then tell me how it is the same.

Many of the members of the "Coalition of the willing" are sending troops. Some countries have offered missle defense systems, chemical weapons decontamination specialists (that was the Germans ironic isn't it), and some have offered airspace. If the the only reason you are opposed to this action is the cost to the citizens of the US then I think you should do a little more research and reconsider.


FYI one of the Iraqi counter attacks this morning was with SCUD missles that are banned under the UN Cease fire agreement. The range fo the SCUD missles exceeds the 93 mile limit. Saddam told the world he didn't have these weapons any more. In a few more days you will find out about alot of other things that Saddam was lying about. I only pray that we find out because these items are captures and not used against us.