In support or not....

[icallmedan]

Are you in support of the soldiers and the war, or aren't you. I figure you are either in support of it or not. Some people say I am in support of the soldiers, but not the war...How can that be. Without being in support of the war you are not in support of the soldiers fighting in it.

[glc]

Originally posted by icallmedan Without being in support of the war you are not in support of the soldiers fighting in it.

I personally don't agree with this premise - I sure didn't support the Viet Nam "war" but I was 100% in support of the soldiers.

[not important]

I support the participants of the invasion, but not the reasons for it. I was involved in one in the 60's and I know the end results. No good can come from it. Death, destruction, and tax dollars to rebuild what we destroyed. Nobody wins.

[Mac Medic]

You only have to see the Jubliant faces of the Iraqi people to know they wanted our help. I only wish we had freed them 12 years ago. Had we done that countless children would have been saved.

[icallmedan]

But don't you think that that makes the soldiers feel like they are over there for nothing, when you are not supporting the war?

[glc]

The way I see it, you don't have to support the war, but demonstrations of non-support are counterproductive.

As I post this, there are 2 demonstrations going on in downtown Chicago - one anti-war rally and one support the troops rally.

I don't feel that we should be the world's police force, but if OUR interests are threatened, we need to do something.

[icallmedan]

Yeah that's true.

[Force Flow]

I agree, glc. Unless there's something seriously wrong with the war, it should be alowed to run somewhat Unimpeded.

I'm not condoning war, since the loss of life on both sides is indeed regretible and sometimes wasteful, but there is not cut-and-dry, black-and-white stance people can take when countries go to war. There are both positive and negitive effects.

Luckally, the lives lost in the present conflict have been relatively small.

[edit]: typo

[suitcase]

Well I'm going to add my .02 and perhaps no one will ever read it but here goes. In '63 I was in my third year of a four year hitch in the USAF. On Guam and watching about 200 Marines headed for 'Nam every day. As "advisors". I missed by just a couple years. I hated it that our guys were going over there and dying for those people whose own government was so corrupt and the military so cowardly that they wouldn't even help us. So, for that reason I guess you could say that I didn't support the war there. I almost got my butt kicked for saying that in a bar in Miami in '64 by a trooper who had just returned. I had to explain to him that I didn't think he was baby killer and that I had supported them in their efforts, just that I wished that they didn't have to be there.

As to the argument that we are in Iraq for the oil. That is the most ridiculous of positions to take. If indeed we were, we could have taken it the first time we were there. And we should have, to pay for the damage Iraq did in Kuwait. To say that we're there for oil and turn around and say that we must spend tax payers money to rebuild their country doesn't make any logical sense. Why take your tax money if we have access to billions of dollars in oil money?
Do I feel any immediate threat to my safety? No I don't. Do I think that there is an immediate threat to our national security? Perhaps, who knows what these cowards will do. And seeing how most of the world would love to see us hurt, we need to take care of ourselves, whether we get ANY help or not. But I do believe that ties will be found to terrorist organizations and the weapons Iraq is accused possesing will be found too. In fact they have already been firing weapons that they claimed they didn't have!
President Bush will go down in history like President Lincoln, he was loved by some and hated by others. To some, the greatest president we ever had and to others the worst. I will say that I'm very thankful that we have a President who doesn't vacillate. Who stands up for whats right. Who puts America's well being and safety before foreign policy. He and I aren't that much different in age. Perhaps he watched the old Davy Crockett shows on Disney when he was a kid, like I did. Maybe he remembers Davy's motto, "Be sure you're right, then go ahead".

[Paul Victorey]

I will go with the people who say you can support soldiers, and appreciate what they do, without supporting the people who put the soldiers there.

On the actual war itself, I'm in the middle. I think the reasons behind the war are valid, but I think the way that Bush has gone about it are awful. I think my feelings on Bush would be summed up with the adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" -- I think he means well, and I think he identifies what needs to be done, but he has what I would say is a very foolish way of going about things. He tends to take the most direct means to get to his ends, but the most direct approach isn't necessarily the best approach, and I think the US as a whole is going to suffer a lot because of that philosophy.

[Force Flow]

Sounds like what I couldn't quite put my finger on, Paul Victorey. I quite agree.

[icallmedan]

Did anyone see the 7th grader on the news who was speaking out against the war? I just though that was hilarious, becuase at about 12/13 years old, not able to vote, and not knowing a lot about politics, who do you think gave him anti-war ideas?

[glc]

If it's the kid's parents, that's fine, but if it's his school, I have a real problem with that.

[icallmedan]

No I think it is the kids parents, but I don't really think it should be 7th graders leading anti war protests, to me it just doesn't seem right...You may think differently...

[TMAN]

Straight from my AP govt teacher: "We hate our congress but love our congressmen". With that I hate the idea and justifications and failures of this war but I am pretty damn proud that people would die to let me say that.

The idea that there are those who would outright not even support the troops simply baffles me.

For a seventh grader to lead an antiwar protest.... hmm... Political activism is something sincerely lacking in this country. People simply don't care about politics- just ask 60% of my classmates to give you a meaningful, non-superficial conversation about anything going on in the world around them. The earlier young citizens get into the habit the better.... as long as they have ALL the information. I had a bunch of idiotic political philosophies 5years ago because I took to the propaganda of one side or another. If that kid could name 8 ammendments and give me 6 permanent members of the security council (3pro and 3con the war) and why their stance is their stance then more power to him! But I doubt he would know what the hell I'm talking about if I asked.

[Force Flow]

Originally posted by glc If it's the kid's parents, that's fine, but if it's his school, I have a real problem with that.

At a school board meeting I went to when it came time for the public to be heard, one guy suggested that the board may want to take a stance on the war. The board members said it would be against the philosophy of individuality and not good political sense to do so (some of them were coming up for re-election). They said that as individuals, they had their own opinions on the war, but not all of the people they represented would feel the same way.

[icallmedan]

I don't think schools should get involved....

[Force Flow]

The school board didn't. And I agree with you and them about them not taking a stance on the war.

[Eaglefeather]

I support both, the troops and the incursion.

Saddam and his son's are evil, every bit as bad as Hitler and Stalin. They are not fit to govern and if they won't go on their own then must be removed forcefully.

It is so easy when you have freedom and a democratic system to sit back and say, "what happens in other parts of the world are not my problem." When you do that, eventually that problem does become your problem. History has shown that over and over.

Paul, I think you are wrong. The US is not going to suffer one iota either politically or financially from this. Oh, the fanatics and terrorists might use the war as an excuse to step up their campaigns, but I think they would have done anyway.

Quite the contray, I believe that if President Bush follows through and the US helps Iraq to rebuild and elect a democratic government, the US will have another, very grateful, friend in the Arab world. In fact this could be a chance for the US to build one hell of a lot of prestige in the middle east.

As for a 7th grader getting involved in anit-war speeches or marches or anything of the sort bothers me greatly. A 7th grader should be in school learning. A 7th grader knows nothing of the world and politics, is not of the age of majority, so has no say in how a country is run. He/she is still a child and should stick to childish things, leave the adult world to adults, he/she will get his/her own go at it soon enough.

The forgoing does not mean that 7th graders should not discuss or even debate the subject within the family or school system. I believe it is extremely important that they do so. I just object to children being used for political reasons.

[Boone]

Having been in the military myself, I support the troops that are over there fighting and dying. I also think that the official reasons for our troops being there are valid.

I do think that the president could have done a better job at getting more support for our efforts there. It's easier to get help and support from other countries when you ask for their help as peers, instead of telling them that you're going to take action regardless of what they think or say.

[icallmedan]

I agree with you Eaglefeather.

[TEEB]

Originally posted by glc I don't feel that we should be the world's police force, but if OUR interests are threatened, we need to do something.

Glc: I'm afraid you are the worlds police force, whether you like it or not. I for one am thankful that it's the USA and not a number of others I could think of!!

[Tiretool]

Yes, I'm one of the ones with the firm belief that this is all way overdue. And I have a brother who's inside Iraq with the US Army right now... so I'm not just saying "yes" with nothing to lose.

[Mac Medic]

My Wifes brother is a Marine Col. CH46 pilot. God bless him and what he is doint to free these people. The irony is, the anti-war protestors, who want the regime to live on, don't seem to realize that the iraqui people can't protest anything without facing death. Yet the protestors here won't even face arrest for their actions. It's all well and good to sit here in a country where your rights are protected for you by a strong milatary, to be able to protest if you disagree with their actions, but if you value these freedoms for yourself, then you should value them for the iraqui citizens also who need our help to become free. If you dissagree, go live overseas for a year, you'll learn pretty soon how good it is to be free and not live in fear.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by Eaglefeather Paul, I think you are wrong. The US is not going to suffer one iota either politically or financially from this. Oh, the fanatics and terrorists might use the war as an excuse to step up their campaigns, but I think they would have done anyway. Quite the contray, I believe that if President Bush follows through and the US helps Iraq to rebuild and elect a democratic government, the US will have another, very grateful, friend in the Arab world. In fact this could be a chance for the US to build one hell of a lot of prestige in the middle east.

I truly hope it all works out well, but the road towards that end is not nearly so easy. There are three ethnic groups (Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd), each with very strong identities, and they all despise each other. The hatred is much older than Hussein, although he continues the cycle of violence and oppression. A democratic society will have a very difficult time to avoid forming a "dictatorship of the majority" -- in a democratic Iraq, Shi'ites, which make up somewhere between 60 and 65% of the population, could dominate elections and essentially make any laws, no matter how unjust to the other two groups. This is the failing place of democracy -- in cases where you have two groups struggling for power, democracy gives all the power to the larger group while stripping power from the others. And a Shi'ite government would probably not be pro-US, as the Shi'ite tend to be one of the more fundamentalist and violent of the Muslim tribes, and given the chance to avenge their oppression on the Sunni, they will.

The US has actually been very lucky in its internal race relations -- even though it took us two centuries to really get to a decent point, we started from a better position than many nations. And realistically, had it not been for the sharp division of opinion within the white population (abolitionists vs. slavers), none of that change would have been possible. Even today, if every white person in America suddenly became a white supremacist, whites hold enough of a majority that not only could they pass any law, but they could get enough power on state levels to pass any constitutional amendment, so even the constitution couldn't stop a dictatorship of the majority from happening in the USA.

My big fear is that Iraq will be like Rwanda -- their leadership was fully democratic, but the democratically elected Hutu majority, in 100 days, killed over 800,000 Tutsi.

Further, each of these groups is going to strive to collect as much power as they can. As the US will be the one doling it out, I have a feeling that each of these groups is going to be dissatisfied unless they hold the lion's share of the power. And if there is open tribal warfare, it's likely to spread to Turkey and Iran both.

Overall, I think Hussein is one of the lesser problems in Iraq -- he's only a symptom of the much larger ethnic conflict. Hussein will be easy enough to get rid of, but it will NOT be easy to eliminate racism or tribal hatred, and get three mutual enemies to agree to coexist peacefully under one government. Realistically, I think the Palestinians and Israelis have better chances of working together than these groups.

Which leads to what I think the big quagmire we're wading into is -- it may be a quick war to remove Hussein, but how many years/decades are we willing to keep forces there to maintain the peace? Further, the more we interfere in the post-Saddam government, the more they will hate us for not allowing them to self-govern.

I really hope everything works out well for the people, but just remember -- Saddam Hussein was the last pro-US government we installed in Iraq. I really hope that we actually can create a better Iraq; all this is for nothing if this sparks a worse genocide that it prevents.

[azscary]

Personally, I am glad that President Bush has stood his ground, and done exactly what he said he would do, unlike his predecessor President Clinton.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000; President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promise, over 3,000 people in New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be alive today.

[TMAN]

oem_guy_2002, how many protestors have you talked to? I've never met one actually wanting Saddam to stay in power. I know this because I have a few good friends and neighbors protesting for much different reasons than the ones you stated.

Democracy in Iraq would be nothing short of a miracle. All I hear right now on the news and in the papers is the strong desire for the Kurds to create their own state which is something Turkey and Iran definately doesn't want. Any promise of keeping the country together after conlict should never have been made.

Actually a good deal of the intelligence of the wherabouts of many of these terrorists came from the efforts of Clinton. The infamous CIA and FBI reports warning of 9/11 dated all the way back to well into the Clinton years. In 1995 (And 1994 and 1996, I think) The Clinton administration proposed a serious counterterrorism measure that may shock people opposed to the HSA. This country has looked the other way way before Clinton, azscary. Don't place the bulk of blame on one man/administration without ALL the facts.

[icallmedan]

So far most of the people are in support of the war, which is what I thought....

[Paul Victorey]

Personally, if the blame for either terrorism or Saddam is to be placed on any president, it would be Reagan. It was Reagan who armed and trained the mujahadeen; the senior members of Al Quaida, including Bin Laden himself, received their training in terrorist tactics from us. It was Reagan and Rumsfeld who reestablished diplomatic ties with Saddam even after both the US and UN knew Saddam was using chemical weapons. Reagan gave aid to Saddam left and right, and after Saddam started gassing his own civilians in 1988, and the US Senate passed a measure to create an embargo on Iraq, it was Reagan who stopped it.

I do agree, Bush is working to rectify the mistakes of the past, be they Clinton's, his father's, or Reagan's. Hopefully, though, he can find a solution both just and wise for the future of Iraq, and hopefully we're going to help the situation, not make it worse.

And I think the Shi'ites are more of a problem in Iraq than the Kurds, although all three groups bring their own set of problems to the table, and trying to make all of them satisfied would be practically miraculous in nature. At the very least, hopefully we can avert clan war/genocide.

[Mac Medic]

This war has nothing to do with terrorism. It's about a dictator who invaded an innocent country, and agreed to terms of a cease fire or face destruction. He has systimatically violated these terms for 12 years by continuing the production of WMD, building his war machine and murdering women and children. For that he deserves to be destroyed, along with anyone who supports him. This is just a resumption of war, the result of violating the terms of the cease fire, even without the recent UN decisions this war was enevitable. He should have done what he was told. As for the peace protestors. I've spoken to a lot of them and their reasons for prosesting differ but they all have one thing in common, they have NO idea how we should have dealt with Saddam if not by force. The only results we ever got from this man were when they were forced by the threat of war. It's the only thing he understands, so I say give him what he wants. Personally I would drop a Nuke on Mecca.