Attack Iraq?

[angelus]

I'm not sure if I've posted this here before or not, but this is a commentary I wrote for CPI News forums a while back. If this is a re-post for me, my apologies.



The biggest ongoing question in the country right now seems to have nothing to do with the domestic side of politics. It has everything to do with the foreign policy.

It seems there are people out there who honestly think we should NOT go to war with Iraq. Now, while I am not one to push for war, I am also not one to back away from it.

Face it, war seems to be our only viable option right now. Saddam Hussein has refused UN resolution after resolution. Yet the UN refuses to do anything about it, except pass more resolutions, which will be ignored anyway. Of course, the UN should not decide for the USA what we will do. We live under our rules, our laws, and our convictions. While we also have global guidelines, the final authority of the US is and should be the US. We are a sovereign and independent nation. The UN says we should not go to war? Fine, let them say it. But that would be bad advice to follow.

Let's face the music. Saddam Hussein is a madman. He is willing to gas his own people to achieve. He has done this in the past. And, while we have no solid proof that he is developing, or has developed, weapons of mass destruction, there is more evidence to support that theory than the one that says he's just kooky.

Back in the early 90's, people thought that war with Iraq would be a disaster, and there was no reason to do it. We shouldn't be the world's policemen. Now, while I do favor the last part, there are times when being the world's policemen are necessary.

And this is one of those times.

The Gulf War was a success, except for the fact that George the Elder didn't finish the job and, to use a mob term, whack Saddam.

But, war with Iraq will be different than the War on Terrorism. Our men and women won't be as successful, because of the more hostile environment. That's another argument against war.

We were successful in the early 90's. It was just as hostile then as it is now. And, we had one less thing for us then than we have now.

Experience.

We have already fought over there once. And while there are people in today's army that wasn't there for the Gulf War, and most of the people that were there are now gone, we have people in leadership positions now who were over there. While nothing can replace first-hand combat experience in a location, there certainly is an advantage to be gained with second-hand experience.

If we don't go to take out Saddam, then how many people are we sacrificing by just waiting? How many people will die as a result of a first strike by the madman? Is this country ready to cope with another 9/11? No. I think the last one still hurts us too badly to just wait on another one.

With the proper strategy, we can and will win a Second Gulf War. Besides, Saddam is a definite terrorist in my opinion. After all, he strikes terror into all who oppose him (and probably those who don't). He should be looked at as just another front in our War on Terror.

We'll have to wait and see how htis one plays out. But I know that, while war is a heavy price to pay, freedom from fear is a much greater reward than the price which this administration may soon have to bear.

[Reccos]

Angelus:

If you have posted this before, don't worry as it is just as bad the second time as I sure it was the first time.

Nice touch invoking the Bible at the close of a very poorly argued position for war. *What you have tried to dress up as a reasoned set of arguments for war is ill thought, has poor logic and goes in a circle where you are chasing your tale in every widening circles.

Just who are we saving from this madman by killing thousands of innocent people who have no choice where to go or no place to hide from the bombs?

If you want the US to be the "world policeman" there are far better places to make you happy than this case in Iraq. *Wake up. *There are many places where tyranny prevails as a daily activity. *Look at the situation in African countries where thousands of innocents are starving and being killed. *Why not there for world policeman? *Most of us know why, but you seem not to be aware. *There is no way the US can be in every situation as policeman.

Our best hope for a world free of war and terror is where the world's nations work together to make the UN the body to work for peace and to wage war when when needed.

One other thing Angelus. *Don't ever forget the origins of the Viet Nam war and how dumb most citizens of the free world were (we learned that in retrospect). *When the hippies and radicals were marching for peace, we ignored them. *It wasn't until the thousands of US body bags started coming home to America that people realized that the war was wrong and that it had to end. *Most of us learned then not to sit back despite the fact that it is always left wing whackos who oppose war first.

The US fought in Viet Nam because they believed - wrongly as we know now - that if Viet Nam went Communist, the entire region would fall to the Communists (remember the old domino theory, you ought to brush up on it! ).

Perhaps I'd feel a lot more comfortable going to war if Angelus and Captain Eagle were marching in the forward units behind the tanks. *Then we'd know for sure how committed you guys are to prove that those who doubt the need for a war now, are truly the cowards.

[angelus]

Spoken like a true liberal who would rather have all of America die than some so-called innocent civilians who hate America anyway and would jump at the chance to kill us. Or has that fact escaped you?

The Viet Nam war was repayment for our reluctance to help the Jews in WWII. God says that whatever is done ill against his people (the Jews), then he will repay. For 12 years, we refused to help. And for 12 years in Viet Nam, we were repayed.

As far as "invoking the Bible at the end . .", that quote is my signature on all posts, and has nothing to do with the post itself. Or has that escaped you too?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Our best hope for a world free of war and terror is where the world's nations work together to make the UN the body to work for peace and to wage war when when needed.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If now is not the time, there will NEVER be a time for war. The only way to achieve peace with Saddam is for an absolute military victory by one side over the other.

Another thing about Viet Nam:
We tied our own hands. Our soldiers were not allowed to shoot even when shot at by most commanding officers! If we repeat that mistake, sure, we'll lose in Iraq. But if we don't do it half-a$$ed like in Viet Nam, we will win.

The only short-fall in the first Gulf War was that daddy Bush didn't go after Saddam completely. He gave him another chance, because the U.N told him too (and Congress, too, I think). Well, that has sure backfired. The genocide of the Jews at his hands should be proof enough of that.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at the situation in African countries where thousands of innocents are starving and being killed. Why not there for world policeman? Most of us know why, but you seem not to be aware.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, it simply doesn't benefit us all that much, does it? Then again, those countries aren't pointing weapons of mass destruction at us and our allies. That's the difference you seem to conveniently ignore.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US fought in Viet Nam because they believed - wrongly as we know now - that if Viet Nam went Communist, the entire region would fall to the Communists (remember the old domino theory, you ought to brush up on it! ).[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Yes, I know. I have had many history classes pound this into my head. What you don't understand is that this is not about Communism, but again, the threat of having millions of us, possibly my family and yours, or ourselves as well, killed by this madman. That's not about Communism. It's about protecting America, which is what our government is *supposed* to do.

Unlike some yellow-bellied liberals (Clinton), if a draft comes in to play, I'll stay here and enlist. If not, then I will throw all my support that I can to the military. I'm way too out of shape to be effective in combat, but if there's anything the military needs from me (housing quartes, if Saddam brings the war here before we take it to him, the only other possible scenario as of now), then so be it.

It's not that I want war. But I certainly want the genocide of Jews and American citizens of other religions as well as the Jewish faith even less. Which do you want?

[Reccos]

Angelus wrote: &quot;The Viet Nam war was repayment for our reluctance to help the Jews in WWII.&quot; *

Angelus:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that the Viet Nam war was God's way of repaying the US for not assisting the Jewish people!!!

What complete and utter balderdash!!!! *How can a mentally competent, reasonably intelligent adult say something so horrid as that!! Oh, I get it now.

By the way, how did you find out that God was punishing the US this way? If you knew that why didn't you speak out sooner? If there is a war with Iraq, who is God punishing this time?

http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[angelus]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that the Viet Nam war was God's way of repaying the US for not assisting the Jewish people!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why? Read the Bible, and you'll see where God specifically says to the Israelites &quot;Those who curse you, I will curse, and those who bless you, I will bless&quot;.
Also, you'll find many instances where God says that those who do not side with Israelites (Jews), will not escape his wrath. Are you calling God a liar now?

Why didn't I mention this earlier? Because it slipped my mind. It happens to those of us who are human. I happened to be reading my Bible, and I could hear my mom was watching John Hagee, and he was touching on this. He could explain it better than me, for sure. But then, I'm not a preacher. Just someone who knows a little (meaning, very little) about theology.

As for punishing in a war with Iraq, let's look at the guideline that was used for Viet Nam. Those who do not help the Jews get punished. Iraq is violently going after the Jews. That means that, if we do not help the Jews, we too will not escape God's wrath later down the road. If we do, then we may experience punishment for doing nothing sooner. Or we may not, I'm not a soothsayer.

You don't have to believe God's Word for it to be true. It's your soul, not mine. And that ends my theology discussion.

Thanks for offering the typical, howling, liberal, anti-Bible rhetoric I've come to expect from the leftward crowd. I was hoping you wouldn't dissapoint. You didn't.

[Reccos]

Angelus:

Although this is the &quot;attack Iraq?&quot; thread I am still very curious as to how you have found out that the Viet Nam war was God's punishment on the United States. *We need a thread on that topic I think where we can explore that in greater depth.

You seem like such a decent person it is hard to imagine your outrage. *Where in my posts have I shown myself to be anti-Bible and part of the typical &quot;leftward crowd&quot;. *As Mark Twain once said:
&quot;Get your facts first, then distort them as much as you can.&quot;

Most would now agree that Viet Nam was a bad decision made initially by President Kennedy and continued by Presidents Johnson and Nixon until the latter ended it in 1972. *Some 57,000 American troops died there and many, many more have never recovered from their injuries and the trauma.

It was a war and a time that tore families apart. *We are probably all the better for it that some amongst us stood up early and spoke out against that war. I didn't see it for what it was until very late and dismissed the anti-war movement as the lefties against everything. *I will be more cautious in future as Georges Clemenceau said so well that &quot;War is much too serious to be entrusted to the military&quot;. *I would hope all thinking people would think through the issue carefully, then decide it.

One reason I want the US to work for peace in the Middle East is that the free world is making more enemies there each day. *It is kind of like the hockey team with the dirtiest player who runs your goalie. *The opposition can retaliate and run their goalie into the net, but you will run out of goalies before they do. *I thought this twisted analogy would resonate with you my friend. *http://gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

You can call me, or all those who opose this war at this time, a liberal if it makes you feel better about yourself, but it doesn't make the case for this war.

I liked what Sir Winston Churchill said about war: *&quot;Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. *The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.&quot;

Is our desire to attack driven by our belief that the Iraq military will be the same crap they put up last time and that the US casualties will be small enough that it is no problem? *How big would the casualty list have to be before a second look at alternative responses takes place? *If we believed the casualty rate would parallel that of the Viet Nam war would we be rushing to war today?

[angelus]

My apologies for my earlier post. I was hungry and cranky, a combination that should by itself keep me from posting. But, it didn't. Again, sorry for the labeling.

We could start a thread. Start one if you like. But here's a quick overview.

12 years of not helping Jews.
12 years of Viet Nam.
God says that what ill we do to Jews he will repay in full. 12=12.

I never said we would have an easy time of war. It is just that diplomacy has failed, and failed miserably. The only chance for peace now is for Sadaam to disarm either peacefully (which has not happened, but I pray it will), or to be disarmed by force. So far we have found nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, which seem to have magically not appeared in the documents presented to the UN. Wonder why?

Yes, we are making more enemies over in the Middle East everyday. But then, what do you expect from countries that are jealous of our fortunes, and they nevermind our misfortunes, 9-11 aside.

I doubt we would be rushing to war if we thought the casualty rate would be that of Viet Nam. But then, we won't be telling our soldiers to NOT SHOOT when fired upon, because of whatever reason (I have family that served the war, and they tell me they went through this, but then again it is only their word I am using).

We have not rushed to war. We still aren't in a war with them. There is still hope that a war can be avoided. But it is slim. Also, if we believed we would have the casualty rate, but would still win the war, would we then go to war?

I don't know. But then, it's not my decision to make.