Politics & The War (----Not Very G Rated-----)

[littleriver]

A very interesting discussion for sure. And once again Mr. Magler puts on a fine performance by expressing his views very convincingly and very eloquently even though I disagree with him and am totally on Bassackwards side on this issue. I read an article recently about the viet nam war. Author noted that archives have been found recently suggesting that Hanoi was only a couple months away from capitulation before the U.S. congress, under intense pressure from the jane fonda wing of the democratic party (e.g. the surrender monkeys), essentially forced our military to pick up it's ball and come home. No expert on military history that I've ever read views viet nam as a military defeat. We won the war militarily but lost it in the halls of congress. I see the same forces pushing for the same result in regard to the war on "islamo-fascism" but fortunately the "white flag Dems" don't seem to have as much power this time around and there is an alternative media that started showing up around 20 years ago that gives concerned citizens a place to go if they don't trust the mainstream.

I would also note that this is not a war on "terror". Terror is a tactic. This is a war against "islamo-fascism". Islamo-fascism has been around since the 7th Century AD when Muhammed was still cutting off heads and leading armies into battle (He actually wasn't liked or trusted in Mecca during his life time. He had to conquer it by military force in order to take control and establish it as a holy shrine). Those interested in the whys and wherefores of this very visceral struggle should go back and study the battle of Tours (sometime in the 10th century as I recall), the battle of Vienna 1529, the battles of Islamic expansionism that resulted in their ultimatly conquering most of what we now call the middle east and which was part of the disintegrating Roman Empire and which was populated for the most part by nestorian christians at the time, and, of course, the aftermath of the turkish and mongolian invasions which occurred starting in the middle of the first millenium after Christ and really didn't end until the treaty of Versaille following WWI. In fact the Turks never really left and they now control a nation we call "Turkey". It isn't called turkey because they eat a lot of large poultry. It's called turkey because it was conquered first by the Seljuk Turks and then ultimately controlled by the Ottoman Turks for roughly 5 centuries or so. Their seige and investment of what was then Constantinople in the mid 15th century was a huge setback for europe. After ransacking the place and killing all the remaining byzantines in the city the turkish emperor renamed the city istanbul. The turks were originally a nomad people from the eurasian steppes. They were and still are good soldiers. They pretty much all converted to islam during their occupation of what we now refer to as the Middle East.

But in my mind we aren't really at war with islamo-fascism. islamo-fascism is at war with us. This is an extremely important distinction.

Hence the notion, promulgated by all surrender monkeys, that we withdraw from Iraq and end the war now is not even a valid concept.


The only way this war will end is if the islamo-fascists capitulate and say that it has ended. We cannot end this war by declaring victory and then cutting off funds to the troops and forcing them to come home the way we did in Viet Nam. We must fight this one to the end and that is the only policy anyone truly interested in peace will support.

[leahcim_dahc]

...

It's politics in general that turns me off. Seems to be a bunch of mud slinging, back stabbing and fluff. Fluff meaning the politicians telling us exactly what we want to hear and doing the complete opposite. Honestly, I am not alone...look at overall voter turn out (those legally eligible to vote). Isn't really all that high...just a quick look at statistics I would say it averages anywhere from 50%-60% in any given year, some years higher...some lower. So with that said...40-50% of the voting population do not exercise their right to vote, as well. There must be a reason for that.


Chad

[Marc Martyn]

A very interesting discussion for sure. And once again Mr. Magler puts on a fine performance by expressing his views very convincingly and very eloquently even though I disagree with him and am totally on Bassackwards side on this issue. I read an article recently about the viet nam war. Author noted that archives have been found recently suggesting that Hanoi was only a couple months away from capitulation before the U.S. congress, under intense pressure from the jane fonda wing of the democratic party (e.g. the surrender monkeys), essentially forced our military to pick up it's ball and come home. No expert on military history that I've ever read views viet nam as a military defeat. We won the war militarily but lost it in the halls of congress. I see the same forces pushing for the same result in regard to the war on "islamo-fascism" but fortunately the "white flag Dems" don't seem to have as much power this time around and there is an alternative media that started showing up around 20 years ago that gives concerned citizens a place to go if they don't trust the mainstream.

I would also note that this is not a war on "terror". Terror is a tactic. This is a war against "islamo-fascism". Islamo-fascism has been around since the 7th Century AD when Muhammed was still cutting off heads and leading armies into battle (He actually wasn't liked or trusted in Mecca during his life time. He had to conquer it by military force in order to take control and establish it as a holy shrine). Those interested in the whys and wherefores of this very visceral struggle should go back and study the battle of Tours (sometime in the 10th century as I recall), the battle of Vienna 1529, the battles of Islamic expansionism that resulted in their ultimatly conquering most of what we now call the middle east and which was part of the disintegrating Roman Empire and which was populated for the most part by nestorian christians at the time, and, of course, the aftermath of the turkish and mongolian invasions which occurred starting in the middle of the first millenium after Christ and really didn't end until the treaty of Versaille following WWI. In fact the Turks never really left and they now control a nation we call "Turkey". It isn't called turkey because they eat a lot of large poultry. It's called turkey because it was conquered first by the Seljuk Turks and then ultimately controlled by the Ottoman Turks for roughly 5 centuries or so. Their seige and investment of what was then Constantinople in the mid 15th century was a huge setback for europe. After ransacking the place and killing all the remaining byzantines in the city the turkish emperor renamed the city istanbul. The turks were originally a nomad people from the eurasian steppes. They were and still are good soldiers. They pretty much all converted to islam during their occupation of what we now refer to as the Middle East.

But in my mind we aren't really at war with islamo-fascism. islamo-fascism is at war with us. This is an extremely important distinction.

Hence the notion, promulgated by all surrender monkeys, that we withdraw from Iraq and end the war now is not even a valid concept.


The only way this war will end is if the islamo-fascists capitulate and say that it has ended. We cannot end this war by declaring victory and then cutting off funds to the troops and forcing them to come home the way we did in Viet Nam. We must fight this one to the end and that is the only policy anyone truly interested in peace will support.

You know Littleriver, with your bountiful knowlege of everything, you should really be one of the experts in the Brookings Institute. Of course that may not work afterall. They want intellectuals that can view the world with an open mind. "White flag Dems" & "Surrender Monkeys" are terms that are used by under educated, narrow minded buffoons.

So, you should tell us about your past military involvement.

[littleriver]

4 years air force during the viet nam conflict. Honorable discharge at the rank of 1Lt.

However, I don't consider myself to be a particularly good soldier in the classical sense of the term. I'm probably not obedient enough and that's also why I would never last to long at any of the foundations or think tanks. At those kinds of places a certain level of compliance to some established doctrine is always required and I find this kind of requirement to be quite stifling. That said though, I spend a fair amount of time "defending the honor" of our servicemen on left wing blogs (reddit, digg, and places like that) and believe me the terms "surrender monkey" and "white flag dems" are not out of line at all. In fact I really wish I had been smart enough to figure out what was going on during the vietnam conflict and been able to introduce them into the public discourse back then.

These terms are even mild in comparison to what was being used when I was in uniform (i.e. John Kerry's depiction of the U.S. military being no better than the savages commanded by Ghenghis Khan, and he didn't even pronounce Ghenghis right... the correct pronounciation is "Chingis"). You may recall the "winter soldier" conferences and that kind of thing as these were always in the news back in the early 70s.


I think the cruelest most dishonorable thing one can do to our servicemen is to find people who lie about or distort their service and their contribution to our nation's defense and then push them to the front of our public debate. That was what the "winter soldier" campaign did and the "surrender monkeys" are using all the same old tactics again in their campaign against our legitimate right to defend ourselves against the islamo-fascists.


It still really irritates me that nobody would defend us back in those days. Here we were risking our lives to defend our country and the people in the media and in the halls of congress and in academia respond by dehumanizing us like we were the enemy. And I still feel a sense of alienation from our nation's social and cultural processes because of the experience.



But enough of the whiny stuff... back to the blogs. What's happening on these blogs and in the public discourse on iraq now is simply "war fought by other means". In this kind of battle I seem to excel because a very high level of creativity and mental juxiposition is required. This is the exact opposite of what is required to be a good soldier in more conventional types of warfare.

I'll even go further and suggest that if you really care about our troops and the sacrifices they are making right now even as we debate the issue from the comfort of our middle class homes that you will start spending some time injecting your views into the public discourse. I don't think that means following Cindy Sheehan around in a combat ready Hummer but growing a thick skin and then wading into the debates as they now rage on the various blogs hosted by newspapers and political action groups, writing letters to the editor, and getting the odd communication off to a political type are all great ways to sort of "put your money where your mouth is" for those who support our troops.



And to sort of show you all how it's done, I'll include the text of a short letter to the editor I wrote that was published in the local paper about a month ago..... it was in response to a front page story about local "peace" activists and their "struggle".

----------------------------------------------------------------

To the editor: "Five Years for Peace." Give me a break.

If one is to be dignified and self glorified by the moniker "peace activist," then one should be required to promote a plan that has some chance of achieving the stated objective. Lela McNutt and her friends have no plan other than unilateral withdrawal.

That's not "peace," that's "surrender." These people aren't peace activists, they are surrender monkeys!!.... blah, blah, blah

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to be effective you need to use words that invoke strong emotions. War is an extension of politics and political issues are defined by emotion not reason. It always comes down to emotion. learn how to work the emotions in your favor. That's what the "anti Amerika" crowd does when they use spokespersons like cindy sheehan to promote their cause. they are working your emotion. On that kind of battlefield only those who respond with strong emotional accusations and arguments that directly counter the emotions invoked by the other side will be successful.


In america today "silence means concurrence"..... I'm not asking you to agree with everything I say (even I sort of wonder about some of the things I say sometimes) I'm just asking you to follow the debate and to not be silent. Your country and the brave soldiers who are fighting for your freedoms are depending on you.

[Marc Martyn]

There is a new equation in the formula now:

By MATTHEW PENNINGTON, AP
Sat Nov 3, 7:28 PM EDT

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan —
Gen. Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan's constitution and deployed troops in the capital Saturday, declaring that rising Islamic extremism had forced him to take emergency measures. He also replaced the nation's chief justice and blacked out the independent media that refused to support him.

Authorities began rounding up opposition politicians, cut phone lines in the capital and took all but the state television station off air despite calls from Washington and other Western allies not to take authoritarian measures.

The U.S. called for Musharraf to restore democracy. However, the Pentagon said the emergency declaration does not affect U.S. military support for Pakistan and its efforts in the war on terrorism. Britain said it was deeply concerned.

[littleriver]

I'm actually kind of surprised that this didn't happen sooner. Musharrif has never been able to get control of the northern provinces where Bin Laden is hiding and most will hopefully recall that the "Taliban" evolved from pakistani madrases. "Taliban" means student (or something close to that) and the taliban were kids who had been educated by radical clerics in Pakistan's madrases.


Biggest problem with losing pakistan is that pakistan, unlike Iran, is already a nuclear power. Or at least we think it is.

How many bombs they have and what kind of delivery systems they have are still unanswered questions in my mind.

This news is not unexpected but it is, at the same time, not good.

It may almost be time for old folks like us to re-enlist and go to war. Right now the maximum age for enlistment, or re-enlistment, in the army is 36. In a national emergency that would probably be waived though.

[cavdad45]

I am not sure that I agree with all the reasons we initially went to war in Iraq over. However, we are there now and our future military strategy has to be based on the now and the furure, not the past. I cannot believe that people who are in such command of the English language and to such a great job in explaning their points can be so ignorant in the realm of foreign affairs and Islamic history. It is not a religion of peace that our Dems and media want us to believe. Their own Koran abdicates murder of all nonbelievers. Look at 9-11, can't you see what we are up against?

So what do we do now? Quit? Go home crying over the President not dictating an exit strategy? Look every time we kill one of those Muslim POS's in Iraq, that is one less Muslim coming across our unsecure borders with a bomb strapped around his waist walking into McDonalds. Or one less terrorist planning an attack at Seahawks Stadium. I thank God for every dead terrorist we kill on a daily basis in Iraq. By the way, look who we are exterminating in Iraq, most are not Iraqi, the vast majority are trained terrorists whose mission has been diverted to Iraq instead of their intended targets in America. WAKE UP!!!

Quit your petty squawbling over who says what and why and get behind America as we face down and exterminate the greatest threat to America since WWII. Do you want a mission, Magler? WIN THE WAR!!! Same mission we had in WWII. And Marc, we should back the Pakistani government's martial law policy. They can't allow nuclear weapons to be compromised and fall into AlQuida's hands. Publicly we may condemn the act, but I am quite sure that we have used back channel diplomacy to encourage the Pakistani crackdown on Islamo-facists.

Little River, great points!! You are absolutely right.

It's so hard to believe that Americans want to quit and go home. Wave the white flag and surrender. What a stupid policy.

[leahcim_dahc]

It's so hard to believe that Americans want to quit and go home. Wave the white flag and surrender. What a stupid policy.

When this thing kicked off one of the major concerns was how long the general population was going to go along with the "mission". We all knew it was going to take time.

You know that, I know that..."they" know that. Draw it out long enough and people will want the joe's to come home. In my eye's...and I am willing to bet that's exactly what the insurgents want. If we pack up and go home...we have lost. And I don't mean a combat related loss...I am meaning a loss in general. Giving up...giving in, and showing those that choose to fight by means that are both immoral and illegal (Geneva Conventions, Rules of Land Warfare, Military Commissions Act, etc., etc.) can prolong or draw out a conflict long enough that we will eventually just quit. This in of itself empowers those that choose to use terror against innocent men, women and children as a tool to further their causes.


Chad

[bassackwards]

WOW...I think hell is getting a little more "chilly"....Littleriver agreed with me....GAME OVER!!! (I still think you're wrong about the windmills though...LOL....I'm JUST KIDDING "LR" )

Great points Cavdad and Littleriver, I agree with the two of you 1,000,000% even if I don't know what half the words that LittleRiver uses mean (I guess that qualifies me as a "good soldier" by default).

As bad as this may sound, I think we need to be attacked here at home about every 2 years or so just so those bleeding-heart liberal *bleep* can pull their head out of their A** and appreciate what our troops are doing over there. I for one DO know and appreciate it, as I've said before. I can't even begin to imagine the level of courage that has to be displayed when a 18 yr. old man or women, who's just graduated high school, walks into a recruiting office and says "I'd like to enlist". They KNOW they will see combat, the KNOW how unpopular this war is at home, they KNOW that they may end up giving their life for their country AND THEY DO IT ANYWAY!!!!! That's called COURAGE, look it up in the dictionary, I doubt it says anything that I just listed.

I just urge all of you, for or against the war, to THINK about our nation and think about YOUR own life. Would YOU step up if called and fight for your freedom??? Don't be "computer tough" and hide behind your screen and throw out big words and quotes that you've heard on T.V........do something!!!!! Voting is your chance to DO SOMETHING...don't get caught up in the word game that these politicians play. Research their past voting record and pick the one that fits your way of thinking.

If another 9/11 type attack were to happen (I pray to God it never does) would YOU (Mr. Magler & friends) be willing to give up your 9-5 job, like a lot of the active duty military did, and go to war????

"Be a man of action or get the heck out of the way"

P.S. I found my ball and decided to stay and play :bball:

[cavdad45]

bassackwards, just a personal note on my son's military enlistment. He was a three-year starter in football, three-years district first team and all state his Jr. and Sr. year of high school. He was recruited for college ball, but felt that serving in the Army, especially in these times, was more important than playing football. I backed him in his decision to wait on college, though I see some of his teammates and competitors playing on Saturdays.

Sacrifice built this nation, not surrender. Quitting is un-American. Losers quit.

[bassackwards]

bassackwards, just a personal note on my son's military enlistment. He was a three-year starter in football, three-years district first team and all state his Jr. and Sr. year of high school. He was recruited for college ball, but felt that serving in the Army, especially in these times, was more important than playing football. I backed him in his decision to wait on college, though I see some of his teammates and competitors playing on Saturdays.

Sacrifice built this nation, not surrender. Quitting is un-American. Losers quit.

Men of character and courage like your son is what makes us the greatest country on the face of the earth. I put your son in the same sentence as Pat Tillman and others like him that have GIVEN something to their country instead of just TAKING.

Honestly, I have no other words. You should be VERY proud of yourself and your son, after all, he learned it from someone and I wouldn't look to far my friend. God Bless you and your family. I pray that he returns home safe.

[cavdad45]

bassackwards, just a personal note on my son's military enlistment. He was a three-year starter in football, three-years district first team and all state his Jr. and Sr. year of high school. He was recruited for college ball, but felt that serving in the Army, especially in these times, was more important than playing football. I backed him in his decision to wait on college, though I see some of his teammates and competitors playing on Saturdays.

Sacrifice built this nation, not surrender. Quitting is un-American. Losers quit.

Men of character and courage like your son is what makes us the greatest country on the face of the earth. I put your son in the same sentence as Pat Tillman and others like him that have GIVEN something to their country instead of just TAKING.

Honestly, I have no other words. You should be VERY proud of yourself and your son, after all, he learned it from someone and I wouldn't look to far my friend. God Bless you and your family. I pray that he returns home safe.

Thanks. It means alot more than you know.

[Mr. Magler]

Quit your petty squawbling over who says what and why and get behind America as we face down and exterminate the greatest threat to America since WWII. Do you want a mission, Magler? WIN THE WAR!!! Same mission we had in WWII. And Marc, we should back the Pakistani government's martial law policy. They can't allow nuclear weapons to be compromised and fall into AlQuida's hands. Publicly we may condemn the act, but I am quite sure that we have used back channel diplomacy to encourage the Pakistani crackdown on Islamo-facists.

I certainly don't think we should cut and run at this point. I never said that. We helped to create a giant mess in someone else's country, and it would be completely irresponsible to leave now. I realize that this War is going to drag on for a very long time. That's exactly why I'm so frustrated with this Adminstration. They're the ones that believed this would be quick and easy. Oh, how terribly wrong they were. They so blindly believed it that they flew W onto an aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished" only 2 months after we invaded Iraq. This was before finding a single WMD and failing to capture Suddam.

Win the war you say? I assume you mean the War On Terror, right? "Terror" is not a country. "Terror" is a way of life for muslim extremists. They are irrational people that use propoganda and false information to recruit young muslims to their terrorist orginations. It is going to take something other than invading Iraq to thwart terrorism. Terrorism is the world's problem, not just ours. Terrorism must be fought through Intelligence and special forces with the help of our Allies throughout the world. We will never win the War On Terror by just maintaining a post in Iraq and hoping that all the terrorists of the world will just drop in for a fight against our military. These are psychotic cowards that would rather kill innocent civilians than fight against the best armed forces in the world.

The problem is that we went against the UN by invading Iraq, and in doing so have alienated much of the world and lost the support of many of our Allies.

We need to stay in Iraq to help rebuild the country. Once we've done that, we will be able to withdraw most of our troops. We will still not have won the War. The War is on terrorism. This is a war that can never be won. Just like there will always be psycho serial killers, there will always be terrorists. However, I do feel that we can make the world much safer from terrorism if we can rally the world around the War On Terror.

The sad thing is that while we're rebuilding someone else's country, we are exhausting so much of our military and financial resources that we are now more vulnerable than ever to other serious threats like Iran and North Korea.

It's time for a change in foreign policy in the White House. Unlike so many thick-headed people I've heard in this forum, I don't care if that change comes from a Republican or Democrat. We just need someone that is intelligent enough to appoint the best advisers who are more concerned with our Country's security than their party's interests.

For the record, I always vote. You're crazy if you don't.

[Marc Martyn]

WOW...I think hell is getting a little more "chilly"....Littleriver agreed with me....GAME OVER!!! (I still think you're wrong about the windmills though...LOL....I'm JUST KIDDING "LR" )

Great points Cavdad and Littleriver, I agree with the two of you 1,000,000% even if I don't know what half the words that LittleRiver uses mean (I guess that qualifies me as a "good soldier" by default).

As bad as this may sound, I think we need to be attacked here at home about every 2 years or so just so those bleeding-heart liberal bastards can pull their head out of their A** and appreciate what our troops are doing over there. I for one DO know and appreciate it, as I've said before. I can't even begin to imagine the level of courage that has to be displayed when a 18 yr. old man or women, who's just graduated high school, walks into a recruiting office and says "I'd like to enlist". They KNOW they will see combat, the KNOW how unpopular this war is at home, they KNOW that they may end up giving their life for their country AND THEY DO IT ANYWAY!!!!! That's called COURAGE, look it up in the dictionary, I doubt it says anything that I just listed.

I just urge all of you, for or against the war, to THINK about our nation and think about YOUR own life. Would YOU step up if called and fight for your freedom??? Don't be "computer tough" and hide behind your screen and throw out big words and quotes that you've heard on T.V........do something!!!!! Voting is your chance to DO SOMETHING...don't get caught up in the word game that these politicians play. Research their past voting record and pick the one that fits your way of thinking.

If another 9/11 type attack were to happen (I pray to God it never does) would YOU (Mr. Magler & friends) be willing to give up your 9-5 job, like a lot of the active duty military did, and go to war????

"Be a man of action or get the hell out of the way"

P.S. I found my ball and decided to stay and play :bball:

I am a bit surprised that you being a moderator on this site that you would use inappropriate language and also post in such an aggressive manner.

[leahcim_dahc]

The problem is that we went against the UN by invading Iraq, and in doing so have alienated much of the world and lost the support of many of our Allies.

The only real reason I can see is the UN Security Council passed a resolution back in '01 authorizing the use of military force in the event Iraq (willfully) did not comply with previous resolutions. They're were/are simply pissed off because they couldn't back pedal fast enough to get the wording of the resolution changed to give themselves more power in that process. Passing such a resolution at that point made the U.N. irrelevant. There were numerous resolutions wrote up by the Security Council plainly stating all countries will do what it takes to put a halt to terrorism...some of those countries decided it would be too much work and backed out. Either way you look at it...the U.S. found a loop hole in that resolution and did and continue to do what is necessary to get the job done.

Below is a little reading for those interested...or not.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing s

[bassackwards]

WOW...I think hell is getting a little more "chilly"....Littleriver agreed with me....GAME OVER!!! (I still think you're wrong about the windmills though...LOL....I'm JUST KIDDING "LR" )

Great points Cavdad and Littleriver, I agree with the two of you 1,000,000% even if I don't know what half the words that LittleRiver uses mean (I guess that qualifies me as a "good soldier" by default).

As bad as this may sound, I think we need to be attacked here at home about every 2 years or so just so those bleeding-heart liberal bastards can pull their head out of their A** and appreciate what our troops are doing over there. I for one DO know and appreciate it, as I've said before. I can't even begin to imagine the level of courage that has to be displayed when a 18 yr. old man or women, who's just graduated high school, walks into a recruiting office and says "I'd like to enlist". They KNOW they will see combat, the KNOW how unpopular this war is at home, they KNOW that they may end up giving their life for their country AND THEY DO IT ANYWAY!!!!! That's called COURAGE, look it up in the dictionary, I doubt it says anything that I just listed.

I just urge all of you, for or against the war, to THINK about our nation and think about YOUR own life. Would YOU step up if called and fight for your freedom??? Don't be "computer tough" and hide behind your screen and throw out big words and quotes that you've heard on T.V........do something!!!!! Voting is your chance to DO SOMETHING...don't get caught up in the word game that these politicians play. Research their past voting record and pick the one that fits your way of thinking.

If another 9/11 type attack were to happen (I pray to God it never does) would YOU (Mr. Magler & friends) be willing to give up your 9-5 job, like a lot of the active duty military did, and go to war????

"Be a man of action or get the hell out of the way"

P.S. I found my ball and decided to stay and play :bball:

I am a bit surprised that you being a moderator on this site that you would use inappropriate language and also post in such an aggressive manner.

There...I've edited myself for our younger viewers... I'm sure they've NEVER heard that at school

Sorry, my "aggression" has surprised and offended you....aren't you a Moderator too Marc????

This is getting pretty silly if you ask me.

[Marc Martyn]

Thank you. Yes I am a moderator.

[Mr. Magler]

The Press Secretary is a President-appointed spokesperson for the Administration. In other words, he writes Public Relations documents. His sole job is to make the President's decisions seem like the right thing to do. Try reading actual reports directly from the UN Security Council meetings, and from actual weapons inspectors that were in Iraq. For example, the international press release from the UN's March 7, 2003 meeting (just days before we invaded Iraq) which discusses the progress of the weapons inspections in Iraq. In that meeting the two chief weapons inspectors said that Iraq had no capabilities of producing WMD's, and were disarming what they had. This was based on hundreds of unannounced inspections of hundreds of sites above and below ground, interviews with defectors of the Suddam regime, 24-hour satellite surveillance, and countless other proactive inspection methods. The inspections were working. Complete disarmament was going to take time, but it was working. Instead of sticking with what was working, this administration used fear to sell our country on war. Suddam was talking a big game, but we had the evidence to prove that he was all talk. We completely disregarded that fact, and let a cowardly bully talk us into war.

The President and his cabinet were dead wrong. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. We have barely even found 150km missiles there, let alone WMD's.

Ok. So the lack of WMD's in Iraq is old news, but it does highlight just how inept this admistration has been. So they were wrong about that, but what about the idea of terrorists existing in Iraq? Of course there are terrorists there, along with every other country in the middle east. So once we were done with this WMD nonsense, why didn't we send more troops into all of the middle eastern countries that harbored terrorists? Oh yeah, because we had all of our troops in one place, rebuilding the country we just bombed!

Now we have to waste all of our time and money in Iraq, while terrorists are safely conducting their business elsewhere. Plotting their next move. If it's National Security you're for, then ask yourself if you really feel more secure since we invaded Iraq. I sure don't.

[cavdad45]

1. The American people should NEVER surrender our ability to make decisions that affect our security. Our first alliance is to the American people, not the UN. The UN at best is a model of impotence and indecision. The interests of the UN are usually slanted against the United States. We should pull out of the UN and as we are the major interest holder in funding. Then redirect those resources against our enemies. The UN would be gone in 60 days.

2. Mr. Magler continues to harp and cry over WMD's. Maybe what you expected to find were not there. You say we can't cut and run, but you continue to moan about our inability to win a war on terror. So what may I ask is your profound solution if its not surrendering Iraq?

3. By being in Iraq, we have brought AlQueda to a battlefield on Islamic turf rather than being on the defensive waiting for their next move. I agree that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 because he was not considered by the Islamo-facists to be an ally. But now AlQueda is there and we are killing them on Muslim soil. We have brought the fight to their backyard instead of our backyard.


So you tell me, what is your grand solution other than railing against our President and our Nations leaders. If cut and run is not your plan what is it? Continued bickering that in essence is anti-American and at worst is giving aid and comfort to our nation's enemies. Better yet, get out of your engineering cubicle and give something back to the nation that opened up so many doors for you including giving you the right to bad-mouth the American government and the American way of life. WHAT DO PROPOSE, SIR???

[cavdad45]

and let a cowardly bully talk us into war.

By the way, you do not have the right to call the President of the United States a coward. How dare you! Spoken by an individual who has never served in the Armed Forces of the United States. Never made decisions that would affect the lives of others. Until you can show a little courage under fire, you have no right to Monday morning, armchair quarterbacking our military or foreign policy. You haven't earned it.

And you have no right whatsoever to call anyone a coward until you have passed the test of courage.