Sweet irony

Sweet irony

If Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia...why didn't the Saudis take preemptive action?

They did - they called us.

So you THINK Iraq may have helped terrorists somehow at sometime.

Does direct monetary payment to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers count? I know we're not their direct target, but that's one example of Saddam helping terrorists. Do you think he would not take every opportunity he could to get us? BTW, the UN is working to make itself obsolete. It can huff and puff all it wants, but until it's ready to throw down to back up its demands, it's a paper tiger that anyone can thumb its nose at. Look at Iran being more receptive to nuclear inspections now. It would not have been if the USA wasn't on two of its borders. That makes the world a safer place already. Hopefully, if we can set a good example of democracy in Iraq that can be followed by its neighbors, no other countries will be invaded. I know, that's a big hope given some of the gaffs we've made since the invasion, but things _still_ can turn out right. Brian

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

YES I have served in the military in Vienam. To imply that I do not like the US because I disagree with some of our policies is an insult to me AND the democratic process!

[David Abramowitz]

Sweet irony

Joe Pluta wrote: the truth is that we did NOT go to war over WMD I hate to split hairs over semantics, and that is the truth, but it just does not jive with the facts. One needs to shift their memory back to a good year to six months prior to the bombing. In fact the only justification given to the world for military action was WMD, and the WMD message was repeated over and over. The WMD message was presented by Colin Powell to the UN. The president issued the edict that "He was sure there were WMDs in Iraq" There were also many insinuations that the weapons inspectors were incompetent, and/or not doing their jobs the way they should have. Every day, it was WMD WMD WMD. Many in congress who would have been opposed to the war, were convinced that there was a WMD threat, and voted for military action, based solely upon a threat to the nation from WMDs. It is easy to leave that behind at this point since the administration has not been mentioning WMDs at all as of late. If the rationalization of military action can be justified due to dictatorship, despotism and demaguogery, then that should have been stated from the beginning. My feelings are that if we are to put our boys in harms way, we better be ultra-honest with our reasons. Dave

Sweet irony

For the UN to be run by a democratic process would require those running the place to be democratic process believers and practictioners. Which I don't think you will find much of either. Do you think that when China votes they do it with democratic wishes? How about France? North Korea? If the process at the UN was run by the people of those countries ( or as in the case of the US, duly elected representatives) instead of their despotic or communist or socialist leaders then you would have a democratic or similar process. What exists now is anything but democratic. Or do you believe the corruption of the Oil for whatever it was program in Iraq that was perpurtrated on the people of Iraq by the UN a process that you would like to be practiced on you? Do you really want a bunch of dictators telling you what to do? Have you ever served in the military? Do you understand why we have one? Would you want to give ours up for UN protection? Do you like the USA? There are people lined up to get in, very few lined up to leave and go to those countries that the UN leaders are from. I'm just trying to understand you, you may very well love your country and just have trouble with the war. Some of the people I have been exposed to who have trouble with the war, seem to have trouble with my country too. signed a peacetime volunteer who believes in the big stick

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

WOW, removing the UN. Sounds like you think the US should be running the world. I wonder what the rest of the world thinks about that? Isn't the UN run by a "democratic" process? similar to the one that we want to install all around the world???? Yes, I was aware that Patton wanted to invade Russia. What a great precident that would set for turning on your allies after they helped you fight a major war. That will make everyone want to help us in the next conflict. If Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia...why didn't the Saudis take preemptive action? So you THINK Iraq may have helped terrorists somehow at sometime. Wow, that sounds like a great justification for invading another coountry. What is the next country on our list to invade that MIGHT be aiding terrorists in some form or fashion?

Sweet irony

You were the one that brought Hitler into this. The current situation is exactly what Brian said, a continuation of the invasion of Kuwait and its aftermath. And the reason it wasn't concluded at that time was to satisfy the same demands you have now ( to just give peace a chance) it never works, not then, not now, not 1941, not 1939, not ever. The reason you have these situations is that you have non game players that don't play by the rules you would allow them to use. They may tell you they will and if that feels good to you, so be it. But the only way to stop aggression is to use more aggression and stop it. If I am wrong in my thinking (and I could be) name one instance of a brutal dictator being stopped by diplomacy? (Stopping for a day or two, when the inspectors are invited in doesn't count)Just one. And Hitler gassed his own citizens, was that okay? Hussein gassed his own citizens, was that okay? History is brutal teacher.

Sweet irony

Chris: you stated "If we had wanted to deal with Iraq, that was the time to do it. I understand that there were reasons why we didn't but none of that justifies our current invasion of Iraq." Did you know that General Patton wanted to continue his invasion of europe and "take care" of the soviets BUT the DEMOCRATIC leadership WOULD NOT LET HIM?!?!?! All I can say is that we "followed the UNITED NATIONS criteria in 1990." That criteria told us (The USA) to only remove the invaders from Kuwait. Since the UN has been proven to be a WORTHLESS organization whose ONLY PURPOSE is to waste perfectly good real estate in NYC, we (The USA) did what needed to be done. PERIOD. If General Patton had been allowed to conquer the USSR, I firmly believe we would never have had the "cold war" nor would we be subjected to the useless and worthless will of the "UN". So, Presindent Bush did what Roosevelt would not allow Patton to do. HE HAD THE MILITARY TAKE CARE OF THE PROBLEM. That in itself "justifies our current invasion of Iraq" your words not mine. I have been to NYC, I have seen Ground Sero. I have talked with several NYPD and FDNY personnel who lost family on 9/11. I have heard the pain in their voices, seen the grieve in their eyes, felt the pain that they bear every day. Hussein, I am sure, contributed to the terriorists. Not directly, but though some manner. the invasion WAS JUSTIFIED. PERIOD. The ultimate justification was proven Saturday. History will show that. Just like history showed that we had to nuke IMPERIAL Japan. Otherwise SEVERAL THOUSAND US personel would have perished. Imagine if we had taken care of Hussein, went to Afghanistan and continue to look for Ben Laden. Who knows, your name perhaps would be on a memorial somewhere. Believe what you want, I do. The world is better today. It will be better once we remove the UN.

Sweet irony

Saddam's Iraq also invaded Iran, and was purportedly going to go for Saudi Arabia as well. Googling, I found this re: Iraq & Iran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War Our current invasion of Iraq is an extension of the first invasion. We held back then (a wise decision at the time, I believe), but Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the UN and international law and played brinksmanship and lost. Someone had to step up to the plate on the enforcement side. Brian

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

Hitler is really not a good model to use for justifying our invasion of Iraq. Hitler invaded other countries, as far as I know, the only invasion that Iraq instigated was in Kuwait and we took care of that. We were happy to leave Hitler alone as long as he stayed within his own borders. If we had wanted to deal with Iraq, that was the time to do it. I understand that there were reasons why we didn't but none of that justifies our current invasion of Iraq.

Sweet irony

Hitler proved the only way to take care of brutal dictators is the one that uses more brutality and force than they have. You can have brutality and force for a long time if you do nothing, or you can choose how long you want to endure that kind of thing by the amount of force you choose to exert in the short run. Ask the WWII Japanese rulers if the amount of force isn't inversely proportional to the will to continue. Ask Neville Chamberlain about hoping all countries get along.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

I am categoricaly FOR people being able to live free of the fear that they may be systematicaly tortured and killed. So, why aren't we invading all the other countries where the dictators are systematicaly killing their own people? As much as I like living in a democracy and will fight to preserve our way of life...I can't say categorically that democracy is for everyone. To presume that it is, is....presumptious. We assume that democracy will give people a better way of life and self determination but remember that democracy elected Adolph Hitler. There are no guantees. It IS my hope that all countries will eventually be democratic and that people can live without fear but there are other ways to go about this short of military invasion.

Sweet irony

Add to that the chance to give democracy (aka self determination) to a part of the world that doesn't enjoy it now. If we can give people more control over their own destinies, that will help clean up the breeding ground for terrorism and increase the safety of the world. I'm in for that. Better than burying our collective heads in the sand.

[J.Pluta]

Sweet irony

You say "some of us are against this war for many reasons," but the only reason I hear, over and over, is that the Bush administration "lied" about WMD. While I personally think they were stupid to overhype the WMD angle, the truth is that we did NOT go to war over WMD. We went for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Hussein was gassing his own people. As to the WMD, it is public record that Iraq had WMD, but we don't know where they went. There are no records outlining their destruction, as was necessary to comply with UN resolutions. That's what the inspections were all about. But more importantly, Hussein was systematically raping, torturing and murdering his own people. If you feel that's not enough for a coalition of free nations to go in and stop him, then you and I have some different ideas on what "free" means. Freedom is a responsibility, and you can only keep it by striving to give it to others. Anyway, I won't convince you, I'm sure. But I can tell you that, WMD or no WMD, I am perfectly happy that we wiped out the Taliban and deposed Hussein. And if another dictator as bloody and brutal as Hussein shows up, I hope we do the same. Joe

Sweet irony

Chris asked: "2) If the Iraqi people are not civilized, as you state above, and that is a requirement for democracy and we won't leave until they have a democratic government...aren't we going to be there an awefully long time?" We have 2 choices: 1) be there a long time. 2) Leave the country and let it fall into disarray. As typical Americans we'll probably do #2. Presidents are bound by the popularity poll and Americans, in general, have little staying power and want instant results. Eventually we'll elect a president who will yank the troups and create a vacuum that will be filled with a very nasty result. Chris stated: "The premise that took us into Irag was that they had WMD. We already know that the intelligence community lied and the Bush administration lied to justify invading Iraq. Since all of this was based on lies...I find it difficult to understand why so many people still think we are justified in being there." That may have been the popular reason for invading Iraq. Personally, the fact that they were killing more than 3,000 children per month was very disturbing, not to mention the massive killing of the Turks. I truly believe that Hussein was a Hitler in the making. He already had started moving in and encroaching on his neighbors (need I remind you of Kuwait?) just as all expananist dictators want to do. And once he acquired nuclear weapons Isreal, and other countries, would be doomed. Of course, just like in 1939, no one could prove this. But lest we learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[cwscholbe@dstsystems.com]

Sweet irony

Some of us are against this war for many reasons. 1) Yes, Saddam is a bad guy...but what about all the other bad guys running countries. Are we going to invade all the soveriegn countries that are run by bad guys? 2) If the Iraqi people are not civilized, as you state above, and that is a requirement for democracy and we won't leave until they have a democratic government...aren't we going to be there an awefully long time? 3) I won't even get into the WMD that we haven't found. 4) The premise that took us into Irag was that they had WMD. We already know that the intelligence community lied and the Bush administration lied to justify invading Iraq. Since all of this was based on lies...I find it difficult to understand why so many people still think we are justified in being there. Just my opinion Chris Scholbe