A Call for Reason

"Nuke Meeca"? Holy crap!

Bush and his croonies about to start a war that could trigger a global confrontation! Millions of lives (living breathing people... human beings) could be lost.

Saudi Arabi is the country that the majority of the 9/11 pilots came from, but no plans to invade there.

Syria has sponsered more terrorisim that Iraq could ever hope to, but no plans to do anything about them.

This is pure and simple a Bush family vendetta, coupled with a need to grab more oil.

I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

Violence should always be the last option.

I cannot believe how many bloodthirsty posts I see on a Star Trek board. A place where people who love a show about peace and tolerance are supposed to be gathering.

Everytime someone not American speaks out against this stuff, the usual round of name calling and crapping on them abounds.

The minute any of them say anything about Americans we get the usual round of defensive postering and indignance.

Holy crap on a cracker can't we all just back up a bit and take a breath?

Remember one simple thing. Religion, skin color and nationality are all things that we use to divide us. But at the end of the day, shoot any one of us and we all bleed red.

Not everyone wants to kill America, just like not all Americans want to kill everyone who disagrees with America.

Whe youa re watching TV and see people burning American flags, remember the abject poverty most of these people live in. Most of them have a grade 5 or lower quality education.

They are as much victims of their countries propoganda machines as North Americans and Europeans are.

Please I ask all of you who are calling for blood, blood of your fellow man, to stop for two minutes and realize that violence begets violence... Only peace begets peace. When you shoot a man you don't make him see your point, you just end his life.

Ghandi understood that (go ahead and be as cynical about him as you want to be). Christ seemed to get it too. Both fo these men died for their believes, but they never killed for them.

After seeing Styro's post, I think the bit about nuking Mecca was a joke.

Don't take it to seriously Aslan.

Although it does seem like a Bush family vandetta.

Don't lump all of us Americans in the same group as those that say silly things like "nuke (insert name here)."

Most of us (Americans) are of a pretty even keel.

I think you're missing the point.

First, what's wrong with securing US's oil supply? It's vital to our national security. It's the current equivelent to securing a supply of fresh water or seaport access in earlier times.

I don't advocate invading Iraq because they are a different color, or a different religion... I advocate it becuase I feel that, properly executed and followed through, it will improve the safety and security of the United States.

I do not hate the Iraqi people, I don't hate Muslims, I don't hate Iraqi soldiers. I even feel a certain amout of respect for the 9/11 hijackers. Had they flown empty aircraft into those buildings I might be arguing that they were legitimate military targets... the Pentagon certainly was. And we SHOULD be withdrawing our support for Saudi Arabia. We don't need them, their bases, or their oil. We can get everything we need from Kuwait and other smaller nations in the region.

I fought the last Gulf War as a frontline combat soldier, a tanker in the 3rd Armor Division. I didn't hate the Iraqi soldiers then, in fact I felt sorry for them. I also killed them as quickly and efficiently as I could. If they were not OBVIOUSLY trying to surrender when I spotted them, they did not get the chance. Often, due to US night-vision technology, I was able to engage them before they even knew I was there... no opportunity to even attempt to surrender. Such is the nature of war.

My point is that I don't care if they see things my way, if they can be persuaded to our point of view. If they do someday, great... if not that's fine too. I realize that many Iraqis dislike Saddam, but until they are willing to rise up and overthrow him themselves they must accept the consequeses of having such a leader. Right now today Iraq represents a danger to the United States, it's citizens, and it's way of life. Anyone who fits that category becomes a potential target of the United States military.

When directed by competent authority, we will eliminate those targets rulthlessly. Not out of hate, not out of fear, not out of prejudice... but out of duty. It's nothing personal, I'm a professional. If we can do it without a single Iraqi casualty, that's great. If we inflict 10,000 casualties, that's OK too... the citizens of the next nation that decides to play hardball with the US and threaten her security might remember and persuade their leaders to take a more reasonable course... or install new leadership.

That should be the attitude the entire US takes with any situation where force must or might be employed. Not the first option, not the last option, but AN option, employed to best effect.


"Persuasive in peace, invincble in war"

You go calguard66!!!

That was one of the most intelligent things I have ever read.

Because of you, I am even MORE proud to be an American.

It is a privilege to be a part of a nation that is protected by honorable men like you.

Thank you.

I agree nuking Mecca is a bad idea.

Medina should be part of the bargain. :D


Not long after September 11th, I had a nightmare in which I was watching CNN:

They announced that the terrorists had just attacked Disneyworld. I saw Epcot Center on fire and dozens of small forms laying about.

Then somebody else rushed on camera and announced that Mecca, Baghdad, and Tehran had been vaporized.

Quote:

---

Saudi Arabi is the country that the majority of the 9/11 pilots came from, but no plans to invade there.

---

Don't be certain.

Quote:

---

Syria has sponsered more terrorisim that Iraq could ever hope to, but no plans to do anything about them.

---

Don't be certain.

Quote:

---

I may not be European, but maybe they have the right attitude about things, because they lived through two world wars. War is never, ever a good thing.

---

Started, THEN lived through. War is often better than surrender. Ask the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto.

Quote:

---

I cannot believe how many bloodthirsty posts I see on a Star Trek board. A place where people who love a show about peace and tolerance are supposed to be gathering.

---

Remember... some of us are Klingon fans?
How many Wars has the Federation fought?
Eugenics Wars
WW III
Romulan War
Klingon Wars/Skirmishes
Tholian Wars/ Skirmishes
Romulan Skirmishes
Cardassian War
2nd Klingon War
Dominion War
Tzenkethi War
Borg War
etc, etc, etc.

The Star Trek universe is not a peaceful one.

Quote:

---

Whe youa re watching TV and see people burning American flags, remember the abject poverty most of these people live in. Most of them have a grade 5 or lower quality education.

---

Poverty is not an automatic badge of Innocence, just as wealth is not an automatic badge of Evil.

Quote:

---

Please I ask all of you who are calling for blood, blood of your fellow man, to stop for two minutes and realize that violence begets violence... Only peace begets peace. When you shoot a man you don't make him see your point, you just end his life.

---

I'm just calling for the blood of their leaders. It's not my fault if they choose to fight and die for them rather than surrender.

Peace does NOT beget peace. How long would Ghandi have lasted against Adolf's boys?

When you shoot a man, sometimes you prevent him from carrying out his intent of shooting YOU.

Quote:

---

Ghandi understood that (go ahead and be as cynical about him as you want to be).

---

Ghandi again? Here's an applicable Ghandi quote, just for laughs"

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi

Sorry man, but you hung my munchkin.

Nice post, calguard66.

Once again, I'm with calguard on this one.

"Only peace begets peace." Nice sentiment, but untrue, as much as I might wish it were otherwise.

War was a natural state for man until fairly recently. The relative peace (LIC not withstanding) of the later 20th Century was secured by fear -- fear of nuclear weapons. Fear of violence, and the application of such when necessary, is the underpinning of international and national law.

War becomes necessary from time to time. Personally, I'd love if we took the leash off this guy -- let him run reckless for a few years -- then when people say "We should do something!" and look to the US, we bloody secure the whole region.

Well said both Aslan and Calguard.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
I realize that many Iraqis dislike Saddam, but until they are willing to rise up and overthrow him themselves they must accept the consequeses of having such a leader.

---

Except I wonder how well any of us would do, in their shoes. Fear is a powerful weapon, and I have no doubt that fear is one of Saddam's major weapons for maintaining power. I wonder, would any of us have the guts to stand up and fight his regime if we lived under it.

As has been pointed out by far more learned men than I, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. And by comparison to those who live under such regimes as Iraq's we do live in paradise. SOmething I think many of us too easily forget.

Oh I'm not saying there's any easy way through this, and I don't doubt that sooner or later this will result in yet more military action. I just wish there was another way, and I pity the people who will be caught in the middle, and likely suffer the most. And that includes both sides. I couldn't pick up a gun and go to war, but I have great respect for those who can. Or at least, the ones who deserve respect. The military has it's share of cretins just like everywhere else I guess.

Either way, I like to consider myself a practical pacifist. I don't like to fight, and I won't start a fight. But I do belive that if you are attacked you should defend yourself. Should we attack Iraq? I can't honestly say I have an answer. My common sense says probably, but my ethical self says no, find another way. Go figure.

I quite agree. I don't particularly WANT to go to Iraq again. I realize that the average Iraqi doesn't have a real chance of overthrowing Saddam.

HOWEVER... as an American my most fundamental belief is that a person is individually responsible for the form of government he lives under.

As I have posted often before, there are two acceptable outcomes when fighting for freedom: victory and death. The average Iraqi has little chance of the first, but the second is quite possible. I realize that they may be unwilling, for whatever reason, to risk death but they must then accept the consequences of their inaction, including the possibility of an American 500lb bomb dropping down the chimney.

I realize it's a lose-lose situation... but life isn't fair. I will not risk the security of the United States, or the life of a fellow soldier, to safeguard an Iraqi who is the root cause of our being there in the first place. I will avoid harming them if I can, but allowing human shields to disrupt military operations simply encourages their use.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the decision to use force must be a practical one... not made in anger, not made in fear. It must be dispassionate, it must be reasoned... and when the decision is made in favor of force, it must be executed professionally and firmly, but again without emotion.

Anger leads to mistakes, it leads to useless deaths, it leads to avoidable casualties, atrocity, loss of focus... it leads to defeat.

Remorse leads to hollow victories, unachived objectives, hesitation, and also defeat.... and the most useless deaths of all, on both sides: death without victory, soldiers' lives wasted on an inconclusive battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter
Well said both Aslan and Calguard.



Except I wonder how well any of us would do, in their shoes. Fear is a powerful weapon, and I have no doubt that fear is one of Saddam's major weapons for maintaining power. I wonder, would any of us have the guts to stand up and fight his regime if we lived under it.

As has been pointed out by far more learned men than I, it's easy to be a saint in paradise. And by comparison to those who live under such regimes as Iraq's we do live in paradise. SOmething I think many of us too easily forget.

Oh I'm not saying there's any easy way through this, and I don't doubt that sooner or later this will result in yet more military action. I just wish there was another way, and I pity the people who will be caught in the middle, and likely suffer the most. And that includes both sides. I couldn't pick up a gun and go to war, but I have great respect for those who can. Or at least, the ones who deserve respect. The military has it's share of cretins just like everywhere else I guess.

Either way, I like to consider myself a practical pacifist. I don't like to fight, and I won't start a fight. But I do belive that if you are attacked you should defend yourself. Should we attack Iraq? I can't honestly say I have an answer. My common sense says probably, but my ethical self says no, find another way. Go figure.

---

I was reading an article last night (sorry, it was off-line in a small-print local paper, so I can't give a lin) that was comparing several different polls taken in about the last two weeks amongst American regarding a potential invasion of Iraq. The combined results were rather fascinating:

Should we force a regime change in Iraq? Yes, about 65%

Is it acceptable to do this militarily? Yes, about 60%

Should we do this if the US goes it alone? Yes falls to about 46-50%.

Would you support this action if it required troops staying in Iraq a year? 5 years? 10 years? Yes goes to 60%, 50%, and 25% respectively.

Same question as above but with only US troops involved? Percentages go down 10-15%.

Do you believe the Bush Administration is divided on whether or not to invade Iraq? Yes, about 65%. (Many cited the apparent split between Rumsfeld and Powell on the topic.)

Do you believe the president should go to Congress and ask for voted support before such an invasion? Yes, about 70%

The general point of the article was this. It was not that we should NOT invade Iraq, but rather that the public support for such an invasion is highly conditional. Another thrust to the article was that Pres. Bush, if he wants to have home support for such an operation, needs to make a much stronger public case for the invasion.

I think this board knows my general opinion on this topic. For those in support of such an endeavour, it appears that Mr. Bush needs to go much more public than he already has. Otherwise he may will find quickly dwindling support for his efforts.

I know your points and feelings as a soldier all to well calguard and you have a honourable view on that. In other time one would have called it "knightly virtues" ;)

But being a soldier is not easy.
Well there is war there is the possibility that i have to send 100 soldiers to their death if ordered to do so. Some of them could be friends of mine. War is never fun. Ok true i am certainly not getting shot. Ok true i`ve never been in a trench sorrounded by Arty fire and odds are i will never be. Being an officer has advantages, but living with the decisions you have to make as an officer is not always easy.

Hmm perhaps we meet sometime in an maneuver. I`d love to discuss politics with you :)

Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

Yep, H&K all the way - why d'you think the SAS use them!

Now if we could just get a halfway decent rifle for our ordinary soldiers...

Cal, you always make good points about military force and its application. I agree if you're going to get into a war you should not fight piecemeal. However, your point about Iraqis not wanting to rebel and thus deserving the consequences of what happened is somewhat unsympathetic. Now, as an American, you have a historical example of a people rising up to overthrow an oppressive government, but there were advantages working on the American side - very little equipment gaps, large areas to hide out in, and an opposing force (the British Army) who were still used to fighting in line formation (about the most stupid thing you can do when faced with rifles). Even with the modern US citizen's Right to Bear Arms, I really don't think the American population would have much joy if they tried ousting a truly corrupt regime with an advanced military. The same applies to the Iraqis. And human nature means very few of us will take on a fight we know we can't win, unless we know we'll die either way. The Iraqis see they'll die if they stand up to Hussein, but if they wait it out and keep their heads down, they stay alive, perhaps hoping for a better government after he's dead. I wonder if anyone of us would react differently. I'd like to think I would, but then it's remarkably easy to say that from my comfy office chair here in a modern, democratic country...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66


I guess what I'm trying to say is that the decision to use force must be a practical one... not made in anger, not made in fear. It must be dispassionate, it must be reasoned... and when the decision is made in favor of force, it must be executed professionally and firmly, but again without emotion.

---

Oh I agree with that. A soldier on the battlefield must act in the best interests of himself and his force. I've never had a problem with that. If a soldier spends all his time worrying about the people they are shooting at, he and his companions will soon be dead. It's not nice, and I don't like it, but it's true and it's necessary.

My comment doesn't only apply on the battlefield. The same approach should be taken in the boxing ring or the Oval Office.

I agree that there is little chance for the average Iraqi... I agree that the option which maximizes survival is to lay low and hope both sides miss you.

My point is, if they choose that option they (and the rest of the world) have to accept what comes with it. They are placing their fate in the hands of others.

I restate my basic premise: Nobody can rule a group of people who absolutely refuse to be ruled. They can be killed, but they cannot be forced to submit.

For the pacifists, Ghandi is the perfect example.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt Daniel Hunter


Oh I agree with that. A soldier on the battlefield must act in the best interests of himself and his force. I've never had a problem with that. If a soldier spends all his time worrying about the people they are shooting at, he and his companions will soon be dead. It's not nice, and I don't like it, but it's true and it's necessary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
My comment doesn't only apply on the battlefield. The same approach should be taken in the boxing ring or the Oval Office.

---

Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street. It always annoys me when some poor cop, who has simply done his job, gets all the flak for killing the poor innocent civilian who pointed a replica or toy firearm at him. It sucks, but you can't expect the guy to take any chances with is or other people's lives.

Now that's not to say there aren't those who do make mistakes, and are at fault. That goes without saying. But society at large often doesn't seem to differentiate between the two.

Calguard: Your professional status may not allow you to state an opinion on the matter, but I have more faith overall in the Services, and their individual members, than I do the civilians giving the orders.

You're right, it doesn't.

However, I would point out that many people share your view.

As long as citizens sit on their @ss and fail to even show up at the polls, that situation will continue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ComaBoy
Calguard: Your professional status may not allow you to state an opinion on the matter, but I have more faith overall in the Services, and their individual members, than I do the civilians giving the orders.

---

This message has been removed on request by the
poster

I always rattle back and forth between ridiculous hope and bleak despair regarding humanity in general.

By preparing for conflict, we invoke conflict. By preparing for war, we engender war.

The problem is how to get beyond war?

There are some nice philosophical positions for how to achieve this, but none of them work in the "real world" (tm) because no one wants to let go of their toys first -- its always someone else who has to do it.

I have never seen soldiering as a noble profession. At times it is a necessary one, but ultimately it comes down to human beings killing other human beings. War happens because governments and individuals screw up, get greedy, or turn bully. Most of us, I believe, would say that war is something we all wish to avoid in the best of all possible worlds, but breaking the cycle is hard.

It's hard, if not impossible, to put the genie back inside the bottle or close Pandora's box.

And so, it seems, we are stuck with war because of greed. We just identify different kinds of greed to justify each given situation.

Will there be more wars in this world? Hell yes. Will many people die in them, including non-combatants? Ditto?

Is this morally correct? No.

But we have to live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Mappin
Don't lump all of us Americans in the same group as those that say silly things like "nuke (insert name here)."

Most of us (Americans) are of a pretty even keel.

---

Agrred, which is why I make sure to point out that I am talking about those who do these things and never say "All Americans". :) Heck I like lots of Yankees, even love a few ;)

In fact during a rant about America the LGT poked me and reminded me that she was from New Mexico.

I stopped thought about it and said... "You know how the sterotypical view of Texans by other Americans tends to be that they are a bunch of rednecked, racists, violent yahoos who like to shoot first and ask questions later and see themselves as above everyone else?" She couldn't helpd but say yes since I have heard many a tirade out of her about Texas. "That's how many other countries see America." I think she sort of got the point then.

Americans and America are not bad. Not evil and not the great Satan.

But there are far too many elements within your power base that are.

Hell I am Canadian, I don't for one second forget that we have what we have here because of your powerful neighbour who keeps us safe.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak
Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

---

Having done a little crosstraining: the H&K 36 is far superior to the M16, but I actually like the Steyr AUG a little better for urban stuff. The H&K USP is far superior to the Beretta -- which is a piece of dung. The SAW we use -- gimme a 7.62mm if I need an MG, not some half-assed almost machinegun. Don't know much about the tanks or ships, personally.

On another note: "Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street...." Sorry, SWAT teams should be an absolute last result; I don't like the idea of police with military weapons & tactics...unless I have access to them as well. Having been in law enforcement, my experience with SWAT are they're wanna-be special forces. Not a good thing on the city streets...

Ideally, I'd like to live to see the day we are no longer dependant on oil. I know it's a tall order.

Regarding Iraq, Saddam has got to go, despite the pleading of other nations (who I think it serve their interests in keeping Iraq status quo). Our interest is at stake here, and the possible threat of more trained terrorists originating from that place (we have evidence) to infiltrate and agitate us from our security is growing.

That and the fact that the fool have the audacity to publicly decree that he will pay surviving next of kins for their so-called "martyr" act!?!!! :mad:

Of course, the question is, can we Americans who should be the living examples of our own values and principles of the Constitution, afford to allow Iraq to take a step toward democracy and have the people elect their own leaders, even if there is a possibility of having an elected leader with an anti-US disposition? This hypothetical question assumes that we have already removed Saddam (which is not a matter of "if" but "when").

Of course it's a Bush Family vendetta: Aitch put Saddam Hussein (and Manuel Noriega) in power back when he was Nixon's CIA Director. The "War on Drugs" president was also responsible for Air America, a Vietnam-era opium-smuggling program which was used finance covert operations in Southeast Asia.

It's no wonder to me why Dubya is pursuing questionable agendas, especially with Cheney whispering in his ear...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

Hmm perhaps we meet sometime in an maneuver. I`d love to discuss politics with you :)

---

Perhaps, I will be returning to active duty at the end of September, and should be in Germany by January.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Surak

Btw: a question for you if you have ever been in an maneuver with Germans. My impression was: German planes; crap compared to yours. US tanks;crap compared to ours. German ships; crap compared to yours. US Rifle ( M16 meant); crap compared to German rifle (H&K G 36).

---

Well, I've fired both the US weapons you mention and the German equivelents (qualified for the Silver Shutsensneir (spelling?) last time I was stationed in Germany. I'm also a tanker (panzertruppen?), so I can speak to that as well:

German MG3 is far better than the M60 or M240, but the M240 is acceptable. M249 SAW is ok, but in every case where you would use one a real MG would be better.

German G36 is better than the M16A2, but the M16 is acceptable.

German P3 pistol is crap... M9 Barretta isn't much better. Give me an M1911... or better yet a .357 revolver.

Leopard II, M1A1 and Challenger are all roughly equal... only better tank is the Merkava. Challenger loses a few points because of the rifled gun, but I understand they are fixing that in the next version. It gains points due to it's crew comforts. Leo II is better mechanically, M1A1 has better electronics/ fire control.
M1A2 is slightly better than the 3 main tanks above, but still less than the Merkava. The independant commander's sight saves A LOT of time engaging targets. Electronic gizmos inside are nice, but also provide something else to break.

Well, you have to give this for the SAW: it takes 5.56 ammunition. Hell, you can even plug in an M16 clip.

I, for one, actually like the nine-mil. It's easy to assemble and Alot of other NATO troops use these IIRC. Then again, if I find myself using one, the mission is officially FUBAR.

By the way if you look over the posts on this board over time, have you noticed that alot of the centrist posters (ie: Calguard & Capt Hunter) are moving closer and closer to parity? I hope to God I haven't opened Pandora's Box...:o

Quote:

---

Originally posted by qerlin


On another note: "Or indeed by SWAT teams in a city street...." Sorry, SWAT teams should be an absolute last result; I don't like the idea of police with military weapons & tactics...unless I have access to them as well. Having been in law enforcement, my experience with SWAT are they're wanna-be special forces. Not a good thing on the city streets...

---

Actually, I was referring to armed police in the British sense, not the US. I just used SWAT as a generic (nand obviously misleading) term. My bad.

I must say, calguard66, that your comments are some of the most insightful and thoughtful I've read (here and elsewhere).

I, too, must admit that I am pleased to know that there are men like you working for the defense of me and my country.

mactavish out.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66

Well, I've fired both the US weapons you mention and the German equivelents (qualified for the Silver Shutsensneir (spelling?) last time I was stationed in Germany. I'm also a tanker (panzertruppen?), so I can speak to that as well:

---

Hmm would be spelled correctly "Schützenschnur", or translated "Marksman band". And yes Panzertruppen is correct.

Speaking of pistols. I really hate the P3. More than 25m and you won`t hit anything.
Speaking of rifles. I really love the G36. Such a decent Rifle.
But i remember my first month. We always used the old G3 rifle.
But then one day were intruduced to the G36. I noticed very quickly that it, strangely enough lacks the punch of the 7.62 ammo the G3 uses. We were shooting on metal targets shaped as a man who falls down if you hit it. At least with the G3. With the G36 you had to hit it on the highest spot e.g. the head, to fall down.

If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.

---

Basically what he said :D

I am very much undecided on this whole thing. But I would say I really don't know enough about the situation to have a truly informed opinion one way or the other.

I have to say that I agree that there isn't sufficient NEW information to justify an attack, ie: if one doesn't include the past.

However, taken as a whole I think the US is more than justified in removing this thorn from our side. If he's dangerous enough for us to expend so many resources to keep a lid on, if he requires a 24 hour combat air patrol over his country... then he is dangerous enough to justify elimination.

Furthermore, it is my position that Iraq is in violation of their cease-fire agreement, and have been for years. Violation of a cease-ifre is more than adequate justification for resumption of hostilities... therefore the US needs no further or new justification.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
If Dave was referring to me and not Capt.Daniel Hunter when he said there was parity emerging with Calguard's views, I should point out that, while I agree with a lot of the points Cal makes about the nature of war and the job of a soldier, I still disagree on the fundamental point about use of force. Until there's a lot more evidence about the things Bush is slamming Saddam over, I really don't think a preemptive strike is warranted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by calguard66
However, taken as a whole I think the US is more than justified in removing this thorn from our side. If he's dangerous enough for us to expend so many resources to keep a lid on, if he requires a 24 hour combat air patrol over his country... then he is dangerous enough to justify elimination.

---

If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

Posted by Ramage:

Quote:

---

If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

---

It would be foolish to tackle every single state which sponsors terrorism at one time. All the countries you mention do sponsor their share of terrorism or have in the past, but look at them more closely. North Korea is literally collapsing by itself and the only thing keeping the regime going is their neighbor China; you want to risk pissing off 1.3 Billion people? Didn't think so. Libya has changed somewhat in recent years, they tossed out terrorists (who fled mostly to Iraq, people like Abu Nidal) and has shown interest in paying back Lockerbie victims. Iranian Pasdaran did finance a alot of terrorism in its time and still does today, but why should we attack them both at the same time? By attacking Iraq, Iran may comply out of fear. And by the way, its also playing ball with us, they refused to return 100 planes that Iraq entrusted to them during the Gulf War. The Phillipines cooperated with the U.S. fully by allowing them to train their people to deal with local terrorists.
As for Pakistan, I personnally feel we should have used India and squashed Pakistan, but barring that he is someone who "knows" when to give in to foreign demands.

Posted by Ramage:

Quote:

---

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

---

Iraq funds terrorism pure and simple and why should it matter whether it took part in the 9/11 attacks or not? Saddam slaughters his people, has fought two war on Iran with chemical weapons and refuses to abide by the ceasefire agreement. This last thing is Cassus Belli for the U.S.. He wants nuclear weapons and the U.S. doesn't want him to get it, plain and simple. The Kurds rights thing, it is a demand of Turkey, if the Kurds were to be allowed their own state that would destabilize their own state. You don't cause trouble to your good allies. I agree we should implicate the Saudis.

But everything has a time and place.

What you call posturing and hypocracy. I call it sound military strategy and I would expect nothing less from the United States of America.

None of those other nations require a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week combat-air-partol in their skies to keep them in line.

Further, my post stated quite clearly that I don't consider their actions with regard to 9/11 sufficient... I consider the violation of the ceasefire sufficient.

This has nothing to do, IMHO, with 9/11... it is simply something that should have been done a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage


If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

---

Forgot to add: we stop when there are no more thorns. The reason we HAVE so many thorns is because we lack the intestinal fortitude as a nation to do anything decisive.

Musharraf is a unique case. It seems very clear that he wants his nation to return to democracy. He overthrew a corrupt regime... condemning him would be hypocritical itself... the US "illegaly" overthrew our own lawful government once, after all. He certainly isn't bin Laden or Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramage


If we are to remove this thorn, what of others? Where are we to stop? Has anyone called for an invasion of Libya recently? North Korea? Iran? The Philippines? We also seem quite content to leave Pakistan alone despite a military dictatorship just because the dictator is playing ball with us.

Iraq appears to be an excruciatingly low-priority target in the "War on Terrorism" (tm). That nation has not been connected with the 9-11 attacks, which I assumed would be our first priority as a nation. Instead we appear to be heading towards conflict with them because it is convenient at the moment. We decry Saddam for not having a democractic government while we back Pakistan, even though Musharraf has made a mockery of that nation's constitution. We applaud freedom for the Kurds and talk about right of self-determination for them as a people, as long as this self-determination stops at the Iraqi border and does not affect Turkey. We implicate Iraq in potential acts of terrorism when bin Laden and most of the hijackers of 9-11 came from Saudia Arabia.

These sound like the posturings of a hypocritical nation.

---

Well then it appears the best reason to attack Iraq, as opposed to other nations, is that, like others, it has sponsored terrorism but, unlike other nations, we know we can take it without too big of a political fallout.

As for Musharraf "wanting to return his country to democracy", I would have you read about the 29 changes he made to his country's constitution, changes that give a permanent place to the military in their legislature as well as giving him the right to hold office for another five years without necessity of vote, among other democratic measures.

This is well beyond Realpolitik.

The US, it appears, is doing not even what is expedient, but merely convenient. We could attack other nations, but someone might get even more angry with us or we could lose an ally (even though that ally is of questionable legitimacy). This is not a moral tone nor is is the clear black-and-white, Good v. Evil tone that Mr. Bush signalled. Rather it is merely a case of keeping busy, of appearing to do something constructive, but actually having no firm direction, no firm conviction, and no actual goal.

So let's go ahead an attack Iraq. It certainly couldn't hurt, or so it appears. Who knows? Maybe we'll be able to place yet another regime in that country that we'll regret in 10-15 years.

Just because we aren't doing it NOW doesn't mean we aren't doing it, Ramage. Bear that in mind.

You see, one of the rare times Londo Mollari was RIGHT was when he said "Only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the KINGDOM of fools fights a war on twelve fronts."

I agree with you, First of Two. No one but a fool wants a multi-front war.

I am not advocating attacking multiple enemies. Instead I am trying to deduce any semblance of logic for attacking Iraq rather than any of the other potential targets. It would seem the others have a more direct connection to the stated goals of the War on Terrorism than does Iraq.

Ramage, here's another way to look at it. We have a limited amount of deployable resources we can use in the war on terrorism. A huge chunk of those resources are tied up in keeping Hussein on a short leash. As soon as we deal with him, we can free a lot of resources and have the capability to go after some of the nations that may have a more direct connection to the war on terrorism.

I agree with what Calguard said about being justified in attacking Iraq at any time in the last ten years. I spent three months in Saudi last summer, coming back less than two weeks before 9/11. Our planes were still getting missiles shot at them, as they have for years. Hussein has never abided by the cease-fire. It seems he'll do just as much as we let him get away with, and we've let him get away with too much.