Read this article and then visit the home page (at the bottom) for more stimulating reading.

http://www.vvaw.org/VVAWCommentary/nowarwithiraq.html

Sorry if this article is slightly dated.

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson112202.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson110102.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092002.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092702.asp

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/66129.htm


These writers actually research what they are talking about, and have the credentials to match.

Al
I read the first article and was very impressed.

Is he really correct to say USA cannot afford the tax cut backs and social agenda and war too? The economy of the USA is humongous. However, jobs is a big issue that is weakening it, in other words low consumer confidence and corporate corruption.

He certainly is well spoken. Thanks! I look forward to reading the others too later.

There is a forest in an acorn.

War is an expensive undertaking.

>War is an expensive undertaking.

So maybe a little more thought should be put into rushing off to start one!

12 years thought isn't adequate?

>12 years thought isn't adequate?

The whole situation regarding SH resulted from a lack of judgement or false information that was passed on to SH by Alice Guillepsi. (sic)
you do remember her do you not?

You actually believe that an Arab paid attention to what they were told by a woman? Completely out of touch with the culture, aren't you? Saddam is responsible for Saddam's actions. Nobody else.

I suppose you think firing at aircraft that are enforcing the no-fly zone that Iraq agreed to is also a misunderstanding?

>You actually believe that an Arab paid attention to what
>they were told by a woman? Completely out of touch with the
>culture, aren't you? Saddam is responsible for Saddam's
>actions. Nobody else.

If you believe that woman are not listened to then why does the gov't send them into this region in the first place. Can you tell me what her mission was when she was sent on behlf of the President?

>
>I suppose you think firing at aircraft that are enforcing
>the no-fly zone that Iraq agreed to is also a
>misunderstanding?

You still have not shown me any proof or references that shows that the that no fly zone was in fact legal. I have provided you with 2 sites that show that it was and not legal.

Ah, I forgot, the internet is the source of all knowledge. Read some books.

>Ah, I forgot, the internet is the source of all knowledge.
>Read some books.


You never answered my question " Why was Alice there and. who sent her?" I ask this because you make claim that female govt Representatives are not believed or trusted in Arab states yet the U.S. continues to send them.

They send them because the State Department isn't willing to admit that we should pay attention to other cultures. After all, it would cause a stir in the Congress as well as a lawsuit if we barred a person from serving in their post because of their gender, even if their gender directly affected their ability to do the job.

>They send them because the State Department isn't willing to
>admit that we should pay attention to other cultures. After
>all, it would cause a stir in the Congress as well as a
>lawsuit if we barred a person from serving in their post
>because of their gender, even if their gender directly
>affected their ability to do the job.


No, the question that I asked was what was her mission?

>Ah, I forgot, the internet is the source of all knowledge.
>Read some books.

I can find all sorts of truths and fiction on the internet but I can not find a single reference to the "no flying zone" being adopted in any UN resolution. So where does the "legitamcy" for this come from.
And if I remember correctly I think I ran across a reference that states the UN does not agree with your explaination - but I will recheck.

TTYL Bob

Doesn't need a UN resolution. Wasn't UN troops who fought the Gulf War, and wasn't the UN that signed the Cease-Fire. It was the participants of the war (both sides). Can't find the Safwan Cease-Fire? Buy General Franks' book. Or maybe I'll just put up a site where I'll post information about it...then you'll believe...

Btw, http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/safwan.htm

Schwartzkopf's and Franks' books detail the specifics...

>You actually believe that an Arab paid attention to what
>they were told by a woman? Completely out of touch with the
>culture, aren't you? Saddam is responsible for Saddam's
>actions. Nobody else.


So are you implying that your govt was stupid to appoint a female ambassador to Iraq or are you implying that Iraq (SH) never believed anything that she said. I think I can find evidence that proves that the second implication is incorrect.

Both. Evidence? Go ahead. Not links. Not opinion. Real evidence.

>Both. Evidence? Go ahead. Not links. Not opinion. Real
>evidence.

Just so we are on equal footing here, and that I will know what sort of evidence I should expect from you - to back up your claims - Please define your definition of evidence, or what you find to be acceptable evidence.

Not someone's opinion. Not an "analysis". Information that can be demonstrated to have a basis in fact.

>Both. Evidence? Go ahead. Not links. Not opinion. Real
>evidence.

What is the diffrence if I use a link or type in a block of text from a book? Pick one of your posts and demonstrate what you mean.

LOL!!

"Tonight the president was more a solemn Gary Cooper in High Noon than the gun-toting Wild Bunch..."

Onward christian soldiers
marching as to war...

>http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson.asp
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson112202.asp
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson110102.asp
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092002.asp
>
>http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson092702.asp
>
>http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/66129.htm
>
>
>These writers actually research what they are talking about,
>and have the credentials to match.

Correction "these 2 writers" have not mentioned the death and destruction of Innocent people. (kurds included) Do not mention that SH has no delivery system that could reach U.S.(if he had WOMD)
do not talk about an exit plan. The warheads (allowed under UN resolutions) found were old and probably expired (range about 600 miles if still usable) Test reveal that they never were loaded with chemical, biological or nuclear devices. That tells me that if this mad man who was so set on death and destruction was not too well prepared. This goes against expressed believes of how cunning and smart SH is. No mention of an exit plan. Forgot to mention U S would have to be there for many years. Have no idea who would take over and what the consequences would be (in the neighborhood).
I really do not know enough about the 2 writers to say that they are bias but too many things are missing to say they are not.

Delivery system for biological weapons is a person. Think Saddam has a few of those. And they can reach the US. Or maybe you slept through September 11th.

The warheads were claimed to have been destroyed. And are designed for Sarin gas. Not loaded? No kidding. You load them just before you launch them. Now, why would they keep them while telling the UN they had been destroyed?

One more thing. Warheads don't expire. Their contents sometimes do.

>Delivery system for biological weapons is a person. Think
>Saddam has a few of those. And they can reach the US. Or
>maybe you slept through September 11th.

No, I remember it well and in the version that I read the hijackers made plans to carry out their deeds while in America - got on the planes in America - used unsophisticated weapons - and had they chosen to could have also used or carried biological weapons. Are you suggesting that if SH is taken out that somehow people will not be able to come to America and plot similar plans - that people will not be able to use unsophisticated weapons to commit acts of violence - that biological weapons will no longer be available. - and that what ever motivating factors that were behind their actions will disappear. In MHO I do not think so.
>
>The warheads were claimed to have been destroyed. And are
>designed for Sarin gas. Not loaded? No kidding. You load
>them just before you launch them. Now, why would they keep
>them while telling the UN they had been destroyed?
>
>One more thing. Warheads don't expire. Their contents
>sometimes do.

http://www.sumeria.net/politics/notwarhead.html

Iraq can be turned to glass and we won't be any more protected against terrorism. How many thousands of people are in this country that shouldn't be? Every week there's a story in the news of someone getting through airport security. This week a box cutter was found on a plane by one of the passengers. American universities are still admitting foreign students - from the middle east. The Mexican border is a sieve with our good buddy Mexico no help. My boyfriend crossed the Blue Water bridge (in July) from Port Huron, MI to Sarnia, Canada. No one is checked until they cross the bridge! Any maniac with a truck full of explosives could blow that bridge and anyone on it. Saudi's are still getting visas to the US. No doubt, some will slip through the cracks, just as before, and we will suffer the consequences. Wasn't it Bush who was so opposed to airline pilots carrying weapons? Something is not right.

>Iraq can be turned to glass and we won't be any more
>protected against terrorism. How many thousands of people
>are in this country that shouldn't be? Every week there's a
>story in the news of someone getting through airport
>security. This week a box cutter was found on a plane by one
>of the passengers. American universities are still admitting
>foreign students - from the middle east. The Mexican border
>is a sieve with our good buddy Mexico no help. My boyfriend
>crossed the Blue Water bridge (in July) from Port Huron, MI
>to Sarnia, Canada. No one is checked until they cross
>the bridge! Any maniac with a truck full of explosives could
>blow that bridge and anyone on it. Saudi's are still getting
>visas to the US. No doubt, some will slip through the
>cracks, just as before, and we will suffer the consequences.
>Wasn't it Bush who was so opposed to airline pilots carrying
>weapons? Something is not right.

But Iraq is the biggest threat?
And is it not U.S. customs that check those entering the states?

Efficient chemical and biological weapons require pretty extensive facilities in which to manufacture them. Delivery systems are significantly easier than actually creating the weapons. So, yes, Iraq is a threat because they have had programs to manufacture these weapons.

>Efficient chemical and biological weapons require pretty
>extensive facilities in which to manufacture them. Delivery
>systems are significantly easier than actually creating the
>weapons. So, yes, Iraq is a threat because they have had
>programs to manufacture these weapons.

Would you agree with me, in my opinion, that Iraq is pretty much contained?

Contained? How? Containment is no longer a valid approach to any enemy who is willing to use terrorist tactics such as suicide bombers (do a little research into Iraq's war with Iran...suicide bombers were all the rage...).

>Contained? How? Containment is no longer a valid approach to
>any enemy who is willing to use terrorist tactics such as
>suicide bombers (do a little research into Iraq's war with
>Iran...suicide bombers were all the rage...).

And am I to believe that by destroying Baghdad and many Innocent people that this (suicide bombing) will stop.
What I was referring by the word contained is that SH can not inflict any damage on other countries without paying the ultimate price. If he is the mad man that everyone is lead to believe - and he has all the weapons and chemicals he is suspected of having why has he not used them by now?

>
>And am I to believe that by destroying Baghdad and many
>Innocent people that this (suicide bombing) will stop.
> What I was referring by the word contained is that SH
>can not inflict any damage on other countries without paying
>the ultimate price. If he is the mad man that everyone is
>lead to believe - and he has all the weapons and chemicals
>he is suspected of having why has he not used them by now?

Am I to believe that you are so out of touch with the capabilities of a modern military that you think that this war will destroy Baghdad and kill many innocent people (and what innocents would those be, anyway)?

And you are wrong. Saddam Hussein can inflict damage on other countries, and not pay any price for it. All he needs is people like you claiming that he is not capable of it while he does it.

>>
>>And am I to believe that by destroying Baghdad and many
>>Innocent people that this (suicide bombing) will stop.
>> What I was referring by the word contained is that SH
>>can not inflict any damage on other countries without paying
>>the ultimate price. If he is the mad man that everyone is
>>lead to believe - and he has all the weapons and chemicals
>>he is suspected of having why has he not used them by now?
>
>Am I to believe that you are so out of touch with the
>capabilities of a modern military that you think that this
>war will destroy Baghdad and kill many innocent people (and
>what innocents would those be, anyway)?
If the actions in Afghanistan or 'Nam are any indication of how the war will be fought, the cities and there occupants will be bombed because there are military targets in and around the city.
Al I am sure you are well aware how loyalty to ones country can obscure the truth. Combine that with the censorship and other propaganda spread by their govt, combined with the large number of youth in respect to the total population and the ability to identify "innocents" is not rocket science.

>
>And you are wrong. Saddam Hussein can inflict damage on
>other countries, and not pay any price for it. All he needs
>is people like you claiming that he is not capable of it
>while he does it.

I think this comment is below both of us but if you want to restate it to represent specifics I will be pleased to respond.

Vietnam was over 30 years ago. What happened there has little bearing on war today.

Afghanistan is a different situation, and one in which civilian casualties have been extremely low in battles conducted by western troops. Have there been civilians killed? Sure, but not in the thousands as you have claimed. And there is no reason to believe that war with Iraq will follow that pattern. A better choice would be to look at the Gulf War, which had very few civilian deaths.

As for the final comment, look up Neville Chamberlain.

>Vietnam was over 30 years ago. What happened there has
>little bearing on war today.
>
>Afghanistan is a different situation, and one in which
>civilian casualties have been extremely low in battles
>conducted by western troops. Have there been civilians
>killed? Sure, but not in the thousands as you have claimed.
>And there is no reason to believe that war with Iraq will
>follow that pattern. A better choice would be to look at the
>Gulf War, which had very few civilian deaths.
>

>As for the final comment, look up Neville Chamberlain.

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,887368,00.html

I think the death toll might be a little higher than you think.

The Guardian? LMAO...yeah, they have a clue...

>The Guardian? LMAO...yeah, they have a clue...

Your remarks made me question the source, so when I compared other articles that they reported - that were reportrd on American news there was not much diffrence. I have read this article else where so I will try to find the sourse.

What makes you think that newspapers have any knowledge of military affairs?

Maybe you should go back and read the articles printed prior to Desert Storm...

>The Guardian? LMAO...yeah, they have a clue...

If you check a little closer you will see that this article is reprinted from "the Observer". The reason I pointed out this article was that others also believe that mass destruction and death will be the result of this war as opposed to your expressed idea that this will be some kind of "kinder and gentler" war.
Kinder and gentler war is my interpretation of what you are saying in message # 46.

I don't expect it to be a "kinder and gentler" war. I expect it to be a focused and efficient war.

>I don't expect it to be a "kinder and gentler" war. I expect
>it to be a focused and efficient war.

Yea, like Afghanistan - There we were 4000 against 4 - and we got all 4 of them.
and how many bombs?

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Did you bother to watch the AC130 video?

>You really don't have a clue, do you?
>
>Did you bother to watch the AC130 video?

Can you supply a link?

>The Guardian? LMAO...yeah, they have a clue...

Read this (Chek the date) and you will find that Powell almost quotes it word for word. Hope the dog did not eat it. ref:LMAO.
I'd have to say they do have a clue.

Attachment #1, (html file)

>>
>>And am I to believe that by destroying Baghdad and many
>>Innocent people that this (suicide bombing) will stop.
>> What I was referring by the word contained is that SH
>>can not inflict any damage on other countries without paying
>>the ultimate price. If he is the mad man that everyone is
>>lead to believe - and he has all the weapons and chemicals
>>he is suspected of having why has he not used them by now?
>
>Am I to believe that you are so out of touch with the
>capabilities of a modern military that you think that this
>war will destroy Baghdad and kill many innocent people (and
>what innocents would those be, anyway)?
>
>And you are wrong. Saddam Hussein can inflict damage on
>other countries, and not pay any price for it. All he needs
>is people like you claiming that he is not capable of it
>while he does it.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

I could only find this transcript but looking for something more or
someting to dis prove it.

Did you bother to actually read the transcript?

>Did you bother to actually read the transcript?
Yes, what in particular are you making an inference to.

"(Saddam smiled)"

Uh, huh. We are to believe that this is a transcript? Novel idea (in both senses of the word).

>"(Saddam smiled)"
>
>Uh, huh. We are to believe that this is a transcript? Novel
>idea (in both senses of the word).

Did you notice it is in brackets - What does that mean?

That is what I would like to know.

William Rivers Pitt needs to discuss his claims with an Air Force weapons NCO or a member of the Ordnance Corps. He's wrong from the very beginning. Makes a cute letter, but his "credentials" aren't anything at all (ok, so he's written a book...so what?), and he sure doesn't have any credentials to discuss weapons.

Just so you know, my credentials to discuss weapons?

Bachelors of History
Masters of History
Infantry Officer (11A)
Special Forces Officer (18A)

Doesn't make me an expert on warheads, but it makes me significantly more of an expert than William Rivers Pitt.

>William Rivers Pitt needs to discuss his claims with an Air
>Force weapons NCO or a member of the Ordnance Corps. He's
>wrong from the very beginning. Makes a cute letter, but his
>"credentials" aren't anything at all (ok, so he's written a
>book...so what?), and he sure doesn't have any credentials
>to discuss weapons.
>
>Just so you know, my credentials to discuss weapons?
>
>Bachelors of History
>Masters of History
>Infantry Officer (11A)
>Special Forces Officer (18A)
>
>Doesn't make me an expert on warheads, but it makes me
>significantly more of an expert than William Rivers Pitt.

If you would like, I can put you in touch with him and I am sure between the 2 of you - you can come to some agreement in reference to your statements.

Feel free, I'll put him in touch with a friend of mine who is an Ordnance Officer.

A true pacifist never believes in war for any reason.I can understand a Vietnam Vet being anti war.Those guys were sent to fight a war and never given the wherewithall to win it.And they got shit on when they returned.I have difficulty understanding the under estimation of the danger Sadam poses to the world as a whole.I am less worried about his effort to obtain an atom bomb than I am about his biological danger.
He is a man with the mental inclination like Hitler had.The pacifists (Including one of my heros,Charles Lindberg) were using the SAME arguments used today about him prior to WW2.I had personal experience them in those days .I sure as hell hate war as much as any pacifist but there are times when we have no choice.THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES!If he does get a atom bomb that will add to the problem.

81 Newbee

>A true pacifist never believes in war for any reason.I can
>understand a Vietnam Vet being anti war.Those guys were sent
>to fight a war and never given the wherewithall to win
>it.And they got shit on when they returned.I have difficulty
>understanding the under estimation of the danger Sadam poses
>to the world as a whole.I am less worried about his effort
>to obtain an atom bomb than I am about his biological
>danger.
>He is a man with the mental inclination like Hitler had.The
>pacifists (Including one of my heros,Charles Lindberg) were
>using the SAME arguments used today about him prior to WW2.I
>had personal experience them in those days .I sure as hell
>hate war as much as any pacifist but there are times when we
>have no choice.THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES!If he does get a
>atom bomb that will add to the problem.

First I find it hard to draw a parallel to Hitler because SH has over half a million troops sitting on his door step ready to destroy his country should he even fart the wrong way (if there is a wrong way). There is no doubt in my mind that this man has got to go. It is the cost of Innocent lives that compels my belief that there are other methods to attain the objective. The U.S. has not shown that their is a real and present danger and if there actually was why did it not happen yesterday? The U.S. talks allot about knowing what Iraq has - so give the information to the inspectors and lets get on with it. Or is what the U.S. know actually based on circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence that will cost many lives.
Another problem that I have is with the US's removal (or their attempt to remove over 800 pages from the original documents that Iraq handed over. I'm still doing some checking on this claim so I'll say no more except I'm curious as to why the U S would find any reason to suppress this info. Sure hope SH does not vaporize me before I get a chance to complete my checks.

Some people think of Hitler as what he became and not of what he started from.Hitler started as a small time politician and eventually using the us vs them approach or purebred vs Jews, gays,and anyone not like him, gained a following that led to one of the worlds worst times.He was more political than brutal in his methods at the start.
Sadam is well down the same path and is even more brutal and repressive on the way.There is every reason to take him down now.
I do not like war and have seen the brutality of it and know the suffering it causes.However sometimes the neglect or ignoring of a problem can lead to disasters.It is dangerous to ignore the problem that Sadam represents.If he doesn't accept fully the UN resolutions,and he obviously has no intention of doing so, it seems to me that war is the only choice.I understand that many will disagree but my life experiences have shaped my view.

81 Newbee

>Some people think of Hitler as what he became and not of
>what he started from.Hitler started as a small time
>politician and eventually using the us vs them approach or
>purebred vs Jews, gays,and anyone not like him, gained a
>following that led to one of the worlds worst times.He was
>more political than brutal in his methods at the start.
>Sadam is well down the same path and is even more brutal and
>repressive on the way.There is every reason to take him
>down now.
>I do not like war and have seen the brutality of it and know
>the suffering it causes.However sometimes the neglect or
>ignoring of a problem can lead to disasters.It is dangerous
>to ignore the problem that Sadam represents.If he doesn't
>accept fully the UN resolutions,and he obviously has no
>intention of doing so, it seems to me that war is the only
>choice.I understand that many will disagree but my life
>experiences have shaped my view.

I have not stated that everyone should pack up their bags and go home and let SH carry on with whatever he likes. Lets make 3 assumptions
A= He has no weapons of any consequence - So we destroy Iraq.
(that one would go over to big in the world community.)

B= He has weapons of MD - He has not used them yet and will not until attacked. Many combatants and Innocent people will die and like it or not GW will be a hero and get re-elected. (God forbid)

C=Keep him contained and let the UN inspectors do their job. So far I see no smoking gun and if the U.S. has definite proof turn it over to the inspectors.

I have not stated that everyone should pack up their bags and go home and let SH carry on with whatever he likes. Lets make 3 assumptions
A= He has no weapons of any consequence - So we destroy Iraq.
(that one would go over to big in the world community.)

B= He has weapons of MD - He has not used them yet and will not until attacked. Many combatants and Innocent people will die and like it or not GW will be a hero and get re-elected. (God forbid)

C=Keep him contained and let the UN inspectors do their job. So far I see no smoking gun and if the U.S. has definite proof turn it over to the inspectors.
Robert,It sounds to me that your problem is with Bush being President and that is slanting your view.Possible??
Re A=He had many known weapons when he threw the inspectors out.The UN resolution said he was to account for them.He did not do so in the documents he submitted..So far he is not cooperating and they have found a few empty rockets capable of carrying biological or chemical weapons that he claimed did not exist.His son in law and defectors have told of his preparations.He murdered his son in law when he returned to Iraq.
Re B=I believe he has them and will eventually use them whether he is attacked or not.Every effort will be made to limit his use.He has been warned not to but he will probably do so .I do have reservations here but believe the risk is necessary.Hopefully containment will be successful.
ReC=Our troops can not be maintained in a ready status in the current capacity for a long period.The way Sadam is not living up to his agreement makes it difficult to find things even if they are aware of them.The head inspector has said that their rooms and phones and offices are bugged and the destination is known before they start out.Keep in mind that Iraq is the size of California.A test tube of some of the bioligical weapons is capable of wipeing out a city if strategicaly placed.You can hide a lot of test tubes very well in a place of that size.I could go on but I hope you can see my point.I don't see a solution that will avoid the need to take sadam out

81 Newbee

>I have not stated that everyone should pack up their bags
>and go home and let SH carry on with whatever he likes. Lets
>make 3 assumptions
>A= He has no weapons of any consequence - So we destroy
>Iraq.
>(that one would go over to big in the world community.)
>
>B= He has weapons of MD - He has not used them yet and will
>not until attacked. Many combatants and Innocent people will
>die and like it or not GE will be a hero and get re-elected.
>(God forbid)
>
>C=Keep him contained and let the UN inspectors do their job.
>So far I see no smoking gun and if the U.S. has definite
>proof turn it over to the inspectors.
>Robert,It sounds to me that your problem is with Bush being
>President and that is slanting your view.Possible??

No I am opposed to anyone who believes that bombing is the solution to a problem - and then tries to justify it with untruths.

>Re A=He had many known weapons when he threw the inspectors
>out.The UN resolution said he was to account for them.He did
>not do so in the documents he submitted..So far he is not
>cooperating and they have found a few empty rockets capable
>of carrying biological or chemical weapons that he claimed
>did not exist.

I am in the process of wading through some pretty deep material on this subject and so far I believe that Iraq was allowed to keep missiles provided that they did not have a range of over 150 miles.
Also an empty warhead is not considered to be a WMD. Maybe further along in my readings it might though.

His son in law and defectors have told of his
>preparations.He murdered his son in law when he returned to
>Iraq.

I think we both agree we are against family violence. (sorry could not help myself at a little humor here).

>Re B=I believe he has them and will eventually use them
>whether he is attacked or not.Every effort will be made to
>limit his use.He has been warned not to but he will probably
>do so .I do have reservations here but believe the risk is
>necessary.Hopefully containment will be successful.

If it was his time to use these weapons he would have by now, but to stage an attack may well force the issue.


>ReC=Our troops can not be maintained in a ready status in
>the current capacity for a long period.The way Sadam is not
>living up to his agreement makes it difficult to find things
>even if they are aware of them.The head inspector has said
>that their rooms and phones and offices are bugged and the
>destination is known before they start out.Keep in mind that
>Iraq is the size of California.A test tube of some of the
>bioligical weapons is capable of wiping out a city if
>strategically placed.You can hide a lot of test tubes very
>well in a place of that size.I could go on but I hope you
>can see my point.I don't see a solution that will avoid the
>need to take Saddam out

I believe you are correct and think Bush has reached a stage of no return. Having said that I also believe that to have sent the inspectors back in and expected that they could do any type of meaningful search in the limited amount of time that they have had is also a mistake. In other words the build up was a little too premature and is pushing things to the point of no return.
In regards to the vials or biological agents will bombing ensure their safe demise. With the open market of such stuff to anyone who has the right amount of money- will bombing Baghdad stop terrorists?
Will pushing too hard now force SH to share his "goodies" with others of similar mind set as his,realizing his goose is cooked? All of these are very serious questions that require a little more sophisticated solutions than just bombing. And as long as war is the only "serious train of thought" the real solutions will avoid us.

I have said before and will repeat I belive there is a time for war but we have not reached that point yet. (IMHO)

Robert,You and I will probably not reach agreement on the proper course of action in this quagmire.My life experience during the Hitler(WW2)era is a major factor in forming my belief in how we should deal with this guy.It looks like that it will be war that will happen.I sincerely hope that the action which is in agreement with my "gut"feeling is successful.I can understand how you feel but I still feel that waiting will only delay what we will eventually have to do.You and I can only watch and hope.Early in the Clinton administration his speech on this matter looked like he was going to take action.I was very disappointed when he did not follow up.I had had lot of confidence in him at first but he disappointed me on many occasions.So much talent went to waste.Bush is taking action.Let's hope it is not too late.

81 Newbee

>Robert,You and I will probably not reach agreement on the
>proper course of action in this quagmire.My life experience
>during the Hitler(WW2)era is a major factor in forming my
>belief in how we should deal with this guy.It looks like
>that it will be war that will happen.I sincerely hope that
>the action which is in agreement with my "gut"feeling is
>successful.I can understand how you feel but I still feel
>that waiting will only delay what we will eventually have to
>do.You and I can only watch and hope.Early in the Clinton
>administration his speech on this matter looked like he was
>going to take action.I was very disappointed when he did not
>follow up.I had had lot of confidence in him at first but he
>disappointed me on many occasions.So much talent went to
>waste.Bush is taking action.Let's hope it is not too late.
>
I most certainly understand where you are coming from and respect your point of view. (hope I'm not getting too mushy for ya). But I believe this situation is only the tip of the iceberg. Military power will not be the solution to the type of problems that we face today,but it could lead to the end. Here is something to think about - "The five permanent menbers of the security council produce and sell about 85% of the military weaponry in the world today and they are the very countries are supposedly in charge of international
peace and security..."

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/

If and when you have time read through some of this:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew73.php

TTYL Bob

I don't believe Hitler even mentioned the Jews in public until sometime after he was in power. He used their money just as anyone elses to help his efforts. After he solidified his power he went after them with a vengeance. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by
William L. Shirer is a great read and hisorically correct, written by a man who was there.

You are correct, early in his history Hitler did not target Jews specifically.He used what I call the Pat Buchcanan approach.He spoke of the superiority of pure arayans(SP?),in other words people who were pure Germans.From there he went on to gradually indicate that others were taking over unfairly and got enough power to start to destroy anyone who did not fit as HE saw it.History is in the eyes of the beholder.If you want to shape its view.write a book

81 Newbee

"To Hitler, as he had publicly declared a thousand times, the Jews were not Germans, and though he did not exterminate them at once (only a relative few - a few thousand that is - were robbed, beaten, or murdered during the first months), he issued laws excluding them from public service, from universities and professions. And on April 1, 1933, he proclaimed a national boybcott of Jewish shops"

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich Simon and Schuster, NY 1960, page 203 (hehe, should have put in that I think mine is the first edition so you don't go looking on the wrong page)

I agree since I am not able or going to fight I do not support a war I am forty three and remember neighbors grievieng thier dead sons and do not want to see this happen again. The real enemy is the greedy republican party.

www.Pe7e.com
Pe7e

Unless you can prove that Saddam is a republican, that's BS. Maybe you'd rather wait till there's a bomb up your ass before your "willing" to agree that he needs to be stopped.

RussH