Jorge, I believe it was George Bush Sr. that was in charge then. (And yes, I agree that he should have "finished the job").

And didn't Clinton get in trouble because of his balls? :)

So I'm supposed to believe what some liberal fasist writes in a book..
You are totally a moron.. and besides what the Hell does that have to with what is going on right now!! That wasn't Bush's administration..either.. I can tell you are form the Bay Area.. probably San Francisco too..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

I hope the upcoming battle in Iraq will be a terrible and swift one. I hope no American or English or Australian families are saddened by the loss of someone dear to them, and I feel the same for Iraqi families whose only involvement in this conflict is the now unfortunate happenstance of where they were born.

I fear that this battle, along with the one the U.S. of A. is still fighting in Afganistan, is going to fuel the machine of terrorism. It is terrorism we are fighting a war against, isn't it? I don't see how keeping WMD out of the hands of terrorists is a winning stategy in this war. The trade center was brought down with boarding passes and box cutters.

I believe Americans are on the road to surrendering many, if not most, of their personal freedoms and privacy. Some will surrender grudgingly, others happily, for the false promise of safety and security. And that, my friend, will be when we have lost the war.

Ed

Dude.. after Bosnia. Clinton Bombed Iraq when Saddan Kicked out the Unsom inspectors.. and he did not follow thru..I can assure you the Job will get done.. With GW

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Ed, superb commentary. With war looming, I overlooked the issues you mentioned. It's possible we are seeing this reponse to terrorism due to the fact we're using a post-Cold War style military against a 21st century adversary. If we give up freedoms, then in some ways the terrorists will have some victory.

Targa Dude, calm down. I'm a die-hard conservative, but I don't see how calling others morons makes your point any stronger.

Jurgen

OK, I appologize to all.. Shhsss I been waiting for this for a long time..It's been so dam fustrating..I'm extrememly Patriotic.. and I'm most definately a conservative. and I love my country and nor will I ever forget..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

hey now...us targa guys gotta stick together!

ooppss....itche mouse finger....

GW1 should have finished the job...Im just curious as to why he didnt?

Chad.. I'm sorry.. you do have all the rights to your own opinions..

Jorge (Targa Dude)

:) no prob....:D

Okay, play nice. . .. the liberals have got to be feeling down about now.

They need a little motivation to get over their feelings of impotence.

Here's a little graphic the liberals all can rally around.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...ratination.jpg

TIC:cool:

GW must have had that poster in his dorm room at college

Yeah, maybe. but I'm still waiting for even a glimer of an action plan from the left.

All they've got is "war - bad . . killing - bad . . .Bush is mean" --!Brilliant :rolleyes:

It's classic; uninformed or unwilling to believe the nature of the problem.
They see the path of no work now . . .Paint Bush as the one needed to be stopped; rather than facing up to the seriously sick sheit Saddam continues to do.

hey, I'm an isolationist. Countries don't like us? We'll take our foreign aid and go home.

Alternatively, I'm more of a covert ops kinda guy. Just pay to have his throat slit and move on...

I use to be of the same thinking. 9/11 changed that for me; on that day. It was the wake-up call that a suit-case nuke could be right around the corner. If these mad men want that type of power, they have to earn it the old fashion way . . . .with the correct poster in their dorm room. :rolleyes:

Times have changed.

Did anybody hear Sadaam's threat to take the war worldwide. With what weapons, I ask? I guess with the ones he doesn't really have. Better to clip his wings now than having to deal with taking the war worldwide with a nuke!

Nobody needs a war, but if we leave peace to the UN, many more rogue regimes will prosper enough to threaten us again. What has the UN done for anybody except debate the merits of intervention without action. To do nothing is foolish. My two cents.

Support our troops. They volunteer to protect our freedom!

Is the concept of the "lesser of two evils" that hard to understand? So what if we supported Iraq years ago against Iran? We felt Iraq was the lesser of two evils, AT THAT TIME. Things change. Italy and Japan were our enemies at one time, now they are not. Is this too terribly complex? If not, WHY keep bringing up the fact that Iraq was once a country we sided with in a different war? That is a simplistic, heavily flawed argument.

I won't quote conservatives about this issue. How about I quote the heroes of the modern day liberals? Are you ready? Prepare to see the hypocrite in your mirror. I know it's a little bit of reading, but this is part of the reason why so many people have no respect for the liberal political position du jour. By the way, I couldn't make up stuff this good!


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, December 16, 1998) -- President Bill Clinton Wednesday defended his decision to order airstrikes against Iraq, saying Saddam Hussein had failed his "one last chance" to cooperate with United Nations resolutions. "So we've had to act and act now."

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said during his Oval Office address to the nation.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the middle east and around the world," Clinton said.


or how about the man who "Should" be president today?:rolleyes:


Washington -- Vice President Al Gore, interviewed by CNN's Larry King late December 16, 1998 explained why the United States felt obliged to strike at Iraq's Saddam Hussein earlier in the day.

"We tried to make this inspection regime work, and Saddam would not cooperate. In fact, he obstructed the inspectors. And so we are going to take the other alternative available to us, to use our military to degrade his ability to get weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors. We'll make an assessment whenever this military action is completed. If, at some point in the future he decides to try to continue to threaten his neighbors and get weapons of mass destruction, we may have to do it again."


How about?


December 16, 1998 -- Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen [Also participating in the briefing was Gen. Henry H. Shelton, U.S. Army, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] President Clinton's decision to strike Iraq has clear military goals. We want to degrade Saddam Hussein's ability to make and to use weapons of mass destruction. We want to diminish his ability to wage war against his neighbors. And we want to demonstrate the consequences of flouting international obligations.


One more:


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesman

December 16, 1998
Q: Madame Secretary, you've said that you talked to more than a dozen of your counterparts today. France, since these strikes have started, has issued a statement saying that it disassociated itself from the military action. My question is, what are they telling you about the reasons that, in effect, the US and Britain are acting alone?


SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, I think that basically they have felt that Saddam Hussein needs to comply, and they have approached it from a different way. But the truth is they have no answers as to how to make them comply. I think that we have support from a number of countries. I feel very satisfied with the overall support -- not only for diplomatic purposes, but I think that Secretary Cohen has also indicated that we have the kind of support we need in order to carry out our mission.

The bottom line is that it would be very nice if those who do not
support our approach had an approach that worked. We have not been able -- either they, through their diplomatic efforts, or we through ours -- to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply. I think we've been at this, as I've said -- in the last year there have been over four crises with Saddam Hussein. I think the important point that I have made as I've made my calls is that we have to break this cycle. Unless people have an answer that works, I think they can go their own way.

Well, I'm not feeling any impotence at the moment, I live in a great nation where people are supposed to be free to disagree with their government, unlike Iraq and many other places. This small irony seems to be lost on the "love it or leave it" crowd.

And being called a moron by someone who can't spell "fascist" is always good for a chuckle. :D And what this has to do with what is going on now is that you, targadude, posted that "our troops will be fighting for democracy", when the last time we were there we were not. When one African nation invades another where no oil wells are involved, we send a letter of condolence.

I seriously question the truthfulness of the info we have been supplied by our own government regarding the immediate threat to Americans from Iraq, as do many other informed people. They, Bush and company, have had to do some serious backpeddling recently when what the inspectors turns up does not match the pre-sold scenario of Sadam's arsenal. NO credible evidence of a nuclear program or links to Al Queda. I'm surprised that they could not even plant something to bolster their case, with all of the time and personnel we have had over there.

Furthermore, I agree with Ed that the threat of terrorism is raised by this policy, the reason that much of the world feels that military intervention should only be used when absolutely all other options have been exhausted is because of this and many other nightmare scenarios even if we kick their asses fast, which we most likely will. This has all the possibility of having long term repercussions for the western world, IMO. :cool:

hmmmmm.... U boyz prejudices are showing again........right war wrong PR approach....Bush apparently down't care about spin or PR.....He seem more like TR "Speak softly and carry a big stick." The administration is of the opinion that America has a self interest and is going to persue it, even if others doen't like it.....and they aren't going to tell those others we feel your pain while we stick it in em.

The marketing strategy is to tell the people it's about WMD.which is true but not the whole truth...there is more to it besides oile or revenge I might add.

As far as terrorism goes....how much more could islamic fundamentalists hate the USA....isn't blowing up the WTC hate enough...so that arguement don't hold H2O.

The message that the WTC sent to the world is that the USA better be able to step up to the plate and be able to hit the ball or the USA was going to lose the game. I think the "lose the game" part is whats incomprensible to liberal Americans. I don't think they can fathom that the USA can lose.

How do we do the job better, eh?
 

OK, since you seem to have such a great information source, what is the better course of action? How has the US government deceived and manipulated the populace? Also, you claim the Bush administration wasn't prepared for the lack of evidence. Have the inspectors really dug up a lot of information in the past 12 years? Have you seen reports and accounts from past inspectors in which the Iraqi military confiscated the inspector's documents? Have you heard about inspectors arriving at one gate, while Iraqis were hauling out secret equipment and supplies out the opposite gate? Do you think Saddam and his henchmen have the wings of angels now? If Bush has any sense, past history will tell him there was little hope for the inspections.

I sense many anti-war sentiments are purely anti-Bush rants. I don't see much argument about why we shouldn't go to war. Bush needs to take more public speaking classes. He strikes me as a person who doesn't care about pleasing everyone. However, the actions he has taken are decisive and merey a continuation of past administrations.

Covert ops? Isn't that like the time we helped Iraq in the early 80s, or the time we overthrew Iran. During the 1990s, our intelligence community took a big hit. CIA claims we don't have a meaningful ground intelligence presence in the Middle East. We got caught with our pants down, and now our reaction is based on our current capabilities... shoot now, ask questions later.

It would be interesting to come back to this thread 6 months or 1 years from now. What will have changed? Will I still be full of sh~t? Will France still be occupied by pu55ies? Will someone shoot that guy Simon on American Idol?

Jurgen

A tinfoil hat will reflect the brain-sucking rays from the black helicopters.....
No links to Al Queda.
No genocide.
No $hit.

I didn't vote for GW and I don't really care for many of his policies or his prowess on the podium. Yet in this difficult time I think the world is lucky he is in office and surrounded by the capable people that make this country work. Reading all these posts I am astounded as to how quickly people forget about 9/11. This conflict is about removing from power (killing *edit*as needed) irrational people that threaten the security of a mostly peaceful world. Iraq may not have the capability to launch a military strike against the U.S. but it does have the resources to acquire WMD and is working to distribute them around the world. When? Maybe not today, or tomorrow, but perhaps in the coming months and most likely the coming years. I’m with GW on this one, do we sit and wait for the proven success of U.N. sanctions and inspections, .........., or do we act now. I vote that we are proactive in securing global security now, on our terms, rather than wait for another 9/11 event to occur. Those of you who think this will only breed more terrorists are living with blinders on. With our support of Israel, the U.S. has created a lot of enemies in the Middle East. This will not change and the U.S. will not abandon Israel. Palestine needs to have its own state and should be given such however I don’t think this will erase the hostility. Maybe they need their own Disneyland?

Reality check. Pacifists did not create the U.S. and we don’t get to enjoy our large heated homes and 24hr grocery stores because we are so popular. Going down that road now will only secure our doom.

The Fonda story is true:

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm

Be sure to spit on her if you ever see her in the flesh.

gave peace a chance. now is the time to fully support our president and our military men and women on the eve of war. btw i fully support the right of people to disagree with and/or trash our president and our great country (bagdad jim mcdermott, sean penn martin sheen even the ditsi chicks etal) but i also reserve the right to not support them and their opinions by boycotting any of their movies, tv shows, cds, books or anything else they are associated with. just my .02 worth. ric

Another thing that cracks me up about the liberals is that they can't believe we would criticize those who speak out against the war and the President. HELLO???? Yes, people have a right to speak out against the President and WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE PROTESTERS! Duh!

Since I posted the quotes from Clinton and Gore in which they directly say Hussein has Chemical, Biological and Nuclear programs that the USA can't allow them to have, now some are crying that there is no Al Queda connection. Who cares? That lunatic cannot be allowed to acquire Nuclear weapons. Our current President is not going to allow that to happen, unlike our former President, who allowed North Korea to develop Nuclear Weapons on his watch. Great diplomacy was achieved with that treaty huh Clinton? And now, Bush is stuck with the former administrations North Korea mess too. Liberals cry that North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq. Well, NO *****. What would you like us to do? The nut already has Nukes that can hit Tokyo, Seoul and they can also lob them somewhere along the west coast of the USA. What should we do in that situation? What should we do when North Korea, Iraq and Iran all have nuclear weapons? Bend over and kiss our a$$es goodbye? Thank God we have a President who has the guts to deal with the situation for the safety of our country now, and in the future.

Speaking of "Small irony", I guess its ok for people to disagree with the Govt, but not OK for people to disagree with the people who disagree? Denis, pull up your pants, your hypocrisy is showing.

Wow, you question the truthfulness of the info? Did you call the CIA and complain that they weren't giving you a daily briefing? No "CREDIBLE" evidence of a nuclear program? Did you read my post with direct quotes from Pres Clinton, VP Gore, Sec of Defense Cohen and Sec of State Albright? If the Bush administration does not seem credible to you, how about I blow your nonsensical argument completely out of the water by quoting the Clinton administration on the very topic that hasn't been "proven" to you. I assume you consider the Clinton administration to have been "informed"? Thank God that people who think your way aren't in control of this situation. We had no proof of anything on Sept 10th! As has been asked of the liberals, but ignored, what do you need to see, a mushroom cloud over Manhatten? Is that the PROOF you are looking for?

The True Liberal America.....Pretty dam sad..
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/Burka.jpg

Jorge (Targa Dude):(

I dont agree with Bush`s thoughts on starting this war with Saddam. I believe N Korea is the bigger threat right now. Ya, I know, Saddam DOES have WMD, we all know he does.But he hasnt used them, on us, or anybody else in the last 10 years. But yet N Korea is firing, now 2 missles in test missions, that have the capibilty to reach our nation. Saddam doesnt. I do support our troops, and my country. But in my humble opinion, I think Bush is barking up the wrong tree at this moment.










http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/Usa-1.gif

Actually (and sadly) I think that liberals have just that type of latent desire.

Liberal are generally of the mindset that there are too few resources for the number of people. Or, to say it another way; "too many resource-sucking people."

Part of the liberal "save the planet" sub-text, is "people are bad, 'nature' is good". Putting aside the fact that people *are* natural . . . oh right, they won't get that.

Of course liberals also (generally) want to be seen as the nice caring type, above such vile things like war. Though I think their most compeling reasons are fear for themselves, and the charred spot on mother earth where Saddams bunker was.

911SC Pilot, what rock are you hiding under?? you better come out and see the real world..

US Forces around Korea
There are about 37,500 military personnel in the USFK area of responsibility, including about 225 aircraft of all types. The number of troops deployed in the area does not fluctuate.

Ground forces include a variety of units that are normally deployed in the region, which total about 10,000 troops. Forces in the region include Patriot missile batteries, Apache helicopter squadrons, a mechanized infantry brigade, an air assault brigade, various support, intelligence and other units. The total Army presence in the region is nearly 27,500 soldiers.

The Air Force has two wings located in the USFK region with some 8,300 personnel, operating a toatal of about 100 aircraft of all types.

US Naval Forces, Korea is particularly small, numbering around 293 sailors and 52 marines. CNFK normally has no seagoing forces assigned, though its personnel are assigned to various joint, combined, and Navy billets throughout the ROK peninsula. These personnel are actively engaged in planning and execution of numerous operations and exercises throughout the Korean theater. There is one ship that has been present in the region for over 30 years, that being the USS Pueblo which was captured on 23 January 1968. She is currently located at Pyongyang.

US Non-military individuals in Korea can be divided into two categories, contractors and family members. There are roughly 4,000 contractors and and 11,500 family members in Korea at any given time.

Jorge (Targa Dude)
I'm not sure if you have any right to bare your flag.. Maybe you an Zandalar should hook up..

Just a few more.. Recent developements for YOU PILOT!!

Recent Developments
In February 2003 the 8th Army announced a stop movement policy which prevented soldiers from rotating out of South Korea back to the United States. This stop movement order currently impacts some 2,800 soldiers. It is not clear however whether or not the replacement for those soldiers have already arrived in the region thus making US forces presence larger then the normal 37,000 personnel.
On February 6, the Navy ordered the USS Carl Vinson and its Battle Group to the Western Pacific where it will replace the Kitty Hawk Battle Group and be in position to respond to any events that may develop regarding North Korea. This development is listed on the US Forces Japan page.
In late February the 2nd Battalion, 34th Armor Regiment, an element of the 1st Infantry Division arrived in Korea to participate in Foal Eagle. Fort Riley, the base that the 2-34 Armor is from indicated that between 400-500 soldiers were involved in the movement.
On February 28 the Department of Defense ordered the deployment of 24 bombers to Andersen Air Force Base in Guam to act as a deterrent to North Korea. The deployment would consist of twelve B-52s and twelve B-1Bs. As of March 5 it was not clear which units would be sent or when they would deploy.
By March 10, 2003 seven B-52s and ten B-1s were at Andersen Air Force Base. The aircraft belonged to the 7th Bomb Wing and the 2nd Bomb Wing.
Elements of the 40th Infantry Division (Mechanized) were alerted to prepare to deploy to South Korea. This is not a normally scheduled deployment.
On March 11 the Associated Press reported that at least six F-117 Nighthawks from the 49th Fighter Wing will deploy to the South Korea in support of RSOI/FE 2003. CNN on March 12 indicates that the aircraft are headed to Kunsan Air Base.
It has recently been confirmed that elements of the 3rd Wing have indeed been ordered to deploy to South Korea in support of RSOI/FE. Specific numbers or squadrons would not be disclosed. CNBC reported on March 10 that F-15s from Alaska were being deployed to South Korea or Japan.
According to the International Herald Tribune on March 13, 2003 six F-117s departed New Mexico for Kunsan Air Base pn March 13 and will arrive in Korea on March 14.
According to Stars & Stripes on March 13 elements of the 160th Special Operations Regiment (Airborne) are operating in South Korea. The element is E Company, and is normally based in the region.

Now you Friggen tell me.. we are ignoring KOREA!!!

Man!!.. were do you people come from????

Jorge (Targa Dude)

Absolutely I respect the rights of conservatives to voice their opinion on national matters, in fact I sometimes agree w/ them, just not this time. What I do not respect is the inference/red herring that anyone who disagrees w/ Bush's decision to bomb Iraq at this time is a traitor/ does not "support the troops". BULL*****!! This is the worst type of baiting, bringing up Jane Fonda, for chrissakes, do I compare the brave men and women currently stationed in the middle east to Lt. Calley?? NO!! That would be the equivalent to what has been said and inferred by some here.

And this drags what should be a great democratic debate in a great country to a level that sickens me. The U.S. did not become such a nice place by everyone just going along w/ the party line, dissent is healthy and welcome in a democracy. I disagree that we should be sacrificing American lives, (and inevitably non-combatant enemy lives), at this exact moment based on all info and events currently unfolding, not what we did right or wrong in '91 or '88. Some high-profile retired generals agree with me, FWIW.

Once again, I do respect the viewpoint of the pro-war faction, more so in this conflict than others, as a matter of fact, since I believe most if not all of you base your view on facts and arguments that I just happen not to agree with. And no, the CIA has not shared their info w/ me, nor have they shared it w/ any of you. So let's dispense with the idea that the other viewpoint has their "head in the sand". I suspect that some who are making that assertion have not even availed themselves of all of the mainstream information that has been put forth on the middle east and terrorism. If we really want to bomb dictatorships that have proven ties to state sponsored terrorism, we would have to begin with Saudi Arabia. Now that's a lot of sand. :cool:

WE ALL KNOW NORTH KOREA IS A BIGGER PROBLEM RIGHT NOW! What do you propose doing about it? Should we mass troops along its border, causing the nut who runs the country to PUSH THE BUTTON? What about the civilian casualties in that conflict, because they will number in the MILLIONS! We keep hearing about the civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict, that will be a drop in the ocean compared to a new Korean conflict.

Do we want two different nuts in the world to have a button to push? People, this is common sense. Common sense is not ruled by emotion. The Bush administration is asking for help in dealing with North Korea. They are saying this is a problem that the Korean penninsula and its neighbors need to handle. Rumsfeld is proposing pulling our troops out of South Korea. The North Korea problem was allowed to become a NUCLEAR problem because the Clinton administration signed a worthless piece of paper treaty and then closed their eyes and plugged their ears about No Korea, and concentrated on getting oral sex while in office. Hell, I'd prefer a hummer to concentrating on doing the difficult things required to make my country safe, but I wasn't elected to lead the USA and Clinton was! And this is exactly where he lead us, where we are today.

Wow, """I'm not sure if you have any right to bare your flag"""

Why is that??? Because I think we should deal N Korea first. I did say "at the moment"

"""911SC Pilot, what rock are you hiding under?? you better come out and see the real world"""

Didnt know I was under a rock. I dont know why you felt the need to cut and paist all the above, its common knowledge.

Wow, express your opinion, and you get jumped on, and critizised as an American, because even though I support the decision yesterday, I "FEEL IN MY """OPINON""", N Korea is a little bigger of a threat right now, at the moment.

And learn to read, I didnt say we are ignoring N Korea.

"""Man!!.. were do you people come from???? """"

I dont know, where do your kind come from??

Island, where do you get this ignorant crap? I have "liberals" in my family who are war heroes, (my dad for openers), being against this military plan does not mean that someone is even a pacifist, I'm not. Same w/ the "people are bad" drool, huh? You must be just making this stuff up based on some deep-seated fear or prejudice against people who do not agree w/ your views.

I'll put my courage up against yours any day. You are awfully brave about sacrificing a bunch of young people to fight for your political beliefs, like most hawks.

The majority of the people here don't argue or begrudge you that.

So it's the ordering that's got you bugged? FYI, the hunt for those that threaten the free world will not stop in Iraq.

racea911. good post. I just feel, instead of waiting for N Korea to build 15 more NB`s, deal with them now. But this is just my opinion.


Its remakable how this opinion makes me less of an American. Fruckin pathetic.

Actually, N. Korea.. has two.. and are in the process of building 6 more.
and we are dealing with them..Maybe not the way you may want.. But never the less..we are.. There is the UN way which is NO Way... and then their is THE U.S WAY!!
Oh.. and PILOT... you might feel your on the right.. but your really on the LEFT! it's pretty obvious..
Jorge (Targa Dude)

Speeder,
I appreciate your last reply. I felt it was well written and non-emotional. However, you are choosing to ignore my posts which directly quoted Clinton and Gore saying that Saddam has Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological weapons programs. Bush and his administration are saying the EXACT same thing, but remarkably, there are inferrences to it not being factual or proven. I think the FACT that Clinton, Gore, Cohen and Albright said the exact same things about Iraq's WMD's as their current Republican counterparts is about as close to proof that we as ordinary citizens will ever receive. What would be sufficient proof for you people? If our soldiers find something, many will say that they planted it. If our satellites show trucks going out the back gate as inspectors go in the front gate of a suspected WMD facility, most people, thru the use of common sense would deduce that the trucks just left with something. But not the doubters, they will say "you don't know what was in the trucks that coincidently just left. Maybe they were just going to Taco Bell?".