First off, in retrospect, I'm forced to agree with Drogo's last post, that could have been handled a lot better. Anyways, as to Fury, I am for the troops and against the war.  How can I do that?  Simple.  I am hoping that this war will soon cease to happen.  I don't support going in half-@$$ed, but I do support giving diplomacy as much vigor as war.  I'd much rather the fighting stop halfway to Bagdad than we half fight all the way to Bagdad. The actual problem I have with this war isn't actually the war, but the way in which it was carried out with respect to the UN.  From day one, the United States made it very clear that it expected instant approval for anything it tabled which is, needless to say, absolutely ludicrous. If our government had been less Gung-ho about this war, I wouldn't exactly stand behind them, but I would not disagree with it.  It states in the UN Charter (signed by the US and not in violation of our constitution or anything) that war is only allowed in times of self defense (which no case can be made for this) or in cases specifically authorized by the security council. Correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in any security council resolution does it say that we can go to war.  This total disrespect for the opinions and laws of the international community are what make me opposed to this, not the fact that we are ousting Saddam. The other fact that I disagree with is the hypocracy of this whole thing.  We've disobeyed at least as many UN rulings, pulled out of more treaties, and built more WMDs than anyone else in the world, and we're going to attack them for doing the same!?! Just for reference, here's a list of what has been done just since 2000, I hope it lends some perspective to that last comment: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/index.php
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

We are, but I don't have to stand behind our president in it.  I don't have to agree with it.  I can continue to recite precedents our attack has set and international laws it has broken.  In fact, it seems likely now that our president and even Tony Blaire will face war crimes charges for their actions here. No matter how justified a war might be, having it take place against international law is not justified, no matter what the reasons.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Welcome to the real world, Drogo. Around here we get so many Americans claiming with their pompous attitue to have British ancestry, claiming they know all and see all in the world, and we should all be following their lead because, apparently, they "saved our asses" before. During the Edinburgh Festival, kicking American heads in becomes the national sport. I, and you, don't have to like it, but its that type of attitude which leaves several of our Atlantic buddies paralysed for the rest of their lvies. Some, even, dead.
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

Ok lets not get into personal attacks on each other. The purpose of the little discussion was supposed to be civil, clean acts of voicing opinions. Lets not get into blaming others. Drogo, Snips went overboard. It’s too obvious of that. Bear was probably just mad that he did go overboard and had voiced his opinions too strongly in a hostile manner. Now let’s forget that little problem and get into the topic.  If we can’t do that, maybe someone should close the discussion before it get worse. Its a known fact we are at war, in fact that was officially declared once the carbon hit the ground in Iraq at 9:30 PM or so Eastern Standard Time, then with Bush's speech at 10:15 to 10:19 PM EST. What does that mean? That means its war, which troops will be fighting and dying for the country we live in. I respect the soldiers in the conflict, it’s there job to enter the conflict and do the presidents orders, and so I respect that and good luck with them. I happen to know a few people that I talk to everyday who are out there working with the soldiers behind the scenes or actually with the troops fighting. "Tolerance for dissent is shrinking, with accusations of treason hurled against those who dare to question official policy....The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees Americans the freedom to question, to argue, and to vigorously dissent." - People for the American Way Just because I respect the soldiers and their decision, doesn’t mean I have to like the decision to go to war. And *points to rights and freedoms* I have that right. If you want to get into "you don't have that right because you don’t understand war" well get some facts straight. I was in the reserves, yes I didn’t know what conflict was there, but I did take part in training until my little accident which crippled my ability to continue on with the military, even though I was planning to up my time into full time military service, like my father had done for many years. My father, my oldest brother and generations of my family were in open conflicts, my father in Vietnam and my brother in Afghanistan. Do I know war from their stories? You know what... damn straight. Now that I sit here I hear complaints of people who are 'pro war' but are about 16, 17 and have not heard about the conflict. Yes there are some with brothers and sisters in the military and such, and they all have their rights as well, but that doesn’t mean bashing others because of their opinion. War is not a movie, it is a bloody, dangerous crusade where our good men and women become political pawns for those in high offices who can sit back and watch the armies as a cardboard cutout on a map, that someone puts into position at every phone call from the ground. I respect the soldiers, but I do not respect the command position on this matter. Soldiers are being used as pawns because of a conflict rushed into play by two top advisors from the Gulf War who have always wished Saddam could have died in that conflict. Now they have their chance. The trash about "not finishing" the job in the Gulf War is bogus. If you look over the documents of that war and see what has happened, you can see that the military campaign was launched to halt the Iraqi aggression into Kuwait. It stopped after that mission was completed, and it WAS. Sorry to break many posters bubble on that but that was the mission, its stated in ink and its finalized as completed in the signing of it in 1991. This event was triggered to past emotions against a dictator that did not live up to his claim since the United States had him placed in power. There is a sad truth to this conflict, and that is that the United States does not own the war, no one owes it favors, and upset regimes around the globe are tired of a 'diplomatic dictator' ravaging about the countryside like a 'lion seeking to devour someone'. We know that in WW2, France lost a horrible war, it was crushed into pieces with the conflict with Germany, and was in disarray. Canada, Britain, Poland, and many other countries entered the war to stop that conflict. It took two years before the United States entered, had it not been for Japan believing the United States was a threat to its country and launching a preemptive assault. United States did not save that country, it should stop thinking that way, it was only a partner, an ally in the war. Other countries did so as well, their own men fighting off the German assault. France had a hard time then as well, loosing tons of civilians and soldiers. Saying that France owes the United States for that war is a complete disrespect to the soldiers who died in that war and I take offense to that, having parts of my family as causalties of that horrible era. I personally think that anyone who says that should be placed in a straw bunker in the desert and if they direspect others for their opinions on that, get placed in it during a MOAB bomb drop. Its on thing to have an opinion, its another to disrespect history. So if you want to get into disrespecting battles of old, watch as US National Leaders disrespect France and other countries because of the decision they have the RIGHT to make as a SOVERIGN country, then by all means, be a complete ass. But lets get respect going here, not just over dealings with fellow members and associates, but with the world. It is sickening to consider people are shoving themselves up Georgies pants to prove their patriotism without thinking twice about the consequences. "It is a sad time for the world...a country speaking with the lips of peace is in reality striking down his brothers." - Aaron Gibson Oh and for those who question rights to speech, stick your nose in this site here for some interesting reading. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9376.
 
-----------------------
TRP/CPL Kjerri/2SQD/1PLT/1COM/1BAT/1RGT/VEA/VE [LoR] [LM]
"I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day...tomorrow isn't looking good either."

I'm just sickened that none of you seem to be thinking about how to cure the anti-Americanism in Europe, which has increased a million-fold in the last week or so. When you make a personal assault on France, it is felt by a lot of people that you are making an assault on every single one of us - me included. Unless you're planning to invade the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, Russia, Greece and Turkey (among another half dozen or so), I think you might have to use a differant method. Put it like this: I have had my ass kicked. But I have not had my ass kicked so badly that I actually ended up LIKING the guy.
 
-----------------------
           Captain Aaron "Bear" Le'pue, NCC Adjutant & VE Today Chief Editor
                                                        ~~~
       NCC:A/CAP Aaron "Bear" Le'pue/Raptor/Offensive Fleet/mSSD Atrus/VEN/VE
(=A=) (=SA=) (=MA=) (=FOCE=) (=JCPA=) (=SCPA=) [BRC] [BRC] [LSM] [LoC] [NDM]
                                                        ~~~
                                      Bear : [email protected]
                             Vast Empire Today : [email protected]

I agree that personal attacks need to end, and apologize for any I may have made. I just ask that everyone remember those who died on September 11, 2001, and the vows we made to get the people behind Osama.
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)

Well Geist, there is always hope, though I really do agree with you on the inevitability of this situation happening. However, I am all for people who allow their idealism to override what you and I would call common sense.  On occassion their ideals triumph and it is usually a beautiful thing to see. I am running BBC video and CNN radio in my office so I've had ample opportunity to keep informed and still be productive.  It appears that most, if not all, of those were not Scuds, so we shall see how many more cards Saddam is holding later in the conflict.  As troops move further in and the air war heats up, I think the time for anyone hoping for some 11th hour miracle is about to be sorely disappointed.  Let's all take a moment of reflection on what that means and hope we can find better ways of accomplishing similar goals in other ways. As for whether or not you can work through your emotions in posts, I suggest letting someone else read it completely out of context or just going away for 10 minutes and re-reading your post before you click the Submit button.

"Other than that, if Scuds are all they have, it's still not worth going to war..." I doubt the average Israeli, Kuwaiti, and Saudi would totally agree with you. (My original post didn't quite come across the way I meant it.)

All I'm saying is that war is a negative thing, to be done only at the highest possible need.  WWII was one of those, a madman (strategic genius, but still a madman) conquering his neighbors one by one is a threat that only war can prevent.  However, a madman who has remained in control of a country that has only gone downhill for 12 years is not in the same category, not by the farthest stretch of the imagination. Anyways, if you'll notice, my argument hasn't been about war for a while (I may be a pacifist, but I respect your right not to be), it's been about how the US is handling this war.  By ignoring the majority of public opinion around the world, the United States has attacked a sovereign nation in an act that is specifically outlawed by the UN Charter. It is showing complete contempt for international law in an attempt to enforce it on someone else.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but at school, hitting a kid for having cocaine at school will get you in trouble, even if they were breaking the rules first. It's not something that can lead to good things, and I oppose it for that reason.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Or to be less blunt, this is not the first time the US has done something without UN approval.  It is remarkable that it even asked to do so. Nor is it the first time any of the more powerful nations have gone their own way without a giving a thought about international thought.  The very fact that we even asked the UN speaks volumes for the patience Bush had that I was not even aware of.  He could've struck in the fall, faced the same protests and probably have been ahead of the game.  Looking back on it all, you wonder why he even tried. The point is, condemnations be damned, there is not a state in that region who is going to be disappointed when Saddam and his crew are gone.  Granted, it might not lead to any situation the US may want, but I think most people are willing to take that chance.  As for long term damage to our foreign relations, most of the problems will be resolved by the elections in 2004 or 2008 at the far end, far shorter than the 12 years Saddam had to drag this situation out.  If nothing else, that is the magic of democracy.  Leaders come and go, the citizens still have their ability to speak their minds and vote accordingly. Cry all you want about John Ashcroft and George Bush, but there is a reason we still have three branches of government and some semblance of an open media.
 
-----------------------
PRF/MG Fury/VEA/TADATH/VE [SCP][PoC][SotE:HC][SotE:VEA][IOC]
Stormtrooper Corps Prefect
Shopkeeper - Imperial Center

Lesse, one by one.  First off, the attack on Kosovo is a pretty good example of this type of war gone right.  Then President Bill Clinton told our allies what we wanted, what was going on, presented concrete proof of it (not this stuff we presented that didn't fly when it was checked out), and went through NATO in order to acheive his objectives.  He refrained from a ground war, which would be seen as an invasion, bombed targets like bridges and tanks that would have few civilians by them, and he won. Now, let's see the situational differences here.  First off, regime change.  Check in one, check in the other.  Clinton got Melosovich, who is currently on trial for warcrimes at the Hague.  Bush is currently targetting Saddam specifically (the only part of this plan I agree with), and is obviously intending to kill him rather than put him up for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Second part, genocide.  Kosovo had it, no doubting it as it was taking place.  Saddam may be bloodthirsty, but he hasn't risen to that level yet, so there goes one difference. World support.  Clinton campaigned until he had it, it wasn't that difficult because he agreed to use NATO as the attack force, he agreed not to actually invade the country, and he kept all his allies and even those who didn't support the bombing informed on his objectives and attack plans.  Bush has run almost no international campaign for support.  He has gone up before the UN and presented pictures of things that may have been weapons, but which were later flatly denied by the weapons' inspectors. Anyways, more when I get back from school...
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

"I would also like to point out that I have heard of no effort by the international community to name Hussein a war criminal. That means no war crimes tribunal for him. He still needs killing though. No way around it, and nobody is going to shed any tears when he's finally gone." Wrong. You won't believe a word of this, but to my knowledge, its true: France (incredibly!) proposed a UN Resolution to the UN Security Council denouncing Saddam Hussein himself, and his Regime, and freezing all trade, assets, etc - in 1988, after Saddam Husseins gas attacks against the Kurds. This UN Resolution, in a slightly more complicated way than the one we might have seen a week or so ago, authorised millitary action against Iraq (specifically special forces & airstrikes, as opposed to a full on invasion). The resolution was passed - well, sort of. Because, at the time, Britain and the US relied on Iraqi trade and assistance so much, Britain voted against the resolution. There were still enough votes to pass it, no matter how the US had voted. The US, with a Republican Administration, used their veto. The French obviously have long memories.

I agree that no nation should have that power.  This would also mean that no nation should be allowed to commit an offensive action without majority approval of the UN General Assembly (not my rules, just how democracy works).  This would actually have created an attack long ago, back in the 1980's actually, but the US held it back. However, I feel that the French idea to deal with Saddam (economic sanctions coupled with specific special forces attacks) is far superior and less error prone than an actual military invasion. Even laser guided bombs miss sometimes, and when they do, they can kill dozens of civilians.  Soldiers on the ground can be blinded by sandstorms and commit fratricide (the cause of 50% of the casualties in the first Gulf War). Economic sanctions are far more precise, they can stop specific imports, block exports, and basically cut off a nation from things it needs to sustain the regime.  For example, if we imposed an embargo on bullets, Saddam's regime would collapse in months.  He has to do training excersizes, which mostly require real bullets, but if he uses them all there, he can no longer control the people. Something like that, combined with special forces raids on his military bases would destabilize him and remove him in a matter of months, without involving a massive scale invasion into a sovereign nation or using methods that could put civilian blood on our hands. "War is never better than peace, it's just faster" - Argon Viper And in this case, we need better, because we want this to actually last.  If we show people that they can get their way by going to war, what's going to stop them from doing it?  The only way to ensure peace is to get it through peaceful means. That's my view on the situation, and trust me, if we were serious about it, it would work thousands of times better than war.
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Yes, but we should use economic power rather than military power to achieve our aims, or we are no better than Saddam.  Anyways, I'm gonna cover the point about WWII first... I believe that WWII never needed to be fought.  If France and Britain had stood up and said no when Hitler decided to take Austria, and kept on that track, Hitler never would have been powerful enough to even risk attacking.  It's what we're doing to Saddam right now. Now, considering the circumstances, yes, nations did force themselves into a position where they had to declare war.  However, it could have been done a lot better. I don't know about your way of thinking, but civilian lives always rank above soldiers.  Soldiers are meant to go into combat, fight, and even die for their countries.  Civilians take no such oaths, they are in an entirely different field and are not the targets in any war but that bent on genocide. To that end, I think you can tell my opinion of the carpet bombing of German cities and the A-bombs on Japan. Anyways, I'm starting to respect the EU a lot more these days after seeing how they use their power.  They don't force their way into a situation they have no business being in, they don't ask to get shot as a revenge for shooting someone else. What they do instead is say "you have this policy we don't like, we won't force you to change it, but you'll get no trade with us until you do".  This sort of warfare is far more preferable, because it will cause change from the inside, something that is far more stable than change from the outside. Already, we have reports of regular Iraqis taking up arms in defense of their country.  Would they have done this if Saddam had said "let's go invade Kuwait"?  No.  They are doing it because someone from the outside is taking the stance that they are going to comply or else, and it is an insult to their national identity. True, hundreds, if not thousands, are raped, tortured, and otherwise defiled, but they're not going to allow and invasion of their country, especially by the people who supported Saddam for so long.  As far as they know, we're just going to replace him with someone just as bad. Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that getting them to change their leadership is a better idea than changing it for them.  It's more stable, it has less stigma, and it's not a breach of international law. "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.  teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime." - Anonymous
 
-----------------------
Argon Viper
IW COL Argon Viper{ret}
Fallen Angel and Proud of It!
"History is on the move, those who cannot keep up will watch from a distance, and those who get in our way will not watch at all" - Grand Admiral Thrawn
"In combat, second place is only the last to die."- Anonymous
"Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses" - Carl G Jung

Argon, when U.S. troops enter a town, they are being greeted by joyous cries of "Ameriki, Ameriki!" And that quote is from the Patriot News daily paper. The Iraqi's are so desprete, they're trying to surrender to journalists! They DON'T WANT SADDAM. HE IS TORTURING THEM. As Geist asked, does their suffering under him mean nothing to you?
 
-----------------------

"The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other &*@#$% die for his!"
                                                 -General Patton

FM/LCRW Chipmunk Man/Viper 1-4/Phoenix/mSSD Atrus/DEF/VEN/VE/(=A=)