The War with Iraq has begun

[Lotharr]

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Do they really think that putting a flag they bought from frigging Wal-Mart, on thier car constitutes support?

---

Yup. At least moral support.

Well it's started. Russia is heavily condemning US actions. I figured it would start before now and be like that China spy plane incident. A big stink for a while then die down. While I realize it won't be a "short" war I hope it doesn't get extended. That would allow the condemnations to continue far longer than they need to.

[Cruis.In]

i stopped reading your post half way through i think i got the drift race bannon. You seem awfully judgemental. If I am to understand what it implies, it says that because someone is not a soldier that cannot say support the troops because they don't know what it's like to be out there fighting what they're going through or have a family member going through it, so also these same people sit at home watching the t.v like it is a football game.

well maybe you could tell the news not to show anything at all. everyone cannot be a soldier. but anyone can support a soldier, and his calling.

i fight my own battle in my job. and everyone fights their own personal wars everyday.

this war is just on a greater level.

not everyone has it in them to be a soldier, but strong people should not cry down others.

and if I was a soldier, I know i would want to turn on the radio and hear news about all the war-support demonstrations, not the anti-dis-dat protests.

[Guest]

Race,

I don't know what to say.

Thank you, I respect your opinion as well, I don't always agree with it, but I respect it.

The fact of the matter is, I know what Saddam has done to his people, I know that he supports terrorists, I know that he has Chemical and biological weapons that he will not hesitate to use on us if given the chance.

I am also a father, with 2 daughters and 1 son, and my heart breaks for the families of the armed forces who will give the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Each of those deaths tears me apart. Each and every one of the civilian casualties in Iraq tears me apart as well.

BUT the fact of the matter is, this madman must be stopped, and stopped NOW, otherwise, my children, and your children, my sister, and your sisters, my mother, your mothers, my father, your fathers, are all in danger because of this maniacs dreams of grandeur. He will not hesitate to kill them if he feels that it will bring him more power and prestige.

The people of Iraq have been murdered, raped, and gassed into submission, and none of you can refute that, no matter how much you hate this war.

And the fact is, that he will murder and rape and gas YOUR families, YOUR friends, and YOUR neighbors, if he is given the opportunity.

That opportunity is through terrorist organizations such as Al Quaeda, Hammas, the PLO, and many others. He not only supports them, but openly supports some of them, and secretly helps trains others.

If he is NOT stopped and his government and regime destroyed, he will murder, YOUR family, YOUR friends, and YOUR neighbors. This is fact, whether you care to admit it or not.

Not everyone in this world has the same worldview as you. Not everyone is nice, compassionate and loves their fellow man. There are people out there that will destroy you, murder you, and kill you in order to gain PERSONAL power over others.

Sorry, the world is not a nice place, and Saddam and his regime are not nice people, their goals is TOTAL domination of the middle east, TOTAL domination of the people of the misslde east, and the TOTAL destruction of the country of Israel.

They know that the US is all that stands in their way of doing this, therefore we are their MAIN target, we are their MAIN enemy.

They will do ANYTHING to make sure that we are not a threat to their personal grab of power.

We are a republic, a free market, the most powerful nation in the world, and they cannot abide it. They will destroy us in any way shape or form they can.

That is the truth, whether you, again, care to admit it or not.

Our armed forces are fighting for us, for our lives and freedoms, for our morals, and our way of life, because if they do NOT do it now, they will have to do it later, AT A MUCH GREATER COST!!!

You may not believe it, you may not like it, but it is the truth.

NOW is the only time to deal with, although 12 years ago would have been better, because morre then 5000 Israeli citizens would still be alive and over 3000 American lives wouldhave been spared, and the World Trade Center would still be standing.

You may not believe it, you may not want to admit the fact that Saddam helped finance it, you may not want to admit that they want to KILL YOU, but they do. They want you DEAD because you threaten their power and their dreams of power.

You may not like, you may not believe it, but ti is the truth. Saddam wants to kill you, and will do anything it takes to make it happen, because the US is all that stands in his way of the glory and power that he is seeking.

He helped finance Al Quaeda, he helps finance the Suicide bombers in Israel and helps finance and train ANYONE who would be willing to hurt us.

Our troops are there to keep you and your family safe, this is not a war of aggression, this is not a war of Imperialism, this is a war of SURVIVAL and our men and women of the armed forces are over there to make sure that we survive and those that wish to destroy us, do not.

Yes, our soldiers will die, and yes, Iraqi civilians will die, but better to do it now, when the price will be low, then to have to deal with the 100 of thousands and possible millions that will die if we had hesitated.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruis.In:

i stopped reading your post half way through i think i got the drift race bannon.

---

Hehe, I only read the first sentence and knew I needed my rubber boots before I read any further!

[Kevin Trotter]

Rubber boots aren't the only thing you need. Snappy come back, you really got me that time. That is really intelligent discourse. You should be proud of yourself Remo.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Rubber boots aren't the only thing you need. Snappy come back, you really got me that time. That is really intelligent discourse. You should be proud of yourself Remo.

---

Heh, thanks Race I am. BTW I read it all. I don't agree, but to each his own.

Send me a PM Races to let me know when to expect you back from leave.

[Guest]

Heres something for you all to think about.

quote:

---

TRYING TO HELP

By Dennis Miller

All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against

Iraq has got my insane little brain spinning like a roulette

wheel. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I have

detected a hint of confusion from some of you.

As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best

advice someone ever gave me. He told me about the KISS method

("Keep it Simple, Stupid"). So, with this as a theme, I'd like to

apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is

that we can simplify things a bit and recognize a few important

facts.

Here are 10 things to consider when voicing an opinion on this

important issue:

1) President Bush and Saddam Hussein..... Hussein is the bad guy.

2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing,

keep this in mind. They have Libya heading the Committee on

Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee.

Do your own math here.

3) If you use Google Search and type in "French Military

Victories," your reply will be "Did you mean French Military

Defeats?"

4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil," sue your

school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and

robbing you of the education you deserve.

5) Saddam and Bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval

before they try to kill us.

6) Despite what some seem to believe, Martin Sheen is NOT the

President. He plays one on T.V.

7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an "Infidel" and Bin

Laden wants you dead, too.

8) If you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in

the danger that Hussein poses, quit hanging out with the Dell

computer dude.

9) We are not trying to liberate them.

10) Whether you are for military action, or against it, our young

men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to

speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

---

I love Dennis Miller!!

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

Hehe, I only read the first sentence and knew I needed my rubber boots before I read any further!

---

well its plain to see where your intellect has migrated to... (|)

again, here race makes sense. those of you prepubescent little boys and girls out there dont know what it means to support your troops. you do it to be cool, or to fit in with the crowd. i file that along with mail order patriotism. the only ones i actually feel for is the children of those over in the gulf.

as for protesters. most of them are just out to get TV time... and the media obliges them. the oscars was a prime example. moore could give 2 shits about US troops... he just got himself in the papers and on the news. mostly they get on my nerves because they relay that feeling of ingratitude to me. but it is their right to do and say what they wish, no matter how much it chafes me, just as it is mine to speak how i feel about them.

now for some personal views... should saddam be taken out? yes, is there an alternative way to remove him other then en masse? yes, does it involve troops being dropped into a meatgrinder to do it? no... i mean cmon folks, if the green berets can infil a heavily guarded NVA compound and extract a north vietnamese general, then they can go in and snag saddam... or the SAS... minimal personnel invovement. it would rely heavily on intel, but if we had enough intel to pin saddams location on the first night of bombing, then we could have done an extraction.

am i for the war? thats a tough one honestly. i do believe it could have been done a bit differently, without sending in a few thousand troops. i do support the fact that we are removing a dictator from power, along with his military heads. and i do support our troops. ive been places, as most service people in this community have, where genuine support, and not mail order support, is welcomed and appreciated.

more introspect... will this stop terrorism? no by no means no, its not a raid commercial (stops terrorism dead)for petes sake. at the most it will slow them down until they find another place to support them, and here race nailed it again. whatever happened to bin laden? if im not mistaken , werent we looking for him? didnt he plan the WTC attack?

ok now lets jump to after iraq. whats next? north korea? china? north korea has a nuke weapons program you say? well so did iraq before the israelis bombed it back to allah. did israel send in ground troops? no. just an option.

and the more i look, and the more i see, im slowly coming to the conclusion that with all our special operations forces we have at our disposal, our CIC is a moron for not using them correctly. and im starting to see the truth in some of the things that have been brought to light in this community by certain people... and for myself not believing and actin an a$$ i apologize (you know who you are) and securing the oil fields first "to keep them from getting set on fire" is a bunch of horsepoo. a blindman in a phone booth can see why we secured the oilfields first. anyone notice gas prices have gone down in most places???

drive on race, lead the charge

[OvermindDL1]

My opinion about this war is attempting to think of it logically. If we had nukes that did not spread radiation then it would be far cheaper and infinitally better to use because we wouldn't waste american's or their allies lives. Since, as far as I know, we do not, then bomb them till there's nothing left, still saves our lives, ammo, etc... still kills them, this may seem harsh, even by my standpoint, but to me it seems the most logical way to have done it. It may have worked sending in an elite force to kill saddam, but what about his elite units, loyal forces, they would probobly wreak unimaginable havok, better to get rid of all of them, as fast as possible.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

well its plain to see where your intellect has migrated to... (|)

---

ItÔÇÖs too bad you lost your sense of humor Grayfox. I for one am tired of reading this crap from some of you clueless individuals. So I started poking fun at the participants. At least Race seen it for what it was a joke!

That was too funny Jaguar good post!

[Epsilon 5]

"joke" and "politics" are 2 words that don'T like each other

[Guest]

Joke and politics are 2 words that do not go together?

Excuse me?

Sorry, but I think most politics is a joke, and most politicians as well.

Hillary Clinton? honorable Senator? Oh PUHLEASE!!! Give me a freaking break, if that isn't a joke, I don't know what is.

quote:

---

Mark Steyn: Keep Your Eye on The Big Picture

National Post Canada

I see my column on Monday flushed the late Tariq Aziz out of hiding. No sight of Saddam, though Baghdad's leading taxidermists have now had a week to patch him up. Nevertheless, Mr. John Black writes to chide me for my quaintly pass├® optimism:

"Your column," he says, "seemed so out of date with developments over the weekend, so seemingly out of touch with the current situation, so, as you would say, so September 10th. You see Mark, as you well know, the story of the day was not precision weapons but the growing bluster and embarrassment of the U.S. administration."

To be honest, I didn't "well know" it. I'm not watching much TV these days, though I occasionally tune in the CBC for a giggle: It's the nearest thing to attending a White Russian tea party in 1917. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps, by the time you read this, Saddam will have won and routed the ludicrously over-confident Yanks, leaving them hopelessly ensnared in the quagmire of Araby to be chastised by scorpions who will defecate in their armpits. That seems to be the general thrust of CBC coverage.

But I'm going to go way out on a limb here: Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think the Anglo-Aussie-American forces are winning. And, despite whatever "the story of the day" was, they were even winning last weekend.

As it happens, "the story of the day" on Saturday and Sunday was no different from "the story of the day" on Thursday and Friday. If anything, the human toll declined somewhat: In the first two days of the war, the coalition lost 21 people; in the next five days, they lost 17. The difference is that, in the first 48 hours, the deaths were overwhelmingly British and so attracted less attention from the sob sisters of the American networks. If the media's "overarching narrative" of this war is that the first two days were a cakewalk and the next two a quagmire, this pr├®cis never applied to the Brits.

In the opening moments of this war, the British lost four times as many soldiers as the Princess Patricias did in that "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan that convulsed the nation for a week. Using Canadian standards of bereavement voyeurism, the United Kingdom should have gone into a mawkish grief wallow for over a month. (This is not to disparage the sacrifice of the Pats: The masturbatory spasm was cannily manipulated by opportunist figures who've never supported either a credible military or its participation in Afghanistan.)

But, if only because of Northern Ireland, the British are more stoic about this sort of thing. As General Wall put it in Qatar, "Notwithstanding these tragic events, we must get on with the mission." Diane Sawyer might find it a bit off-hand, but I say well said. The best way to honour the dead is to press on to victory. Fleet Street has a diverse press from gung-ho right-wingers to unrepentant Stalinists. But it doesn't have a lot of mushy ninnies for whom a run of bad luck is cause to question the entire strategy. There are times when there's something to be said for stiff-upper-lipped public-school emotional repression, and war is one of them.

Then, at the weekend, it was the Pentagon's turn for a run of bad luck, from a U.S. Muslim soldier going postal on his comrades to the parading of American prisoners on Iraqi TV. And the big networks collectively decided that somehow they'd been misled about how "easy" it was supposed to be, and ever since have been convinced that the war plan's a bust. General Franks has been transformed from the new MacArthur into the new MacArthur Park: Someone left his cakewalk in the rain, we don't think that he can take it 'cause it took so long to bake it and he'll never find that recipe again. Oh, no.

Forget it. An innovative war is going very well, and none of the "setbacks" are unexpected, despite the Saddamites' determination in their death throes to plumb new depths in depravity. The allied loss of life is wretched for the families involved but strategically significant only as an historically unprecedented low: Just for the record, there have been 10 American combat deaths to approximately 1,000 Iraqi combat deaths, and there is no reason to believe that ratio will change unless Saddam's conscripts start surrendering faster. As the front page of Wednesday's New York Post, a splendid antidote to the defeatists, put it: "BATTLE AT AN NAJAF. WIPEOUT. GIs KILL 300 IRAQI TROOPS WITHOUT LOSING A MAN." It was Stalin who said cynically that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. The fact that CNN was able to lapse into its default individual tragedy mode on Saturday is actually confirmation of how badly the Baathists are doing.

Civilian casualties? So low that, as Andrew Coyne noted, Robert Fisk can personally visit each one. If you think mocking Fisky's house calls is a cheap shot, tough. It has the merit of being accurate, unlike the Armageddon predictions of the "peace" crowd. "The United States is about to destroy an entire country and kill 20% of its people," wrote Nicholas Oshukany in Monday's Kitchener-Waterloo Record in Canada. That would be just shy of five million dead Iraqis. When the war's over, I trust a chastened Mr. Oshukany will stand outside Canadian Tire and remove one item of clothing for every 100,000 he's off by.

The seething "Arab street"? The sleeping giant that Anglo-American imperialism would supposedly provoke? The largest Arab demonstration to date was in Egypt and drew 5,000 people. That's about a twentieth the size of the anti-American protest in Montreal. When the Arab street is more somnolent than a Brossard cul-de-sac, you can safely disregard it.

The ferocious Republican Guard? Broken down into freelance urban commando units, apparently. Not a good idea. You can't turn an orchestra into 40 soloists.

Iraqi TV's still on the air? Great. Why take it out when it provides the best window on Saddam's physical well-being, or lack thereof?

Humanitarian catastrophe? Oh, come on, you guys tried that in "the brutal Afghan winter," and it was all hooey back then.

Oil prices? Down.

Watching the media flog these mouldering Chicken Little McNuggets a year after their sell-by date, you can only marvel at their capacity to misread their audience. Something's changed in a significant proportion of the American people, and their media don't get it. You saw it in Sunday's pitiful Oscar night when, for the second year running, Hollywood couldn't find the tone, couldn't read the mood. Dustin Hoffman's pallbearer routine drew the lowest ratings in Oscar history, and why wouldn't it? America isn't bereft, slumped in mourning. Most of those who tuned out understand that they're winning this war, that there will be horrible days ahead, but that they have to see it through.

The interesting development to me is the indications that this resolve will apply not just to the war but to the post-war world. I have been staggered by the amount of mail I get from Americans expressing gratitude not just to the Brits and Aussies but also the Eastern Europeans -- and expressing complete contempt for Canada, now relegated to "Old Europe" status. And don't peddle me that old line about plucky Newfoundlanders providing food and shelter to diverted planes on September 11th -- which moist-eyed scene was playing more frequently than Antiques Roadshow reruns on Newsworld last year. If an Iraqi passenger jet landed in my field, I'd give 'em a bed for the night, though I'd probably sleep with a gun under my pillow. It's a common courtesy, not a "special relationship" with our "closest ally." It's not enough. It never was.

But we still refuse to accept it. Instead of joining the majority of our NATO and G7 partners in the Coalition of the Willing, the decayed Dominion has embraced a Franco-Belgian-Canadian Coalition of the Whining, a geopolitical version of the Dixie Chicks -- a group of wrinkly Blixie Chicks whose same old song nobody wants to hear anymore. The more the Coalition of the Whining bleat about things that never happen -- from mass deaths to tough UN action -- the less heed the Coalition of the Willing will pay them. The point about that CBC slogan -- "Trusted. Connected. Canadian" -- is that it's increasingly an oxymoron.

So my advice is pay no attention to the "story of the day." Ever since September 11th, I've argued that this is one of those big tectonic shifts, an historical dividing line, like the Great War. Keep your eye on the big picture, not the radio-serial cliffhangers. This war is being won, fast. And those who sat it out are on the wrong side of that historical divide.

---

You just gotta LOVE Mark Steyn!!!

[ 03-28-2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Steve Schacher]

quote:

---

You just gotta LOVE Mark Steyn!!!

---

I do.

Here's another treat for you all. There is a poster on FreeRepublic named Diogenesis who puts up the most unbelievable photos from the military. He's either an insider or an editor at a news organization who posts the "reject" photos. You may have noticed that Fox News now runs extreme closeup photos before their commercial breaks -- this is where they are getting them from.

War in Iraq, from preparation to combat. The entire sequence tells the story.

3/13/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/863364/posts

3/14/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864163/posts

3/15/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/864839/posts

3/16/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/865465/posts

3/18/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/867293/posts

3/19/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/868851/posts

3/19/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/868218/posts

3/20/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/870505/posts

3/20/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/869858/posts

3/21/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/870919/posts

3/21/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/871408/posts

3/22/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/872047/posts

3/23/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/872883/posts

3/25/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/874440/posts

3/26/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/875605/posts

3/27/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/877421/posts

3/27/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876484/posts

3/29/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/878484/posts

Past Compilation http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/810581/posts

[Guest]

Take dat saddam!

zap zap zappo!

Battlecruiser Style!

Feel da luv!

[Guest Grayfox]

lmao.

battlecruiser stylie. too funny.

[Charles Lindsey]

quote:

---

Grayfox

securing the oil fields first "to keep them from getting set on fire" is a bunch of horsepoo. a blindman in a phone booth can see why we secured the oilfields first. anyone notice gas prices have gone down in most places???

---

I still have my reservations about the whole thing but could it be that's where we crossed the border, that's where those fields were, and it was a no brainer to secure them as they rolled past? Just thinking out loud.

[Guest Grayfox]

of course they would secure them... and i seriously doubt it was to keep them from being set on fire. theyre no good to us if they burn out.

[Guest]

The oil fields are VERY important due to the fact they are what is going to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

Iraq has in years past sold us about 6% of the oil that we use, and ANWAR will take that completely out of the equation once the oil is flowing from there.

We don't need and do not want the Iraqi Oil fields for ourselves. They are needed so that the Shiites and Kurds will have something to rebuild with.

As Dennis Miller said, if you truly believe this war is about oil, you need to sue your schools, because they did not teach you critical thinking skills.

Sorry to be so harsh, but it is the truth.

This war is NOT about oil and never was, just as the 1st gulf war was not about oil. It was about putting down a man who thought he could get away with taking over another country.

Sorry, been there, done that, remember Hitler?

Not gonna let that happen again.

Saddam is gonna be gone and the Iraqi people will have those oil fields to rebuild with.

End of story.

[Lotharr]

Keep watching Fox news and stay in fairy land Jag....there are a lot of different reasons for this conflictand freedom and democracy are on the bottom of list..

It's funny how people will talk crap about celerity critics until they get celebrities that support the position they want to hear.

At least have some consistency in the hypocrisy....I realize your most likely taking your cues from this administration but at least keep personal integrity.

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

there are a lot of different reasons for this conflict

---

of course. the oil thing is just a perq. its not all about the oil... as one of my "conspiracy theorist" friends put it to me, "if oil was that much of a problem, then congress would have bypassed even voting on wether or not to drill up in alaska, and just went ahead and drilled saying screw the environmentalists. but why should we waste our surplus (supposedly theres enough oil up in that well to supply us for several lifetimes) when we can save it and use other peoples surplus? why didnt we hit N. Korea first? dont they pose the bigger threat? they have a nuke program, theyre run by a communist dictator etc etc... "

but i dont think that taking out saddam will be a "cure all" as some people think it will be. there will always be some madman to take over, there will always be terrorism etc etc... i think it would help a good deal, but i dont think, by any means, it would solve all our problems. other steps need to be taken in addition to taking out saddam.

[Kevin Trotter]

Ditto. And for the record the 'Fox is many things Remo , but clueless aint one of them. I did,'t know you meant that as a joke, but if you say so...BTW if it is costing us 3o mllion a month to maintain our presence in Afghaistan , how much will it cost us to do it in Iraq?

[Lotharr]

Some have compared bush to hitler.....

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

[Guest Grayfox]

quote:

---

And for the record the 'Fox is many things

---

the words "bastard" and "Mercenary" come to mind... show me the money.

as for the amount of cashola needed to keep our presence in iraq... who knows? they estimate 70+billion to cover just the war expenses... god only knows how much to "advise" iraq after its over. im just curious where we're getting the money from to do this... arent we already in a deficit?

are we going to occupy iraq when this is all over or just let them help themselves? or is the UN going to do it? or are we going to put in a govt we can control? then where do we go after iraq? we gonna keep the troops out there and just systemayically take over every arab nation that has been funding terrorists? that could take years and cost even more money. we going to look for bin laden again? or is he a noodle that slipped thru the strainer? oh oh i got it... lets just turn the middle east into one giant piece of glass... that way we dont have to worry about them anymore... (for the record im being sarcastic)

[Guest]

You guys are just too funny sometimes.

Bin Laden, Saddam and the war on terror are all directly connected.

You guys may like to sit in lala land and wait to be attacked again, but I am not.

This needs preemptive action, and Afghanistan and Iraq are just 2 peas in that pod.

I am not willing to have more innocent civilians killed by terrorists, I am not willing to wait until some dirty bomb, or chemical weapon goes off in some major city before we take action.

Iraq has been financing terrorists for years, the camp that we took out in Northern Iraq has DIRECT links to Al Quaeda, they were also helped by Iran.

Iran by the way is next, although we will not be taking any direct action, the mullahs there are weak and are getting weaker, the pro western Iranians are getting stronger and are just waiting for us to take out Saddam, so that we can arm them and set them loose on their leaders.

You poor poor people, I feel for you, I really do, but I would rather have the military over there kicking some ass, and taking out these people, then to have to mourn thousands of dead civilians in our own cities.

Icing on the cake will be a democratic form of government in iraq and then the Domino effect that it will have in the region.

You may not see it, but it does not mean it isn't there.

The dominoes are going to fall and the Middle East will become a much better place for it's people, and therefore terrorism will have to find a new home. That's too bad, huh?

My money is on the Bush doctrine, it will provide long term security for us, and long time stability for the middle east, if you don't see how that works, well, you need some critical thinking skills, and need to take a much closer look at what is ACTUALLY going on.