Bush's speech and what's next?

[Cloud9]

--Not trying to discredit you, Cloud 9. Its just the journalist in me

S'aight, I'm glad you pointed it out, I missed(or perhaps forgot/disregarded?) that bit of information. It actually makes me feel better, I was starting to really freak out, it's one less thing to worry about. One question---does that decision still hold, because I saw a report a little while ago mentioning the need for Congressional votes regarding war? Of course, either way, I still don't support Bush - but at least he hasn't gone THAT far...yet.

Also, I didn't say the oil was the first thing he mentioned, but it certainly was the thing that stuck out.

[texasaopi]

Cloud 9,

In answer to your question, if you read this article it might help you make more sense about Congress's position on the war

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...ing/index.html

[alfuzzxi]

Wow, where to start
There were a lot of good comments made and a lot of comments that just irritated me!

One of the things that annoys me most is how people are anti-war because civiliians could get hurt. I say, oh well, it's gotta happen. It's sad, but it's a fact of war. If the shoe was reversed and an anti-american country had the chance to attatch our civillians they wouldn't hesitate. (oh yea, that already happened!) so why are we giving them a courtesy that they would not grant us.

I am so tired of NATO! I really think it needs to end! I mean, where would it be without our country anyways. When NATO is not carrying out its duties we have to protect ourselves. I thought it was great in the President's speech tonight how he said that we are soverign when it comes to protecting ourself. I think that ever since the end of WW2 France has wanted to be able to become known as one of the powerful countries again. They are jealous of the dominating force of the U.S. It's one thing to disagree with the U.S. but France didn't just veto the war, they acitvely campaigned to have other countiries to come to their side. Personally I think that NATO (opposing countires) are cowards.

The refrence to Pearl Harbor was great! Why is it that when Pearl Harbor was attatcked there was no question that our country would enter war. Now after 9/11 and dealing with an uncoooperative Hussein we have to play political games. If we were living in the era of WW2 it would not have taken this long to go to war.

Congress has approved the war. Anyways, I heard tonight that 80% percent of Americans support this war. So what congressman in his right mind would upset his constituency. I think that it is wonderful to see that the issues are not a party affiliated.

I like most people have friends who will have to leave. I live in an area that is very much dominated by the military. ( my school is in Norfolk, the largest naval port) So, I'm not only seeing a lot of friends leave, but a lot of my friends parent's as well- people I have known for a long time. It's a scary thing, but we have to support our troops. These young men are going over there to defend our rights, they are defending American ideals and principles, and they are proud to do it! Here they are doing this honorable thing and all our people can do is complain. Lately, there have been a lot of stupid little protestors with thier signs around the city. It makes me sick to think that we live in a very military oriented area and our soldiers have to visually see this lack of support.

Finally, I think Bush is doing a great job! Some say he is finishing a war his dad couldn't finish. Well, he is finishing a war that Clinton didn't have the guts to approach. Clinton left his attentions to gaining campaingn finacnces from the Chinese rather than focusing on other important issues. I really feel sorry for President Bush because he has to play this poitical game with the rest of the world. Who ever heard of a war where you have to tell the enemy what you are going to do. It's absurd. Bush shouldn't have to give a 48 hour warning- it should just happen. We do not need to ask permission to protect our country!

[MTSUGURL]

AMEN GIRL!

Crystal

[CanadianTeke]

Originally posted by alfuzzxi

I am so tired of NATO! I really think it needs to end! I mean, where would it be without our country anyways. When NATO is not carrying out its duties we have to protect ourselves. I thought it was great in the President's speech tonight how he said that we are soverign when it comes to protecting ourself. I think that ever since the end of WW2 France has wanted to be able to become known as one of the powerful countries again. They are jealous of the dominating force of the U.S. It's one thing to disagree with the U.S. but France didn't just veto the war, they acitvely campaigned to have other countiries to come to their side. Personally I think that NATO (opposing countires) are cowards.

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it was designed as a Defensive alliance. It went to war after 9/11 with ALL member nation's participating in Afghanistan. If you want to try to make the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, ask yourself why your government is not activly campaigning to attack Saudi Arabia, where 9 of the 11 high jackers lived, trained and were financed. Not only is there 0 thought given to attacking Saudi, American forces are staging their attacks FROM SAUDI SOIL. I'm not saying that the impending war is not about disarmament, or about WMD or anything along those lines, it is however not a defensive act, it is an act of agression, whether it be pre emptive or not, the agressor is not Iraq in this case.

If you are angry at France for campaigning an Anti War stance, should you not be angry at your own government for campaigning a pro war stance? That is the whole point of NATO, and the United Nations and any other alliance you want to through out there. They are there to debate the outcomes of member nations moves, and to determine what they feel is the best move for A)Their Citizens (as shown by the American Attack without UN consent) and B)The World (As shown by the dissention from war). The beginnings of the United Nations is with the League of Nations. The LoN was started in 1919 after WW1, by Woodrow Wilson, however the American Congress could not agree to join, so the US was not a member nation. The mandate of the LoN was to prevent war, however due to the circumstances in the 30's (the depression) most countries ignored what was happening in Germany. Welcome to WWII. The UN was started after that, with a different organizational meathod, but basically as the same concept. The UN has 'fought' one war, the Korean War, in the early fifties. They lost. Perhaps, many of the current member states don't want to see another war rushed into that ends the same way.

[alfuzzxi]

Ok, thanks for the history recap, even though I really didn't need all that. my main point is, that we do not need other countries (NATO) telling us what we can or can not do. If our country feels that it is in our best interest to enter a war then we should be able to. If NATO doesn't want to support us, then that is fine but we shouldn't be politically attatcked for making a move that we think is in our best interest. The welfare of America is our first priority not NATO.

[Cloud9]

The welfare of America is our first priority not NATO.

Whoa, ok, that is NOT the sort of image we want to portray to the rest of the world. Whether you want to accept it or not, we live in a global world now. It is not just about what WE want to do, it's about what's best for all countries. Let's see, there was another nation once upon a time that just pushed ahead with its own agenda, aggressively attacking other countries, pissing off the rest of the world...who was that...oh yes, Nazi Germany! Even if the similarities are very limited, I don't think there should be ANY similarities in the way the World's best interests are handled. Look, it is just not smart to give the world the finger, stomp out of negotiations, and knock down Iraq's figurative tower of blocks "because we say so."

Also, do not dismiss the history lessons, maybe if we all paid more attention to them there would be less bad and potentially catastrophic decisions made in the future.

[alfuzzxi]

Do you think any of these other nations would do the same in reverse. We may live in a global world, but when it gets down to it, every nation is going to have nationalistic views. Your not going to see any nation to committ to doing any thing unless there is a benefit for themselves. They may know that something is the right thing to do but won't do it, b/c there is no personal gain (France) It's a natural instinct to protect yourself first, that is never going to change.

[Cloud9]

Your not going to see any nation to committ to doing any thing unless there is a benefit for themselves.

Then why are we the first and only ones to ignore the decisions made by the UN? Everyone else seems to be looking for the common good, and isn't that what we're always saying about ourselves?

[alfuzzxi]

The majority of our nation believes that it is the common good to go to war. Each nation is entitled to it's own opinion. I just dont' think we should be trapped because other's don't agree. Seriously, we will not be the only ones to ignore the UN. Turkey is going to let us fly over their area- isn't that showing that they are going to ignore UN



Is Britain still backing us? (mainly Tony Blair)

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by alfuzzxi
...Is Britain still backing us? (mainly Tony Blair)

'Far as I know, there's 25,000 Tommies ready to crash through the border berms along with 250,000 Yanks when the order comes. It'll probably kill Tony Blair's political career, as several members of his government have already resigned and the Labour party is looking for an excuse to replace him.

[AlphaSigOU]

Here's an opinion from the New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/71058.htm

PATIENCE

By RALPH PETERS

March 18, 2003 -- THE American people have been admirably patient with the United Nations' cynical diplomacy and French shenanigans. Now we are on the eve of war. And our troops need, and deserve, the patience of the American public as they fight a war without precedent to remove one of the world's worst dictators and free 20 million of our fellow human beings.

In a perfect world, major combat operations could be over in less than a week. But we do not live in a perfect world. We can count on a host of minor problems - Murphy's Law at work - and our troops may encounter some major challenges, as well.

Any difficulties and delays in the march to Baghdad will not signal a lack of competence, although there will be plenty of media pundits ready to criticize our fighting men and women from the safety of TV studios. The unexpected is the stuff of war, and it always has been.

That said, I'm no pessimist. We're going to fight a brilliant war. And while we all know the old saying about no plan surviving contact with the enemy, it's also fair to say that plenty of our enemies are not going to survive their first contact with our plan.

Still, Saddam may use weapons of mass destruction. He may slaughter civilians by the tens of thousands as he attempts to slow us down and excite world opinion against the continuation of our campaign. He certainly will attempt to use the population of Baghdad as a massive human shield. He doubtless will try to stage-manage atrocities. He may blow dams to inundate river-crossing sites. And the weather knows no allegiance.

When glitches occur, we must avoid the impatience of the 24/7 broadcast world and the snap judgments that are so easy to make from half a world away.

If things goes smoothly, we may all thank Providence, GI Joe and GI Jane. But the American people can also rest assured that our troops and their leaders will be giving their best at all times.

From a distance, it can be very hard to understand how difficult seemingly simple actions are in the vastness and confusion of war - especially in the sort of hyper-velocity war America has prepared to wage. Just remember: We truly do have the best-trained, best-prepared military in the world.

But no unit can be prepared for all eventualities. Training has to focus on a finite set of skills deemed essential, but war breeds the unexpected.

For every fierce combat encounter, there will be countless man-hours of plain hard work. Combat engineers must prepare trails through miles of Iraqi tank ditches and minefields. They're good at it. But it still takes time and a lot of sweat to prepare superhighways in the sand for tens of thousands of military vehicles to pass into enemy territory. And all the while you're doing the work, your enemy is trying to stop you.

Bridges may well be down, forcing us to conduct large-scale river-crossing operations. Saddam's hardcore loyalists will try to strike our forces as they establish bridgeheads - or as they seize airheads deep in Iraqi territory. The great majority of the time, Saddam's forces will fail. But you can never write off an enemy until he's dead or his hands are in the air.

All of this matters profoundly, because the moment a U.S. unit takes casualties - and some units will - a faction of the microphone militia will declare the entire campaign a disaster. Well, soldiers die in war. Sorry, but it's true. Our men and women in uniform will be doing their damnedest to accomplish some very dangerous missions, and they know the risks. If we are only patient, they will bring us victory. But we only insult them if we judge the lives they sacrifice in battle as a symptom of failure.

We cannot say exactly which course the war will take. Our forces plan a swift campaign of "shock and awe." But even if we defeat the Iraqi military on every side, Saddam's inner circle of protectors may be able to shield him successfully from the many Iraqi generals and colonels who would be glad to kill him and put an end to their country's misery. The "big war" should end swiftly, but the end-game could drag on for weeks.

Perhaps the greatest impediment to the lightning victory we desire is our decency. Saddam knows we do not wantonly butcher civilians, so he will hide behind them, as will his elite forces. That could impede operations significantly as the campaign approaches its climax. And a slowdown in operations on the edge of Baghdad - if it occurs - will lead to dire pronouncements that we're bogged down in a morass, a new Vietnam.

Disregard all such nonsense. Calm, deliberate action may not provide the drama and instant gratification media gigolos crave, but the old line about "fools rush in" applies in spades.

There are times in military operations when speed is of the essence, when ferocious, stunning strikes are the order of the day. But there are also times when we need to patiently execute a lower-intensity plan, to wear down an opponent, to slowly bring about his collapse at a minimum cost. Whenever the action goes into slo-mo, trust the generals, not the talking heads.

And make no mistake: If we are not lucky enough (and luck matters powerfully in war) to kill Saddam early on, and if he survives the wrath of his own people, we are going to face international calls, led by the French, for a negotiated settlement, for a safe conduct for Saddam and his paladins to a comfortable exile - after Saddam has done his best to ravage his own country in a war he easily could have avoided.

That is when we Americans are going to need to show our steel, the sort of hard resolve we demonstrated after 9/11. In a bitter military endgame, the diplomats will always try to interfere, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. We must stand resolutely behind our troops and our leadership: Once this war has begun, there can be no end until Saddam and his regime are vanquished.

If things break our way, this admonition to patience may be unnecessary. I hope it is. I hope this will prove to be the most irrelevant column I ever write and that our enemy will collapse before we can even approach Baghdad.

But if there are a few delays along the road to Saddam's citadel, we should remain absolutely confident about the end result.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of 16 books, including "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

[Dionysus]

Originally posted by alfuzzxi

Congress has approved the war. Anyways, I heard tonight that 80% percent of Americans support this war.

Where did you hear this?

Even if this is accurate, just because 80% of Americans support this war it does not make it right.

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by alfuzzxi

The refrence to Pearl Harbor was great! Why is it that when Pearl Harbor was attatcked there was no question that our country would enter war. Now after 9/11 and dealing with an uncoooperative Hussein we have to play political games. If we were living in the era of WW2 it would not have taken this long to go to war.

Last time I checked, Saddam was not the one who ordered planes flown into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. We are already fighting a war in retalliation for that tragic event - it's called the War on Terror. Invading Iraq is a whole new ballgame...

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by Dionysus
Where did you hear this?

Even if this is accurate, just because 80% of Americans support this war it does not make it right.

Remeber, its only 80% of Americans POLLED!