Supporting the war vs. Supporting our troops

[kleinesarschloch]

Where the hell were all you people when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic?
Or when he launched all those cruise missles into Iraq?

Why were there no protests then?

Was it because there were none of our troops involved? In both cases we never sent one man in on the ground. So as long as none of our people have to do what they are paid to do, what they are trained to do weather they like it or not then war is ok?

that is a very good point you make. there were even less reasons to attack yugoslavia than there is for iraq, yet everyone was very rabid about bombing yugoslavia "back to stone age" (a popular media line).

 

[kleinesarschloch]

Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?

that is a very popular line these days, and i have spent some time thinking about it, yet it still makes absolutely no sense to me. are you going to feel safer after the iraq war, once all these attacks by iraq on the USA stop?

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: vman

it's more you don't support the reasons for war... however the troops had really no say in the matter. the "support" is more about the concern of the saftey of our boys and gurls overseas. it's concern for their well being... and it's a worry that harm might come to them.

supporting them pretty much means... well it doesn't necassarily agree with what you are doing... but it's concern for their heath, welfare, lives etc... and the desire to have them come home healthy.

at least it is for me.

You say concern for their health, welfare, lives, etc......well my point is, if that is all that support amounts to, then who on earth wouldn't you give that kind of support to (well except maybe people like saddam)? I mean, if that's what support is, shouldn't we also give "support" to the Iraqi people and perhaps even Saddam's troops. I don't hear anyone calling out for support of them.

I can understand if you know someone in the military personally, and want to give them a show of support. But what if you don't know anyone in the military. These are just total strangers to you. Why should I give them any kind of special support like "hey I hope you don't die and no harm comes to you" that I wouldn't give any Saddam troop, or anyone else on this planet?

To botom like it for you... it's just compassion. Most are doing something they do not want to do in a place that they do not want to be. It is not their fault that they are being forced to do this. Yes, they might have joined voluntarily, but an overwhelming majority of people do not join to go and fight. They do it as a sense of civic duty and well some because of the benifits.

I do have sympathy for the Iraqi people. Again, they are caught in something that has been brought on to them through no fault of their own.

I don't like to see pain and suffering inflicted upon people... again that's my view. If you can't see this, I suggest you take some time on your own to think about this. Asking for suggestions and forming debate are all good... but it's not really going to help you adopt a view.

 

[xyyz]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch

Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?

that is a very popular line these days, and i have spent some time thinking about it, yet it still makes absolutely no sense to me. are you going to feel safer after the iraq war, once all these attacks by iraq on the USA stop?

very good point... actually i, personally, feel just the opposite. i feel that it will bring on a whole new barage of american resentment...

 

[Tom]

"It seemed like the majority of the protesters in the 60's were not only protesting the war, they also layed the blame at the guys sent over there to do the dying."

This is not true. I'm sorry about what happened to your Father, but the vast, vast majority of anti-war protestors in the 1960s-1970s protested the war because they didn't want their brothers dying in a war they thought was unjust or unwinnable. It is counter-intuitve to think they would be hostile to the troops they wanted to come home.

There were some protestors who did so because they saw Vietnam as a victim of our country, these people may have been more hostile to returning soldiers. But I lived through this era and I can tell you that although this group was vocal and got undue attention from the press, they were a small part of a gigantic anti-war movement.

As to the current war, I suspect that there is a similar thing going on, some anti-war protestors probably think the current war in Iraq is a misuse of our military, but that doesn't mean they are anti-troops, it in fact means just the opposite.

 

[seawolf21]

Originally posted by: calpha
You can definitely support the troops and not support the war. Most people who haven't served don't consider a facet of military service. THere is military justice, and there's civilian justice. The Rule of Law Militarily, or UCMJ, ordaines that once a service member takes the oath of his/her office, they are bound by that oath to follow the commands of their superiors. If a service-member doesn't agree with those orders, it doesn't matter. There is no democracy in the military. There's an order, and then there's action. Our service men and women have no choice in what they do. They're legally bound by their oath of office to follow their command's orders. And, as we all know, the Commander in Chief, is the president.

By supporting the troops, you aren't supporting the action that the administration has ordered them to take. You're supporting the notion and act of their patriatism, which is them believing enough in our country and being patriotic enough to wear it's uniform. To follow orders even in the face of death. That's what you're supporting by "Supporting the Troops". Thier bravery, their patriotism, and most important, their sacrifice.

Adding on to that...to follow orders regardless of their personal views for/against this war.

 

[RanDum72]

Where the hell were all you people when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic?

There was evidence coming in of genocide. Heck, the word 'genocide' alone would spring the whole world into action. There was CONCRETE proof and it was proven true later. Why did Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan? Well an embassy in Africa was bombed. We were attacked first. There is full justification.
The thing wrong about this 'war' with Iraq was that there was 'alleged' proof of WMD that wasn't fully proven. And although Bush wants us to be patient with the war, he wasn't patient in the first place to allow the inspectors to carry out their duties and provide REAL proof.
That is the only thing the whole world needed, CONCRETE proof that it exists. And the problem with pre-emptive action is that you are talking about war here. When you act first, you become the aggressor regardless if your reasons are justified or not. You cannot escape this, once you become the aggressor you become the villain. WWII was fully justified because we were just minding our own business and we were attacked first. Chasing after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan was fully justified because he attacked us first. The war in Iraq can only be FULLY justified if:
- a link between Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein can be fully proven.
partly justified if:
-weapons of mass destruction are actually found.
I say partly justified because although Saddam MAY have some, you have to fully prove that he was fully intending to use it against the U.S.A (kinda impossible since the Iraqi's don't have a delivery system capable of doing so).

The point is, the Bush administration did a clumsy job of proving or convincing the whole world that their intentions are fully justified. They gave the impression that THEY DON"T CARE WHAT THE WORLD THINKS because Americans want it. Bush needs to realize that in order to lead a world power and be respected and cooperated with by the rest of the world, he needs to understand and take into account their point of view. His 'cowboy' diplomacy may work for Texas but it doesn't work for the rest of the world.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: kleinesarschloch

Maybe because they are putting their life on the line for you?

that is a very popular line these days, and i have spent some time thinking about it, yet it still makes absolutely no sense to me. are you going to feel safer after the iraq war, once all these attacks by iraq on the USA stop?

It doesn't so much matter what war it is. They could be waging a war against giant mutant sewer rats on the moon. What matters is that the men and women in our armed forces joined up to put their life on the line for you and me. For that they have my respect and support, untill such a time as they do some action to lose it (raping some civilian, as I believe some soldier in SK did semi-recently).

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

Where the hell were all you people when Clinton went after Slobodan Milosevic?

There was evidence coming in of genocide. Heck, the word 'genocide' alone would spring the whole world into action. There was CONCRETE proof and it was proven true later. Why did Clinton sent cruise missiles into Afghanistan? Well an embassy in Africa was bombed. We were attacked first. There is full justification.
The thing wrong about this 'war' with Iraq was that there was 'alleged' proof of WMD that wasn't fully proven. And although Bush wants us to be patient with the war, he wasn't patient in the first place to allow the inspectors to carry out their duties and provide REAL proof.
That is the only thing the whole world needed, CONCRETE proof that it exists. And the problem with pre-emptive action is that you are talking about war here. When you act first, you become the aggressor regardless if your reasons are justified or not. You cannot escape this, once you become the aggressor you become the villain. WWII was fully justified because we were just minding our own business and we were attacked first. Chasing after Bin Ladin in Afghanistan was fully justified because he attacked us first. The war in Iraq can only be FULLY justified if:
- a link between Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein can be fully proven.
partly justified if:
-weapons of mass destruction are actually found.
I say partly justified because although Saddam MAY have some, you have to fully prove that he was fully intending to use it against the U.S.A (kinda impossible since the Iraqi's don't have a delivery system capable of doing so).

The point is, the Bush administration did a clumsy job of proving or convincing the whole world that their intentions are fully justified. They gave the impression that THEY DON"T CARE WHAT THE WORLD THINKS because Americans want it. Bush needs to realize that in order to lead a world power and be respected and cooperated with by the rest of the world, he needs to understand and take into account their point of view. His 'cowboy' diplomacy may work for Texas but it doesn't work for the rest of the world.

The point is, the Bush administration did a clumsy job of proving or convincing the whole world that their intentions are fully justified. They gave the impression that THEY DON"T CARE WHAT THE WORLD THINKS because Americans want it. Bush needs to realize that in order to lead a world power and be respected and cooperated with by the rest of the world, he needs to understand and take into account their point of view. His 'cowboy' diplomacy may work for Texas but it doesn't work for the rest of the world.[/quote]

So according to you if a leader decides to erradicate a race of people that are not his own then we have full justification to bomb that country. BUT if he is mass murdering people of his own race as Saddam has in the past then it's not genocide and we should ignore it.

I can see how that makes sense.

I say partly justified because although Saddam MAY have some, you have to fully prove that he was fully intending to use it against the U.S.A (kinda impossible since the Iraqi's don't have a delivery system capable of doing so).

I think you miss the point. The point here is that he has WMD and the issue is not if he can deliver them to the US but are these WMD that he would sell to the highest bidder..i.e ANY terroist organization that could deliver them to a major city and unleash them.

That is the whole point. Sure if he decides to launch an ICBM loaded with a chemical or bilogical warhead we *probably* could knock it out. But that is not how it would happen. A single man or small group could smuggle said weapon into this country, or any other and set it off in a highly populated area, or a major water supply.

Now as far as the inspectors go, there were how many? 50-60? Covering an area the size of California, don't you think that Saddam could play a helluva shell game with these guys?

Saddam agreed to give up all production of WMD, and disarm after the first Desert Storm. He also agreed that he would have inspectors in his country for how ever long it took but he kicked them out in '98. Why? What do you think he was doing those 4-5 years while there was no one to watch over him? He was not only developing WMD but also creating places to HIDE them.

I believe that we know where they are. But first things first. Take out Saddam and his group, then go locate and the WMD.

It's kinda hard to do both when someone is shooting at you wouldn't you say?

Having said that we do have inspectors back in the country, only this time they aren't driving around in a Land Rover...it just happens to be a tank..that can shoot back.

 

[Insane3D]

That is the whole point. Sure if he decides to launch an ICBM loaded with a chemical or bilogical warhead we *probably* could knock it out.

Saddam has nothing that can hit us...plain and simple. We are attacking on the idea of a perceived threat of Saddam selling said weapons to a terrorist who would then in turn use it on us. I think that is where the main objection to this war is, we are responding to something that might happen, instead of responding to an actual attack. It is a scary thing though when you start attacking people because of something that might happen though, IMO. If you use that argument, there is a possibility that we could get nukes shot at us from Russia..albeit a remote one...should we attack them too?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

That is the whole point. Sure if he decides to launch an ICBM loaded with a chemical or bilogical warhead we *probably* could knock it out.

Saddam has nothing that can hit us...plain and simple. We are attacking on the idea of a perceived threat of Saddam selling said weapons to a terrorist who would then in turn use it on us. I think that is where the main objection to this war is, we are responding to something that might happen, instead of responding to an actual attack. It is a scary thing though when you start attacking people because of something that might happen though, IMO. If you use that argument, there is a possibility that we could get nukes shot at us from Russia..albeit a remote one...should we attack them too?

The fact remains that we AND the UN said "Listen Saddam, you need to get rid of and cease the making of WMD. We are only going to tell you one time otherwise we reserve the right to come in w/ military force to do the, job. SO..you can either : A) disarm yourself
B)have us do it for you."

Now here is where the confusion lies, he was told by both the US AND the rest of the world via the UN, the problem is that the UN and a good portion of the rest of the world would rather just write up resolution after resolution, shake thier fingers at him and smack him on the wrist instead of fullfilling thier word.

SO now its up to the big meenie the US to make him hold true to what he agreed to after getting his ass handed to him the first time.

(not just us but eveyone else in the coalition)

 

[Insane3D]

Fair enough. However, I feel like it is strange for us to call the UN irrelevant while at the same time claiming we are enforcing their resolution.

 

[seawolf21]

Again, we are not enforcing a UN resolution.

The resolution required UN inspectors come back with a report on how Iraq is cooperating and if Iraq was not cooperating, meet again to deal with Iraq. The US agreed to this resolution as in all sections of it (wait for inspector's report and reconvene if Iraq is not cooperating). The UN inspector came back and said they needed more time. US said no despite agreeing to wait and reconvene.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

Oh I get it because you don't belive in the war you would rather put your support behind the guys killing our guys.

I stand by my statement..you are an idiot.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

Ok, I've come to the conclusion you really never wanted a real discussion on this topic and were just trolling. Your mind was made up before you punched the submit key.:disgust: I'm sorry I posted in this thread now.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: seawolf21
Again, we are not enforcing a UN resolution.

The resolution required UN inspectors come back with a report on how Iraq is cooperating and if Iraq was not cooperating, meet again to deal with Iraq. The US agreed to this resolution as in all sections of it (wait for inspector's report and reconvene if Iraq is not cooperating). The UN inspector came back and said they needed more time. US said no despite agreeing to wait and reconvene.

Hmm...perhaps they would not have needed more time if he had not kicked them out in the first place...why do you suppose he did that? If I am not mistaken that was a violation of his agreement but it took what, 4 years to get them back in? Why do you suppose that is? The lack of balls on the part of the UN?

The reason he kicked them out sure wasn't because they were spies like he claimed. It was so he could get on with producing WMD. And find places to hide them. If they were spies then why did he wait so long?

He has had 3-4 years to plan this out. To make sure that the WMD were hidden well, but within reach.

Again, we are merely putting our own inpectors in there..it's just this time they are armed and are not going to take no for an answer.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

Ok, I've come to the conclusion you really never wanted a real discussion on this topic and were just trolling. Your mind was made up before you punched the submit key.:disgust: I'm sorry I posted in this thread now.

Trolling? No.

I am merely pointing out the fact that you want your cake and eat it to and you cannot always do that.

It was asked if you can support the troops and not the war, to myself no you cannot. You might be able to justify it in your own mind, and to your like minded friends who are still state side enjoying a good meal or a movie, or a trip to the mall. But the people who really count are the ones in the sand with other people trying to kill them day after day. THAT is who really counts.

But hey you don't support them remember? They don't count.

Did I have my mind made up? Damn straight I did.

 

[RanDum72]

So according to you if a leader decides to erradicate a race of people that are not his own then we have full justification to bomb that country. BUT if he is mass murdering people of his own race as Saddam has in the past then it's not genocide and we should ignore it.

See, here's the problem with comparing two seemingly similar situations that actually are NOT similar. Saddam massacred the Kurds after they rebelled MORE THAN TEN YEARS ago (under Bush the elder). If action was taken during that time for that reason, then maybe it would have been different. It was considered an internal matter more like the FBI dealing with a seperatist with white supremacists in Michigan. Although the Kurds are ethnically a seperate group, they are Muslims just like Saddam. In Bosnia, you are talking about Orthodox Serbs killing Muslim Albanians. In East Timor, they gained independence because the Christians are being massacred by Muslims. Pakistan seperated from India because they are Muslim and India is predominantly Hindu. According to world perception, there is a difference between rebellion and systematic genocide. There are really fine lines in international situations that the this Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp at all and theyjust generalize and lump one group here and one group there (either you're a friend or not kinda thing).
What Saddam did to the Kurds is NOTHING compared to what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, what Kim Ill Sung does right now in N. Korea. The former USSR (now mostly Russia) probably executed thousands of people. Vladimir Putin is a former KGB chief so he probably knows a lot about this too. China executes thousands on flimsy evidence. So why didn't we go after these nations? Where the hell did Bush come up with the 'axis of evil' thing all of a sudden?
What the world sees is a guy who doesn't have an economic plan for his country, no logical domestic agenda and no sound foreign policy either. He totally lacks any diplomatic finnesse. He needs a smokescreen to cover up his short comings. 9/11 was a perfect opportunity. Afghanistan was a good start, fully justified, but after everything winded down, the smokescreen is gone. Bin Ladin is still around but Bush needs another smokescreen. He needs to pick a fight and he chooses one that HE THINKS is a pushover. The way he does this too, is a problem. There was no gradual build-up, he just suddenly started to pick a fight with Saddam seemingly out of nowhere. This is how the world sees it.
The only way to garner international support is through convincing the UN and Bush is stupid enough to berate, ridicule and totally disregard it. This is probably the biggest blunder of all. The war is for world opinion and how you can sway them. The problem is, Bush and some Americans doesn't seem to understand much beyond their borders.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: RanDum72

So according to you if a leader decides to erradicate a race of people that are not his own then we have full justification to bomb that country. BUT if he is mass murdering people of his own race as Saddam has in the past then it's not genocide and we should ignore it.

See, here's the problem with comparing two seemingly similar situations that actually are NOT similar. Saddam massacred the Kurds after they rebelled MORE THAN TEN YEARS ago (under Bush the elder). If action was taken during that time for that reason, then maybe it would have been different. It was considered an internal matter more like the FBI dealing with a seperatist with white supremacists in Michigan. Although the Kurds are ethnically a seperate group, they are Muslims just like Saddam. In Bosnia, you are talking about Orthodox Serbs killing Muslim Albanians. In East Timor, they gained independence because the Christians are being massacred by Muslims. Pakistan seperated from India because they are Muslim and India is predominantly Hindu. According to world perception, there is a difference between rebellion and systematic genocide. There are really fine lines in international situations that the this Bush administration doesn't seem to grasp at all and theyjust generalize and lump one group here and one group there (either you're a friend or not kinda thing).
What Saddam did to the Kurds is NOTHING compared to what Pol Pot did in Cambodia, what Kim Ill Sung does right now in N. Korea. The former USSR (now mostly Russia) probably executed thousands of people. Vladimir Putin is a former KGB chief so he probably knows a lot about this too. China executes thousands on flimsy evidence. So why didn't we go after these nations? Where the hell did Bush come up with the 'axis of evil' thing all of a sudden?
What the world sees is a guy who doesn't have an economic plan for his country, no logical domestic agenda and no sound foreign policy either. He totally lacks any diplomatic finnesse. He needs a smokescreen to cover up his short comings. 9/11 was a perfect opportunity. Afghanistan was a good start, fully justified, but after everything winded down, the smokescreen is gone. Bin Ladin is still around but Bush needs another smokescreen. He needs to pick a fight and he chooses one that HE THINKS is a pushover. The way he does this too, is a problem. There was no gradual build-up, he just suddenly started to pick a fight with Saddam seemingly out of nowhere. This is how the world sees it.
The only way to garner international support is through convincing the UN and Bush is stupid enough to berate, ridicule and totally disregard it. This is probably the biggest blunder of all. The war is for world opinion and how you can sway them. The problem is, Bush and some Americans doesn't seem to understand much beyond their borders.

What you think it just stopped with the Kurds?

He limited himself to that small band of people?

Hellooo...it's been a lot more than that.

As far as world opinion goes for supporrting war....let's look at that shall we.

You used the USSR and brought up Putin. He is against the war...out of his own consciousness?... doubt it.

It is because he has violated the UN and sold Iraq weapons and technology. Guess what , he got busted and now is trying to back pedal and say he knows nothing about it...but oh wait a minute he was head of the KGB as you said right? As such he should know what the hell is going on.

Now lets look at France, they to have sold weapons to Iraq legally but still sold them, and have much at stake as far as oil is concerned that is thier reason for not wanting conflict. And I personally belive that they have sold him technology for WMD and they are hoping and praying that we don't find it..but that is my own personal opinion.

Don't understand much beyond thier borders? Like what? The fact that people came in from outside our borders and flew planes into buildings killing thousands?

The fact that the next attack, and there will be one, will be from people outside our borders smuggling in chemical or biological weapons? Your right we don't understand much.

Gee no economic plan? Kinda hard to do when you have people like Tom Daschle in positions who quash your every attempt.

They say that they will stand with you and work with you as they pull the knife from your back.

But that is not the topic. The question was "Can you support the Troops and not the war?" I say no. see my above post for the reasons why.

 

[Insane3D]

But that is not the topic. The question was "Can you support the Troops and not the war?" I say no. see my above post for the reasons why.

It's sad you have such a polarized viewpoint. Of course people can not agree with the war and still support our troops. This viewpoint of yours is similar to the one that all anti-war protesters are un-american. However, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

Oh I get it because you don't belive in the war you would rather put your support behind the guys killing our guys.

I stand by my statement..you are an idiot.

Can you read? Where did I say I support the guys killing our guys? I said I don't support the US soliders carrying out a war I don't believe in. That doesn't mean I support the Iraqi troops either. I don't "root" for both teams, but does that mean I have to root for one? To use your analogy, what if two teams I don't care about were playing. I wouldn't root for either team - hell I wouldn't even watch the game.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: vman

Originally posted by: Wheezer
you are an idiot.

They are over there for you and your country. They are on your team, reguardless if you believe in the cause or not.

Let me ask you, do you watch ANY kind of sports? If you do, then do you root for both teams?

I root for the team I want to win. Why should I root for the US soldiers to win a mission that I don't believe in? That kind of comparison to sports basically means supporting the troops is supporting the war.

Ok, I've come to the conclusion you really never wanted a real discussion on this topic and were just trolling. Your mind was made up before you punched the submit key.:disgust: I'm sorry I posted in this thread now.

Uh, how is that trolling? How is that not a discussion? He gave his argument, and I played devil's advocate and gave reasons for the other side. Did you even read the first post? I already admitted that I recently came to see no difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops. But I wasn't totally sure and invited discussion.

 

[AmbitV]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
It was asked if you can support the troops and not the war, to myself no you cannot.

We are in agreement then. It's just that you support the war, and I don't.

I don't consider myself Anti-American by holding these views.

 

[drewshin]

i think this war is a waste of american lives. while war might have been inevitable sooner or later in the region, it definitely didnt need to start now. when troops started moving into the region last year pretty much before un inspections had even started, i knew that bush wasnt serious at all about inspections, and it seems like they were very antsy about getting this started quickly.

my brother is a staff sgt in the air force, i sure hope he doesnt get in harms way just because of some idiots. i was against the war before it started, but now that it has started, the only thing you can really do is hope it will end quickly with small numbers of casualties.

 

[calpha]

Originally posted by: drewshin
i think this war is a waste of american lives. while war might have been inevitable sooner or later in the region, it definitely didnt need to start now. when troops started moving into the region last year pretty much before un inspections had even started, i knew that bush wasnt serious at all about inspections, and it seems like they were very antsy about getting this started quickly.

Actually, I think that's BS. Kofi Annan himself said in an interview that the reason Saddam is cooperating at all was because of the troop build up. If Saddam had come forth with all of his weapons openly, there would be NO war. But Saddam did two things. Number one, made the inspections into investigations. INspections by their definition were to VERIFY disarmament, not investigate the validity of what he was saying. That's what most people don't seem to understand. Had Saddam cooperated, and listed every banned weapon, even those of WMD caliber, the inspectors would have instead been there to verify proper disarmament and proper disposal. The troop buildup was there to convince Saddam that this was, in fact, his last chance. He'd gotten by 11 years of UN Sanctions by BSing.....and the troops were proof positive that that would be no more. On top of that, my number two.....I also think a big turning point twoards the war was Saddam's continued intimidation of Iraqi scientists. How many were we able to interview outside of Iraq? None to my knowledge because they all feared for their and their families life. Inspections were to ideally include viewing Iraqi documents, and verifying their validity, as well as interviewing the scientists to verify their story with the paper trail. That's at least how I understood them to be.

my brother is a staff sgt in the air force, i sure hope he doesnt get in harms way just because of some idiots. i was against the war before it started, but now that it has started, the only thing you can really do is hope it will end quickly with small numbers of casualties.

Barring the unforseen happening....your brother won't be on the front lines unless he's special Ops. Air Force NCO's are generally very safe from ever having to deal with front line combat. Even if a inland Iraqi AF base came under attack, it'd still be Grunts and Marines in the trenches. Still, I hope as you do that he doesn't get in harms way, and he returns safely. And I agree with you. Although i'm not against the war, I think the time for being against it is over. Let our men and women come back home, and then we can analyze what was right and wrong about the war, and even about going to war.