Tom T

Pres. Bush just spoke..

Hopefully things go well for us & loss of life on both sides is minimal


God Bless....

radwebster

i agree...one lost american life is too many :flag

Desertdawg

Yee Haaa !!! lets go get em' :smash: :smash: :smash:

:party:

standup

Saddam's best defense would be a fleet of Corvettes.....How could anyone allow bombing them?????

Mystery Machine

Any loss of human life is a travesty but let do what has to be done. :flag

Dalannex

I find myself thinking, let's get it done, I hope there's no lot a real large loss of life, then I think except maybe Saddam's people, and possibly some french, but that's a terrible thing to say. We should give them sympathy for being french. :yesnod:

Desertdawg

This is all they get from me :nopity :flag

Cali,68,L-79

:smash: :smash: France :smash: :smash:

norvalwilhelm

I think Bush is doing what must be done and I wish our government opennly back him more. They are helping in Afganistan but I wish verbily they were strong in our backing. I personally feel no one can live under the threat of future terrorist acts. Our premiere Ernie Eves opennly verbally strong supports the american action and I received some really anti french, german literature today and wish I knew who to send it to. I feel strongly that you can not let this threat go, Action must be taken.
I also watched demonstrations against the war and when they interviewed some of the demonstarters they were kids with no idea what country was involved, who the leader was and what it was about, They were just demonstrating that war was wrong. Sometimes war is the only way for peace.
I appauld you americans for doing what you are doing and if I could do something beside sit here , typing this or verbally supporting you I would.
Blow him to Kingdom come. :) :)


[Modified by norvalwilhelm, 5:22 PM 3/20/2003]

Dwayne 76

:iagree:

PB82CE

Hey Tom,

UPDATE!!! 03/20 at 6:55 PM EST...

Well, the coalition have started their invasion and bombing runs on Iraq.
Yes, Godspeed to our troops, and hopefully a very small loss of life count on
all accounts. This is something that had to be done before it ballooned out of control. Saddam is a mass murderer and a lunatic, and had to be stopped.
Accolades to the USA and their allies, and shame on you France and Germany. If only the rest of the world could get along like the Corvette Forum Members??? :cheers:

Robert N

I agree that Saddam is a threat and must be dealt with. On the other hand, our government declared war against a sovereign nation that at the present time was threatening noone.

Any act of agression to prevent future transgressions is wrong unless there is an immediate and present danger. If a woman kills a convicted rapist that lives in her neighborhood under the guise that he might rape her in the future, she is guilty of first degree murder.

I realize the stakes are higher, but the act is the same.

On another front, North Korea is opening building, testing and alluding to the threat of using nuclear weapons. These are far more dangerous than any biological weapons and President Bush has turned his back. His hatred for KIM Chong-il is so strong that he will not even discuss the issue.

I fully support our troops regardless of my views on whether we should be at war and will not protest. I do hope there is little loss of life on both sides and that future reprecussions in the form of terrorist attacks, etc, don't materialize.




[Modified by Robert N, 5:06 PM 3/20/2003]

lampedusa

"The purpose of any war is ultimately peace."
-St. Augustine :yesnod:

lampedusa

Not to mention that Iraq with Saddam Hussein in power is the only totalitarian government left in the world. Every year over 100,000 Iraqis die because of the harsh constraining laws set by the government, and 2/3 of those lives are children. Kind of changes your perspective a bit eh? No one had a problem with a war against Hitler (granted he was waging war on all of Europe...), so why do we have a problem with ousting someone who has done more damage for the last 12 years than Hitler? :flag :yesnod:

Robert N

The only reason anyone (country) has a problem is that he is not waging war at this time. Had he fired 1 missile or challenged US war planes patroling, that would be an overt threat and we could bomb his A#$ back to the stoneage with 100% support.

While he is evil and needs to be removed, my concern is the fact that we are dictating, based on OUR beliefs (viewed as wrong by much of the world), what should happen in his country.

There are several countries around the world that, while not as bad, are not much better. Should we as Americans impose our values on those that disagree?

Dwayne 76

Well said. I've been argueing that same point the POLITICS section, but no one seems to understand this. Of course, having a Canadian Flag Avitar gives many the idea that I'm American bashing. Just 'cause I don't agree with the war dosn't mean I hate the U.S. or even dislike it. I'd have no problem with this if the U.N. had okayed this action, but with the U.S. threatning war even though Iraq was showing TOKEN amounts of weapons being destroyed was not the right thing to do. "Destroy your weapons, and prepare to be attacked"

Robert N

Dwayne,

Thanks. I generally stay out of political discussions. They are generally one side against the other and nothing said will change that.

I understand the want to attack even while Saddam is destroying missiles. It has become a game and it needs to stop. It reminds me of trying to discipline my son. Let's see how long it can drag on. My thought is let it drag on. As long as we have control over the balance of power and the ability to end the game if necessary, why sacrifice lives now?

Saddam would have made a mistake soon enough.

For those that want war, there was a way to save face diplomatically and with full support from NATO, and do just what we are doing.

Israel acts they way we are now. They see a future threat and take it out. Israel would most certainly have attacked Iraq first if there was solid proof that weapons of mass destruction existed. They did it when Iraq started a nuclear program.

This would have led to retaliation by Iraq, and we could defend Israel (even if they were wrong in the first place).

KATMAN

Robert, I disagree with your logic. We are not imposing our values on anyone. We are protecting innocent American lives from future devistating terrorist attacks. This is a preventive action. Currently, we hope, the typical terrorist only has access to conventional means of terrorism (ie. explosives, hijackings etc). Now, if they do not possess the means to create a weapon of mass destruction, the only way for them to get it is to have a country with sympathetic leadership give it to them. We believe Saddam is sympathetic and he does possess the weapons that the terrorist organizations would love to use on us. Therefore, HE GOES DOWN. The fact that he has been violating UN resolutions for years gives us the legal right to do it to.
And by the way, the only reason why it is "Saddams country", is because he will execute anyone who opposes him.
Sorry Robert, but I don't understand why anyone would not agree why this has to be done.
Bush is showing that he is a great leader. I believe when this is all over, he will go down in history as such.

Nothing personal...just a healthy debate. :D
Anthony

bamavettes

Why don't you talk with the citizens of Iraq and see what they think.

They are already celebrating in the streets of the first city that the marines have taken.

I say when Saddam paid a $25,000 bounty to the family of any terriorist who
gives his life to kill us , that it is the same as sending a missle into our cities.

Based on your thought. We should have negotiated with Hitler instead of waged war.

Dwayne 76

Sadly we did just that well Chamberlain did, negotiate with Hitler, and Czechoslovakia paid the ultimate price, freedom. See, I do understand both sides :hurray: