[OT]Hanoi Jane rides again

(Mulder mode on)

You know, if they ran Hiliary for vice president, all they have to do is whack whoever the president happens to be and she becomes president.

Think about it. It may have worked for Johnson. Ever read, A Texan Looks at Lyndon?

Randy

ALL YOUR WELLS ARE BELONG TO US!

Randy

That's a good point.

But it's an era in history that should pass; if the French get that fusion reactor going, we're going to look pretty stupid.

Still, we have more than enough oil right here for our needs; it's just easier to get at in the middle east and therefore cheaper for the oil companies that apparently control Washington.

And as I've said elsewhere, I'd be a lot happier if we just said we were there for the oil and gave up this "Make the world safe for Deomocracy / stop terrorism / save the poor Iraqi citizens" (pick one) nonsense.

I think this time around it's clear than many people support our troops, but NOT our governments actions. IMHO, the best way to support our troops would be to get them out of harms way.

The other big difference between then and now is that then we were drafting kids right out of high school and sending them off to war. Those going today are 100% volunteers that choose to serve our country.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

In that way soldiers are no different than any one else who chooses to serve the public: firemen, policemen, paramedics, etc.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

We seem to be very good at standing by while such things go on. We haven't invaded any of the African nations that are commiting genocide yet, have we?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

And if Norm had marched through Bagdad back then, as he said he could have done, we wouldn't be in this mess today, and the world would have been behind the suppression of an invading country.

But over a decade later, under the bogus claim of fighting terrorism or searching for WMD, We are the invading country.

The handling of Iraq has been afailure of BOTH Bush administrations.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

Yes!

Really? Firemen, policemen, paramedics, etc., do perform public service, but they also pay overtime and don't ship you off at a moment's notice to any part of the world away from your family, with an EXTREME chance of getting killed. There's a very small percentage of those that go into the military who make it a career, because they recognize that it requires such a huge personal commitment on their part.

I would add that of the three categories, firemen far and away are more at risk than the other two.

David Erbas-White

The coalition of Arab and Muslim countries specifically forbade that. It would have fallen apart instantly if we had marched on Baghdad.

There isn't a country in the world that I'm aware of, not one, that didn't have as their official position that Iraq had WMD. You can Monday-morning quarterback all you want, but that's the reality. Were there individuals who felt that there weren't? Certainly. But after all analysis was said and done, the unanimous consensus of countries was that they were present.

BTW, were you making posts back in 1992 denigrating the Bush adminastration for not taking Baghdad? If not, why not?

The first war accomplished its objectives, quickly and efficiently. The second war acomplished the initial overthrow quickly and efficiently. I agree 100% that the aftermath has not been handled at all well.

David Erbas-White

My own personal opinion? It's due to political correctness. Since the African-American community isn't incensed about these genocides, if we were to go in without a 'public mandate', we would be vilified by our own African-American community for 'targeting Africans for murder'. I think our politicians are absolutely afraid of such a scenario -- they're only glad that Iraq wasn't in Africa.

Would it be different if we had greater strategic interests there? Sure, the calculus of events would definitely have changed. But that's not reality -- since we have no economic interests driving us, the sole rationale is the political/humanitarian interests -- and our population just doesn't care enough to do anything there.

David Erbas-White

No problem, let's pull our troops out of Korea immediately.

You fail to understand that the purpose of a military is to BE in harms way. Even during absolute, uneqivocal peacetime conditions (which we've never had), the military trains at a level that would be considered absolutely hazardous in any other field. During the mid/late 90s, I can recall several training accidents where numerous troops were killed. They still happen, but they don't make the front page anymore, since the media would rather focus on the deaths in Iraq.

Furthermore, 'accidental' deaths in Iraq are counted among the casualties. If a soldier gets hit by a car while crossing the street, that's considered a war casualty -- if we weren't at war, it would just be 'normal'.

If a military doesn't have a certain level of troops in harms way (whether through actual deployment or through hazardous training), then the military isn't doing it's job -- it's either too large, or just a jobs program. Those kids who are volunteering for service KNOW this, unequivocally. I categorically state this, because I spend a good portion of my time with kids who have military service as their goal when they get out of school. They have (even now, as young teenagers) lost friends in Iraq, and had others come back telling them of the hazards. The father of one young man who was seriously injured by a grenade attack while deployed in the war on terror (not in Iraq, BTW) told of what happened to his son to these kids, and believe me, they get it. But they truly do understand that this is a matter of honor and service to their country, and they are proud to have the opportunity to do so.

There's no question that this makes a HUGE difference in the level of professionalism of the military. The problem was that we didn't have the foresight in the sixties to create a volunteer force -- it was thought that those being drafted (as happened in WWII) would see it as a patriotic commitment. The mistake was that WWII was viewed as a necessity, and Vietnam was not (in the eyes of the general public).

David Erbas-White

Wow, that would be great! You mean the French are building a nuclear fusion reactor?

Oh, wait, you're talking about the international consortium that is attempting to build one, where France won the contest for PLACEMENT of the reactor, aren't you?

Tell you what, as soon as nuclear fusion as reliable and cheap power becomes reality, you'll have a point. But right now, oil is the most easily transportable/usable energy source.

Umm, yes. You apparently flunked Economics 101. If it is easier/cheaper to get it in the middle east, then that is what is going to occur. If you don't believe that, then the next time that you would like a car, please go mine the ore, smelt the steel, fabricate the assemblies, and build it yourself.

The original 'point' of going in to search for WMD was, and remains, a valid reason; especially post 9/11. The failure of the intelligence community to actually 'know' where/what/how in regards to the WMD is the problem -- not the reaction of going in to Iraq under the belief that Saddam had the WMD.

Further, you're ignoring the 'iceberg' of the situation -- the search of WMDs was the visible tip that was put forth because (frankly, given the level of intelligence of most folks) is about the only thing that is understood by the masses. But there were many, many, other reasons that we went in, and after putting all of those things together, the overall need was to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam.

BTW, it's not that the other reasons were 'hidden', but the media picks up on what it believes will sell. If that weren't true, magazines such as 'The Economist' would be outselling 'People' and 'The Enquirer'. The stories of WMD fed the same fears as those in the 60s/70s/80s who felt that nuclear armageddon was imminent, and went out to build survivalist cabins in Montana -- it's a "sexier" story.

David Erbas-White

No, it's because the anti-war cretins weren't just opposed to the Vietnam war, they were opposed to war in general and viewed the military not as defenders of the nation but as evil warmongering killers.

Irrelevant. Had he not denied the inspectors access to all the sites they wanted to go to, there would have been no suspicion placed upon him. As it is, we'll never know if he did indeed have them, and shunted them off to Syria, or Lebanon, or some other country.

Why not...? The Vatican does it ALL THE TIME! :-)

And those who ran away from their commitment are less than comtemptible, IMO.

Nope. Every time he barred inspectors from sites, he WAS poking us with that metaphorical stick. He thought he could get away with it, because he'd gotten away with it so often in the past. This time, you just happened to have somebody in a position of doing something about it... who DID.

Bush Sr.s' only failure in that matter was to abide by the UN mandate of the operation... they got Saddam out of Kuwait. If he had gone and finished the job, he'd be in *exactly* the same predicament that his kid is in now - vilified by the media for doing what he thought was right.

The problem with that is - it leaves a BIG power-vacuum in Baghdad. I don't want to even contemplate the kind of carnage that civil-war would bring about... :-O