The impending war

[classiccountryfan]

I am worried like most of us. I'm not sure how I feel about it. There are times I say let's go get that nut and other times I say lets see if we can solve it peacefully. but I know he will never give in. What are your thoughts?

[Wildrider]

I think he's had this agenda for a long time, and means to see it through no matter what evidence is presented that denies his vision of the facts. I think we would have been heading this way a year ago but 9/11 temporarily derailed his vision.

I was reading in Newsweek that we are at an all-time high for the deficit; the stock market is still falling steadily (although fortunately, at this point, it's still not dropped below record lows because it was formerly so very high). The deficit has increased nearly 5 billion dollars, unemployment is increasing alarmingly (my S.O. just got laid off), and all he can see is this little war of his.

The loss of civil liberties disturbs me. What has America become?

(For a touch of humor in this, check out www.spankbush.com )

[classiccountryfan]

Just to make sure everyone knows I am calling Sadam the nut and not the President. and I don't think Sadam will give in and totally disarm. It is scary either way you look at it.

[LS]

Well CCF, I've got two words to say on the matter on behalf of all us New Yorkers...
WHERE'S OSSAMA??

I happen to agree with Wildrider, this was on his 'agenda' from day one. 9/11 merely provided him with the 'excuse.' We're supposed to be over there hunting down Bin Laden...not deposing the leader of a country that has not threatened us, and is no immediate threat to us. The way I see it is, we've got a lot more higher priorities than Hussein at the moment.

Think about it...Bin Laden is Saudi, 15 of the 19 highjackers were Saudi, the majority of the Al Qaeda are of Saudi origin, the Saudi royals fund the terrorist groups...but Saudi Arabia is our 'friend' and 'ally'?? Yep, because we get most of our oil from them. Iraq and Hussein?? "The Enemy" because oddly, the U.S. & England are the only countries shut out of Iraqi oil fields.

Now they're saying there are Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda...Yeah there are, but only problem is, the ties are with the Kurds who back them- the part of Iraq that Hussein does not control. So what's that got to do with Hussein??

Did Kennedy wait a year to present his evidence during the Cuban Missle crisis?? No, the minute he got it- he went straight to the UN, it was concrete proof that got their blessing, and the whole thing was over and done with in a blink of an eye. So if DuHbya, Dumsfeld & Co. have concrete proof of anything- then why hasn't it been presented- and presented a very long time ago?? What Powell presented was all either sketchy or speculative at best...nothing concrete that I saw that makes him an immediate threat.

Yeah CCF, it's scary, but that's exactly what this administration's trying to do...scare people and make them live in constant fear- it just makes it that much easier to for them to carry out their agendas...And even scarier- they don't care who or what they sacrifice to accomplish them.

(LOL Wildrider!! That's definitely a good one... )

[Wildrider]

Sorry, CCF, I did think "the nut" was Bush.

Hussein has been sitting in Iraq coddling his wounds from the spanking we gave him in the Gulf War, and I honestly believe that while he probably IS lying his butt off to the UN inspectors and he may very well have some sort of weapons program going, I sincerely doubt his poor, beaten, and impoverished country could scrape enough of anything together to be a threat to the US. Consider: When the ground troops marched into Iraq during the Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers dropped their weapons and surrendered by the THOUSANDS.

Bush is taking on Daddy's War because of two things: He wants the popularity gained to a president from a successful military effort, and, more importantly, he couldn't find Osama Bin Laden. He wanted a target he could shoot at, and Hussein, whom no one really likes, provided a lovely one for him to focus on.

While I wouldn't object in the slightest if Saddam Hussein were to accidently cut his own throat while shaving, I really think we're aiming at WAY the wrong target here, and this country is not in a good position either morally or financially to launch a full-scale war on anyone.

I personally believe a number of these older men miss the Cold War and are doing all they can to bring back those days of hatred and paranoia.

What about North Korea? Why is no one worried about THEM?

The one who really scares me is Rumsfield. Not to mention the careful and systematic stripping away of our civil rights.

[Roughneck]

At first Rumsfield's forthwithness was a good thing, but now he goes about bombasting our main allies! You know, if you're trying to change their minds, INSULTING THEM IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT! bush doesn't realize that he can't impose the blackout forever. weather it be 2004 or 2008, he will be out of office eventually, and all that the time means is it will take longer to repair the damage...if it can be repaired. We'll undoubtedly repair the damage with the states individually once he's gone, but what their pushing with NATO may destroy the alliance. They need to put a muzzle on the whole works.

[classiccountryfan]

You have all made some great points. Most I have been asking too. I am going out on a big limb here. I am a democrat. I did not vote for Bush nor well I in the next election. I did get a kick out the spank bush site. I don't think he is as smart as his dad is. I am worried he may hurt nato and our allies. I do hope we can stop Sadam without having to go to war. IMO we should have done it 12 years ago.

[tcb]

I see things much differently from Canada....and we are constantly struggling with being neighborly but at the same time trying to be honest that sometimes our agendas are vastly different. I certainly don't know as much about US politics are you all do -- but from my vantage point the US is viewed as a country who wants everyone to have the same political system and ideals it has and will do anything to make it so....here I think we have more of a tolerance for multiculural populations and traditions...(not saying we don't have trouble in that area -- just that we seem to be a little more tolerant)

I agree Sadam isn't a nice guy -- but he's one man and there are so many innocent lives that will be lost on both sides...I don't think that's a fair price to pay....

There's also a constant debate here as to why he (Bush) appears to be ready to wait and cool his heels on Korea which is perceived to be a bigger threat and not bide time and work diplomatically and non-violently to resolve things in Iraq -- if indeed there are things to resolve in the first place....

[WestTennessee]

I do feel that war is very bad thing, and we will be putting the lives of our soldiers in danger. If you are looking for concrete evidence as to the fact that Saddam is a threat to the U.S. then you need to look no further that the presidents State Of The Union address. In 1999 Iraq admitted to having thousands and thousands of Wepons of Mass Destruction most of these have still not been found nor destroyed according to the U.N. Reports. You may feel that just because they have these wepons dosn't mean that they will use them on us. WE ARE THE FIRST PEOPLE THEY WILL USE THEM ON. There are many people in that region (maybe not everyone but a lot of them anyway) as well as many other foreign nations who despise us just because we are American. Those people want nothing more than for our country to be taken off the map. THEY ARE A THREAT TO THE U.S.

As far as putting our troops in danger. I attend Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, Tennessee, which is about 15 minuets away from Fort Campbell, Kentucky. (This is the second largest ARMY base in the U.S. and home of the famous 101st Airborne Division) I have many friends who are stationed there and they have already been shipped out. Before they left they all told me that this is what they wanted to do and they were glad to do it. This is the attitude that has kept our nation free. If these people want to go over there and fight then we should support them untill the end. If they don't mind their lives being in danger then we can't use that as an argument against going to war. If you support this war or not you still need to pray for our forces and our leaders (like them or not) that they would have the knowledge and ability to do what must be done, then let God handle the rest.

The Future Of Our Nation Is At Stake.

[Wildrider]

I'm very much behind our armed forces and the individual men and women who put their lives on the line for us every day. My father fought in Italy in WWII and I served in the Army ROTC out of Arizona. I am fiercely and unashamedly patriotic; I love my flag and my country without reserve. However, I am also learned enough to understand the problems inherent in President Bush's movements and actions in the last year.

Most people forget the ENTIRE quote: "Our country right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." (US Sentator Carl Schurz)

This time, we're WRONG. We need to be put right. America is on course to be just as bad, if not worse, than the people we're fighting against. We apparently want Hussein ousted simply because "we don't like him." Who's next? Many dictators throughout time have deposed regimes they "just don't like." It's not a good precident to be setting. We're supposed to be the good guys, the defenders, not the aggressors. Certainly, there are numbers of shady, half-assed evidences of "weapons of mass destruction" (a catchphrase getting far too much abuse); but nothing at all concrete. So far, everyone in power is making the puzzle pieces fit whether they actually do or not.

The villain of this drama is Saddam Hussein. I will not deny that. As I said, I will not at all be sad if he were to accidentally fall on a dagger 37 times. But what will happen if we go to war? He will vanish underground (just as Bin Laden has done), and we will be slaughtering the poor, downtrodden, and oppressed people of Iraq. When we finish wiping our big American boots on their backs, Hussein will re-appear. But who then will be the ones guilty of war crimes? Has anyone read "The Rape of Nanking"? Or any good history of the French Revolution or the fall of the Russian czars? How about Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"? We as Americans overthrew a "King George" once because of his madness, which came close to financially destroying this infant country, which still bore the clothing of "colonies."

We should have taken Hussein out when we were there. It was the right and just thing to do. Now we have just as much right there as we have in Cuba, also a regime we "don't like." In other words, none at all. If we roam the world enforcing our views on everyone else, then we are no better than the Roman Empire -- and, in fact, the last year has reminded me dreadfully of the early years of that body, when Augustus was proclaimed Caesar. Rome was a Republic, then. Augustus was just going to be the ruling Caesar "for a while, until things settle down." He ruled for over forty years, and suddenly the position became heriditary, passed to his stepson. All through the willing hands of the senate. And by the time people realized what happened, and stood up to oppose the movement, it was too late.

Emperors ruled Rome for centuries thereafter, even after the final "Caesar," and even after it had ceased to be the Roman Empire.

I believe in America. We made it through the McCarthy years, we'll make it through this. But oh, I feel for the people who have to clean up the mess. And I'm so afraid we're not going to come out of this looking or feeling the same as we are going in.

[Roughneck]

Rumsfeld family tie is first victim of war
By Tony Paterson
(Filed: 09/02/2003)


The American defence chief Donald Rumsfeld has been disowned by his anti-war relatives in north Germany, reports Tony Paterson


The Rumsfelds of Weyhe-Sudweyhe, an unremarkable red-brick suburb of Bremen, were once proud of their long-lost cousin, America's secretary of state for defence - but no longer.

Like many Germans, they are appalled by Donald Rumsfeld's hawkish attitude to military action against Saddam Hussein. About 18,000 anti-war demonstrators marched through Munich yesterday to protest at his presence at an international security conference - chanting slogans such as "No room for Rumsfeld!"

"We think it is dreadful that Donald Rumsfeld is out there pushing for a war against Iraq," Karin Cecere (nee Rumsfeld), 59, said from her two-up, two-down home last week. "We are embarrassed to be related to him," she told The Telegraph.

Margarete Rumsfeld, her 85-year-old mother, was equally dismissive: "We don't have much to do with him anymore. Nowadays he's just the American defence secretary to us, but for God's sake, he'd better not start a war," she added.

They used to feel differently. Twenty-five years ago, the German Rumsfelds were thrilled to welcome Mr Rumsfeld - then the United States ambassador to Nato stationed in Brussels - into their extended family.

Like many Americans keen to trace their European antecedents, Mr Rumsfeld had made contact with the Weyhe-Sudweyhe Rumsfelds, a branch of the family with whom his near relations had lost touch since his great-great-grandfather, Heinrich, emigrated to America during the 19th century.

Mr Rumsfeld paid three visits to Dietrich Rumsfeld, a bricklayer, and his wife Margarete in their small artisan's cottage. On the last occasion, they greeted him with chicken soup and roast pork for lunch "It was a really pleasant family gathering, almost like a wedding," said Mrs Cecere last week. "Mr Rumsfeld seemed a genuinely nice man. It is such a shame about his war ambitions."

She had grown up, she said, during the Second World War and her instincts were to search for a solution to the deadlock with Saddam that did not involve military action. "I was born in the war and saw its aftermath, and my mother went through it," she said. "There must be a peaceful way of solving the Iraq problem."

This change of heart over their Rumsfeld cousin reflects the mood in Germany. More than 60 per cent of Germans oppose a war and the US defence secretary has become a hate figure for the country's peace movement.

His desire to topple Saddam by force is at odds with the Social Democrat-led government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, which is directly opposed to war in Iraq.

Even before his arrival in Germany yesterday, Mr Rumsfeld had faced fierce criticism from senior German government officials for describing France and Germany as "old Europe".

Last week he caused further outrage when he told the House Armed Services Committee in Washington that Germany, like "Libya and Cuba", had indicated that it "did not want to help in any way" the international efforts to tackle Iraq.

The German government attempted to play down the criticism. "Mr Rumsfeld is like he is. I can say no more," said Joschka Fischer, the foreign minister. Other senior politicians were more explicit. "Rumsfeld has flipped out - his behaviour is impossible," said Klaus Kinkel, a Free Democrat and former foreign minister.

Some Germans have misgivings, however, that their country's hard line against war with Iraq may backfire - especially if, as widely predicted, France drops its own objections at the last minute and joins in military action.

Angela Merkel, the leader of the Christian Democrats, yesterday became the first opposition figure to call for Germany to become involved. "If it is impossible to solve the situation peacefully then Germany has to take part in a military operation," she said, accusing Mr Schröder's government of "spreading ill-will and confusion" in Nato.

In Munich Mr Rumsfeld sought to dispel the furore over his own comments by claiming that he had intended the phrase "old Europe" as a term of affection, like that of "old friends".

He admitted that he was sometimes inclined to be blunt - but blamed it on his German roots. "My family originates from northern Germany. People there are well known for their direct and clear manner of speaking."

His explanation did not impress most Germans - least of all his cousins in Weyhe-Sudweyhe. Mrs Cecere said: "We're all in favour of plain-speaking but our relation goes just too far."

[conservativejud]

Just to be a continual conservative thorn in the side, here's a column I wrote a couple weeks back. It appeared in 17 newspapers (I have over 30,000 readers), and it is copywrited. And, by the way, our economy is growing at about 3 percent right now, and has grown from between 1 and four percent every quarter for the past two years (since the Clinton recession) and unemplyment has fallen for the past two quarters (It's now at 6%; the natrual rate of unemployment is around 5%, but it is a lagging indicator) So, enjoy:

Kind Of Like An Ice-Cream Headache

Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with a college professor who is opposed to the
war in Iraq. He is the author of several textbooks, the recipient of many awards and honors in his
field of study, and an esteemed educator at a respected northern university. Because I enjoy
debate and political discussion, I looked forward to challenging his position. I came to the table
prepared to counter every argument that Saddam Hussein is really an all right guy, and America
the true enemy of humanity (the typical blame America first shibboleths) with evidence of his
cruelty to his own people and his determination to harm our nation and our allies. I was ready to
discuss Saddam’s gassing of the Kurds, his stock pilling of biological and chemical weapons, his
attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, and his funding of anti-American terrorist groups. To my
surprise, the professor hit me with and argument against which I was totally unprepared to
defend.
He said, “Saddam Hussein is a crazy, evil, brutal dictator. He has killed his own people,
and wants to kill us. Everything Bush has said about him is true. But, Saddam has tons of nerve
gas and biological weapons. If we leave the negotiating table, or give up on arms inspectors; if we
declare war, he will have no reason not to use those weapons. He will gas our troops. Thousands
will return home in body bags. He could also give biological weapons to Al Queda and other
terrorist groups.” “According to the CIA and the Israelis, he is already giving chemical and
biological weapons to terrorist groups,” I replied. “He’ll give them more, and he will gas our
troops. Besides, you don’t believe everything the CIA tells you, do you? They answer to Bush,
and Bush would say anything to get us into a war with Iraq. He wants to make his daddy proud.
And the Israelis, they would say anything to make Muslims look bad. They want the world on
their side, so no one will complain about their genocide against the Palestinians.” At this point a
fog of confusion began to cloud my mind. He was throwing so many illogical arguments at me at
once, that I didn’t know which irrelevant point to respond to first. There is a unique headache one
gets when debating a liberal; it is somewhat like an ice cream headache, but instead of being
overwhelmed by cold, the sheer volume of invective, stupidity, and faulty reason confound the
mind. In order not to be distracted from the issue at hand, I chose to ignore his paranoid,
conspiratorial statement regarding the CIA, his elitist pop-psychology regarding the President,
and the latent anti-Semitism lurking in his supposition. I asked him simply, “OK, so what should
we do.”<br> “We have to scale back on the saber rattling, be less threatening, stop the cowboy
rhetoric, lift the sanctions, and get him back to the negotiating table. The key is the economic
sanctions; as long as we are starving his people and threatening war, we are creating a dangerous
situation by turning the Iraqi people against us.” “So, even though the last time we eased the
economic sanctions to help the people of Iraq, Saddam took all the money and invested it in
statues of himself and a nuclear weapons program, we should lift the sanctions entirely?”<br>“Absolutely. If we stop threatening him, he won’t need to build more weapons; the money will get
to the people.” I then asked him, “So you think that Saddam Hussein will do the exact opposite of
what he has done over the past few decades, stops building weapons, threatening other countries,
and killing his own people. Against all evidence to the contrary, you think Saddam will negotiate a
lasting peace if only America will appease him. What if you are wrong? What if we call off the
war, end the sanctions, and he uses the next few years and the billions of dollars in oil to build a
nuclear arsenal?” “He won’t do that.” “How do you know?” I asked, “The former head of his
nuclear program says Iraq was only four years away from having a nuclear arsenal when he
defected.” “You don’t believe that, do you? He works for the CIA.” And so it went
I really shouldn’t have been so surprised by this completely muddle headed argument. For
decades now, liberals of his generation have used ad hominen attacks and illogical arguments to
cover up for their selfishness and apathy. Gone are the days of FDR and the civil rights era, when
liberals were people who cared about others, and who would sacrifice for the good of our
country. Those liberals disappeared with ideals such as duty, honor, and sacrifice. These are the
liberals who looked the other way while the Clintons rented out the Lincoln Bedroom, sold
pardons, sold nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, and disgraced the Oval
Office. They did not want to be bothered with such things as perjury and treason so long as the
Dow was above 10,000.
By the professor’s reasoning, no war could ever be justified, because it may be dangerous.
By his logic, a murderer or a mad dog could run wild through the streets of any town in America,
killing with impunity. No attempt could made to stop him; arresting him, shooting him, could be
dangerous. Had the generations of the past followed this logic, America would never have
declared her independence. Slavery would never be abolished: “Sure, slavery is an evil institution,
but I can’t be bothered by that. I am making money!” Hitler would have taken over the world:
“It’s a shame about those Jews, but if we don’t threaten him, Hitler won’t invade America.”
It is no wonder that we refer to the generation that fought in World War Two as the
“Greatest Generation,” while we call the generation who spat on their own soldiers returning from
Vietnam the “Me Generation.”

[WallabyTed]

Nope. Stay outta this one, Wallaby.

[SpinifexPete]

[Travelinman]

Let me preface this by saying the reference to 6% unemployment is accurate as to those still collecting unemployment insurance, but the number of hardcore unemployed is in the double digits. SOOOOOO please don't tell me how good things are getting.

I served this country for 8 years, and I served with complete conviction and determination. I served with respect for ALL THOSE who came before me, and granted all of us the rights we enjoy today (or used to enjoy) these rights and privillages are being slowly taken away.

Our militaries main responsibility is to protect the sovereign soil of America and the lives and rights of it's citizens. To protect our country would mean to respond to an immediate and eminent threat. As I see it Iraq is not the immediate threat, KOREA is.

President Bush has an agenda, remember it was to get Osama Bin Laden. He has not or will not do that, so let's bomb Iraq. I am sorry but the man in the White House scares the hell out of me.