I thought you were going to be talking about the violation of the DMZ in Korea.
I’m wet just thinking of it.
Yeah, some of us have known this for a while. My brother is going to Afghanistan pretty soon.
It’s a drag, but…
27,000? Is that a lot?
And so it begins. Sigh.
27,000 ain’t much. There’ll be an order of magnitude more before things get heavy.
sigh
This is SO wrong.
I am curious as to how this will pan out. Will North Korea launch an offensive once we engage Iraq?
Hmmm, so CAN we fight two ground wars on TWO different fronts? This could be WWIII officially begining, yes?
Will this war be called World War III? Or some hokey *Operation Noble Eagle *.
I vote for: **Operation Bend Over, Saddam. **
Operation: We’ve had e’fucking’nough.
Hell, attacking a small country is easier than fixing a sick economy, and you get more points for it!
(and, one of these times, we’ll actually get the guy we’re (nominally) after - remember ObL - “Dead or Alive”? Little dubya couldn’t pull it off - maybe this time…)
Keep voting GOP, folks - there are still a few Muslim countries where we don’t yet have troops!
I presume the point of this buildup is really to invade Pakistan - the terrorist-harboring country that already has both nukes and medium-range missiles, and has provided nuclear technology to North Korea.
What?
How’s that? Usama is either dead or alive. As promised.
So… are there any publicly-traded companies that supply DIY bomb shelters like the ones that were so popular in the 1950’s?
I’d like to see if I can manage to be a peacenik and a war profiteer, just to piss all the right people off.
Just invest in the companies that make gas masks, nerve agent antidotes, and medical supplies. That’ll pretty much cover all your bases.
Um… Isn’t the United States supposed to be the good guys? I thought the good guys weren’t the ones who started wars.
I was all for invading Afghanistan. We had proof that the Taliban supported ObL, al qaeda, et. al. Heck, if they wanted me to fly a Black Hawk I would have gone in a heartbeat. But IMO invading Iraq is wrong. The public have not been offered any proof of Sadam’s support of terrorists. The CIA have submitted a report that states that Sadam is unlikely to use NBC weapons (outside of his own country – he’s already used chemical weapons against the Kurds) unless he is provoked into using them. Hmm… What’s a good way to provoke him? Invasion, maybe?
For now, Sadam is contained. I don’t think we should make war on him unless he actually does something (as when he invaded Kuwait). My co-workers say, “What? Do you want to wait until he *explodes a nuclear bomb in the United States? :eek: We’ve got to kill him now!” I believe that we need a “smoking gun” before we can legitimately attack him. Unfortunately, a smoking gun is one that has already been fired. Still, I don’t believe that the “shot” will be as drastic as the warmongers make it out to be.
We invaded Panama and Grenada, but generally we tend to have a “no first strike” policy. I think we should make a first strike if an attack is imminent; not because “He tried to kill my pa!” or because we just don’t like him.
This is my opinion, and I don’t mean to offend any of our European Dopers. I may well be wrong. But here it goes: If we attack Iraq, Europe will gain the advantages of a victory. They can sit back and point fingers at the U.S. for being a world-class bully, and still enjoy whatever benefits come from the ouster of Sadam. In my opinion, the U.S. should not attack Iraq until and unless the rest of the world community unequivocally supports such an attack and there is overwhelming evidence that such an attack is warranted. When I see French and German troops being offered to fight in Iraq, then I’ll think it’s time.
Why are we going to war with Iraq? “Because he has, or is making, weapons of mass destruction.” Not because Iraq has been proven to have been using terrorists to attack other countries. Not because he’s lobbing Scuds against Isreal. Not even because Iraqi forces routinely shoot at allied aircraft in the no-fly zones. We’re attacking because he’s making weapons. By that logic, why didn’t we attack the Soviet Union in the late-1940s? Why didn’t we attack Israel or France or China? Why aren’t we attacking North Korea? Why haven’t we been attacked by others who fear that we might use our NBC weapons?
Before bullets fly and bombs drop, I think we need a better reason.
YMMV
Yeah, you 'n me both. Ask not for what the bell tolls, for I fear it’s no longer liberty…
That’s assuming anything good will come of it.
My prediction: We ouster Saddam and his administration, and Iraq will be left governmentless, which will lead to Iran making friendly with the southern Shias. Iran and their new-found Shi’ite comrades will make a move to taking over the land, albeit in a bloody fashion. Then, we’ll have a bunch of dead Sunnis and Kurds on our hands, and a worse bunch of guys occupying the land than before.
Papa Bush and his administration knew this and never had any intention of taking Sadam out during the Gulf War.
James Baker told Iraqi Minister Tarik Aziz just days before the Gulf War started:
(from James Baker’s "The Politics of Diplomacy, bolding mine)
He was basically saying that if they played fair, we’d let them stay in power. If not, we’d wipe them out. Ambiguous, yes. Calculated, most definetly. We got what we wanted (oil), they fought fair, and we got the hell out.
Taking out Saddam now --just like a decade ago-- would lead to a worser fate.
I’m no pacifist, but this potential war is a huge mistake.
My 2 cents.
Happy
I say this jokingly. . .
Woooooooooooooooo! Job security!! Woooooo!
Tripler
Like I said, I say it jokingly.