This is exactly the kind of scary thinking process I was thinking about when I wrote that the war issue was being used as a political issue. Last I checked, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans were all Americans. All concerned with the welfare of our nation. But Dotslash, has made this a partisan issue. He doesn't give one moment's thought to anything other than party line dogma. "Lefties" (whatever they are) are his big nightmare. Our internal enemy. He sounds like a modern day Joseph McCarthy (if he has a clue who he was). What makes America great is the ability to disagree and to look at each issue from different perspectives. Name calling is for grade-schoolers. And anyone who wants to use war as a first alternative is vastly ill informed and likely just bloodthirsty. Dotslash talks about the mothers of our military men and how they feel. What possible insight can this person have on this issue? Is Dotslash a mother of a military person? Is Dotslash a even a parent? Or in the military? It is so easy to make blanket statements. It is impossible to make these kinds of statements and not come off as being ignorant, closed minded and ultimately un-american. I was in combat. I was widowed at an early age. I have a son going into the Navy in June. If his mom had lived, I assure you she would be very concerned if we went to war. I know I am. I am proud he is going, and I hope his involvement will help America remain strong and at peace. That is the purpose of our defense forces. At the risk of repeating myself, warfare is a tactic of last resort. Not first. Dotslash, have you enlisted in the Marines? You are so gung ho to fight. Are you willing to do it yourself? Or are you just bloodthirsty because you feel safe and insulated sitting in front of your computer 12,000 miles away from harm? Also, there really needs to be a limit to these "cut and paste" editorials. They prove nothing. We all know that we can find editorials and testimonials on both sides of any issue. We know where to look, and we already know what we will find when we look there. And we know what to expect from whom as far as the people who post here. One Traderfut2000 is one too many. I am always interested to hear what others think. Even those I disagree with (Like Dotslash). But I, and I believe most of us, don't really care to wade through every heavily biased piece of information that can be dug up. It is endless. Peace; Rs7
a little dissembler here, max, what? the relevant point that brent scowcroft made is: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. But there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is an object of his aggression. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence. Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region. The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on that bitter conflict--which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives to be clearly within our power to resolve--in order to go after Iraq, there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is seen to be a narrow American interest. Even without Israeli involvement, the results could well destabilize Arab regimes in the region, ironically facilitating one of Saddam's strategic objectives. At a minimum, it would stifle any cooperation on terrorism, and could even swell the ranks of the terrorists. Conversely, the more progress we make in the war on terrorism, and the more we are seen to be committed to resolving the Israel-Palestinian issue, the greater will be the international support for going after Saddam. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133 pray tell me, W fan max, what part of Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. are you having problems understanding? i presume you're strategy is simply to twist facts and dissemble as long and as hard as you can in order to make our internationally isolated position of warmongering suddenly and magically appear to make sense. when of course it makes zero sense.
Excuse me? What game are you talking about? I simply quoted your boy Scowcroft. Is that part of Scowcroft's opinion BS? I don't think so. Next you'll be doing a cut & paste from"Shakespeare," like Barbara. Here's the fodder for you: http://www.drudgereport.com/strei4.htm. Barbara is apparently "frightened" by Bush and his entire cabinet.
brent scowcroft:Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts. dissembling again, joe sixpack. how laughable and ridiculous, is that the best you can do, joe sixpack? oh, i forgot, your favourite line of defense is, leftie, liberal, bleeding heart. welcome to the club, national security advisor to george bush senior and gerald ford, brent scowcroft, our joe sixpack here is doesn't like your position, so he's calling names.
max sixpack, well, no dissembling possible here, so who did appoint you a modern day mcarthy or inquisitor in chief??
I think when someone claims to be a combat veteran and in this case, having experienced comrades fallen in battle, they need to give some verification of that. It is of such a highly revered and honored status that it demands more than just "I was in combat."