time to bring back the troops from the middle east?

[rainstorm]

i think it is a crime for president bush to rip all those guardsmen from their familes and jobs to sit around in the sand while we beg the un to be nice to us. this should have been taken care of 6 mos ago. bring the troops home, mr president!!

[Derek Ortt]

One of my best friends may be deployed to the region. I will be ultra pissed if Bush ends up backing down this time. For her to be taken from her friends and family for up to a year just to bluff Saddam is a terrible crime.

Bush, if you are serious, show the world that the US and Britain are the only two superpowers and take good care of Saddam and ALL of his allies (including France). If not, stop ripping families apart

[rainstorm]

One of my best friends may be deployed to the region. I will be ultra pissed if Bush ends up backing down this time. For her to be taken from her friends and family for up to a year just to bluff Saddam is a terrible crime.

Bush, if you are serious, show the world that the US and Britain are the only two superpowers and take good care of Saddam and ALL of his allies (including France). If not, stop ripping families apart

exactly!! why are our troops under french control?

[Rainband]

As I said the United States sets the example for the world. The soilders are doing what they enlisted to do. War is hell and I understand that but the politicians have made wise decisions for the most part thus far IE your freedom and rights. So let them do their job and have faith in your President and your country.

[mf_dolphin]

Let's get some facts straight, people serve in the Guard and Reserve know they they may be called up to active duty in times like these. They choose to serve for various but most serve because they believe in serving their country. The fact of life for any military component is that life apart from family is a reality. This includes "remote" duty time, duty at sea and other unaccompanied tours. These are sacrifices that these people make every day.

To say that our troops are under French control is both inflamatory and just not accurate. Our troops are under the command of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. They will do what he wants when he wants it. Let there be no doubt in your minds.

Britain is a very close ally and much of what President Bush is doing is to help Prime Minister Blair who has taken a very unpopular stance in his country as a show of true friendship to the US. Britain is hardly a superpower, not at least since the days of the British Empire. Britain has once again proved to be a valued and trusted friend, something I wish we had more of in the world.

As to the "this should have been taken care of 6 months ago.." the UN resolution wasn't even passed 6 months ago or the forces in place to do what needs to be done. In truth it should have been taken care of 12 years ago and this wouldn't be necessary now. Only when the US forces are in place in Turkey will sufficient force be ready to do the job right and hopefully minimize the lose of life on both sides.

Please check your facts and not just post garbage.

[Derek Ortt]

Why do we always try to placate the French. They were the ones who opposed us going to Baghdad the first time around and they are the ones leading the opposition this time.

Make no mistake, I want a swift victory in BOTH this theatre and the korean theatre as well. Every Friday, as I drive home from RSMAS, I have a few not so nice words for the anti-war protestors that protest at the SW 27th St and US 1 intersection. I just want this to occur and soon. The time for talking is over

[Stephanie]

Marshall - was that really necessary???

If it was to be taken care of 12 years ago, the same thing would've probably occured - a UN resolution, etc. Are you saying that the first UN resolution was the right thing to do???

I don't think that it is time to bring the troops home, especially now if Saddam Hussein is not going to destroy those missiles. That, in my view is my smoking gun (ARE YOU READING THIS j????). I think that the UN would have no choice but to endorse the second resolution, but we'll probably still have problems with France, etc. With that, I'd say, let France take the lead AND responsibility of disarming Iraq and let them put their money where their mouths are. Of course, we know that won't happen so hopefully we can get some of the other nations like Russia and Germany to back it and support a military cause.

[Derek Ortt]

Prehaps their country should invest more in razors and showers than in BSing the entire world

[mf_dolphin]

Stephanie, the thing that was done incorrectly 12 years ago was limiting the stated goal to the explusion of Saddam Husseins troops from Kuwait. There was a UN resolution then just the wrong one. The fact that after the war the UN and the US failed to hold Saddam to the commitments made at the end of the war. We allowed the inspectors to be expelled and have tolerated the continued violation of the cease fire reached at the end of the war. We also sat by while chemical weapons were used to murder thousands of Kurdish Iraqi's in violation of both the UN accords and international law. By the way, at that time Saddam was still saying he didn;t have these weapons. Doesn't that sound familiar?

We were less than a day from Bagdad with Saddam's Army in retreat. What stopped the war was the reality of war shown on American TV. Make no mistake, war is a violent and brutal endeavor. I sincerely hope that war isn't necessary but Saddam must be stopped with or without the UN's support.

Believe me, France and Germany's intentions aren't nearly as peaceful as they are economic.

[M2]

Righto, both France and Germany have been 'doing business' with Iraq for quite some time and don't necessarily want their cash cow totally dried up. France will more than likely get on board in the nick of time but forget Germany - they have their own major problems to deal with right now. Remember that France & Germany also have a substantial population of Middle-Eastern ethnic heritage and they themselves are nervous regarding terrorist events in their own countries. Our TDY troops were informed recently that their 3 month tours would be extended to 15 months or 'indefinitely', so they won't be pulled out or coming home soon. The military is committed, Bush is commmitted and several of the countries surrounding/near Iraq want us to get in there and initiate a regime change - sooner than later. Captain Insaneo is not only a threat to his own people and us but also anyone who even slightly criticizes him, or who he 'thinks' would oppose him. Talk about a lone wolf terrorist - he is one - and flaunts it.

[j]

Marshall - was that really necessary???

If it was to be taken care of 12 years ago, the same thing would've probably occured - a UN resolution, etc. Are you saying that the first UN resolution was the right thing to do???

I don't think that it is time to bring the troops home, especially now if Saddam Hussein is not going to destroy those missiles. That, in my view is my smoking gun (ARE YOU READING THIS j????). I think that the UN would have no choice but to endorse the second resolution, but we'll probably still have problems with France, etc. With that, I'd say, let France take the lead AND responsibility of disarming Iraq and let them put their money where their mouths are. Of course, we know that won't happen so hopefully we can get some of the other nations like Russia and Germany to back it and support a military cause.

Hey Steph....did I say something to upset you?? You must have me confused with somebody else.

back from reading all possible posts and now I see what fired you all up. It was that whole "Rush" thing wasn't it? But I'm still confused by this "smoking gun" reference above.

As long as we're talking about France, I think its plain to see that the ONLY country that this probable war directly and disproportionately effects (in regards to oil) is France. If I'm not mistaken, they import 80% of their oil from Iraq. They get their oil cheap, and they want it to stay that way. In the end, they will side with whoever they think will control the oil. If its not SH, then they are screwed if they don't align with us. I look for them to come around at the last minute. No veto.

[Stephanie]

j - my reference to the smoking gun is because you especially know what my position has been regarding this potential war, and how many feel about people who even remotely question why the President wants to get into one with Iraq.