View Full Version : Still Not Serious on Fighting the War
thedrifter
02-08-05, 06:04 AM
02-07-2005
Still Not Serious on Fighting the War
By William F. Sauerwein
The subject of mobilizing a nation to meet a deadly foreign threat has never been as relevant as it is today.
As Col. David Hackworth correctly pointed out in his column several weeks ago (“National Security vs. Social Security,” DefenseWatch, Jan. 10, 2005), the nation finds itself in a dilemma of what has priority, defense or domestic spending. This debate seems rational during peacetime, but not during a war with our children’s lives at stake.
I fully believe that if a war is worth one American life, it is worth the dedication of the entire nation.
The last war that received America’s all-out effort was World War II. Since then, we apparently decided that we can achieve victory in war without a total national effort. Unfortunately, our win-loss record using this strategy has not been very impressive, yet we continue the policy.
Hackworth’s column exposed this “guns and butter” controversy, highlighting the problems faced by our over-extended military personnel and their strained resources today. Meanwhile the “special interest” pundits view the wartime demands as either an inconvenience to their agenda, or an opportunity for expanding it.
The United States faced its most serious domestic crisis before it entered World War II – the Great Depression. Many experts believe that the resulting “economic boom” from increased military production ended our economic woes. Unskilled, and unemployed, workers found good-paying jobs producing the “Arsenal of Democracy” for us and our allies.
Information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) relates that during 1942, the first full year of war, non-defense spending decreased by 22 percent. By 1944, non-defense spending had decreased by 37 percent, and we annually spent today’s equivalent of about one trillion dollars on defense to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The United States financed the war in a variety of ways, from increased taxation through selling war bonds. Raising taxes is never popular, and the federal withholding tax system went into effect in 1943. Theoretically, the taxpayers never saw this money, therefore never missing it from their paychecks.
Even with this total national mobilization, it still took almost four bloody years to defeat the Axis Powers. When the war ended and demobilization was complete in 1946, the American people were ready for celebration. Maybe the total commitment during that extended period caused our reluctance for similar conditions in future wars.
During the Korean War, we partially mobilized for a “limited” conflict with limited objectives. Even so, during this time defense spending increased by 36 percent, while non-defense spending decreased by 25 percent. The resulting armistice in 1953 that established a Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) required maintaining a large military there and elsewhere, tying down substantial resources for deterrence.
In 1963, a time of global Cold War tensions, defense and non-defense spending were essentially equal. As he escalated our involvement there, President Lyndon Johnson worked hard to ensure that Vietnam War would be secondary to his “Great Society” domestic programs, refusing either to impose a wartime tax hike or to mobilize the reserves. Again, we opted for a “limited war,” with “limited objectives,” and minimal national sacrifice. By 1970, as our Vietnam commitment neared its end, both defense spending increased – by 54 percent – while non-defense spending nearly doubled as well.
Nevertheless, it was no the United States that made an extraordinary national commitment to victory in Vietnam – rather, it was our enemy that did so. While we won almost every battle, the war showed no sign of ending with the current strategy. Our enemy was totally committed with no restrictions, endured unthinkable sacrifices and triumphed over South Vietnam in 1975, just two years after our pullout.
These facts and figures demonstrate the level of our national commitment and seriousness for winning in the Post-World War II era. Such commitment goes beyond the precious lives of our military personnel to include how much of our national treasure (namely our gross domestic product) that we are willing to invest.
Consider: In 1943, total federal spending accounted for 43.6 percent of our GDP, with defense spending constituting roughly 84 percent of that amount. Six decades later, in 2003 federal spending accounted for only about 19.9 percent of the GDP, with defense spending coming in at only 18 percent. Put another way, in 2003, our GDP exceeded $11 trillion, with defense spending accounting for less than $500 billion, or less than 4 percent of the total.
Even when compared with the amount spent on post-World War II conflicts, the amount we are spending today on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war against terrorism pales in comparison. During the Korean War, federal spending accounted for 20 percent of the GDP, with defense at about 14 percent. In 1970, the first full year of “Vietnamization,” federal spending was about 19 percent of the GDP, with Defense accounting for 8 percent.
For 2003 the nonprofit Heritage Foundation cited that, adjusted for inflation, federal spending per household reached $20,000. This represents the highest level since World War II, when most federal spending funded the war effort. While defense spending has increased since 9/11, defense has not been the biggest recipient.
Brian Riedl, writing on the Heritage Foundation’s website on Dec. 3, 2003, dissected federal spending from 2001 through 2003. The biggest increases came in domestic spending, which increased overall 39 percent during this time. Extending unemployment compensation increased spending by 132 percent, blamed on 9/11 and the subsequent recession. Health programs increased by 81 percent, mostly for Medicare and Medicaid, while Education increased by 78 percent, significantly the “No Child Left Behind” program. Agriculture spending increased by 76 percent, largely through increasing subsidies and perennial popular programs.
These domestic spending increases demonstrate that politicians of both parties eagerly buy our votes. Ironically, throughout most of our history these domestic programs remained the function of state and local governments. If you read the U.S. Constitution, you will not find any mention of the above-mentioned programs. However, you will find the phrase, “provide for the common defense,” in the Preamble; and Article I clearly states that it is the role of Congress “to raise and support Armies,” and, “To provide and maintain a Navy.”
During the same two-year period, defense spending went up about 34 percent, with other unspecified 9/11-related items increasing by 11 percent. Other 9/11-related spending included: air transportation increased by 100 percent; community and regional development increased by 92 percent; and international affairs spending increased by 87 percent.
No matter how the federal “pie” is sliced, Congress must allocate the funds for these agencies. Politicians view raising taxes as the easiest method for financing their spending habits. However, once they raise taxes for a specific purpose, it proves difficult to reduce them afterward. A few years ago, Congress finally terminated a “war tax” still in effect – passed for the Spanish-American War.
Riedl also mentioned some potential savings if Congress exercised some spending discipline with our money. For example, about $80 billion is given away in “corporate welfare;” another $20 billion is just “pork” for home-district projects favored by incumbents; another $50 billion is lost through our old friends fraud, waste and abuse; and yet another $17 billion is simply lost and unaccounted for.
If insufficient funding levels for defense are not bad enough, Congress makes the situation even worse by hiding “pork” in the Defense budget itself, raiding legitimate programs. The advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste revealed in a report by Apathea Tomasik on Jan. 14, 2005, that the “pork” from the 2005 defense budget totaled between $9 and $12 billion dollars stolen from the roughly $420 billion DoD budget.
DoD “pork” shortchanges other defense programs, such as $300 million taken from procurement accounts supposedly dedicated to providing essential gear such as the vital armor upgrades needed Humvees and individual soldiers’ body armor. Tomasik mentioned that the primary Humvee supplier recently told reporters that his company is running about 22 percent under capacity despite DoD assurances the campaign to up-armor vehicles in Iraq has top priority.
Congress also stripped another $411 million ken from operations and maintenance (O&M) and research and development (R&D) accounts. Since the campaign began in Iraq, in 2003, about $34.5 billion in Pentagon funds has been for “pork” instead of legitimate purposes.
While I do not believe in providing the Pentagon a “blank check,” we must not exempt the rest of the budget in critical times such as these. Our politicians must exercise the same discipline that every family makes when facing a budgetary crisis. With a limited income, families must make certain sacrifices when balancing needs with wants. Despite 9/11 and the ongoing fight in Iraq, the politicians continue to view the taxpayers as an unlimited supply of money for buying their reelections.
When a natural disaster strikes such as the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, we rushed to supply money and other aid to the victims. This echoed our generous response to victims here at home after 9/11. But for some reason, our politicians do not think waging a war is serious enough for a truly emergency effort. The worst of it is that many of us feel the same way, and do not want our comfort inconvenienced.
At this point, we remain unwilling to undertake the painful but necessary steps to mobilize our nation to win the worldwide fight against terrorism and rogue nations.
William F. Sauerwein is a Contributing Editor of DefenseWatch. He can be reached at mono@gtec.com. Please send Feedback responses to dwfeedback@yahoo.com.
Ellie
sm@@thrider
02-08-05, 09:39 PM
If everyone said they aren't brave enough to fight for what they believe in(freedom and the US then we migh as well let anyone come into this country and let everyone out of the prisons and see who survives, maybe it will look like some of the 3rd world countries look like. stand up and support your nation on terrorist!
Mr. William F. Sauerwein mentioned severial times in his artical. WW11. I believe he did this to compair the average attitude in 1941-1944...........To ours today...!!!
But honestly can a person really compair the two.?
For one.......when the Japanese hit us off guard at Pearl Harbor. Did our country deploy troops to some other country.?............No..!!
They took the fight to where the attackers were..
Not only that but Mr. William F. Sauerwein also failed to mention. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor...........Not only the American politicians here including the President, but the general public as well, didn't want anything to do with the war going on over in Europe....If anyone disagrees........Check your history books....!!!
For someone to say we are over in Iraq fighting because of 9-11-01. Makes about as much sense as saying.........in 1941 this country should have invaded England and waged war........or a 1000 other countries.
The reason alot of people here aren't right behind this war effort is simple...........Our politicians decided to do this......their way...!!!
What does freeing another nation........Have to do with what happened over here on 9-11- 01...Directly.......Nothing..!!...indirectly
Alot..........Yes they both have terrorists in common.
I feel this nation would be behind the efforts 100% if we were looking for the head of Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter...!!!
But as we all know.........this is not the case here.
As far as the money spent on the war efforts.........If we did have our priorities in order.............I personally wouldn't so much as say a word about spending billions in Iraq. To free those people from the heartships they face. Has anyone ever heard the old saying.................Charity begins at home...?
Why can't the politicians here see this..? To most people here, the war efforts in Iraq are an indirect effort at best. 9-11-01 was our Pearl Harbor of 2001 That led up to where we are now.
As far as compairing taxes going up now...compaired to back in 1941thru 1945. To me it's not something that should be a big issue. Being a disabled Vet. I feel I payed for this during another ( conflict ) we were in some years back. Uncle Sam allows me to be in a somewhat different tax bracket. So I'd guess it really wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that issue.
It's especially hard for me to deal with some of these issues, Simply because I have a son who has been deployed over there for 6-7 months now...... I'd like to tell him my feelings on this whole thing......But at the same time i'm proud of him for doing what he feel is right...!!! So when I write him I stay clear of issues that may tend to suggest some things..!!!
I can see the similarities between this war and Vietnam...No we are no longer fighting in rice fields or the jungles...!!!
Does anyone know why the golf way was such a popular war in the general publics' eyes.?
Simple..............we were in and out..........It was a no nonsense war effort....Then We had public welcoming home parties...Our men and women were all war heros in the general publics' eyes..!!!
But on the other hand, to alot of us it was a 5 min. war to simply be viewed on CNN..!!! Is it purely a coincidence here we have a President who just happens to be the son of the same Persident who was in Office at the time of the Golf war in 1991.? And chose not to bring down the dictator. The very same dictator we were fighting against when this started this time over WMD ..?
This Couldn't have possibly been a personal vendetta. Someone had against the former Iraqie leader/dictator..........No noway...!!! It must have been a coincidence...!!
I find it very hard to believe we as a nation all forgot what we saw with our own eyes on 9-11-01. Then right after it happened we had to sit day after day.........Watching Osama Bin Laden on videos taking credit for what he did. And yet some how some way this almost magically moved from him being in the spot light. To we need to go disarm. and free the people of Iraq.
Perhaps I was sleeping when the news flashed " Iraqie Dictator takes blame for twin towers "
Ok...just for conversation purposes........Lets say they were all somehow involved in this one way or another,,,!!! Giving the benifit of the doubt.....to those who stand behind the actions of our politicians.
We had proof.........Osama Bin Laden Spearheaded the attacks on 9-11-01 Why did we not use every resources and military power to bring (HIM) in for what he did to this country. Then once that business was taken care of.........Go into Iraq and do what needs to be done there......Semper-Fi
jo1753,
Apparently you are looking at the world through some rose-colored glasses. Rather than continuing to make your statements based on "idealism" and the conspiracy theory books you are reading, you may want to consider a few FACTS:
To Whit:
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." -
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998
VIOLATED!!!!!
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions.
In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals.
Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.
Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer.
Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq.
In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue."
Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.
BTW, I appreciate the fact that your son is in Iraq and you want him home. I fully understand your worrying about him and I pray that he arrives home safely.
Saddam Hussein's Efforts to Circumvent Economic Sanctions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam Hussein has illegally imported hundreds of millions of dollars in goods in violation of economic sanctions and outside of the UN's Oil-for-Food program. For example, Iraq has imported fiber optic communications systems that support the Iraqi military.
Iraq has diverted dual-use items obtained under the Oil for Food program for military purposes. For example, Iraq diverted UN approved trucks from humanitarian relief purposes to military purposes, and has used construction equipment to help rebuild WMD-affiliated facilities.
The Iraqi regime illicitly exports hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day in flagrant violation of UNSCRs and blatant disregard for the humanitarian well-being of the Iraqi people. In so doing, it has deprived the Iraqi people of billions of dollars in food, medicine, and other humanitarian assistance that would have been provided if the regime had exported the oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. Instead, Saddam Hussein has used these billions to fund his WMD programs, pay off his security apparatus, and supply himself and his supporters with luxury items and other goods.
In January 2002, President Bush reported to Congress that "as most recently stated in a November 19 UN report, the government of Iraq is not committed to using funds available through the Oil for Food program to improve the health and welfare of the Iraqi people ... Iraq's contracting delays, cuts in food, medicine, educational and other humanitarian sector allocations, government attempts to impede or shut down humanitarian NGO operations in northern Iraq, and Baghdad's delays in the issuance of visas for UN personnel demonstrate that the Iraqi regime is trying to undermine the effectiveness of the program."
Saddam Hussein spends smuggled oil wealth on his lavish palaces and inner circle, rather than on the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein has used water pumps, piping, and other supplies that could have been used to repair urban sewer and water systems in order to construct moats and canals at his palaces.
Can one make the case that President George W. Bush "lied" or "misled" or intentionally "mischaracterized" the intelligence on Iraq and WMD in order to lead us to war? Sure, if one possesses a...
Jarhed Sc*ew off.........you got your opinion and so do I. Do you ever recal me attacking one of your posts. Go S**EW yourself boot camp. I thought this was an open forum here............Just write down your own thoughts........I never mentioned your name..Did I. I don't know you.
jo1753,
Apparently you are looking at the world through some rose-colored glasses. Rather than continuing to make your statements based on "idealism" and the conspiracy theory books you are reading, you may want to consider a few FACTS:
My facts...? Son I was hanging out of a chopper when you were still pi**ing your pants..........You show some respect. You have no idea........what loyalty really means.......rose colored glasses. Your a fool, and a blind one at that.
Just exactly where in my last post did you read. I'm not for going over there...? Just because I don't agree with the priorities our politicians and you obviously set down.........You feel you know me well enough to speak to me like we're old drinking buds.
WTF..........the new Corps.
Bright one..........we are not all going to agree.......Now I don't know about you but this is one of the reasons years ago I personally joined up and fought for this country. Perhaps you had other reason why you joined the Corps. You liked the shinie shoes, or uniform, cover..whatever...!! For me it was a bit more then that........!!
Originally posted by jo1753
Jarhed Sc*ew off.........you got your opinion and so do I. Do you ever recal me attacking one of your posts. Go S**EW yourself boot camp. I thought this was an open forum here............Just write down your own thoughts........I never mentioned your name..Did I. I don't know you.
jo1753,
Apparently you are looking at the world through some rose-colored glasses. Rather than continuing to make your statements based on "idealism" and the conspiracy theory books you are reading, you may want to consider a few FACTS:
My facts...? Son I was hanging out of a chopper when you were still pi**ing your pants..........You show some respect. You have no idea........what loyalty really means.......rose colored glasses. Your a fool, and a blind one at that.
Just exactly where in my last post did you read. I'm not for going over there...? Just because I don't agree with the priorities our politicians and you obviously set down.........You feel you know me well enough to speak to me like we're old drinking buds.
WTF..........the new Corps.
Bright one..........we are not all going to agree.......Now I don't know about you but this is one of the reasons years ago I personally joined up and fought for this country. Perhaps you had other reason why you joined the Corps. You liked the shinie shoes, or uniform, cover..whatever...!! For me it was a bit more then that........!!
Yeah, Ok, I'll go scr*w myself.
You put up your theories, I responded. Thats what an open forum is about.
Yeah, I realize you fought damn bravely in Vietnam without any support or thanks from the sandal-wearing panty-wastes that were smoking weed and spreading VD here in this country. Never tried to take that from you, never will. I respect you for your service, but I do NOT agree, nor will I ever agree with that liberal attitude about what is going on now. BTW, thank you very much for your service in Vietnam. Oh, and yeah, I was pi$$ing AND shi!!ing my pants when you AND my father were hanging out of helicopters in the bush in Vietnam. I'm just curious what the hell that has to do with any of this? And please dont question my understanding of the word LOYALTY. You have no clue how loyal I've been in various situations in my young 40 years.
Oh, and the reason I joined the Corps is because I believed that ALL young men have an OBLIGATION to serve their country! Nice try.
You didnt bother addressing the facts that I tossed your way. Would you like to try now? Compare these FACTS to your theories about why we are there? You say you dont disagree that we need to be there but your theories are pretty much pointing to ideas that suggest that we are there for the wrong reasons. Yet you still believe we should be? Do you want us there or not?
Quote:
Is it purely a coincidence here we have a President who just happens to be the son of the same Persident who was in Office at the time of the Golf war in 1991.? And chose not to bring down the dictator. The very same dictator we were fighting against when this started this time over WMD ..?
This Couldn't have possibly been a personal vendetta. Someone had against the former Iraqie leader/dictator..........No noway...!!! It must have been a coincidence...!!
hrscowboy
02-10-05, 03:58 PM
Well Well where do i start here... Jarhed i understand what your saying and i also understand what Jo1753 is saying also.. lets look at this picture again. Our president comes on national TV and says where going after Bin laden and gives all the spell what he has done and what he is doing and the people say lets get him and off to the sand box we go. We practically level the country of afgan and still cant find this turd called bin laden that drew first blood here on american soil. And to this day no one has found this little turd anywhere they think he is.. and spent millions of dollars do so.. (Taxpayers Money) Then out of the clear blue sky where going after another raghead names saddam because someone says hes got weapons of mass destructions and the race is on to bagdad not thinking about closing borders before our army personel and marines go racing across the desert to see who can be first to bagdad. I believe you mentioned sanctions on saddam from the United Nations? Now tell me when any country has listened or done anything the United Nations has said (Including or own USA) Of all the allies that are members of the United Nations who actually stood beside us when we went to bagdad? Did the United Nations tell the USA not to attack? 1. Did saddam attack american soil ? 2. Did saddam use weapons of mass destruction on american soil? Do you think i give a rats behind if saddam kills everyone in Iran? or libya? Yes i am also a vietnam vet like your father and Jo1753 and damn proud of it and i also have 2 sons in the Marine Corps and a grandson in the Corps and all three are in the sand box fighting for there lives everyday and for what jarhed I ask you that? we have the man in custody that pulled all this crap with his people and its time to say enough is enough do not give him back to the iraqi people give him to Hague and let him be tried as a war criminal and let them do with him what they may. hang him or firing squad it makes no difference to me. This war in iraq has divided the people in United States and that is really sad and its time for the people to stand up and say WE DONT WANT TO BE THE POLICE DEPT FOR THE WORLD. If you draw first blood on any american then where coming after you full bore. You see jarhead the Marine Corps taught me alot of things like WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN. and i have yet to see that we are actually taking care of own meaning the people of the USA.. enuff said..
Originally posted by hrscowboy
Well Well where do i start here... Jarhed i understand what your saying and i also understand what Jo1753 is saying also.. lets look at this picture again. Our president comes on national TV and says where going after Bin laden and gives all the spell what he has done and what he is doing and the people say lets get him and off to the sand box we go. We practically level the country of afgan and still cant find this turd called bin laden that drew first blood here on american soil. And to this day no one has found this little turd anywhere they think he is.. and spent millions of dollars do so.. (Taxpayers Money) Then out of the clear blue sky where going after another raghead names saddam because someone says hes got weapons of mass destructions and the race is on to bagdad not thinking about closing borders before our army personel and marines go racing across the desert to see who can be first to bagdad. I believe you mentioned sanctions on saddam from the United Nations? Now tell me when any country has listened or done anything the United Nations has said (Including or own USA) Of all the allies that are members of the United Nations who actually stood beside us when we went to bagdad? Did the United Nations tell the USA not to attack? 1. Did saddam attack american soil ? 2. Did saddam use weapons of mass destruction on american soil? Do you think i give a rats behind if saddam kills everyone in Iran? or libya? Yes i am also a vietnam vet like your father and Jo1753 and damn proud of it and i also have 2 sons in the Marine Corps and a grandson in the Corps and all three are in the sand box fighting for there lives everyday and for what jarhed I ask you that? we have the man in custody that pulled all this crap with his people and its time to say enough is enough do not give him back to the iraqi people give him to Hague and let him be tried as a war criminal and let them do with him what they may. hang him or firing squad it makes no difference to me. This war in iraq has divided the people in United States and that is really sad and its time for the people to stand up and say WE DONT WANT TO BE THE POLICE DEPT FOR THE WORLD. If you draw first blood on any american then where coming after you full bore. You see jarhead the Marine Corps taught me alot of things like WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN. and i have yet to see that we are actually taking care of own meaning the people of the USA.. enuff said..
I hear ya Cowboy, loud and clear. I believe you SHOULD question what your leaders say, but you cannot escape the truths mentioned above, and others such as:
a) Finding Bin Laden is not the be-all end-all for the war on terrorism. Is it possible that the Pentagon doesnt care as much about finding him as they do about dismantling his network? That would make sense to me. Not to mention that we are STILL looking for him and finding one single person on this planet cannot possibly be done quickly.
b) Closing down Saddam's Iraq in my opinion (based on the activity in and around the country since we've been there) was not just about finding WMD's. A state of war still existed from the 1st gulf war and he decided he wanted to violate the cease-fire. Regardless of how many other UN Resolutions were violated by other countries including us, these resolutions were written as a CONDITION OF A CEASE FIRE, which he violated, not to mention the constant shooting at our planes in the years since. Iraq, more than being a place to shut down possible WMD production and to keep some two-bit dick-tator from possibly spreading these WMD's or materials to folks like Bin Testicle, is a PERFECT strategic spot to start eliminating the terrorist threat from the middle east. Not to mention he even admitted to supporting terrorists in Israel. Our war on terrorism is a war on ALL terrorists. Saddam didnt need to attack American soil. Hitler didnt either.
c) about 32 other countries were involved in the dismantling of Saddam's government and his army.
d) While I agree with you in that I could care less of who he kills in Iran or Libya, it's not those countries that he's interested in. His interests lied in Kuwait, Sandy-Assrabia, and other oil-rich regions. Can we afford to have that two-bit dictator control the world's oil? Are you ready to give up your car for a bike because we are being denied oil? Of course, he also wanted to destroy Israel, but I dont really see any strategic value in that, other than it's our only real solid ally in the region.
e) You SHOULD be damn proud of your service in Vietnam and I am proud of you and thank you from my soul for your service. You and jo1753 were two of the very few with the kahunas to serve there.
f) This country was divided long before the war in Iraq and long before 9/11. Democrats as well as Republicans have been beating on each other very hard at least since the early 60's. Much harder than was the case before. Dems and Repubs will never see eye to eye, that is a fact. If half the country is dem and the other half is repub, is that a bad thing? Why is disagreement in politics bad?
g) Yes, if you attack us, you can stand the f**k by. But the effort against terrorism as a whole is more than just chasing down and capturing one quasi-leader named Bin Testicle. Thinking about it strategically and realizing just how widespread the radical Islam is, why not go ahead and take down governments we need to (just like Bush promised in 2002) in order to get a strategic advantage?
h) Yes, taking care of our own is of the utmost importance and I submit to you that bringing down the Iraqi government and scaring the p*ss out of everyone else in the region IS taking care of our own for the reasons I mentioned. We could hand out money to Americans to get them off the street and into homes, we could hand out money for kids to get to college (neither of which is a Federal obligation described in the Constitution - yeah, I'm a Libertarian), or we could first take down any military threat to those same people so they can go on living their lives as they wish. Providing for the Common Defense is written in the Constitution.
Jarhed..................have you ever heard the term.........It's the principle of it all.........With the emphasis on " PRINCIPLE "...!!!
But first.........let me stress this point...........We do need to be fighting terrorist....At this piont I feel what we have here on the forum. Is a conflict in the agenda our politicians choose to use.
And perhaps if we could agree with that............We could than settle by saying. We can agree to disagree...!!!
PRINCIPLE of an issue..............Thats exactly where I am with all this..........For me it's a very hard pill to swollow. To think some S.O.B. can do to US as a country. what this Fu**er did, and still be warm,above ground with a pulse, sucking in me air...!!!
The principle is............If you come here and bloody our nose. We're going to stick a knife in you...........We will hunt you down and make a world wide example.........This will have a ripple effect to all who might think about doing this in the future.
And if you just happen to hijack 4 planes...........on 9-11-01 and reek-havoc on our nation....We will come with our whole military. On a world wide hunt. We will not rest til we've turned over every rock. hence THE PRINCIPLE.............Then when we finish with you.......We will also hunt down your family if they are apart of your Terrorist cell. Hell we will be so dilligent at that point.........If we have to free another country to accomplish our Quest....WE WILL DO IT...!!!
Now jarhed..........please show me exactly where I mentioned we as a country do not belong over there.....!!! No SIR I did not say that..........I feel you took offense to what I wrote in my first post simple because I do not totally agree with the " agenda " set down be our politicians.
And by hearing Donald Remsfields' statment to the troops only reinforced. what alot of people had already known. We were not yet ready to be there. It showed alot of parents, grandparents aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, We really don't care anymore about you then we do about the 5000+ that were already murdered on 9-11-01....Talk about adding insult to injury...!!
Not to even mention.............WTF were we doing as a country for the 6-8 mo's prior to going over there. When on a daily basis Mr. Bush was telling them we are coming. If you do not comply, we are coming there.........Like a teacher or telling a class, Don't make me get up..LOL!! So much for the any advantage of suprise.
Couldn't we have almost had the Army we needed. Instead of the one we went with. In that time frame. With todays technology and our manufacturing capabilities. We could not do better then we did......??...Semper-Fi
jo1753,
I understand the principle, but honestly to me your deductions *appear* to have been garnered from the TV news. Specifically CBS and Dan Blather. That is not an insult, please understand that. It's just that it sounds so much like what I hear from the Michael Moores of the world. Obviously, we will have to agree to disagree. No love lost there. Honestly, I'm not so sure what any other politician would have done differently. Of course, I'm sure AlGore would have sat on his ass and made phone calls to see who he could surrender to.
Believe me, I want to torture Bin Sphincter MORE than you do. Matter of fact, when we do finally catch that used condom of a person, I'm calling the President and asking, no begging, to get first pops on his ass. His suffering WILL be legendary. Things that are not even able to be mentioned in a public ANONYMOUS forum. I would make his relatives watch while I did the most disgusting and inhumane things to him while NOT letting him die or slip into unconciousness.
That being said, we both know that when he and his little band of turds are caught, the US Government will NOT torture him publicly and satisfy the bloodlust harbored by EVERY American. It's just not what we do (in public, anyway. And not officially).
Believe me though, we are not resting. It may be that it's more productive to look for this dried cowpie with intelligence, rather than just putting bodies on the ground and turning over rocks. Intelligence can do it quietly and get to places where the sheet-head camel-humpers dont realize we are. And trust me, there are still thousands of American troops in Afghanistan. My brother is one of them.
I disagree that we were not ready to be in Iraq. I think we were. We already had Marines and Soldiers in Kuwait. I think we were more than ready. Yeah, you have to lift more equipment and troops and that does take time, but we handed the Iraqi "army" it's ASS in record time! I just dont understand how you can think that we somehow insulted the relatives of our 1400 or so HEROES because we were somehow not ready? BTW, just a little over 3000 people were murdered on 9/11/02.
What were we doing for 6-8 months before going to Iraq? Building our forces. That in my opinion was executed PERFECTLY. Give the Asshat Hussein time to consider the consequences of his little attitude problem, in the meantime build up forces in the region. We didnt need too much surprise because they had the equivalent of the Flintstones compared to what we threw at their asses. And we STILL surprised them. Have you seen the video on the Military Channel? Those sand draggers had NO idea how big our force was or when the attack started. Why? Because we denied them the ability to communicate OR see.
I think we had the Army and Marine Corps we needed. We had plenty of men, most getting antsy waiting to pop an AssHat Iraqi. We had the equipment, we had the supplies. Only problem was the fact that we moved TOO fast and outran the supply, then ran into a damn sandstorm. Thats not Rumsfeld's fault.
Our casualties did not start happening until we subdued the AssHat Army. Then they went into guerilla mode and other AssHats came in from Sandy-Assrabia, Syria, Irun, and other camel humping countries. You know even BETTER than I do (because you were in Vietnam) that technology means NOTHING in a guerilla war. Big huge hairy balls and the ability to utilize the equipment you have in a BETTER way than for which it was designed. That is what American fighting men have done for eons.
Did you know the Corps is restructuring itself on a massive scale to be able to fight a war against terrorists? Reserve tank units being shut down and everyone changing to 03, Reserve LAV units doing the same, the Light Watercraft unit in Lejeune being disbanded, etc..... Technology and tanks aint gonna do it this time. It's in your face, sand chewing, grunt work. Thats the way we WILL win and thank GOD Bush has the b*** to get us started!
I think the current talks between Israel & "Palestine", if successful, will have more to do with fighting terrorism than all the boots on the ground in Iraq.
I think we should of sent in the accountants, not troops to fight terrorism. (this isn't as funny as it sounds).
Cut off their funds, close the madrassas.
I know why we don't go after the money. We'd be stepping on US corporate toes. The same banks that funnel terror funds are the same offshore banks that the big campaign donors use (republican & democrat).
We should of left Iraq alone and invaded Switzerland & the Grand Caymans.
yellowwing
02-11-05, 07:32 AM
Cut off their funds, close the madrassas.
It didn't take much research to find that the madrassas system is where poor kids are schooled on Wahhabism.
Where little terrorist grow up to be big terrorists. Originally financed by the Sauds, and trained in Pakistan, to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Now they are exporting extremist Wahhabism to Indonesia and the Phillipines.
Where are these schools getting their financing now?
hrscowboy
02-11-05, 10:55 AM
Yep jarhead you pretty much said it all its about who controls the oil and what really ****es me off is the fact there are alternate things for fuel that can be used instead on relying on a bunch of ragheads to sell us the oil. as i said before take care of or own Whats wrong with making fuel from common Corn grown right here in the United States it might cost alittle more to refine but it burns cleaner and it does the job and not only that how many farmers can reap some of the rewards from growing it and selling it ? instead of paying a bunch of ragheads that think they own the entire world because they have the oil right in there own back yard. enuff said..
Now with all that I had just stated in my last post..............I find i'm still misled. Because of the media ( I CHOSE TO WATCH )...!!
If the truth be known.......I watch very little from Dan Rather or any of CBS.
Evidently all the news-papers, all the TV stations, here in this little jerk-water,red-neck town I live. All do not cover the news in exactly the same way............that someothers get on their news thru Tv's and news papers....and whereever.....Even with the cable chans I get.....Go figure...!!!
So lets just say...........Schools in boys and girls.!!!...Someone now show me the ( THE ) best source for info.
Becaues from now on This kid doesn't want to be mis-informed anymore...........5000+ people Vs. 3000.......or we were very well equipted @ the time we went into Iraq....ETC,ETC
So instead of being a critic........tell me exactly where you've been gather your info.......Then once i've used these some resources.......and in the furtre have opinions that differ from yours.........We can just chock it up to me being to GOD-D*MN stupid to comprehand the facts right in front of my blind liberal face..!!!....So class is in session. Semper-Fi
I assume the funding for the madrassas is still coming from where it did before. Don't see a lot of progress on this front.
I believe it was the 9-11 report that had a bunch of lines/pages censored because it was though to have mentioned Saudi involvement w/ Al Queda. That whole issue kinda melted away.
Google "BCCI", it'll get ya a thinking.(John Kerry's involvement isn't really germain to this discussion).
I agree with ya here Cowboy. I'd LOVE to see that technology further developed. The last thing on earth I want to do is give more of my hard earned money to a damn sand-monkey. Not sure where all the research and development went but we have enough corn in this country to choke a donkey! :glasses: