emails to M. Moore

[Blight]

I don?t think it is really a matter of policing the world in Iraq?s case. It was more about Saddam not letting UN inspectors in even after the UN threatened them. When the UN weenied out and would do anything, people who would actually do something had to step in. I agree we do our fair share of ?world policing? but in this case it was more about not looking like weak yellow-bellies, and enforcing the statutes that UN refused to. If we had done it, the crazy bastard may have eventually got some kind of weapon to use not against us, but his neighbors under NATO defense. I'm glad he's out of power; I think it will eventually help to stabilize the whole region and prevent future trouble.

[Ryujin]

Well I'm not really getting involved in this because I see no point in it...why am I posting at all? Just to let you all know that if I did decide to post then you would all know about, becuase I have alot to say on this matter, but I just could not be bothered because I just don't care enough...meh

[Ka-Talliya]

I don?t think it is really a matter of policing the world in Iraq?s case. It was more about Saddam not letting UN inspectors in even after the UN threatened them. When the UN weenied out and would do anything, people who would actually do something had to step in. I agree we do our fair share of ?world policing? but in this case it was more about not looking like weak yellow-bellies, and enforcing the statutes that UN refused to. If we had done it, the crazy bastard may have eventually got some kind of weapon to use not against us, but his neighbors under NATO defense. I'm glad he's out of power; I think it will eventually help to stabilize the whole region and prevent future trouble.

The stablization process in that region will take years. There is one hotbed of trouble I doubt we will ever touch again and that's Africa. Trying to stablize Africa would be like a prairie dog in a fire ant hill. Overwhelming and deadly.

[Schultz]

I haven't fully read all the comments in this thread or all those messages on that one site.. But i will mention this.. in a recent AF Times Magazine there was a poll about which person the miltiary likes both Active and Reserve/Guard and they even broke it down to people that had been deployed and people that hadn't. Also they had it where people been deployed over 9 month (i think was the number) in the last year or so. and most if not all of them still voted over 70% that they agreed with what they where doing and also i think it was roughly around 65% or better would vote again for Bush over kerry. I think the biggest thing is alot of miltiary don't trust Kerry's Flip Floping. Because it will be our Commander in Chief and most people like to follow someone that is positive and stand behind what they say they are going to do.

Also another aspect that i hate about these kinds of things is i don't really value how much people or how many letters people send about something being bad.. Because i know its a fact people are more likely to complain then they are to say something good about it. So you will always get more people writing bad letters then you will people writing about that don't mind it or they like it. even though the majority don't mind it at all.

And a second note.. Yes Iraq sucks being there.. But so does Saudi, so does Qutar, and pretty much does does Mississippi (was there for 3 month Tech school) really to me i will complain about being anywhere but with my wife and daughter.. And i know thats really don't say much but most people will generally complain about where they are at and probably even if it was someplace other then Iraq. Thats just the nature of people to complain..

[Elcoholic]

I don’t think it is really a matter of policing the world in Iraq’s case. It was more about Saddam not letting UN inspectors in even after the UN threatened them. When the UN weenied out and would do anything, people who would actually do something had to step in. I agree we do our fair share of “world policing” but in this case it was more about not looking like weak yellow-bellies, and enforcing the statutes that UN refused to. If we had done it, the crazy bastard may have eventually got some kind of weapon to use not against us, but his neighbors under NATO defense. I'm glad he's out of power; I think it will eventually help to stabilize the whole region and prevent future trouble.

Excuse me? The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq months before the US invaded it. Time and time again they reported that they couldn't find any WMD. The US supposedly knowing where they were according to their supperior intellegence although they couldn't point the inspectors to the right place. Before Hans Blix could make his final report (which confirmed what we know now, no WMD in Iraq) they were pulled out because mr. Bush's patience was gone. They weren't allowed to finish their job BECAUSE of Bush, not Saddam. They did get cooperation from the Iraqi government. It wasn't perfect but enough. And who are you to decide that you are better than the hundreds of other country's that recide in the UN.

And you think this will stabilize the region. Have you watched the news lately? Terrorist attacks are spreading through the region (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and I believe Quatar).

What I wonder about is who is responsible for the false intel that said Iraq has WMD? Someone must be held accountable right? In my book the person who decided to go to war because of false intel (which he interpreted falsely) is responsible and thats mr.Bush.
Looking back at the legal side of things, what would be different between invading Iraq or France. Bush could just make up some lie about a french threat and take his army over there. It seems now that its ok for the US to go to WAR on false intel. In my country the pm would have quit his job and taken responsibility for what was done under his rule (which actualy happend after a mistake made in the Balkan war). The Us impeaches a president who didn't want to admit he was cheating on his wife but you want to reelect a president who goes to war on false grounds, a decission which costs thousands of lives. Just doesn't make sence to me.

[Andromeda18_]

Excuse me? The UN weapons inspectors were doing their job in Iraq months before the US invaded it. Time and time again they reported that they couldn't find any WMD. The US supposedly knowing where they were according to their supperior intellegence although they couldn't point the inspectors to the right place. Before Hans Blix could make his final report (which confirmed what we know now, no WMD in Iraq) they were pulled out because mr. Bush's patience was gone. They weren't allowed to finish their job BECAUSE of Bush, not Saddam. They did get cooperation from the Iraqi government. It wasn't perfect but enough. And who are you to decide that you are better than the hundreds of other country's that recide in the UN.

And you think this will stabilize the region. Have you watched the news lately? Terrorist attacks are spreading through the region (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and I believe Quatar).

What I wonder about is who is responsible for the false intel that said Iraq has WMD? Someone must be held accountable right? In my book the person who decided to go to war because of false intel (which he interpreted falsely) is responsible and thats mr.Bush.
Looking back at the legal side of things, what would be different between invading Iraq or France. Bush could just make up some lie about a french threat and take his army over there. It seems now that its ok for the US to go to WAR on false intel. In my country the pm would have quit his job and taken responsibility for what was done under his rule (which actualy happend after a mistake made in the Balkan war). The Us impeaches a president who didn't want to admit he was cheating on his wife but you want to reelect a president who goes to war on false grounds, a decission which costs thousands of lives. Just doesn't make sence to me.

I agree with everything you said. That's how people feel about what happened here in Portugal (and also in our next door neighbour Spain). I know people who are so pissed off they wish America was blown up by terrorists. Of course this is a very stupid reaction, in my opinion, but it is nonetheless how some people (the most extreme ones) feel. Something that really messes with my nerves is the fact that Bush wants to be able to attack potentially dangerous countries in order to stop them from being a real danger in the future! It's just like in Minority Report, arrest the person before he/she commits the crime. Attack without provocation! That's just preposterous! They say there isn't such a thing as a good side or a bad side in a war but I think that if a country attacks another for no reason then that makes it the bad one.

[rav96]

True! my thoughts exactly!