1 posted on
08/03/2002 5:12:09 PM PDT by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
It's a-coming. And President Bush is making absolutely the right decision, given his resonsibility to protect American citizens. We should be thankful we don't have the foppish and feckless Clinton in charge anymore.
To: Pokey78
A needed War indeed but also a depression/further layoffs ( everything is "Made In China") ushering in by force- globalization; under the guise of us being saved from China attacking us, while our troops are spread throughout the world.
To: Pokey78
The President cannot declare War.
To: Pokey78
bflr
13 posted on
08/03/2002 6:04:15 PM PDT by
JediGirl
To: Pokey78
Bush ready to declare war And just what does Congress have to say about it?
(Congress is on "Break"?)
Very Interesting/Revolting Development?
/sarcasm
14 posted on
08/03/2002 6:05:06 PM PDT by
maestro
To: Pokey78
I was polled today--"Should we strike first"
Yes I said, and the first missle should go to its' target through Klink.
To: Pokey78
It is so unfair that the US has a near monopoly on high tech weapons, and seems to win wars these days with very low casualties. Is there any equity in that? If I believed what I read from some here at FR about the emerging US police state, my angst that it would be spread across the globe by dint of force would keep me up at nights. But as it is, I sleep soundly at night, and most days (excepting those where a judge screws me) I am suffused with joy, both macro and micro. I must be a sociopath or something.
28 posted on
08/03/2002 6:40:11 PM PDT by
Torie
To: Pokey78
Look for it around January.
If I am not mistaken that was the month the ground offensive stepped off in 91.
To: Pokey78
Everyone is arguing on this post about people going to fight the "war on terror". We have plenty of personell. We need to drive home some real fear in the countries that harbor terrorists by making an example out of, say Iraq. Lite'em up with a happy mushroom, make'em into a parking lot. The tell the other countries that if they don't start cooperating with our demands, they will be lit up. I can't imagine where we would be today if the people who are calling the shots would have been in charge on Dec. 7 1941. We would be speaking japanese.
56 posted on
08/03/2002 7:11:20 PM PDT by
mn_b_one
To: Pokey78
For the millionth time, please disregard completely ANYTHING the British press says. Believe me, I know! "Senior sources", "high-ranked Republican officials" and "unidentified senior State Dept. officials" told me so.
65 posted on
08/03/2002 7:22:09 PM PDT by
Jhensy
To: Pokey78
'Inspection is not the issue, disarmament is, making sure that the Iraqis have no weapons of mass destruction,' said Powell during a visit to Manila, capital of the Philippines. I find it deeply amusing that the Guardian's readers are so stupid they have to have this spelled out for them.
67 posted on
08/03/2002 7:28:01 PM PDT by
Timesink
To: Pokey78
It may well be a psyop sham - Make Saddam think it is coming, he has spend money on preparing further weakining his economy. Not saying it won't happen - but I think the saber rattling is very intentional for that and other reasons.
To: Pokey78
PAYBACK
LET'S ROLL!
92 posted on
08/03/2002 7:48:21 PM PDT by
harpo11
To: Pokey78
since the legality of any attack on Iraq - already questioned by the Government's own lawyers - depends on claiming to be acting against infringements of the post-Gulf War disarmament pact rather than simply overthrowing a dictator. I think "war on terror" is enough of a reason, I don't see why we need to fall back on any infringement of post Gulf War disarmament!
To: Pokey78
His words set alarm bells ringing in London, since the legality of any attack on Iraq - already questioned by the Government's own lawyers - depends on claiming to be acting against infringements of the post-Gulf War disarmament pact rather than simply overthrowing a dictator.Are they talking about British law, or international law? Because international law is a crock of doo doo, a gentlemens' agreement that cannot be enforced by anyone without a substantial military. So unless Russia decides to issue an ultimatium to the US stating they'll attack us if we attack Iraq (which is utterly silly to even contemplate, since Russia has hated psycho-Islamists with good reason for far longer than we have), nobody's going to stop us, and no UN rulebook is going to have any relevance.
To: Pokey78
Proper Pre-Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss-Poor Performance. This is true in every thing from academia, business, and war. It appears the Bush administration is doing it right.
151 posted on
08/03/2002 9:10:07 PM PDT by
semaj
To: Pokey78
I thought Israel's nuclear threat kept Iraq from releasing biological weapons against Israel. Israel relayed the message to Iraq, and also made a blunt warning to Syria not to intervene in any Israeli strike through Syrian airspace. What's changed? Why would that approach not work now?
To: rightwing2
BUMP
160 posted on
08/03/2002 9:53:21 PM PDT by
Orion78
To: Pokey78
Bumping for a later read. Thanks.
To: Pokey78
Does anyone recall, back during "Operation Desert Sheild/Desert Storm"........
How long was it before the everyone admitted that it really was just for the oil?
Just trying to remember......
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson