posted on Apr, 16 2003 @ 11:25 PM
First, I am somewhat sorry about my loss of compusure. My excusses are what they are, and not involving anyone.
I do have to say one thing. I dislike people and myself when they act like the other view is f'd. I am not questioning in any way that Saddam is a
bad man and needs to die. I am only questions the means by which we are handling it.
Answer this question: After the first conflict, when was Saddam planning to kill the US? He took no known action against us, and if he had plans far
in the future that would give us plenty of time to keep him contained.
I also dislike attitudes that anti-war people are weak, cowards, or have never seen the battlefield. I am not weak, not a coward, and I have seen a
battle field. If it meant saving people I would be the first to pull the trigger. But logic and reason can save time, lives, and more.
As far as giving them weapons to fight Russia, perhaps we should do a bit more back ground checking. Or if we wanted Russia so bad, perhaps we should
have shown our superior might and done the job ourselves, instead of letting a group of "freedom fighters"/terrorists, depending on if they are for
or against your cause, a bunch of guns.
The world shunned assassination, I supported it. As with assassination, someone just as bad would replace him with our glorious battle.
I can think of several ways to do as much damage to the US as the twin tower incendent, I can also see many things that should have prevented it not
happen that normally do. Any time prior to sept. 11th interceptors are scrambled any time a plan fails to respond or goes off it's flight path. Yet
niether plan was shot down. It takes less than 12 minutes to get a plane in the air, lock on and fire, yet how long was it between the different
All I can say is that if I can come up with three means to cause destruction, so can the terrorists, and so can the CIA. Who cares who they get their
weapons from, the last attack they used knives, are we going to stop selling knives?
Just incase you are wondering, I will not release these tactics to anyone I do not personally know will not either use it themselves or give it to a
friend that would. I have done my duty by sending these scenarios to the appropriate authorities, and that is where it will stay. I will not risk
the lives of others to prove the ability, it does not take much to think of your own, so go for it. You may need to study up on warfare tactics a
bit, but really it is mostly just common sense.
Meanwhile we spend billions to protect planes that will not be under siege again, just so a few people can have a sense of security. Battle field
tatics strongly urge no matter how good the plan worked the first time, it WILL NOT work then next. Instead we should have compiled a huge list of
suspected means of terrorism, and rattled of our means of preventing them, and suggest they are already in place, even if they are not. If nothing
else it would slow terrorists down while we focused on other means, and waited to catch them. As an American I would feel far better and safer to
hear, so and so, a known terrorist was stopped trying something, than spend an extra hour to get on a plan. Hindsight is 20/20, foresight takes
If nothing else this war promotes terrorism, the idea is to get the other country so worked up they do stupid things. Guess what, it worked.
Terrorists will now see the US as fragile mentally. We cannot go around attacking countries because we lost a few thousand people. It was
devistating yes, but more people die each day in car accidents. We cannot just sit idle either, that is saying come on in, bring terror. We stiffled
our economy to stop an action that would not be allowed by the people on that plan ever again. Hell the did us a favor in some ways, who is dumb
enough to highjack a plan now, even for hostages?
We could have hunted him down, put a 40 billion dollar price tag on his head and those of his followers, and saved a buck or two without calling
1800collect. Instead we get a wild hair up our ass, find a target to take out aggression on, make America look stupid to the rest of the world, screw
up our economy, and wage war against a somewhat random country without going to the UN and arguing our points well enough to get support. Bin Laden
is prolly laughing his ass of right now at our ego, and you claim Saddam has one, check yourselves. Ego is part of nature, as is revenge, I do not
blame people be being angry, or wanting revenge, but our leaders should be wise enough to listen to reason first.
Rules of engagement include but are not limited to the following:
Make sure where you walk is clear, it will be at your back in another step.
Keep an eye on your buddy, he is your last defense and you are his.
We broke both of these. Our first order should have been to take means that would reduce terrorist possibilities here, find bin laden, he is the one
we put at our backs when our attention changed to Saddam. He now can easily rally more American hating troops, if he and his emmidiate followers were
dead, it would make it that much harder for him to recruit.
Our buddies said to slow down, perhaps there are good reasons to wait. While I understand the reasons many said no, others are somewhat fuzzy, it is
good to know where everyone stands, so you know who to watch as a friend and who to watch as an enemy.
I can see a downside to giving Saddam more time, I will give you that. He could spend resources to build defenses, and prep more for the results.
This could be potentially bad, but wieghing the odds, I would still suggest we not make enemies with those that have watch our backs so long. It is
also possible, knowing we mean bussiness, that Saddam lets inspectors check all they want. Especially if they know the UN is all that stands between
them and America, and not for much longer. Its called polotics, and it can save the lives of many.
Lets see the score board:
Bush may have taken down Saddam, and broke his word that he just wants him out of there with his new blood hunt. That looks good to the rest of the
world doesn't it? "I will not hunt him down, I just want him out of there." Hmm, change in story as soon as he hears Saddam may be elsewhere.
Bin laden at large, probably recruiting with new vigor, after Iraq. Bin Laden will most likely do more damage next time, and now that some countries
are anti-America that may posses nukes, Bin Laden also has a higher chance of getting one. Say bubye to NYC? I hope not.
The think most Americans do not understand is that the Middle East is NOT intimidated by Terrorism, be it through shock and awe, or blowing up a
building. The governments may get excited, because like Bush their leaders are cowards that sit in the back line.
I would also like to point out, anti-war enthusiats SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Sometimes I feel more so than warmongers. I personally want every last man
and woman to come back safely. Over a hundred will not, could their lives have been saved? What price is worth their lives? I personally say if we
can save more lives on both sides by waiting a moment longer and pushing a bit harder politically. It is worth that risk.
Bitch me out all you want, but say more than you saved my ass, because you did not save my ass. If that is all you can say then say nothing.
Well enough ranting on, if you really want to discuss this or yell, piss and moan at me, I plan to respect others and no longer post here on this
topic, so email me, firstname.lastname@example.org Oh, and mail bomb it if you like, I just wont get any legit emails flaming me. And if I figure out who you
are, expect casual retaliation. 31143
Give Peace a Change, you never know, it may just save your life.