| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Woods |
Posted - January 08 2003 : 01:51:17 AM
Part of the reasoning put forth for attacking Iraq in preference to attacking North Korea is that "our military options are much better in Iraq". Some more extreme optimists assert that Iraqi forces would quickly collapse under attack, and put up little effective resistance.
In my view, the commonly held belief that Iraq's armed forces would put up little resistance places a high degree of emphasis on the battles of Gulf War I. One could just as logically say that the North had no will to fight in the American Civil War, because Union forces fled the field in disarray at the first Battle of Manassas (First Battle of Bull Run).
Iraq's forces fought against Iran's forces for eight bloody years in the 1980s. During the period between Gulf War I and Gulf War II, Iraqi anti-aircraft crews regularly activated their radars, even though Coalition forces would respond to such activation by attacking the radar site.
What do you think? |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Woods |
Posted - March 25 2003 : 12:29:43 AM
Any further comments before this topic becomes moot? |
| securemann |
Posted - January 12 2003 : 1:07:19 PM
There comes a time when eventually our faith will be tested.When a Christian handed over the Scriptures in the early Church to the Roman authorities,it was equated to apostasy.They could not say,"Well,I will give them what they want and save my life and still believe in my heart." Denial is denial.Got to believe Jesus on this one.I realize that this is a difficult situation but apostasy is apostasy.A soldier who is ordered to give up his bible and does,is guilty like the early Christians who gave up Scripture to the Romans.Ironic that the head military is acting like the old Romans. |
| richfed |
Posted - January 12 2003 : 08:31:01 AM
I don't know what I mean ... I guess I distinguish between removing symbols of one's faith from view from actually relinquishing those beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is VERY wrong for both those foreign governments AND our military to even make the request. There's obviously - if it is going on again today [and I don't know that it is] - some big time jockeying for military base space ... again, this time it's OUR war, more or less, I suppose concessions might have to be made. Politics & religion just don't mix well, do they!?! |
| securemann |
Posted - January 11 2003 : 8:22:53 PM
Rich,you said that,"If it's occuring today,still,well it's a little more understandable." Don't quite get what you meant.I hope you didn't mean that apostasy by our troops is more understandable today rather than back in 1991.If our troops,who are stationed in Kuwait and Arabia now,willingly relinquish their bibles and crosses in order not to offend the Muslim population commit apostasy.How can you have a military who will fight for one nation under God deny God? I am also proud to live in this country too but when you reject the main Commander-In-Chief,The Lord,big trouble follows.I know what I would do. |
| richfed |
Posted - January 10 2003 : 8:03:12 PM
I don't know the answer to your question[s], Jimbo, [anyone?] but I concur with your feelings ... especially repulsive during the Gulf War. Then, we were directly saving the asses of Saudi Arabia & Kuwait. Pretty pathetic ...
If it's occuring today, still, well it's a little more understandable. This fight is much more our own.
All I know is that it makes me happy I live here, in the good ole USA! |
| securemann |
Posted - January 09 2003 : 9:02:33 PM
I need to know if the American military is still forced to relinquish their crosses and bibles.If so,we have an apostasy going on with the troops and a more serious senario.Is it duty to God or denial of God? |
| richfed |
Posted - January 09 2003 : 7:51:25 PM
... best keep your eyes fixed on your duty ...
No question, a complex scenario is shaping up. I don't mean to make it sound oversimplified. Surely, it's not, but, in a few lines ...
Yes, it might be about oil, to a degree, but that's not the whole story. Remember what the contested "no fly zones" are about. They are to help protect Shiites & Kurds from the Mad Man.
Very simply, North Korea is a threat & problem. Bush knows that. We've been on this collision course with Iraq for a long time - justifiably so, in my opinion. We absolutely cannot run around like a chicken with its head cut off. We are at different stages with different crises. We must keep our eyes fixed on our duty. All, in due time, will need to be dealt with, in one way or another - hopefully, without war in most. But, Iraq knows no other language.
The nature of this terrorism/Axis of Evil warfare is that there are likely to be many flames fanning at once ... we must be steady & stay the course ...
Eyes ... fixed on our ... duty! |
| securemann |
Posted - January 08 2003 : 7:14:47 PM
As long as the weapons inspectors can get around and do their surprise inspections and keep Iraq off balance,I do not think an invasion would be justified at this time.Bush has not shown the American people the "concrete proof" he said he has of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.Bush is determined no matter what.North Korea thumbed their nose at Bush about nuclear power and he just said,"wanna talk?" If that was Iraq,Baghdad would be flat by now.Remember,North Korea is one of the axis of evil stated by Bush.What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.But wait a minute! No oil in North Korea.That's right.A waste of time.By the way,I wonder if the Christian soldiers over there now in Kuwait and Arabia were told to remove their crosses and give up their Bibles.Imagine that,America invading Iraq for so called freedom and stripped of all religious items which is apostasy.I wonder what the Almighty will think of that? One nation under God forsaking their Judaic-Christian items to fight for oil.As long as the weapons inspectors can do their job,Bush should not invade.Oh,if Bush does have the infro on where the weapons are,why don't he just tell the inspectors and find them? I cringe when I think of all the American casulties that will result from oil and not a legitimate attack.If that's the case,attack Red China.You know eventually they want to kick our a--'s so get them first.Our military giving up religous items to die for what? Think about it.I smell a rat.I would be the first one to die for this country but I don't like what's going on here. |
| richfed |
Posted - January 08 2003 : 12:44:32 PM
The problem, I think, with your logic, Dark Woods, is that you confuse a battle with a war. If Union forces were routed - as they were at First Bull Run - throughout the entire Civil War, well, the war would have been a lot shorter for one thing. Ten years later, if the two sides came to blows again, one would have every reason to assume that the Confederates would easily win again ... especially, if during that span, the South had vastly improved upon what was already vastly superior weaponry & intelligence equipment.
The Gulf War was just that ... a war. Not one battle.
I believe it will be easy again ... if anything, we are stronger & they are weaker now than in '91. Does that mean it will be as easy, or even easier, than last time? Maybe, maybe not. I do think we'll have a smashing victory that most of the civilized World will benefit from.
Of course, for the parents of sons returning in body bags, it won't seem all that easy at all. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
