I was unaware of local militia's that these cities sent to third world countries to protect the USA so what's up with this? Are they to hold back sales tax to pay to the government to protest? NO! Are they not going to allow reservists or active military in the area to go? NO!

With all the stuff a city has to be responsible for like Roads, crime, Roads, transit, Roads, city services, and Roads, why waste time with a vote on something that isn't even worth the paper the print it on?

I think San Fran did this and I hear that the Houston council wants to but, I fail to see the point other then to maybe get a little media coverage for the stunt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd Cameron:
Each State, and Each city within that state, can indeed pull out from the USA and will do so if the federal gov pushes them around enough.

---

From what I've seen, this isn't about succeeding from the union (not sure if a city within a state can do that). It's about whether the city council backs the war effort or not.

To my knowledge, there is nothing to aid/hinder the effort that any individual city can do since they do not have a city militia that is being called up nor contributing anything (citywise) towards the effort.

I guess some city officials feel that if it isn't on their doorstep, they don't want involvment.

One can only guess how the city council of New York city would vote.......

I wonder why these same protestors weren't all up in arms when clinton was bombing asprin factories to take the heat off the monica caper.

I like former Senator Thompson's remark, "When people ask what has Sadamn done to us, I ask you, what did the 9-11 hijackers do to us before 9-11?"

And Tom DeLay message to the French ambassador, after the french ambassador said they didn't want any part of a war that didn't directly effect them,

Congressman DeLay said, "Do you speak German?
French Ambasador, "Why no."
DeLay, "Your welcome."

Two very powerful messages folks.

It would be like me trying to get our home owner's association for our neighborhood to vote on it. Good, we all voted ney, or yea. What exactly does that do? Nothing but a waste of time.

Hey, maybe I could get our little home owner's association to ban nuclear weapons. That way, we can be assured there won't be any in out subdivision (hate when that happens).

posted 03-06-2003 06:55 PM         

quote:

---

Originally posted by YellowFever:
I guess what I am missing is why would a city even bother to waste time with a resolution like this?

---

Perhaps they want to provide a safe haven for Saddam... a place for him to move to.... Maybe they would like to have him move into their city and they would use their own police force to protect him?

Or... maybe they (the city) will tell the soldiers from that particular city that they don't have to serve in the war, because their city isn't supporting it?

Or... maybe the city government workers will all go on strike if the war happens?

Or... maybe they expect everyone in the city to move to another (more peaceful) country in protest?

posted 03-07-2003 11:02 PM         

quote:

---

I'm also a USMC Vet from Vietnam.

---

posted 03-08-2003 08:32 AM         

Apparenetly and Iraqi reporter asked Colin Powell: "Is it true that only 13% of Americans can find Iraq on the map?"

Without missing a beat..Powell quickly responded back to the Iraqi reporter: "That may be true..but the bad news for Iraq is that all 13% are US Marines."

Also:

I really encourge our celebrities to make a statement in support of Saddam. In fact..I think Martin Sheen, Shawn Penn, Sheryl Crow, Alec Balwin, Mike Farrell, Jean Garofolo,(and whoever else I may have missed) should go to Iraq. They should be human shields to protect Saddams command and control bunker in Bagdad!

quote:

---

Originally posted by apollo232:
I personally dont care that protesters protest. Thats the great thing about old USA. We have the freedon to do that. Do I gree with them? Not really. When I was in the Army during the Gulf War. (I'm not a vet) my ex girlfriend protested at the State Capital in Minneaplois. Needless to say I was upset. BUT, she has the right and freedom to do that.

I personally hope they go after him. But lets not fool ourselves this time.. This one will be bloody. As an ex Infantryman (8 years)I know what can happen when it comes to urban fighting. (again, I'm not a combat vet)Their will be a sniper in every room on every floor. We will have major fatalities this time around.. Nothing like the 164 fatalities we last time. My prayers are with our troops and the innocent Iraqi's that will be killed.

---

While I agree with you, remember in the Gulf war how millions of his "troops" started laying down weapons prior to any confrontation.

I heard the other day that there will be twice as many sorties prior to any ground troop movement.

Rumsfeld also said (when asked how long this operation would take, that it would be somewhere between 6 days and 6 weeks but, not 6 months.

I think, once the bombing starts, there will be massive defections just like last time. This guy is a brutal dictator and the only reason Iraqies "appear" to be on his side, is that they would be shot or tortured if they said or did otherwise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by apollo232:
Yellowfever: But remember, not one of the "elite" republican Guards laid down their weapons.

LOL! That's because they all ran from fighting. Old men, raw troops, and kids were the ones left at the front. I remember hearing that the elite troops were pulled back to protect Sadamn.

Also, we will not bomb the city of Baghdad. (historical city)

Didn't we see sorties over Bagdad in Desert Storm? I believe so.

War isn't a good thing but, when need war means to break things and kill people. Period. I think we value our troops more then an old mosque (at least this president does)

The UN and the world will not put up with that..

LOL! Right there up under "rat's *** ". This is the USA, not Camaroon or France. We will do what is right REGARDLESS of what the UN says. President Bush has already said so.

Although I do agree that the regular's will give up. The Elite trops will fight on.

Time will tell but, I think his troops are not as loyal as you think they are.(elite or not)

I also think one of the reasons we didn't finish the job the first time is because we would have lost lots of troops if we would have gone into Baghdad. JMO

Alot of people have misconceptions about this one. President Bush (Sr.), in order to get the rest of the Arab world behind us said he would get Sadamn out of Kuwait (not remove him from power). That was to be left tot he people of Iraq and neighboring Arab countries to decide. Schwartzkoff wanted to steamroll into Bagdad and I have no doubt he could have done so with minimal losses but, President Bush said, "No, that is not our job".

The liberals have tried to portray the Senior Bush as being incompetent and not finishing the job (yeah, right, like a liberal is a Hawk - kind of an oxymoron).

I hope all our troops return safely with Sadamn's head on a stick.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by apollo232:
Just one more point... During the original Gulf War I always thought Saddam had a trick up his sleeve.. I think he still does in chemical weapons. He didn't use them in the war because he was smart enough to know if he did... We would get him. He will use them this time if he still has them.

Did you hear what North Korea just said? They just said that USA is planning a nuclear attack...lol... I sure miss the cold war. At least the cold war was predictable.

---

I can assure you he still has them.

It's funny, about 2-3 weeks ago I was watching CNN after Powell spoke at the UN and they were getting the Iraqi Ambassador's reaction.

He basically droned on and on as to how everything was fabricated and they had no weapons of mass destruction.
None, nothing, nada.

Later in his speach he said that if Bagdad is attached they would use biological and chemical weapons against the troops.

Now wait a minute, I thought he just said they didn't have any. Oops!

Naturally, no one at CNN caught that snafu.

posted 03-09-2003 06:06 PM         

I never heard Rumsfeld say that it will only take 6 weeks.. But I'll take your word for it. But I've always hated when the assume something like that. Didn't they also say we would only be in Vietnam for a short period? And soemthing like that with Korea? I believe they also said the Titanic was unsinkable. Seems like when people make assumtions like that it always goes the other way.

When I said I dont think they will bomb Baghdad.. I meant DESTROY Baghdad.. I know I didnt make that clear.