Jump to content

Iraq, and the things the press isn't telling you


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

quote:

Originally posted by Cruis.In:

you could say something a little better than numbers don't mean jack.

numbers can build things fast.

Doesn't matter a bit, China wants to build a navy to transport troops for offensive operations, it will have to do a lot better then it is now.

If China decided to go empire building, it would find that it's line of communications, supplies, etc would be cut off in a heartbeat. Smart weapons are GREAT things, and don't think that if we felt endangered by hundereds of thousands of chinese troops that we would not use tactical nukes to be rid of them.

We have the power to stop ANY country from offensive operations at ANY time, no matter the size etc.

China is not a threat, and they know themselves that they cannot be a threat. We let them show off in public, but in private we are telling them to behave or else, and that what else is a very big motivator for China.

Clinton is no longer in office, if China screws up and decides to dance, we will not back down and apologize, we will finish anything that they start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

I feel a sadness knowing that the eyes of the world have again been blinded by greed, political smoke screen, and the spinning of countless interest groups in the US and all over the world. Iraq is unfortunaly not better off as most people say, its easy to come into a country after its been under the UN restrictions for more then a decade (restrictions whose lifting was vetoed by the US again and again) and say that look at all the improvement. Iraq was never a poor country, nor was it ever a country that didnÔÇÖt have a good education system, health or any other social system. All the US has done is basically got it self into the same lock that Saddam was in, Iraq is not a united country, there many faction within who are spread out geographically who donÔÇÖt have good relations with each other, especially since some of these minority groups have settled in some very oil rich regions. Saddam through his iron fist tactics was able to "keep the peace" for many years, now as soon as the US departs we are very likely to see a full-blown civil was with huge casualties on all sides. WMD.. I will not even talk about those, as far as I am concerned they did not exist short of possible field ordinance, but nothing on the scale that could have threated the US on their side of the world.

Saddly this is what I would expect someone outside of the US to say who hasn't been following the war.

After reading this, it makes me seriously wonder if you SUPPORT what Saddam and his terrorist cells

But this also sickens me to know that we have people like YOU in this world.. god what is this world coming to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drdespair

Well first of all only an idiot would beliave that I support Saddam and his "terrorist" cell, after reading my post, I dont beliave I even mentioned anything good about him, I only said that what he did had its political reason, just like you had your wonderful reasons for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. just reminding you in case you forgot about that beautiful piace of history, oh.. perhaps it doesnt count.. since I dont think back then WMD was realy a term used by anyone. The only thing that I wanted to bring through to your one track minds is that not everything is black and white. It made me sick to see the comments any of you posted, not once in my post did I mention that I supported what Saddam was doing, but I guess some people have not matured enough to see beyond the bull, but then I dont realy blame you eather, its just the way western culture developed over the laste 200 years. Look at your own history and see the blood that you spilled for your ideals and belifs, then when you have lived a few centuries and seen all the horror that can come from even the most peaceful of nations and only then you can go about offering your advice on who is better off.. the Iraqies will be better of with Iraqies but not before they resolve the terretorial and ethnic difference, and that has very few alternatives then civil war.. in case you dont remember pershaps a little North and South history will help you out on that. I wont waste any more breath you, perhaps when you are older you will understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

Well first of all only an idiot would beliave that I support Saddam and his "terrorist" cell, after reading my post, I dont beliave I even mentioned anything good about him, I only said that what he did had its political reason, just like you had your wonderful reasons for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. just reminding you in case you forgot about that beautiful piace of history, oh.. perhaps it doesnt count.. since I dont think back then WMD was realy a term used by anyone. The only thing that I wanted to bring through to your one track minds is that not everything is black and white. It made me sick to see the comments any of you posted, not once in my post did I mention that I supported what Saddam was doing, but I guess some people have not matured enough to see beyond the bull, but then I dont realy blame you eather, its just the way western culture developed over the laste 200 years. Look at your own history and see the blood that you spilled for your ideals and belifs, then when you have lived a few centuries and seen all the horror that can come from even the most peaceful of nations and only then you can go about offering your advice on who is better off.. the Iraqies will be better of with Iraqies but not before they resolve the terretorial and ethnic difference, and that has very few alternatives then civil war.. in case you dont remember pershaps a little North and South history will help you out on that. I wont waste any more breath you, perhaps when you are older you will understand.

Oh please, can we get real here?

Nagasaki and Hiroshima? There is Nothing even close to similar about that and Iraq.

We saved MILLIONS of lives by dropping the bomb, and the Germans and Japanese made the rules when they started bombing civilian targets.

So this guilt thing your spewing is just plain nonsense.

And this when you are older stuff is a crock of garbage as well, I am probably at least 15 years your senior, chances are, when YOU grow up, your impressions will change.

This socalled pacifist crap you got going is wonderful for you, but we were the ones that were attacked, and we have every right to defend and offend as we choose if it will keep our citizens safe.

If your country wouldn't do that for you, then perhaps you need to move someplace that will.

The ethnic and territorial differences will be set aside if there is fair representation in a federal government and local autonomy. SO this civil war garbage you are spouting is just that as well.

Please, go buy a clue before you start spouting nonsensical garbage, it os obvious that you don't know 1/2 of what is going on in Iraq, and the one half you are getting is crap.

I'm done with you too, because it is obvious that you are hopeless when it comes to real change and REAL good for the Iraqi people. You want us to fail, well, guess what, we won't and aren't!!

Oh and this snooty euro history thing you got going is not going to win you any freinds here by the way. The US has pulled Europes bacon out of so many fires that it is ridiculous, if it weren't for us, you'd be living under German occupation and singing Sieg Heil to every policeman on the street.

So get off your mighty Euroweenie high horse, and leanr a bit about the real world.

Them with the guns makes the rules, and if the guns are bigger then ours, then the whole world is in trouble.

We have the guns, but we ask that you leave us the heck alone, and be fair in your dealings with us. But, when the crap hits the fan, we get in there and fight. Good thing too, or you guys wouldn't exist, no matter how neutral you claim to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

Well first of all only an idiot would beliave that I support Saddam and his "terrorist" cell, after reading my post, I dont beliave I even mentioned anything good about him, I only said that what he did had its political reason, just like you had your wonderful reasons for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. just reminding you in case you forgot about that beautiful piace of history, oh.. perhaps it doesnt count.. since I dont think back then WMD was realy a term used by anyone. The only thing that I wanted to bring through to your one track minds is that not everything is black and white. It made me sick to see the comments any of you posted, not once in my post did I mention that I supported what Saddam was doing, but I guess some people have not matured enough to see beyond the bull, but then I dont realy blame you eather, its just the way western culture developed over the laste 200 years. Look at your own history and see the blood that you spilled for your ideals and belifs, then when you have lived a few centuries and seen all the horror that can come from even the most peaceful of nations and only then you can go about offering your advice on who is better off.. the Iraqies will be better of with Iraqies but not before they resolve the terretorial and ethnic difference, and that has very few alternatives then civil war.. in case you dont remember pershaps a little North and South history will help you out on that. I wont waste any more breath you, perhaps when you are older you will understand.

You apperently havn't even READ our history or STUDIED our history

We fought for our freaking rights, we fought for our independence, we also had our own civil war to free the blacks and get rid of the slave trade

I say we've done A LOT to warrent respect and such from other countrys, and differently from you.

Nagasakie and Hiroshima?, Jaguar, if I remember correctly no one here ever mensioned them. Lets look at this from the point of the war

If we had invaded Japan, we would've lost over a mill troops in just the first few hours of fighting. That was beleaved to be unacceptable and I agree. Also, Japan would've lost over a mill in troops AND Civvys combined if we would've invaded. The US took it upon themselves to make sure that neither side would lose that much. And you know what? neither side reached the one mill casultie rate. Japan lost, if I remember correctly, over 4,000 in civvys, I could be wrong. Buts better than lossing over a Mill in civvys and a Mill in troops

We warned Japan to surrender and they didn't. So you know what? We bombed one of there citys, do I find it right to attack a civvy target. No I don't but thats in the past now nothing can be done to fix it

And even after the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender. So we did it again, in total my friend the civvy casualtie rate was a lot lower than the estimated troop casultie rate if we would've sent our boys in instead of bombing

As for your post, you didn't need to say it. Just by the way you worded it was enough to cause suspision, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out

Go back to elementary school and study history my friend, until then don't come back and start saying crap that you don't understand.

Edit: Made a few mistakes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drdespair

Oh.. I see.. you are one of those people that beliave Iraq attacked you first.. well.. in that case I have no words for you. God forbid that I should take your Hiroshema and Nagasaki approach to Sep 11th. I can see that I am dealing hear with some hard ball "patriots". Anyway I wont waste your time any more on this. Just for info though, I was in Amman a few month ago, and meet several Iraquies who got stuck there, in September, after the borders were closed, and in speaking to them I learned that they didnt like Saddam, they dont like the Americans, but they realize that with Saddam gone the only thing thats keeping the country together is the US presence there. There is still no secuity in the country.. you only hear about people killed who are ether related to the Administration, or the Army, civilians are still getting killed every day, one woman doctor I talked to was afraid to send her children to school because of kidnappings, and she could not do anything because she could not get back to Baghdad. Anyway..talking about is is just bull, it all still a ocean away for you.. you dont know it till its in your back yard, and its your friends and relatives who are taking the bullet for someone else ideas, and primaraly for financial gain (capitalism was it?) and this works both ways for the Americans and the Iraquies. I am finished here..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

Oh.. I see.. you are one of those people that beliave Iraq attacked you first.. well.. in that case I have no words for you. God forbid that I should take your Hiroshema and Nagasaki approach to Sep 11th. I can see that I am dealing hear with some hard ball "patriots". Anyway I wont waste your time any more on this. Just for info though, I was in Amman a few month ago, and meet several Iraquies who got stuck there, in September, after the borders were closed, and in speaking to them I learned that they didnt like Saddam, they dont like the Americans, but they realize that with Saddam gone the only thing thats keeping the country together is the US presence there. There is still no secuity in the country.. you only hear about people killed who are ether related to the Administration, or the Army, civilians are still getting killed every day, one woman doctor I talked to was afraid to send her children to school because of kidnappings, and she could not to anything because she could not get back to Baghdad. Anyway..talking about is is just bull, it all still a ocean away for you.. you dont know it till its in your back yard, and its your friends and relatives who are taking the bullet for someone else ideas, and this works both ways for the Americans and the Iraquies. I am finished here..

Your full of bull my friend, seriously full of bull.. Tell you what

How about you move here and become a democrat, since they live in denial, and thats exactly what your doing... living in denial

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

If we had invaded Japan, we would've lost over a mill troops in just the first few hours of fighting. That was beleaved to be unacceptable and I agree. Also, Japan would've lost over a mill in troops AND Civvys combined if we would've invaded. The US took it upon themselves to make sure that neither side would lose that much. And you know what? neither side reached the one mill casultie rate. Japan lost, if I remember correctly, over 4,000 in civvys, I could be wrong. Buts better than lossing over a Mill in civvys and a Mill in troops

We warned Japan to surrender and they didn't. So you know what? We bombed one of there citys, do I find it right to attack a civvy target. No I don't but thats in the past now nothing can be done to fix it

And even after the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender. So we did it again, in total my friend the civvy casualtie rate was a lot lower than the estimated troop casultie rate if we would've sent our boys in instead of bombing


There are a lot of different opinions about need to use atomic bombs in WWII. For instance this:

http://www.doug-long.com/

When it comes to casualties.... phew... A LOT of civilians were killed. Read http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/boo...aki/chap11.html and

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html

As for me, I haven't made up my mind wether USA had to drop the bomb or not.

You guys, Jaguar and Kalshion, were the ones bashing drdespair. Not the other way around. What, as I understand it, drdespair pointed out was that he did not believe the total end result of the war would change the situation in Iraq to the better. He critizised USA's actions not americans.

If you guys write propaganda for the war, you have to expect different opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viref

What alot of people don't realize is that we had our rights to use it.. people like you and drd are open to your opinions but you don't live here! You don't work Here! You don't get your education here!

So in my opinion you have no right telling US what to do! You have no right telling us what we did right and what we did wrong during the war

Do a little more research, and look at more statistics and ask more questions before coming here and trying to prove others wrong please, I understand I got the numbers wrong. However anyone with a brain would probably tell that I was just using that as an example 50,000 is still FAR less than 1 mill in troop/civvy casualties for japan and 1 mill in troops for US if we where to invade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Vixef:

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

If we had invaded Japan, we would've lost over a mill troops in just the first few hours of fighting. That was beleaved to be unacceptable and I agree. Also, Japan would've lost over a mill in troops AND Civvys combined if we would've invaded. The US took it upon themselves to make sure that neither side would lose that much. And you know what? neither side reached the one mill casultie rate. Japan lost, if I remember correctly, over 4,000 in civvys, I could be wrong. Buts better than lossing over a Mill in civvys and a Mill in troops

We warned Japan to surrender and they didn't. So you know what? We bombed one of there citys, do I find it right to attack a civvy target. No I don't but thats in the past now nothing can be done to fix it

And even after the first bomb, they STILL refused to surrender. So we did it again, in total my friend the civvy casualtie rate was a lot lower than the estimated troop casultie rate if we would've sent our boys in instead of bombing


There are a lot of different opinions about need to use atomic bombs in WWII. For instance this:

http://www.doug-long.com/

When it comes to casualties.... phew... A LOT of civilians were killed. Read http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/boo...aki/chap11.html and

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html

As for me, I haven't made up my mind wether USA had to drop the bomb or not.

You guys, Jaguar and Kalshion, were the ones bashing drdespair. Not the other way around. What, as I understand it, drdespair pointed out was that he did not believe the total end result of the war would change the situation in Iraq to the better. He critizised USA's actions not americans.

If you guys write propaganda for the war, you have to expect different opinions.


The fact of the matter is that the bombs were dropped, for a myriad of reasons.

A: estimates were that it would take a million casualties or more on the American side to beat Japan, it would also cost close to 2 million Japanese casualties. So, we are talking 3 million people to finally end the war.

B: the Japanese were fanatics, they would not stop fighting, Kamikazees ought to give you the first clue.

C: we had had enough of the war, we had taken enough casualties, and we were just plain sick of war.

D: Dropping the bombs would hopefully show Japan that we could utterly destroy them without losing a single soldier.

Well, it worked, we dropped a bomb, Japan thought it was the only one, we told them otherwise, gave them another warning and dropped another bomb, and they surrendered.

But again, this has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

I will not feel guilty about dropping nuclear weapons on Japan, it ended the war, and showed the destructive potential of Nuclear weapons.

Why do you think another one has never been dropped or launched?

Not only did dropping the bomb save those that would have had to fight Japan, but it has also saved those of us in future generations from destroying ourselves, because the destructive powers of those weapons was REAL.

So dropping the bombs on Japan, not only saved millions, it has also saved BILLIONS of future lives.

And you guys are the ones spouting propaganda, not us, we have facts to back us up, statistics, and history. The US does not do these things lightly.

Iraq went against EVERY UN resolution, they did NOT abide by the ceasefire agreement that stopped the original gulf war, and they continued to work on WMD's. Saddam supported terrorism in all it's forms, and was training Al Quaeda in the use of WMD's.

So, not only was Saddam making the UN look useless, though it is, he was also a direct threat to us via terrorism.

We had every right to go in and take him out and then leave, just as we could have in Afghanistan.

We have not left, because we believe that we must help rebuild that which we have destroyed.

Iraq is going to be fine, the Iraqi people know what they want and have the fortitude to make it happen.

Too bad that the Europeans feel that the Iraqi's are somehow inferior and won't be able to do it.

Well, we have faith in the Iraqi people, and are willing to help them get back on their feet and start the government that they want.

You don't like it? Well, too fricking bad......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

. people like you and drd are open to your opinions but you don't live here! You don't work Here! You don't get your education here!

So in my opinion you have no right telling US what to do! You have no right telling us what we did right and what we did wrong during the war

I'm not sure how to respond to this... Do you mean that only american citizens are allowed to discuss/critizise american foreign/internal politics, history, educational system,etc?

or

Do you mean that european countries have no right dictating USAÔÇÖs actions?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

Do a little more research, and look at more statistics and ask more questions before coming here and trying to prove others wrong please, I understand I got the numbers wrong. However anyone with a brain would probably tell that I was just using that as an example 50,000 is still FAR less than 1 mill in troop/civvy casualties for japan and 1 mill in troops for US if we where to invade

I did not try to prove you wrong!! I merely pointed out that there are different views on the issue - the need to use the atomic bomb in WWII. Also, if you state that aproximately 4 000 civilians died because of the atomic bomb, someone should react. If I had started a thread about this, and stated that 7.000.000 civilians died because of the atomic bombs, my guess is that you would react strongly.

Also, I did not critizise USA for this action. I only stated that I wasn't sure if it was the right action to do. The reason: I do not know enough about it!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Well, it worked, we dropped a bomb, Japan thought it was the only one, we told them otherwise, gave them another warning and dropped another bomb, and they surrendered.

But again, this has NOTHING to do with Iraq.


I agree. This is for another thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

And you guys are the ones spouting propaganda, not us, we have facts to back us up, statistics, and history. The US does not do these things lightly.

Who guys? The Europeans, or me and drdespair?

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Iraq went against EVERY UN resolution, they did NOT abide by the ceasefire agreement that stopped the original gulf war, and they continued to work on WMD's. Saddam supported terrorism in all it's forms, and was training Al Quaeda in the use of WMD's.

So, not only was Saddam making the UN look useless, though it is, he was also a direct threat to us via terrorism.

What was most effective when it comes to stopping Iraq making WMD's?

UN doing searches, or USA invading Iraq. As I understand it, USA hasnÔÇÖt actually found WMD's - I might be wrong though.

When it comes to UN being useless: Before the war USA critized the UN for being ineffective and ?useless?. Now USA wants the UN to become more involved in Iraq. Have I understood this correctly?

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

We had every right to go in and take him out and then leave, just as we could have in Afghanistan.

If you use the argument, that you had the right to invade Iraq, because they supported terrorists that were responsible for the attack on the world trade center, I guess you're right. In this argument USA has to have proof of course.

The problem, as I understand it, is that a lot of countries disagreed that Iraq was directly responsible for the attack.

Also bombing Iraq/Afghanistan back to the "stone age", and then leave (without rebuilding the country) is something I believe you have no right to do. Simply because the persons running the country were lunatics, and the rest of the population cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way as in a democratic country.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Too bad that the Europeans feel that the Iraqi's are somehow inferior and won't be able to do it.

That is not my view and I don't think that's the general view by Europeans. A lot of European countries and Europeans support USA's actions: GB, Norway, Denmark, etc. I think most countries agree that Iraq should have a democracy. I thought the discussion was more in the lines of when and how.

As I understand drdespair, he pointed out that a country with a lot of internal conflicts and no tradition for democracy will often have serious problems in becoming democratic (as a lot/most of western countries has had). Sometimes/often it will result in bloody conflicts, and sometimes the form of the democracy is nowhere near western standards. Meaning: Iraq will have a deomracy as long as USA is in the country, but as soon as USA leaves, there may be huge problems ÔÇô even civil war. The solution to this ÔÇ£problem-solvingÔÇØ may not be a ÔÇ£western democracyÔÇØ.

As an end to my tirade and longest post ever... My statements/arguments are not meant as personal attacks and should not be replied to as if they are. I reply to this thread for two reasons:

1. I reacted on the way you two, Jaguar and Kalshion, responded to dr.despair's posts

2. I want to get a broader picture as to how other people think and understands political situations.

My intention is not to teach you or anyone else as to how the world revolves, why the sun shines, etc. My intention is solely egoistic: I donÔÇÖt really care if you learn anything from what I write or change your mind from your point of view to mine. I do on the other hand care about learning other peopleÔÇÖs thoughts and ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest drdespair

Vixef, Its not worth discussing this further, its not constructive, they base their facts on their figures, we base our facts on our figures, we all know that statistics are very subjective, as is intelligence. (as in MI) Just as its clear for most Europeans that America is in Iraq for purely economic and geopolitical reasons, its clear for American's that they are there protecting their national security, and preaching democracy and capitalism. Who is right and who is wrong even time won't tell, there can be no happy endings.

PS. for my American friends, if you wont listen to us, since apperantly we have no right to voice our opinion on your foreign policy, perhaps you would be interested in reading a study done by one of your own specialist from the Stratigic Studies Institute..

Bounding the Global War on Terror

The financial benefits of the was are covered daily by the news, contracts.. contracts... contracts..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no, Dr D

We are of the mind of one free world. Voice all the opinions you wish, but don't cry about the counterpoints. Or come off with a snotty attitude towards those who will inevitably shoot holes in your views. Your posts seem a bit arrogant and condescending, Whiich is typical of the Swiss.

Now mind you, I am not verbally attacking your country and countrymen without just cause.. albeit,

Whose country claimed neutrality during WW II, but in the background was financing Hitler's war efforts?Whose country prides itself on training every able bodied man to fight?

I bet your weapon is under your bed, isn't it?

If ignorance is bliss, you must be one of the happiest fellows on the planet.

We are all just little specks in this great big shrinking world. Do you really believe your barbs are going to change everyone's mindset?

Taking Saddam off his high horse was necessary, no matter which view you have for the reasoning behind it. Of course! Iraq is still a dangerous place to live. So is every other piece of dirt on this planet. Not one of us can say with truthfulness that we feel safe.

I don't, never have and never will.

On a more personal note, I tire of reading your edicts. BLOCK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

its not constructive,

SC would've deleted this thread LONG ago if it wasn't constructive

And Viref, I understand what you are trying to do. But we have the facts, the evidence, you do not, do I see you living here? Apperently not

We dropped on drd becuase of what he said about a few things about 9/11, the interpretation of his posts made it seem like he said that what happened in Nagasakie and Hiroshima SHOULD HAVE happened in 9/11 thats my reason for coming down on him like a quarter ton of bricks. As for jaguars? Im unsure about his reasons

I will not stand by, and allow you euro's to dictate how we run our country when you have no say so since you DO NOT live here!, I don't tell you how to run your country so please don't us how to run ours. Whats in the past is in the past its already done nothing can be made to fix it.

And drd if you don't like the facts as they are. There there is that nice little button on the top of the browser, I think it was an X just click it and you don't have to worry.

quote:

That is not my view and I don't think that's the general view by Europeans. A lot of European countries and Europeans support USA's actions: GB, Norway, Denmark, etc. I think most countries agree that Iraq should have a democracy. I thought the discussion was more in the lines of when and how.


It may not be YOUR view.. but how do you truly know that? Did you do a survey? if you did then I am impressed. However evidence shows that certain countrys where against the war(france for example..) im just glad some of those countrys finially got it through there thick skull that this guy was bad news and needed to be taken out

We where the ones who where attacked, the total civvy cost for the WTC was about 4,000 dead. I say that gives us more than a good reason to invade a country that SUPPORTED terrorism

quote:

Also bombing Iraq/Afghanistan back to the "stone age", and then leave (without rebuilding the country) is something I believe you have no right to do. Simply because the persons running the country were lunatics, and the rest of the population cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way as in a democratic country.

Look again, we are rebuilding.. no idea where you got crap like that from

quote:

As I understand it, USA hasnÔÇÖt actually found WMD's - I might be wrong though.

You might be wrong, you might not be... last I heard on CNN they did find biological weapons and I overheard a discussion that they had to use a nuke to get rid of them.. weather its true or not I can't say since I wasn't there, but then again.. we are talking CNN here

Drd, don't acuse Jagaur or myself of anything. It is your fault we got on you, don't structure your posts like your supporting that freak, don't structure your post's to a point where it makes a person think that you mean one thing, where you actually ment something else.

Its called Literacy and its something you learn in school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not my view and I don't think that's the general view by Europeans. A lot of European countries and Europeans support USA's actions: GB, Norway, Denmark, etc. I think most countries agree that Iraq should have a democracy. I thought the discussion was more in the lines of when and how.

_______________________________________________

Written by Kalshion

It may not be YOUR view.. but how do you truly know that? Did you do a survey? if you did then I am impressed. However evidence shows that certain countrys where against the war(france for example..) im just glad some of those countrys finially got it through there thick skull that this guy was bad news and needed to be taken out

--------------------------------------

No youÔÇÖre right. I havenÔÇÖt made a survey wether Europeans feel that the IraqiÔÇÖs are inferior and wonÔÇÖt be able to become democratic, but it is (I think at least) probable that most Europeans do not feel the IraqiÔÇÖs to be inferior. Also:

1. I was refering to the implementation of democracy in Iraq

2. ÔÇ£That is not my view and I don't think that's the general view by EuropeansÔÇØ: is not written as a fact, hence the words ÔÇ£I donÔÇÖt thinkÔÇØ.

3. ÔÇ£A lot of European countries and Europeans support USA's actions: GB, Norway, Denmark, etc.ÔÇØ: This refers to said governments, and this is a fact (read point 1)

Please read my posts in context, so I donÔÇÖt have to explain every word and sentence in everything I write. If my english isnÔÇÖt good enough, either tell me or ask what IÔÇÖm trying to say. DonÔÇÖt allways assume IÔÇÖm blaming/accusing/critizising someone.

_______________________________________________

Written by Vixef:

Also bombing Iraq/Afghanistan back to the "stone age", and then leave (without rebuilding the country) is something I believe you have no right to do. Simply because the persons running the country were lunatics, and the rest of the population cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way as in a democratic country.

_____________________________

Written by Kalshion:

Look again, we are rebuilding.. no idea where you got crap like that from

----------------------------

Read Jaguars quote in my post. Look, IÔÇÖm not accusing you of anything (look above). I was just stating my opinion about doing that. Clearly USA, you and I agree on this. Even I can read newspapers and watch TV , and see that USA is trying to rebuild the country. And I applaude USA for this.

Anyways, I think IÔÇÖll just stop here if itÔÇÖs ok by you. Not because I agree with what youÔÇÖre saying, but because this is not a discussion or sharing of opinions anymore. ItÔÇÖs something else. I will just conclude that we disagree on a lot of things Kalshion.

P.S. Hmmm.... something strange happened with my quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by drdespair:

Vixef, Its not worth discussing this further, its not constructive, they base their facts on their figures, we base our facts on our figures, we all know that statistics are very subjective, as is intelligence. (as in MI) Just as its clear for most Europeans that America is in Iraq for purely economic and geopolitical reasons, its clear for American's that they are there protecting their national security, and preaching democracy and capitalism. Who is right and who is wrong even time won't tell, there can be no happy endings.

PS. for my American friends, if you wont listen to us, since apperantly we have no right to voice our opinion on your foreign policy, perhaps you would be interested in reading a study done by one of your own specialist from the Stratigic Studies Institute..

The financial benefits of the was are covered daily by the news, contracts.. contracts... contracts..

First off, I never said that there were no economic or financial reasons ot be in Iraq, but those reasons are just icing on the cake as far as I am concerned.

Saddam was a danger to us directly through his support of Terrorists, the Palestinians being the most blatant example, and his intelligence meeeting with Al Quaeda in Europe, also the training camps in Iraq, the 707 sitting in a desert for the terrorists to train for hijackings on being the most obvious.

Saddam directly and indirectly supported terrorism, he financed them, he trained them, and had the nerve to train them in Chemical and biological weapons as well.

He ignored the UN, He ignored us, and he did his best to undermine anything that we did after kicking him out of Kuwait.

Bottom line, we had every right to go in and take his little butt out.

So to say that it is PURELY geopolitical and economic reasons that we are in Iraq is ignoring the MOST important reasons that we are there.

Sure, in the long term it will help economically and geopolitical, but even if it weren't, we would still be there. Afghanistan is nothing economically NOR geopolitically, so explain that. I would love to see the reasons you Euros claim we are in that country.

You guys are a laugh a minute sometimes, your hoity toity, nose in the air, we have more history then you do, so we have more experience to give you advice is a crock.

Your history show you guys to be too weak to take care of yourselves.

You look down on us in Peacetime, but when some other country comes knocking on your doors trying to take over, guess who you come yelling for help from. Those cowboys in America, we come to your rescue EVERY time, and when your EU starts falling apart, which it will, just give it a little more time when the little people finally realize what the elitists are doing, you all will be screaming for us to come in and save you financiallym too bad by then it will be too late for all of us, then again, that's for another thread as well.

Ahhhh, socialism, the one true destroyer of democracies, and it comes from within, so sad....

The search for Cosmic justice, equal outcome, is the worst thing that can happen to a country, when it starts actually occurring in large numbers, you know that the end is near.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to post this and this likes the best place to put it!!

quote:

Subject: THIS IS A MUST READ!

Subject: Re: Fw: Gen. Hawley's pol. incorrect MUST READ!

This retired 4 star says it pretty well.

>For those who don't know General Hawley, he's a newly retired USAF 4-star general. He commanded the USAF Air Combat Command [our front-line fighters and bombers]. The Command headquarters is at Langley AFB, VA. General Hawley is now retired and no longer required to be politically correct. His short speech is very much to the point. The

following are excerpts:

"Since the attack [9-11], I have seen, heard, and read thoughts of such surpassing stupidity that they must be addressed. You've heard them too. Here they are:

1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative." Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves. You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean,"We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country

has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history. If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens.

2) "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it.

Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already:

Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky,half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead.

That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E --Well, you get the idea.

3) "The CIA and the rest of our intelligence community have failed us." For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us. Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites. "After all, (they reasoned,) you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate. Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans.

When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella. "Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years.

4) "These people are poor and helpless, and that's why they're angry at us." Uh-huh, and Jeffrey Dahmer's frozen head collection was just a desperate cry for help. The terrorists and their backers are richer than Elton John and, ironically, a good deal less annoying. The poor helpless people, you see, are the villagers they tortured and murdered to stay in power. Mohammed Atta, one of the evil scumbags who steered those planes into the killing grounds is the son of a Cairo surgeon. But you knew this, too. In the sixties and seventies, all the pinheads marching against the war were upper-middle-class college kids who grabbed any cause they could think of to get out of their final papers and spend more time drinking. It's the same today.

5) "Any profiling is racial profiling." Who's killing us here, the Norwegians? Just days after the attack, the New York Times had an article saying dozens of extended members of the gazillionaire bin Laden family living in America were afraid of reprisals and left in a huff, never to return to studying at Harvard and using too much Drakkar. I'm crushed.

Please come back. Let's all stop singing "We Are the World" for a minute and think practically. I don't want to be sitting on the floor in the back of a plane four seconds away from hitting Mt. Rushmore and turn, grinning, to the guy next to me to say, "Well, at least we didn't offend them."

SO HERE'S what I resolve for the New Year: Never to forget our murdered brothers and sisters. Never to let the relativists get away with their immoral thinking. After all, no matter what your daughter's political science professor says, we didn't start this. Have you seen that bumper sticker that says, "No More Hiroshimas"? I wish I had one that says, "No More Pearl Harbors."

THIS NEEDS TO STAY IN CIRCULATION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE , & WILL FALL FOR THE

STUPIDITY GOING AROUND. PLEASE

PASS IT ON! and May God Bless the USA..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Doesn't matter a bit, China wants to build a navy to transport troops for offensive operations, it will have to do a lot better then it is now.

If China decided to go empire building, it would find that it's line of communications, supplies, etc would be cut off in a heartbeat. Smart weapons are GREAT things, and don't think that if we felt endangered by hundereds of thousands of chinese troops that we would not use tactical nukes to be rid of them.

We have the power to stop ANY country from offensive operations at ANY time, no matter the size etc.

China is not a threat, and they know themselves that they cannot be a threat. We let them show off in public, but in private we are telling them to behave or else, and that what else is a very big motivator for China.

Clinton is no longer in office, if China screws up and decides to dance, we will not back down and apologize, we will finish anything that they start.

You are forgeting that China has nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines and land based nuclear weapons. Their SSBNs may be noisier and fewer than ours now but that could change in the future. All of our arms reduction treaties were with Russia, have we had any with China? I think not. So what is to prevent China from building a huge stockpile of nuclear warheads?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Gol_Stoan:

You are forgeting that China has nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines and land based nuclear weapons. Their SSBNs may be noisier and fewer than ours now but that could change in the future. All of our arms reduction treaties were with Russia, have we had any with China? I think not. So what is to prevent China from building a huge stockpile of nuclear warheads?

I am not forgetting, I am ignoring facts that are not relevant.

China's weapons are unreliable, and China does not have Nuclear powered Ballistic missile armed submarines, if they do, they would be based on the Russian design, which are unreliable and outright dangerous to the crew that crews them.

China's missiles are not a danger to us, even if they claim that they are, for every 10 missiles launched, one works, it's the one that we hear about, we don't hear about the 9 other failures.

So, if China has say 100 missiles, 10 might launch, if those 10 got into the air, 4 of those 10 would not go off, of the 6 left, they would be gone before they even got close to American soil.

China is NOT a danger to us as a nuclear power, they are not a threat to us in normal nonnuclear power.

China would be cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

China may talk big, but it is a paper tiger to us, they may frighten Taiwan, and I'd be frightened if I lived in Taiwan, only because of the short distances involved, but the US would retaliate, and cut China off completely economically, and attack militarily and then China would die on the vine.

China depends on us for it's economic survival, and if we cut it off, it dies a most quick and assured death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

China does not have Nuclear powered Ballistic missile armed submarines

This is taken from Tom Clancy's book "Submarine A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship"

quote:

Class Name: Xia

Producer(country/manufacturer): PRC/Huludao

Displacement (surfaced/submerged): 7000(submerged)

Dimensions (ft/m): Length 393.6/120 Beam: 32.8/10 Draft: ?

Armament: Twelve CSS-N-3 SLBMs; six 533mm torpedo tubes

Machinery: One PWR turboelectric drive; ? bladed screw; 15000 shp

Speed (Knots): 20 (submerged)

Number in Class: 1

Users: PRC

Comments: The first class of SSBNs built by PRC, the Xias are roughly similar to the Soviet Yankee II class boat in performance and weapons loadout. A derivitive of the Han class (hull and reactor are virtually identical), the Xias give the PRC leadership a minor and somewhat credible FBM capability in their part of the world.

[ 01-26-2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Gol_Stoan ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another quote from the same book

quote:

While the Russians ran headlong into the business of building nuclear submarines, the People's Republic of China (PRC) took a slow steady pace. Their first SSN, the Han class, is a simple boat with very little of the high technology that would be considered standard on an American or British boat. From the Hans has come the Xia class, the PRC's first SSBN. It appears that both the Han and Xia have finished their production runs. With only six first-generation units, the Chinese appear to have mixed feelings about the success of the Han and Xia. Nevertheless, it is likely that within the foreseeable future, the Chinese will begin production of the Han and Xia follow-ons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote:

I watched a depate program yesterday. It was about Norways involvment in Iraq. Some of the politicians and journalists actually showed surprise when it was ÔÇ£revealedÔÇØ that Norwegian forces may have to engage hostile forces and was supposed to do just that (rules of engagement and all that)

I mean ÔÇô we send military forces (spesial forces among them - not a lot though) and expect them not to be engaged with hostile forces? Who in their right mind would think that they wouldnÔÇÖt? Or would they expect those forces not to support allied troops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing Jag, while your pretty much accurate that China isn't particularly a nuclear threat to us, you have to also remember how large their army and civilian population is. A war with China would be...devestating and it really is a toss up to who would win it.

I have no illusions about the US Armed forces. The US Armed forces is easily the most powerful military to ever exist. But, even with that going for us, an 8 to 1 manpower ratio would be hard to stand up to. It would be a massive war of attrition and in such a war China would win. In my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Bandus:

Another thing Jag, while your pretty much accurate that China isn't particularly a nuclear threat to us, you have to also remember how large their army and civilian population is. A war with China would be...devestating and it really is a toss up to who would win it.

I have no illusions about the US Armed forces. The US Armed forces is easily the most powerful military to ever exist. But, even with that going for us, an 8 to 1 manpower ratio would be hard to stand up to. It would be a massive war of attrition and in such a war China would win. In my opinion.

This is why Tactical Nuclear weapons were invented, and don't think that we wouldn't use them if it became necassary.

No, we would win, the price would be high, but in the end, we would win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...