Lotharr

I'm watching a new show I think....gritty...like star wars meets star trek....kinda cool....on UPN. It stars that guy from that old show; he would hop to a new body and had to fix something every week...with the help of that old guy that had the computer....can't think of the name...but it has that guy.... And a really hot Vulcan....

Ok so..... Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... If it ain't broke don't fix it.... As far as the rest of it guy....please....this is about oil....you can think all the happy thoughts you want but that's what it's about.....why pretend...

Anyone else check this out?

quote: If this does not convince you Lothar, then you have a major problem with critical thinking skills. There is a reason why some sources are considered worth listening to and some are not. I have never heard of yours. However I have heard of the Washington Post...a corporate and conservative American media source. To suggest that American media sources have confirmed a connection between terrorists and Iraq and have not reported it is not probable. I do not like mainstream sources because they are controlled by big business....as is Bush....but to think they wouldnt report something as big as that would be to suggest that our free press is so corrupt that we dont live in a democracy or a republic. quote: Israel has WMD's for defense, to keep what they have. Iraq has WMS's for offense, to take what it has no right to Isreal is just as oppresive if not more so to the poulations that live within their borders....they maintain a slave society...and they have nukes...sorry that doesn't add up to me. quote: If you still think that Iraq should not be attacked and Saddam overthrown, then you have a deathwish. Because he will get here with those weapons and he WILL kill us with them. Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... Yeah that's what I thought

quote: Saddam is going to build a nuke, there are no doubts of that. He has chemical and biologocal weapons, TONS of the stuff. Chem and bio is pure speculation but probable. He will seek to build a bomb. Israel has them why wouldn't he want to. You say it is ok to have these hypocrisies in the world...I do not. quote: Lothar, so you not understand yet? THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!! THEY WISH TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES!! WHY? because they dream of the entire world becoming one huge islamic state, just like Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. First of all "they" constitute a small group of extremists that need to be caught and prosecuted for violating international law. The only reason they have a terror network is because America set it up. And now, like then, we can think no farther then the immediate future...but we haven't even thought that far....look at Afghanistan...very unstable. What are we going to do in Iraq? Who will take over? How long are we going to stay there? How much will it cost? None of this is being addressed. We are most likely doing just what Bin Loser wants by taking aggressive and poorly thought out action. Like I said the hard right is almost always preferable to the easy wrong.....but I doubt this will end up being easy..... A variety of forces make unilateral action a disaster waiting to happen..... Islam is a peaceful religion. These people want the same things you do. However most of them are looking for potable water these days....you ignore the human aspect of our foreign policy....terror groups do not. They use it. They use these inequalities that exist in the world against the most successful and aggressive nations...mainly us. The UN and international community realize that in a world of limited recourses one has to consider the needs of all to provide for the security of all. We still haven't got there and you can most likely thank big oil for that. But that is just my opinion and it makes a lot more sense then......what's wrong with these people? they hate freedom....how could anyone hate us etc.... If we seek the economic/political domination of the world we can look forward to attacks until this country falls.....or our way of life is so drastically altered that we arent America anymore....these are my fearsfear of cowboy tactics, unilateral actions, and aggressively selfish foreign policy in general. You are thinker of a different time....but you do have friends in the executive government.... however their actions are more of a threat to the constitution than any liberal could ever be.

I would expect nothing less from a guy who gathers "facts" from unknown, biased, and agenda-of-war type sources. I will always believe that international law is an ideal that the world must and will move to. This idea will facilitate the survival of our planet. There are real global threats and we need to find real global answers. I don't agree that might makes right. In fact, all I've seen is might makes lazy. I think the world is coming around to this view as well. WeÔÇÖll see how this all plays out.

If that were true all news agencies would be running it....but they aren't...cause it's aint. When making decisions one needs to weigh facts....that sight is for people who don't use facts....they use emotion and want a target...and fast. So please spare us from obviously biased reporting. You have your OPINION and some guy with nothing better to do sets up a sight full of speculation, makes all these "connections" and draws lines from face to face...please guy, even you have to see the BS in that.. Bush did give a good speech at the UN....he didn't screw up once and he didn't look like a lost little boy....I was very proud. The sentiment is right....NATIONS MUST BE HELD TO UN RESOLUTIONS. But like I said before if the UN tries to stop American unilateral action and we violate that we have just demonstrated to other countries how to behave. That is scary when one considers China and India and Israel.... .... ...and America.

Heh heh...

Ok this is itreally.... It is never OUR fault..... Wake up and smell the stuff your shoveling....

quote: but even I haven't heard any evidence dierctly linking Saddam to 9/11 Yup.... quote: 1. Oppression is bad. Keep in mind that if we invade Iraq the Arab out cry for action would be very, very strong....how do you think those governments are going to keep the peace....if they even try.....duh.....they are going to be cracking heads all over...but they are Muslim so I'm sure you could live with that.... I'm out...for now.

You are just arrogant. I hope your children (or anyone's) don't have to suffer for this state endorsed lunacy.... As for fighting with every dictator or "evil" force out there I guess we have our work cut out for us... One would think we might need some help with something like that....or does everyone think we can just crush anyone and anything we want? So we need another Vietnam eh? It will be different but it will be the same. Yeah you all probably do.blinded by the power of American sunshine....anyway I'm out of this until some new stuff comes out. I just wanted to sound off with the facts. No link can be proven between terrorists and Iraq.... When government violates law it teaches a lesson to its citizens..... When a government violates another nation and sponsors oppressive regimes and terror groups for "freedom" it teaches a lesson..... Oh yeah and every time you seek to stop another from speaking their mind you show your ignorance, fear and lack of respect for the idea of democracy.

Fear leads to hate. Don't be so scared and you won't hate them so much. 80% of what you advocate is aggression without thought, ignorance and intolerance. You may well get your war....but no one will really win. Only losers like you will think something will be accomplished. And then we both get to watch as our soldiers have to guard an area surrounded by terrorists. And we have to pay for it. Tens of billions of dollars. A heavy bill for three countries to pay. As we suffer more attacks we will have to respond.another cycle of hate.I dont want to be like Israel. We risk pushing a culture into a holy war.but not a conventional one. They will operate out of the shadows and into the shadow our forces will go. Our personal freedoms and innocent lives are at stake here. The document you claim to cherish so much will most likely be more abused then it already is. It is not worth going alone. I feel bad for you...it is not your fault that you buy into the fear. It is a systemic problem....maybe someone you care about will have to pay for your hate before you will look around for another answer. I suggest you start by looking inside yourself. From there take a look at certain policies and political ideologies that we take for granted for some real answers....

This game rocks! After you learn the AI it is easy to win. I look forward to playing against people.....

quote: In short, the president can invade any country anytime and can start a draft to support that invasion without the approval or counsel of congress. I am aware of that. When fast action is required we can't sit in committee and discuss it. However, since we are considering attacking a country when there is no immanent danger, I don't see how one man can have the right to put this country in a war. It is all so classified that who are we to decide our fate? That would be too democratic wouldn't it....yes we all know when the people of a given society make decisions for that society you can kiss it goodbye.....not. Anyway....so all the upper house folks should be cleared to hear of any doomsday weapon and should have no problem getting together and voting for war.....oh wait....they want to be briefed also....or they have and it is thin evidence.. And why do other heads of state not support this? They should have been briefed also....oh yeah cause their all a bunch of selfish piece nicks or something...... This whole thing stinks. quote: Peace, THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER AND THE WILL TO USE IT. That would make a great bumper sticker.... Yep superior firepower worked in Vietnam...yep just got to lean forward....just take those casualties...it's all in the math er.oops. quote: No matter how much you cry your liberal cries, no matter how many times you sout your liberal lies, we are going to get rid of Saddam, and there will be peace in the middle east like there never has been before. Remember that crap if one of our cities goes up in a puff...or we have to watch bulldozers push scores of bodies into decon trenches .....but I don't think they will look much like people anymore. And for what? Do you even own an SUV? And I realize this probably doesn't bother you. It is clear you don't value human life. Just American life...and thats a maybe. You are ready to make the tough call...like the nuke freaks in the cold war that actually thought someone could actually win something like that. Most knew deterrence was important. But some (and I bet this would be you) thought we could win..you and your kind are scary. You believe in power and you fail to grasp motivation. This country has power but that culture has motivation. A medieval motivation that is truly amazing and horrific when pushed to it. We need to fight the good fight. This is not it. If the world comes together then it is the good fight. If they don't then war would be the action of a rogue nation and the shame would be on all of us. In closing your article was crap and you need to provide links to any of your other so called evidence. You really should just put in the link and save space.....I would read it. We were supposed to be fighting the war on terror but we would rather destroy that international support after a good start.....I hope the UN makes a choice and we adhere to it. Sharing power...like candy.can be hard, but it needs to happen. Power corrupts.... ... ....and you know and are the rest.

quote: BS, yeah, some of our policies may upset a minority of people, that does not give them the right to come into our country and kill our people with WMD's, and that's what they turned those planes into. Wrong our policies piss off a lot of people. From that large group those that are most effected by these policies join these terror groups. To believe that responsibility is with every and anything besides us is idiotic....it is complicated but to deny our own involvement is a very American sentiment....and very counter productive when trying to find a lasting solution. quote: As I said, you need to get out more and quit listening to network news so much. It has been beaten to death in a number of news sources, besides of course ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC etc. Foxnews has reported it, and so has the BBC. You get out more. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...3-2002Sep9.html This is your corporate crap media the Washington Post and it is saying that a link cannot be proved. In fact it talks about high rank admin in the Bush group lying basically....and you bought it like a good little war monger.....yo joe. There is no link between terrorists and Iraq. President Bush has no right to take unilateral action or start a war without the consent of Congress...bottom line. quote: American law indeed makes it OK, and the connection is NOT shaky, as a matter of fact there is now proof that Saddam is actually allowing Al Quaeda into Iraq as guests. Any other fairy tales? quote: Well, it's either destroy him now, with less casualties or destroy him later and have massive casualties. Which one will it be? Not accurate. quote: Ok, you need to choose. Either breaking international law is bad, thus it should be stopped at all points (thus justifying us stopping Iraq), or international law doesn't matter (thus the US can do whatever the hell we want and thus stopping Iraq). All need to follow international law.especially America. America and other forces...primarily those with "power" abuse this idea constantly and undercut it's effectiveness. Perhaps the world will have to experience another enormous tragedy before it realizes that only through genuine cooperation can a lasting peace be established. [ 09-10-2002, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

To often these guys and gals think they know what is best when really they should be listening to their constituents. That is of course if they can focus..catering to corporate interest is a full time job. quote: You need to get out more, the war was started by the terrorists, not us. Iraq had a major piece of the action of 9/11, and of course the Gulf War never really ended. US policy could not possibly have anything to do with the attacks. Your right we are so perfect....when in reality our own cold war policies on arming psychos is coming right back on us. So once more we want to rush to fix the problem....without thought, sanction, or concern for the real people who are going to suffer. Well at least we are taking a minute. Let's just take the Clancy approach and throw our hands in the air and say "There are just bad people in the world....and they have to dealt with" ex navy seal Ramberto thinks as he inserts the extended magazine into the M4 Carbine with laser optical targing sights and thermal imaging equipment blab bla bla...... When I think of all the really cool ways we can fry people I get this excited feeling in my gut that Im mildly ashamed ofbut that shame makes it all the more thrilling..and who could really stop us anyway.right? It is a truly an American feeling.but it wasnt really mine..you have to be in a position of authority to feel like that. quote: A: it has been proven that one of the hijackers met with a high ranking Iraqi intelligence officer just before 9/11, what they discussed etc has not been released. But they met, that is a DIRECT link between Saddaam and AlQuaeda. Hadn't heard that give me your source. quote: Bam, the congressional order to Bush after 9/11 covers that. Ok so by American law it is ok....even if the shakiest of connections is made. What about international law....spare me. I know you could care less. quote: B: Iraq has broken the treaty after the gulf war, by 1: kicking out the UN inspetors, and 2: continuing to try and create WMD weapons. So he is breaking international law....so what!?! That never stopped us. MAYBE WE SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE HYPOCRITIS. But alas it is the American burden to have to say one thing and do another.to do one thing and say another.general principal is so hard to agree with when at any given time our interests could be in jeopardy..what a load of crap.

I've been taking a small break. I relocated to MD and started school. But I'm back....and this is not quite dead. quote: Political convenience and NOTHING MORE defines waht any group is called at a given time. It's all about the Benjamins.... Like always we have fools in power that call for war.....of course themselves and their kids aren't on the chopping block.....just backing their boy.... However, the opposing position is growing daily as the admin cannot provide real facts to justify a potential war with possibly all the Arab nations in the Middle East.with only one or two allies. A Senator from Nebraska was briefed by Defense Department officials and Pentagon officials and they could not provide him with any proof that Saddam is a threat. Did anyone hear Rumsfield make an analogy of going to war with the moon? A very surreal moment. And does anyone realize this will be the first time we start a war? An extremely alarming precedent.

quote: You expect me to take you seriously, after you say this. It is obvious you are spouting the liberal line here. I've watched him talk and heard about his history. I am not impressed. He didn't dodge a draft so I give him points for that. But overall he represents (to me) a manifestation of a broken system full of low grade and corporate owned leadership. Of course I don't expect you to take me seriously. Your just lookin for a reason not too. But you are a gun freak so I understand quote: You do not know the REAL Bush, and that is too bad, fact of the matter is, you haven't a clue what Bush is going to do. I have an inkling, and it will NOT be an invasion. The real bush eh? Beer bong and line of coke anyone.... quote: Keep spouting though, because you just make people realize how uninformed you truly are. You to man. quote: Ok, you keep talking about this "international law" that we should abide by. I don't believe that the US should police every conflict in the world. I think the US should carry out actions in regards to international relations that BENEFIT or PROTECT America and Americans and our interests. "International law" would dictate that we are the world's police force, since we have the money and military to take care of regional crises (even if we aren't really affected by them), the "world community" would want us to step in to help. Like I said we should do our part. Since we insist on preparing for war with somebody we fill the role nicely.... No but should not fall on us totally.not at all. quote: Also, what good is this "international law" that you keep referring to (without really explaining the qualities of) doing in regards to Iraq? It hasn't done anything over the past TEN YEARS. Sure, the US might not have been 100% behind the "international community", but what exactly would they have done if we were? I'm sure they would have made statements as to what they would do if the US supported them. What you seem to be advocating is that the US give up their autonomy in world affairs to "benefit the global community", even though it would probably hurt America and cost American lives. Had they done nothing he would have a bigger military today. No I believe that if America acted within the realm of international sanction we would no longer be the main target for terrorists. And yes at times America would feel that it was not getting it's fair share....what was the figure on how much of the world's wealth we hold like over 80% or something....yep when you've been living fat it is hard to get on a treadmill. Especially for the country with the most obese personalit hits real close to home. quote: Views on SUVs and global warming and the environment, etc, should not be turned into laws by the world and DICTATED to the United States. Just because the whole world doesn't agree with US policy doesn't mean that the US isn't right, and it doesn't mean that they have a right to change it. Any threat to the world as a whole requires that all parties do what they have to do to fix it. If we are the biggest problem in some area's then we have more work to do. But what the hell, it is better then the alternative. quote: And the same principle is happening now. Other nations don't want to invade Iraq because it might hurt their trade and economy, or they might lose troops to a fight that "isn't directly bothering them" (yet). They don't want to fight because their people are anti-war and they will lose the next election if they send and lose troops to fight Iraq which is far away (from most Western European countries). If France had invaded Germany after the FIRST treaty violation, Germany would have probably been unable to wage the war that they did. No America is suffering because of poor policy and bully tactics. Other countries will fight when it is clear no other option is available. Global pressure on that region would allow us (all) to take action without serious adverse effects to any single country. quote: That's why the US is trying to get internal Iraqi groups and exiled Iraqis to rise up and help in any conflict against Saddam. If his own people are turning against him, less backlash. That is one plan. quote: They get the feeling their "culture is being attacked by a bunch of infidels" because they dont KNOW about us. Ever hear the concept that you fear what you don't know? They fear us and hate us BECAUSE of the regimes they are in. They don't get two sides to every story. They get the "right side" and believe it, or they think about the other side and get killed. They know a lot about us. Wealthy Arabs in many mid east counties drink coke and wear jeans but do not take kindly to American politics. Because we act like hypocrites by condemning terrorism then support a country like Israel. quote: The regimes need to be taken out first, and we need to take the hits for it, but in the long term it will stop a lot more problems and save a lot more American lives. The totalitarian regimes aren't going to just disappear, especially when they are the only ones with serious weapons AND they hire mercenaries for the military I don't think it can be that clean and neat. They have their rulers and those rulers fight for Arab interests. Now take America...the country that supports Israel and endorses policys that kill children and violate national sovereignty. We are clearly the greater evil in their mind. Until we rethink our position on some issues we will always be the greater evil and will have a hard time getting anything done over there. quote: Maybe I haven't been reading enough and watching the news enough, but I haven't heard any talk about "strike Iraq and fast" over the past 8 months. All i've heard is talk about planning and waiting until sometime next year to cause a regime change, and I agree with that idea (sorry if I gave the impression I advocate an immediate invasion, I believe in planning too) (and that was Colin Powell's accessment I thought...) Not anymore thank god those plans leaked or we would probably be deploying right now. With an unclear goal and no guess as to what might happen after. quote: I still highly doubt the protectionist attitude you claim the higher up's have. They all have the same goal, at least the major players. They want to save as many lives as possible (so they get re-elected), they want to win, and they don't want to lose much military equipment. It is strange but I think the generals today are a different breed then the ones of the cold war. So far they have been doing right by the average joe in this situation. I really think my commanders have a higher level of respect for the lives of their soldiers....in the abstract. If we are told to go to war then yes it's all about bean counting but there is more general concern I believe. Especially with a volunteer Army. quote: US civilians would not die in a war on Iraq. I also realize I don't know enough about the leaks or the way they were considering plans to continue discussion on the subject. However, I simply believe that any sort of war plans being leaked were probably not feasible or serious options to begin with, and if they were, the amount of intel leaked would not have been enough to disregard the idea completely. I disagree. Without the support of the Arab community I think that the fallout would be enormous. We have to get those other countries on board to legitimize this fight. I think if we work within the idea of international law and use group effort we will be successful. quote: And while true world cooperation would not be feasible at the current time, weakening the United States by giving up autonomy in international affairs would just make the world a much more dangerous place, and cause a lot more deaths. I disagree. It seems like the world is becoming more dangerous. Less known factors. More gray area. That means more thought and group effort is needed. quote: The point is they WONT let another Vietnam happen because it will hurt reeelection prospects. Also, he's in office because of his money, that's agreed, but so would any other potential President under the current political system. At least he seems like he'd be better than Gore would be. We'll I doubt these generals want to watch another bloodbath without good cause and clear objectives. Votes are one thing but so is having your first command an exercise in filling body bags then withdrawing. quote: Most Americans see Saddam as a threat (at least the ones that have access to media/internet). Getting rid of Saddam *IS* in the best interests of this country. Look at the threat of terrorism, and then look at Iraq (anti-US nation), probably trying to get them (or are hiding SOMETHING dangerous). Just put two and two together (and combine all the other reason's i've stated, and others have stated, for attacking Iraq on this thread). My point is that they are so obsessed with one person they are losing perspective. They can't deal with him in a conventional way and I think it's driving them crazy. But it is a different world then 10 years ago and these old dogs aren't getting any younger. quote: If Mexico had previously tried to create a genetically engineered virus to wipe out all of the Chinese in the world, had inspections mandated on to it after losing a war with China, and then suddenly refused to admit genetic virus inspectors while there was terrorism against the chinese by various terrorist groups, I really wouldn't care, and I doubt many Americans would either. Ok whatever. quote: Well, I seriously think that attacking Iraq, after much planning, is the answer. I agree with your position of making sure it's the right call, I just don't believe that you can justify that boy turning around and blowing up the World Trade Centers (full of civilians), because a bomb aimed at a military target killed his mother. Sure, his mother (a civilian) was killed, but that CANT be legitimate moral justification for attacking civilians, otherwise the US should just start carpet bombing Baghdad That is why it falls to those of civilized society to make sure that we play fair. Always. Every time we do something that is morally questionable we create more problems. That is also why use of force must be considered carefully. Part of that is having a cultural feeling that we can whip the hell out of anyone....when that may not be ultimately true. quote: We don't support Israel targetting and killing civilians, and any civilians that do die are because of a legitimate threat to their nation. The Israelis arent going to waste expensive bombs to kill civilians, they are going to use them on suspected Hamas sites, etc. Also, I still fail to see how it is morally acceptable for terrorists to TARGET civilians when our allies and ourselves TARGET military targets. If it's morally acceptable for them to TARGET civilians, then it's morally acceptable for us to carpet bomb Baghdad, is that it? Well, always can look at the good side of that. We wont have to lose many American troops in Iraq since the city would be leveled.... We have a problem. We jumped on board with a group that is surrounded by people who hate them. It's a mess and violence isn't going to fix it. Both sides kill civilians and both call it casualties of war. The difference is with power comes responsibility. Most people over there are not terrorists. They are poor and trying to make ends meet. quote: Those two results aren't really arguable, and I fail to see how either of those are NEGATIVE effects Regional stability is key. We will have to hold that country together...then we would have to fight off terrorist attacks here and there. And if the entire Arab world calls for Jihad it is not going to be pretty. Those are very negative effects and quite possible. quote: I'm not saying we SHOULD do that, i'm saying that if all the Middle East decided to defend Iraq and we did, it wouldn't be that bad. And no, I doubt it'd result in a "Jihad", since the quality of life in the countries that the terrorist come from would probably increase so much that they wouldn't be able to RECRUIT anymore terrorists. It would only increase if we tried post-WW1 sanction on the Middle Eastern countries, instead of rebuilding. Then we'd be screwed. Rebuilding is not that fast.

quote: And I thought this topic was dead... Why? Cause a few days go by without a post? quote: Yes, we could use our supreme and unmatchable power to lose our autonomy as a nation, give power to others, and screw over our own Constitution and freedoms. Once every nation in the world is under a govenmental system similar to our own, i'd probably agree to it. Short of that, you gotta be joking. I'm not sure how I feel about one world government just yet. However, I do believe that international law is the one thing that can hold this planet together. You seem to want us to be the world police force. Sorry but we should do our part to promote peace and abide by international law. Share the responsibility and understand that we make up a small percent of the global population. If we, the only true superpower, were to act within the limits of international law any would be dictator would find himself very alone when he stepped out of line. Stop whining about loss of rights etc. I don't think any global organization would really want to take your right to do much of anything.....however when global temperate is clearly rising, they may ask the one country with the highest levels of green house emissions (thad be us) to get straight (along with everyone else)....etc. But your right...telling people that their gas guzzling SUV has to go is a clear infringement on the right to look cool and wreck the planet. quote: Ok, my earlier observation was off point, I was probably have asleep. What I meant to say was that the treaties established after WW1 were broken by Germany well before Germany invaded France. Instead of forming an army and invading Germany for taking over the de-militarized zone in western Germany (which was forbidden by treaty), they decided to negotiate with Hitler and hope that he didn't continue his military ambitions. Seems a lot like the situation with Saddam "let's just let him violate the sanctions on him, he isn't going to do anything". And I thought FRANCE was stupid... Yeah the league of nation also had no power and no unity. Just everyone concerned with their little piece of dirt cut in the ground. They had no international law that was followed. But WWII taught us about nations acting selfishly will cause great harm. quote: Sounds just like the previous argument "bin Laden WANTS us to bomb Afghanistan". Hell, it doesn't matter if Bin Laden WANTS US unilateral action or not. Sure, he might want it, but once he gets it, he'll wish it didn't happen. Maybe...maybe not. Colin Powell seems to think an invasion is maybe not such a hot idea with anti-American sentiment running so high. And all your BS macho talk is not what is needed when discussing international politics and situations. A clear mind and accurate info is a much better idea. In a republic/democracy debate should follow. quote: Now, unless your going to start arguing this point, people in the middle east go from moderate (non-terrorists) to extreme (terrorist) when they are oppressed by a government and have no hope of anything better to live for (such as freedom). Getting rid of Saddam seems much more likely to breed hope than take it away. The *more likely* scenario is moderates will like what they see and become pro-American and less extreme. I agree that Sadam must go. They go to an extreme when they feel that their entire culture is being attacked by a bunch of infidels. And it is. You take leaders of totalitarian regimes that want to keep their positions and it becomes clear why they can't accept your big picture just yet. The Middle East with democracy would be great. However launching a full blown invasion may not be the way to get there. First they have to stop hating us. Then they have to start hating the people in power that control their livesand so do we. quote: Regardless, those officers or enlisted aren't going to be the ones putting their neck on the line, especially the higher up they are, so they DONT care about your life. You are so wrong....you are...just....plain... WRONG! The generals in the higher levels of the Armed Forces today served in Vietnam as LT's!! You are crazy! They support Collin Powell's assessment. Any plan would need overwhelming force and total commitment. All the others in the Bush admin think Iraq is a joke. They are the ones who are pushing for just any kind of strike and fast. They are the fools who haven't lived it but think they are experts. In my mind this is a great achievement for our country. When a military realizes the potential human cost and acts to preserve life rather then lie about it and seek some twisted notion of glory. A great day I believe. quote: The enlisted soldiers at the Pentagon (i'm not sure) very doubtful have enough details about war plans to leak enough to get them cancelled, and even if they did, they wouldn't be the ones getting shot at What is wrong with you? Who do you think take most of the casualties in war besides the civilians?!?!? At every level there is an enlisted soldier working with an officer. They have the highest clearances and bring most of the common sense into a situation. They have friends and kids. An NCOs job is to accomplish the mission and take care of soldiers. They know better than any ten star what the deal is. quote: All i'm pointing out is the people higher up really aren't "on your side" against the "evil Bush administration" that wants you all to get killed. I'm critical of the government, but your taking it a little bit too far. And it seems to me that amazingly enough they are. Sure I bet half the politicians have all there kids covered but soldiers that have seen a slaughter know what the true cost can be. I don't take it too far. How do you consider yourself critical? You don't even want to face the possibility that there is a bigger world than what's between the Atlantic and Pacific. You don't want to consider what it really means to HUMAN life when this country endorses terrorist policies as long as it is in line with "American goals". quote: Again, there's no reason why Bush would want a war plan where tons of Americans and their equipment would be lost, since that HURTS reelection prospects and the Republican party, AND it looks bad in history books. They aren't trying to get you killed... Yeah like Vietnam..... This guy doesn't know what he had for breakfast let alone how to guide a super power. You want to know why he is in office? Because he is weak and he comes from money. You wonder why there is infighting in his admin...because he can't control them. He has surrounded himself with hawks that are going to tell him what to do every step of the way...when they can agree. I know that most Americans don't want to kill people. However, we have in that admin a group of people that are obsessed with killing this one man. They are arrogant and they do not have the best interest of this country in mind. But then I guess I can't really hold them accountable when the system is set up to put people in power that don't represent the citizens. quote: The perception by our allies should be/would be/is that Iraq isn't THEIR PROBLEM since Iraq doesn't SEEM to have anything against them. Thus they don't care about the closer proximity, since the terrorism and attacks will be centered on Americans and America, not France. Once again I think your way off the mark. I think they don't want one nation playing war in their back yard without having considered their opinion. How would you feel if China somehow started landing forces in Mexico? quote: Ok, I thought I already said this multiple times. If we didn't do what you seem to call the "shoot from the hip policy", we'd just send in ground troops and that would mean more people on BOTH sides of the conflicts would die, and civilians would probably die regardless What do you mean? I am saying that marching off to war without the proper discussion and debate is the wrong answer. quote: AIMING at civilians though, is much worse than accidently killing them It doesn't matter what is being aimed at when a 2000lb bomb blows up in the middle of a densely populated civilian area....in the mind of a 16 year old boy that has to police up what's left of his mom. So we have to be sure that it is the right call....because we just made an enemy for life....and the cycle continues.... quote: Also, I agree with you, the people getting killed and attacked see "dead as dead", but under your logic, since civilians are "legitimate targets" (hey, you somehow claim that since we kill civilians accidently, they have a right to TARGET our civilians), why don't we just take some B-2's and carpet bomb the entire city of Baghdad? Forget aiming for certain sites, just wipe the whole city out. It's war, right? Them vs us, and since we both kill civilians, lets just do it 100%!!! The majority of Muslims don't want to destroy us. They want us to leave them to their affairs and stop supporting Israel. However when we use/support state terrorism to fight for our interests we then make it morally acceptable for them to do the same to us. SNAFU. quote: Ok...replacing the regimes in countries that supports terrorism HELPS terrorists aims. In order to make the argument, you have to ASSUME the intent of terrorists, you have to ASSUME that they are organized and though it out, and you have to ASSUME that the world is going to bend to their PREDICTIONS that you ASSUMED to begin with. The most logical assumption is "Country supporting Terroism/Building Weapons of Mass Destruction is invaded and has it's regime changed and weapons programs wiped out, it = Less terrorism, less weapons of mass destruction". For that argument, all you have to assume is the invasion works and that they all aren't hydras. It is not that simple. But some would have us believe it is. Violating international law and cowboy tactics don't make people happy. Anyone. quote: What i'm saying is that since free nations don't support terrorism, that if we invaded and took over the entire Middle East and replaced the governments with democracies and freed the people, none of those nations would support terrorism anymore, there would be less terrorists, and thus less terrorism. If we tried that I bet we would truly understand what a full blown Jihad is all about. One man does not have the right to decide that. [ 08-13-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

quote: When have they stopped, and how would they be able to stop, unilateral aggression from a nuclear armed country? If we decided to invade Trinidad (for example), do you think anyone would be able to stop us, or would even TRY? Do you even believe in the idea of law? Good question when something is in our best interest we do something about it. When it is not we ignore. Like Panama. Through international cooperation and law we could make it very difficult for any would be renegade power to get away with programs of murder....but then we would have to look at ourselves....wouldn't we... quote: I'm betting Bush already made that call, sometime in 2003, and the countries that are helping us are helping us, and those that aren't helping just aren't helping. What is left to examine? The US is going to invade, and if anyone else wants to help, feel free. What else should we be doing? Saddam is dangerous being in power regardless, trying to avoid war is just leaving a problem waiting to happen. Invading is the answer, all that's left is who will help us. I guess we'll see.won't we.... quote: Yeah, clearly France cared about themselves, not about their neighbors or their treaty members. They ignored it when that other country fell (the one before Poland) When Poland started falling, they didn't try to help, they fortified their DEFENSE along Eastern France. They weren't planning an offensive, they saw Germany making aggressive moves toward allies and hoped that Germany would just stop with Poland. Then they had troops knocking at their door. I'm going to ask you again...what are you smoking? They knew they couldn't effectively assault Germany alone. They didn't bet on a strike through the lowlands....yeah they made a bad call. However your earlier observation was clearly incorrect. So this brush off, is just an easier way for you then admitting you were wrong.... quote: He doesn't have anything against Europe, he does against the US. As long as he only targets US, the big bad superpower, he's counting on no one to support us since we are far away from Europe. Also, why does it need the attention of the international community? Sure, he's a threat to all of them, but if the US takes him out alone because we feel he's an immediate danger, what's the problem? Dead is dead. Perhaps unilateral action of this kind is just what Bin Laden wanted.....but I bet you dismissed that already quote: Umm, the groups that want a place to blow stuff up are already targetting the US, Israel, and our embassies. There's no reason why it'd increase if we attack Iraq. It might decrease because of a smaller recruitment base and increased freedom, but if groups want to attack us, they already do now. No reason why it'd increase just because we take out Saddam Moderates shifting to extreme is not a reason? quote: Ok, lets make it a more common analogy. A cop wants to search a kid's locker at school. The kid welds his locker shut and stands in front of it. Why did the kid do it? The kid's obviously trying to hide SOMETHING that he doesn't want the cop to know about. What your saying is the cop should "call the kid's parents, talk to the principal, talk to all of his friends" (giving the kid time to get rid of the stuff in his locker) while the cop should clearly immediately arrest the kid and get his locker opened. It's clear that Saddam is hiding SOMETHING, but your saying that we should screw around with asking everyone else's permission first when it's obvious Saddam is doing SOMETHING wrong. We should go in and kill the little bastard. I don't like your analogies they reduce a complex situation into a simple platform that supports lack of thinking...I'm not into that. Yeah go kill the little bastards.....that always works quote: I seem to get the impression (sorry if i'm incorrect), that you think that Bush and the buerocrats are detached from the men who are going out to fight and die for the country, while the people who are leaking the info are going to go out to fight and die. Now, i'm not sure where the leaks are, I heard it was somewhere in his administration, not the actual military, but the people who would have access to those plans and leak them are almost as detached from the death of war as Bush. Do you really think the 4 star generals (who will be far far far far far away from any combat) that hear POSSIBLE invasion plans really care about *your* life in a war against Iraq, and thus they leak the info? Sure, they don't want to have a lot of casualties on our side, but neither does Bush (he wants to get REELECTED), so the "horrible" invasion plans would have been discounted anyway. Once again you fail to grasp certain realities.... Yes the war makers are detached...they always are. An entire command is in the loop on understanding the military situation in the Pentagon. From the LT that gets photos to the major that sorts them out etc.....there is an entire chain of command....all kinds of people. And thats not even mentioning the enlisted that make it happen. quote: That's irrelevent. The reason why only the US and our very close allies are advocating an attack on Iraq is because we are the only ones being threatened. If we work within the UN, it would just cause all the other countries in the UN to say "lets take our time and work through it slowly", and they would say that BECAUSE they aren't being threatened. You can't assume the UN is the end all to the problems since the UN is made up of the same countries that ARENT BEING THREATENED NOW thus have NO NEED OR INTEREST TO HELP US. Saddam knows the simple idea of divide and conquer. If he ONLY messes with the US, he knows that the US is the only one that will be against him, and your saying that we should just let him use that to his advantage by being outvoted by the rest of the UN? Great idea I thought you said this guy was a threat to whole planet earlier? quote: I get sick and tired of that argument every time I hear it simply because we don't AIM AT CIVILIANS. We dont intend for the bombs to kill civilians, the mines to kill civilians, or the policies to kill civilians. The planes flown into the WTC were not even POSSIBLY aimed at military targets, the suicide bombers in Israel target BUSES FULL OF CHILDREN. That's where the US has the moral highground. Your high ground is the skulls of the civilians that die by the whim of a shoot from the hip policy. Intent and reality don't matter to the young men who see there people die by American policy and ordnance. quote: And safest, and the only one with a GUARANTEE of working. If i'm wrong, what other options are there? (more specific than "working with the international community", please. That's not a plan of action, that's a plan of a plan I guess we would never find out if we launch an attack ASAP quote: We are virtually invulnerable to the acts of other NATIONS. I also fail to see how the "terrorist reponse" is going to be off the charts when if the terrorists were going to strike, they would have been doing it since 9/11, or when we invaded Afghanistan (talk about radical MUSLIMS. Terrorists would have been a lot more pissed about Afghanistan than about Iraq) and there wasn't a huge terrorist rampage after we invaded Iraq the FIRST TIME. Any increase in terrorism is empirically proven to be negligable. Terrorists are not stupid. They bide there time and wait for an opportunity. Right now our own policies are setting the stage to further their aims. The first time the Arab world wanted us there. This time it is clear they do not. quote: Free nations don't support terrorism. We engage the entire Middle East, there will be less terrorists in the long run and short term. No terrorists are going to fill the ranks Whatever. Could you explain that one in more depth?. quote: No way the US can be labeled a rogue nation cause we are the key to the world economy. Us free nations stick together Heh heh..we'll see.

quote: Thanks for your service... Even if I TOTALLY disagree with your political leanings. Your welcome! You too! I forgot that you served. If you catch a CNN report with some silly somnova***** on the Bradley with his pants down and peace poster strapped to his back...thad be me!......then they would just have to catch me....heh heh....

Too right mate!

It is official. I am a 19D! That's scout for all you pinko commie peacenik civilian types I'll see you ladies in the desert!

quote: So you want another Cold War, where countries that have WMDs and totalitarian regimes can take over other nations with no threat of retaliation? Where those regimes can kill their own people for speaking out against the oppression. So you'd advocate waiting for Iraq's people to rise up against Saddam...great idea, too bad by that time he will have already sold some WMDs to terrorists, and New York will probably be empty and radiated... To this point I again told you that he does not have that capability yet. quote: Ok, lets try this again. I'm not saying that the UN will sanction Iraq invading other countries. I'm saying that once Iraq HAS WMDs, the U.N. is not going to be able to stop Saddam from walking into his non-WMD neighbors countries under WMD protection, nor will the U.N. stop Iraq from selling WMDs to terrorist groups if the only nation affected is the U.S. Wrong, the UN stopped unilateral aggression beforeÔǪ.and they would do it again. But we would rather take on all the responsibility and strike quickly and alone....we'll we were thinking about it. He is a threat and if we have to act alone I wish us luck. But we don't have to make that call just yet so we should examine the situation in-depth. quote: Have you studied history? Have you? quote: Germany took over multiple countries before invading France. During all of that time, France didn't care. I think you must be smoking something. In 1938 France, England, and Poland knew what was going on so they made a mutual defense treaty. The rest of the world was recovering from the last war and did not want another. So clearly France cared and you should get your facts in order. quote: The same principle applies now. Why should we count on the *UN*, made up of MANY countries, to take care of the United States? Because all your arguments point to another power hungry regime that wants to take over the regionÔǪif not the world. That requires the attention and action of the international community. It is clearly in everyone's interest that he goes away. We would be a threat to Europe before us anyway.....with missiles and what not. quote: All the other countries in the world aren't going to care if the US is the only one threatened. Also, if you read all of the articles I posted on this website, many experts believe Saddam is a very credible threat to be taken out. Especially read the *CIA REPORT*. Just because a bunch of anti-war hacks say "Saddam isn't that bad", doesn't mean that we shouldn't take him out. Here are three to counter your one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/2029457.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/857361.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/395844.stm But I know you can just as easy give me three that tell a different story. It just isn't clear. That is why we would have to go it alone. That is the wrong answer. If we do that we make ourselves responsible for any retaliation from groups that already are looking for a place to blow some stuff up. I don't want to fight a war on terrorism forever. I do want that crazy bastard dead but not with clumsy politics that will cause more problems. quote: At the very least, he's hostile to the US and Iraq does NOT have weapons inspectors right now as mandated. That's justification enough for taking him out. Yes and no. If we can't properly inspect then clearly we just don't know. However, from that info, to roll in guns blazing could also be wrong. We have some timeÔǪ.we should use it. quote: First, all the news i've seen since November has said that an Iraq attack wouldn't be until early 2003 at the earliest. That's STILL the news i'm getting. His "betters" haven't told him to hush, it's just that the worst invasion plans are being leaked and immediately discounted. Yeah his betters that leaked that info....those who are in the military, in uniform, that are sick of hearing about push over type BS talk from a bunch of chair borne ranger bureaucrats. His betters. TrueÔǪhe did serve 2 ┬¢ years of a four year tour with the air national guardÔǪ. The news these days talks of moderation in the Bush rhetoric....good. quote: Also, i'm not assuming the international community is dumb, i'm assuming that the international community isn't being threatened by Saddam, but the US is. Who is going to get a WMD set off in a major city? Not France, not Germany, not Australia, not Canada, not Mexico, not some Asian country, not Iran, and not Britain. You guessed it, the USA or Israel! Wow, and then you wonder why only us and our VERY close allies are advocating an attack on Saddam? Maybe because it's US WITH THE GUN TO OUR HEADS. MAYBE IF WE WOULD WORK WITHIN THE UN WE WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY TARGET! quote: Uhh, ok, so your saying that the people who blow themselves up and kill CIVILIANS in ISRAEL are not terrorists? And you saying that Al Quida and other groups that TARGET and KILL civilians are not terrorists? Sorry to burst your bubble, but not EVERYTHING the admin tells us is lies, and for the purpose of this discussion, i'm referring to the terrorists above, not the people who protest outside the World Bank meetings Our misdropped bombs, left over mines, and ineffective policies claim more civilian life then terrorists....so far. We call it war. So do they. They don't see us as civilians as we do not acknowledge the civilian cost of some of our policies. So far we have given much more then we have got. But I have always acknowledged that when a group of people have lost respect for human life there is a serious problem. That goes both ways. I further believe if there can be no other way to bring these people back from the fringe then they have to be eliminated. But I further acknowledge and believe that until the entire way these people are created is worked out (on multiple levels) we will just keep filling body bags and calling it a good dayÔÇÖs work. quote: Yeah, but obviously you had other news sources of some sort that contradicted that message, and there was DISCUSSION in the media. Saddam's people dont have that luxury, and thus taking him out of power is the only way to free the people. It would be the fastest. quote: Lets see: Bill Gates running Iraq: He makes a lot of money, puts some companies out of business, probably would hire the local population to build some skyscrapers for him. Computers in Iraq, plenty of free information for the population. Saddam running Iraq: Makes some weapons of mass destruction. Sells them to the highest bidder. Keeps his people dying by pissing off the United States and having sanctions and a long bloody war with WMDs declareded. Keeps the people oppressed or dead. I'd take the CEOs. Me too...it was a joke. quote: No, i'm like this because I highly doubt that any nation, after seeing that we have the balls to take out Saddam without help from anyone else, is going to make the same mistake twice Yeah right. quote: If we attack Iraq, what is any other country going to do about it? NOTHING. What could they do about it? Not much, since most of the world depends on THE US anyway. Does any country have a REASON to do anything negative to the US because we attack Iraq, and if they do, would they due to the fear of retalation? OF COURSE NOT. That's what it comes down to. There is no hidden "ignoring other countries is going to hurt us", because it's NOT. International relations is not a democracy, it's about what country has power over what country, and what country can hurt what country. The US is virtually invulnerable unless we start attacking democratic or free nations. I think the terrorist response will be terrible....perhaps off the charts. We are not invulnerable. If you can't see that something is wrong with you. quote: Please, do me a favor. Ask some of the officers in the military if they advocate following the UN, international law, and international decision making. All of the literature I have read on the subject says that most military commanders HATE the idea of being ordered around by an entity outside of the United States. United States citizens should put their lives on the line for United States interests when the United States leadership and United States citizens say so, not when the UN does. Will do. quote: Umm, I think very few people on this planet want to be considered the same species as the bastards who flew planes into the WTC towers and are killing civilians in Israel (even during peace negotiations). But they are none the less... quote: 1. There's no way Iraq would not fall over. The WORST case scenario that I could concieve of is all the Middle Eastern nations decide to support Iraq militarily. (that doesn't even make sense, but lets go with it...) In which case the US would probably call up all the reserves and MAYBE institute the draft, and then we would soundly defeat their militaries. Those countries are using Cold War tech during the Information Age. They would all go down very easily, and that's not even considering that we nuke the region, in which case there would be no contest. 2. If you haven't gotten it yet, the US can't be ignored by other nations because of how much trade we get from just about everyone. We aren't going to be marked as a "rogue nation", because all it will do is hurt the countries writing us off like that. It all comes down to cost-benefit analysis. Countries dont dictate policy because it's the "right thing" they do it because it either helps them or hurts them. Your saying that since we're at the top, we need to "play nice". If America has to engage the entire Middle East I fear for the planet. You do not factor in for the amount of terrorists that will fill the ranks. We can be labeled a rogue nation. It can happen. If it does it won't be fun.

quote: I am going to say 2 things. 1: the UN is a fricking JOKE!! they couldn't tie their own shoes let alone run a war, look at what's left of Serbia. If we are going to play policeman, I would rather have it for our national interest then WORLD interest. America is the sole superpower, we don't have to ask for permission from ANYONE!! The rest of the world needs us, far more then we need thier cowardly pansy behinds. 2: Iraq HAS the WMD's, I don't care what some ex-inspector has to say. If he gets his long range missiles built, bye bye Israel, then ALL hell breaks loose when we nuke the hell out of the middle east. Either we take him out now, before he is capable of using his WMD's, or we will have to NUKE the whole middle east later. Hmm, which would I choose? hard choice there Lothar!! I just love when a person's own response does all the explaining for me. DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!