Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Supreme Cmdr

U.S should pull out!!

Recommended Posts

Guest

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Bush created the very situation that (wake up America) website describes by invading a country that he didn't have to invade. .....

Is this your canned response to everything? So when the Jihadists bombed the WTC the first time (under Clinton) what was that? Did they bomb us because they KNEW we would be voting for Bush in the future?

The Wake up America website basically makes the point that THEY declared war on US .... YEARS Ago, not just recently, and not 'because of Bush'. So obviously, you sir, are still asleep.


I'm pretty sure the Jihadists (the ominous "they") are laughing their asses off because we invaded the country that didn't attack us, threaten to attack us, or even possess the capability to attack us. Not in 92, 93, 00, 01, or... ever.

It seems like we are acting out like the man who beats his wife because his boss fired him. Misdirected rage is not a virtue.

The vast majority of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. When is the last time you ever heard of us catching a terrorist with Iraqi ties?

I hate that it comes across as a canned response, or cliche', or however you want to see it. Facts are facts. Just because the simple fact that Iraq never attacked us or threatened to attack us or possessed the capability to attack us drives a hole through the entire pre-emptive war argument isn't my fault.

I think it eloquently illustrates the absurdity of both:

A. Pre-emptive War against countries who pose no threat and who aren't threatening you to begin with.

B. Congress washing its hands of the political responsibility to declare war. We haven't declared war in nearly 70 years.


OK, time to jump in again, this is ridiculous $iLk, I didn't think that you were A: this naive, or B: this short memoried.

Let me fill you in on a few things, A: Saddam fought UN sanctions for over 10 years, B: He also violated the ceasefire agreement EVERY day, by shooting at our aircraft. C: He NEVER accounted for ALL of his WMD's, claiming that he destroyed them, but giving us NO proof, whatsoever. D: By invading Iraq, after the UN pussyfooted around with him for 10 years, put teeth back into UN resolutions, until of course the Oil for food fiasco showed itself.

Saddam's GENERALS didn't even know that there were no WMD's, what were we supposed to think?

The Rivers in and around Bagdhad were Polluted with the damned stuff, to such a point where it was too polluted to drink, because the concentrations were too high. Saddam took some of his WMD stockpiles and DUMPED them in rivers, I mean come on, can we get real here?

People are complaining because 30,000 Iraqi civilians that have died in the last 4 years, it's NOT even close to Saddam's death record over his 30 year reign of terror.

Your naivety disappoints me, BIG time.

And being that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists are going THERE, instead of HERE, and are being killed by the hundreds.

You may NOT believe that since we are fighting them there, that we are not fighting them here, but it is indeed the truth.

I have MANY friends serving in Iraq, and 5 of them have VOLUNTEERED to go back, and some have done 3 tours so far. WHY? Because they believe what they are doing is IMPORTANT, for the Iraqi's and for US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

What still amaze's me is that
NO ONE
has bothered to talk to the soldiers who are THERE and ask for THEIR opinion and for THEIR recommendation.

THEY are the one's fighting this war, not congress, not the house, it's the SOLDIERS and ONLY the soldiers...

It further amaze's me that no one in congress or the house of represenatives has bothered to go on a fact finding tour in Iraq and Afgan. Their opinions are based solely on what they've seen in the media.

Ummmm... read the news maybe? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and many Democrats have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. As have Republicans. You are overstating it a bit when you say "no one" in both counts, because there is more than one soldier who fought in Iraq who thinks the entire reasoning was B.S. to begin with.


Woopdeefricking doo, so fricking what?

They have been to the Greenzones, and to "safe" areas in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Did you know that 90% of Iraq is peaceful, self policing and self governing?

Baghdad and 2 provinces are the problem.

Saying that it's a civil war in Iraq, is like saying, Hey, we have rioting in Washington DC, the Whole US is in a civil war.

The whole idea is ridiculous in the extreme.

Those senators etc that you mentioned, also have their own political agenda. They CRAVE power, and if we win in Iraq, they will LOSE that power.

They are DEPENDENT on our losing in Iraq, so that they can gain MORE political power.

The Iraq war is WINNABLE, but if we do win it, and Bush gets credit, as he should, the Dem's lose their political power that they have been craving since they lost it back in the 94 election.

THis is ALL about politics, and has NOTHING to do with Iraq, it has EVERYTHING TO DO, with politicians, wishing to have power, doing whatever they feel they need to do in order to get it, and if it takes destroying the will of the People of this country, and in the process losing in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, EVEN THOUGH we are winning, and WERE winning, then that is what they will do.

They are VILE, and you are lapping it up, and in the end, you will allow them to take power, and most probably destroy the last vestiges of this great country.

It saddens me, and saddens me greatly to see you falling for it.

This is my childrens future, and by you helping these POS politicians, that I wouldn't trust to babysit my dog, you are putting their future in jeopardy.

We MUST fight terrorism, we MUST win in Iraq, and we can win BOTH fights, but if lose in Iraq, we lose the WOT as well, because it is an INTEGRAL part of that war, whether you care to admit it or not.

And this crap about Congress not voting for war, BS, complete and utter BS, they handed their power and responsibility over to the president, in one of the biggest constitutional cowardice acts that I have ever seen.

We won't take responsibility for declaring war, so here Mr. President, do whatever you feel you need to do, and then we can blame you, if it goes wrong, and we can claim that we never agreed to it.

Which is EXACTLY what they are doing.

They are Cowards, and they are destroying the constitution and this country in the process of their power hungry political chicanery.

And you are naive enough to claim that what they are doing is actually correct?

I am disapointed, HIGHLY disapointed.

I expect such nonsense from the likes of Nomad, but I thought you knew better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

While I don't disagree on any particular point you've made in regard to the United Nations, the corruption extended to the Secretary General and his son.

Unless I'm mistaken, I did not see any instance, be it national or internatiobal, indicting Mr. Annan or his son. Also no proof of direct enrichment but rather mismanagement or conflicting interests. If we were to consider corrupt anyone with close ties to financial players involved at some degree in aspects of his political decisions, how would we define the relations of Mr. Bush with Enron or Mr. Cheney with Kellogs and Halliburton ?


While I don't really disagree much with your last two points - I am surprised that you are defending on a technicality the elites in the world protecting their own.

Just because no one 'indicted' a world leader means they are innocent? You of all people should know better than that.


I have no disagreement with this at all, you give me hope $iLk, not great hope, but hope.

Nomad is into the shades of grey, that way he doesn't have to declare any real principles, or take any risks. See, they were never indicted, so I can say that, and not be called a bad guy.

That's the problem in this world, no one is willing to take a real principled stand, and when they do, they are declared EVIL, or wrong,or naive, etc.

They have done it to Bush, because he had the temerity to take a stand, and hold to his principles, and they are continuing it with anyone else that declares their principles and sticks to them.

THey are little gushy people, that love the world, but are unwilling to take a stand to do what is right, they claim that they are for peace, but sometimes peace has too high a price, and so you declare war, in order to gain REAL peace. They are UNWILLING to make that sacrifice.

Squishy, nice and squishy, shades of grey, if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone.

Dreamers, little dreamers that live in a fantasyland of their own making.

They attacked us, it must have been our fault.

Yeah, she was raped, she MUST have had it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

A: Saddam fought UN sanctions for over 10 years,

B: He also violated the ceasefire agreement EVERY day, by shooting at our aircraft.

C: He NEVER accounted for ALL of his WMD's, claiming that he destroyed them, but giving us NO proof, whatsoever.

D: By invading Iraq, after the UN pussyfooted around with him for 10 years, put teeth back into UN resolutions, until of course the Oil for food fiasco showed itself.

Saddam's GENERALS didn't even know that there were no WMD's, what were we supposed to think?

The Rivers in and around Bagdhad were Polluted with the damned stuff, to such a point where it was too polluted to drink, because the concentrations were too high. Saddam took some of his WMD stockpiles and DUMPED them in rivers, I mean come on, can we get real here?

People are complaining because 30,000 Iraqi civilians that have died in the last 4 years, it's NOT even close to Saddam's death record over his 30 year reign of terror.

Your naivety disappoints me, BIG time.

And being that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists are going THERE, instead of HERE, and are being killed by the hundreds.

You may NOT believe that since we are fighting them there, that we are not fighting them here, but it is indeed the truth.

I have MANY friends serving in Iraq, and 5 of them have VOLUNTEERED to go back, and some have done 3 tours so far. WHY? Because they believe what they are doing is IMPORTANT, for the Iraqi's and for US.

A. I don't disagree. I just think UN sanctions and resolutions are not as important as the toilet paper in my bathroom when applied to the United States - why should we expect other countries to give a damn about the impotent organization?

B. I agree that Saddam Hussein was in violation of the cease-fire agreement. If you will notice, I have not called the Iraq war an illegal war. I believe going into Iraq was as legal as war can be. That does not make it a good or necessary choice.

C. I can't be bothered to search my posts from 2002/2003 at the moment, but I made the arguments then that I believed Saddam Hussein probably still possessed NBC weapons, but that I did not agree with invading a sovereign nation that hadn't attacked us.

D. Again - the UN is an impotent organization (whether by our actions or not - though I tend to think we have good reason for our vetos) and a UN resolution was not issued that authorized an armed invasion of any nation that pursues WMDs.

Do I think weapons in the hands of 'madmen' are a good thing? No. But I am also a realist who believes that it would literally be suicide for any other nation to use a WMD against the United States. Let them piss all the money they want into the programs - Iraq didn't even have the money to feed its own people or fund its military, much less sustain a dedicated weapons program.

While we are 'fighting them over there' we are sitting here with open borders, squabbling politicians, rising national debt, an insane amount of money from the public treasury financing this war of choice, and many other problems - that any one alone means more to the security of the United States than Iraq under Saddam Hussein did.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq - I believe the country would be on a much better course now. I don't buy into many of the 'liberal' arguments as to why invading Iraq was wrong. I have plenty of 'conservative' arguments that do the job well enough.

Read some of what Ron Paul had to say prior to the Iraq invasion. It exemplifies my thoughts exactly. He is one of (if not the only) non-establishment politicians there is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I expect such nonsense from the likes of Nomad, but I thought you knew better?

Ummmm... I didn't see myself as "buying into" anything. I was just stating a couple of facts to point out where he was incorrect. I am well aware that 99% of those in Washington make 100% of their actions as a step towards the acquisition of more power.

I fear for the United States myself - because George W. Bush and the Republican majority threw away the 94 revolution because they were arrogant and self-serving as soon as they got comfortable in Washington D.C.

I called for them to be thrown out long before it happened. I've been calling for it since the political maneuvering begain in early 2005 and principles of the 2004 election were cast to the side.

I'm not as happy to have Democrats in charge as I am to have Republicans out of power. They forgot where they were sent in the first place.

Your entire post was pretty much shoving words into my mouth that I didn't say, building up - and then knocking down strawmen, ending with a "I didn't think you were that naive" when not a single argument you mentioned was ever made by me, nor would it be.

Try to focus on what I say - not what you want to see. I choose my words carefully, and I have full understanding of the meaning I convey.

Trying to fit me in a Hannity Soundbite Box to knock down my arguments doesn't work because I'm not making those arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bush Administration was predetermined to invade Iraq regardless of Saddam's response. The war was started under fraudulent means and it is as undeniable as it is indefensible.

The Secret Downing Street Memo

"...C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

And being that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan, the terrorists are
going
THERE, instead of HERE, and are being killed by the hundreds.

It is funny that the irony that we are fighting terrorists who have to go to Iraq escapes you.

We could have attacked them where they were to begin with instead of destabalizing a country for them to take over like the Taliban took over Afghanistan. (to the detriment of women and children in Iraq, as well as the Sunni minority)

In a War on Terrorism I guess we set up a honeypot trap by taking over countries who aren't terrorist so that we can claim the terrorists are coming there and fighting them.

"So-called Conservatives" like to claim that it isn't a civil war (not that I'm saying it is a civil war) by using the argument "most of the insurgency is Iran and Syria" while ignoring the fact that we invaded neither country to root out terrorists.

I believe in consistency and standing on principle. I believe I have done that since before there was an Iraq war, because I am ideologically consistent. People who line up behind the Republican Party and accept whatever arguments they are fed are not conservative. I believe President Bush's heart is in the right place to a point - but I also believe he is too arrogant to admit he made a mistake.

Sure I'm willing to say that maybe some good came out of the invasion, such as running water, schools, an Iran sympathetic-majority gaining control of the country, whoops - what I mean to say is that I believe that whatever good has come - there are more problems that were created and it has not been worth it.

The bar for success has constantly been lowered, and loyal footsoldiers are perfectly willing to see it lowered again and again without demanding accountability for "their man" in Washington who has maybe 2 or 3 Conservative things under his belt - and dozens of liberal ones.

Timeline of Iraq

[*]2002-2003 We are going to rid the country of Iraq weapons of mass destruction and set up a Jeffersonian Democracy instead of a Dictatorship.

[*]2003-2004 Whoops - no WMD programs like we thought. Well then look at how we can still set up a Jeffersonian Democracy!

[*]2004 Bombs are going off everywhere... but they just don't want the people to vote.

Look purple fingers!

Ummmm... looks like the religious majority won the vote and happen to be sympathetic to Iran. Well - they will still protect rights of the minority.

[*]2004-2005 Oh crap - they are setting up religious Islamic law into the Constitution of Iraq that prevents any law from contravening the teachings if Islam. Women in Iraq are starting to wear burquas instead of normal clothes like they did under Hussein.

[*]2005-2006 Iran is now forming assistance for Iraq, and the violence has only increased in certain areas... you know - maybe we don't need a Democracy... so long as it is stable, even a dictatorship will do - and we'll just tell the American people that their democracy doesn't look like ours.

[*]2006-2007 Crap we took a beating in the elections. Yeah I guess I can tell the American people that victory now means a "surge" of troops before we start running away. Let the Iraqis deal with this mess that we created.

That is pretty much what the average American has seen. That is pretty much why the Bush administration has little faith from the American people left. I don't think we can lose militarily - but I also don't think you will see a 'free' Iraq for a long time, much longer than the people will let the troops stay there.

I demand ideological consistency. If Bush does something liberal I call him on it. I demand changes. I criticize. "So-called" Conservatives knee-jerk defend the man no matter what insane plans he comes up with, from No-child left behind (a brainstorm of Ted Kennedy), to telling people on Wall Street to quit paying CEOs so much money (Sure that isn't Nancy Pelosi talking?)

Bush lately has been acting like he has either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi's hand shoved up his rear end using him like a puppet to say whatever he is told to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...and in the process losing in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, EVEN THOUGH we are winning, and WERE winning, then that is what they will do."

What revisionist history have you been reading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Frozen Ghost:

"...and in the process losing in Iraq, as we did in Vietnam, EVEN THOUGH we are winning, and WERE winning, then that is what they will do."

What revisionist history have you been reading?

Not revisiionist at all, just REAL history, soimething that you might want to study.

The Viet Cong were almost down and out, then the media, Jane Fonda, and the colleges jumped on the no war bandwagon.

We did NOT lose Vietnam militarily, and if you actually STUDY it, you might understand this, we lost the propaganda war, and the people of the US were beaten with it until they cried Uncle.

Just as this war is a propaganda war, we CAN win this war, it is the People of the US that will once again lose their will, and we will once again lose the war through propaganda.

Read history, actually STUDY it, instead of taking someones WORD for it, STUDY Vietnam. We had them enemy running, about to toss up his hands and surrender, and then the people of the US turned on it, through a propaganda campaign.

We were SUCKERED by the media, just as the media is doing to us now.

Revisionist history, my ass, REAL history, and it might do you some good to ACTUALLY study it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Jag the point you and I can agree on is that we could stabilize Iraq militarily and as a system of governance. I just believe that it would cost more time, money, lives, and effort than is in the United State's interests. The final product would definitely not be a Democratic form of government, and winning hearts and minds would be last on the list.

But then so much for the noble goals of bettering the lives of Iraqis?

This is the folly of this type of warfare. You cannot go around invading countries that didn't threaten, nor have the capability to attack, nor even attack you and expect the entire world to be on board - and even expect the United States to be on board.

Like any sane person - I dislike warfare, I would that we lived in a world where war was not an acceptable answer. However I am a realist and I beieve that warfare is sometimes necessary - and sometimes we will be called upon to war.

This was not one of those times. If President Bush had told us up front - "Okay I'm going to invade Iraq, spending billions of dollars, losing thousands of American men and women so that we can make sure Saddam hangs and the country goes into chaos and sectarian violence while we spend billions more trying to stabilize it." no one would have gone along with it. It was obvious from the get-go he was overstating the threat that Iraq posed. (I mean seriously - Iraq sat by through 8 years of Clinton and never threatened us unlike Iran).

Like President Bush claims of himself, I am the kind of person who goes by instinct, doing what I believe is right. I am glad that I didn't jump on the bandwagon in 2002/2003 and have to spend time flip/flopping to prevent myself from admitting that I was wrong.

I believe in Conservative governance, I believe in common sense policies.

Spending billions fighting a war of choice and spending not a dime defending the borders of this nation is not common sense policies in a war on terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What books have you been reading Jag? Give me some references. You are an arrogant asshat to say the least.

LBJ got us into Vietnam illegally by staging a non-existent attack on a navel vessel. That was an illegal war any way you look at it. Anyone who protested the illegality of the war was right. Warmongering asshats were wrong.

Bush has us in a perpetual state of war without a clear enemy or a clear victory scenario ...all illegally. And he is walking all over the Constitution like he's the King of England or something. He is not interested in upholding the Constitution at all.

I tell you, I fail to understand why anyone would support this maniacal administration or its policies at this point. You rarely find warmongers amongst solders who have seen combat, its usually someone in the comfort of their home, sitting in an armchair and watching Bill O'Reilly who is all 'gung-ho' and 'get'sum.' Liberal amounts of bullets, blood, and scattered gray-matter on the battlefield would correct the glorified romantic notions of war that are in their warmongering heads. However the trick is getting people to realize the truth about war is 'before' you've scattered bullets, brains, and blood about the landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We did NOT lose Vietnam militarily, and if you actually STUDY it, you might understand this, we lost the propaganda war, and the people of the US were beaten with it until they cried Uncle."

As I pointed out above, the propaganda war was perpetrated by the Johnson Administration and not some naive actress, the enemy, or the public.

In Major H.R. McMaster's book titled Dereliction of Duty he discuses how LBJ limited the use of force without supplying them

with strategic goals and objectives. In an interview for PBS Frontline* he said the following:

"The process of determining the means to employ must begin with a clearly stated policy goal or objective. Senior military advisers and commanders should then develop a military strategy that contributes to or achieves that goal or objective. Then, military commanders determine the level of force necessary to carry out that strategy.

During the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson and his advisers did precisely the opposite. LBJ determined what level of military force was politically palatable in the short term, made it available to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and told them to do the best they could with what they got. That is why we had lots of military activity in Vietnam (bombing North Vietnam and killing the enemy in South Vietnam)without a clear idea of how that activity represented progress. That is also why many brave, patriotic men took risks and made sacrifices without knowing how those risks and sacrifices were contributing toward an end of the war. That is why, along with the recognition that they had been lied to for years, many Americans lost faith in the effort."

We have a repeat of this situation in Iraq. Ignoring protests from the military the Bush administration took a militarily unsound strategy from the beginning and no end-game strategy. The military strategy employed in this war was used despite the protests of generals and advisers who knew better.

Militarily the war in Iraq and the so-called "war on terror" cannot be won because of the lack of visible, obtainable goals. You have to ask yourself why an administration would not use sound doctrine in conducting war. You have to ask yourself why an administration would want to set itself up a "perpetual war" that has no foreseeable end? Are they stupid, clever, or nefarious?

The Islamic Jihad has been going on since the inception of Islam. You cannot kill an idea. It will only stop when no one believes the superstitious supernatural nonsense that drive them.

Also, I would like to point out that the publics disenchantment with the Vietnam and Iraq wars were due to the wars poor execution and cannot be blamed on the public pointing that fact(poor execution)out itself. That is, the war is not in trouble because of public opinion, it is in trouble because of the way it is run.

Could we destroy Iraq and Vietnam? Certainly, we have weapons that could turn them both into glass wastelands where no one could live for 100s of years. So would that be winning? I really don't think so. Crowing that we could have won militarily seems meaningless and a forgone conclusion. Of course we would have if the administration's strategy would have been to win at all costs, to wage Total War. What was or is their strategy?

It wasn't the lack of public will, it was lack of leadership that lost the Vietnam War and we are seeing the same situation now in Iraq. All of this is a matter of public record.

When peace becomes more profitable than war then the 'the gnomes of Zurich' will stop conducting them. Until then ...

*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/lessons.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Do I think weapons in the hands of 'madmen' are a good thing? No. But I am also a realist who believes that it would literally be suicide for any other nation to use a WMD against the United States. ...

Do you think that the Mighty Roman Empire ever thought that some "Barbarian Rabble" would ever challenge their empire? And yet this is exactly what happened, and the empire was brought to it's knees by the Goths, Gauls, Visigoths and Persia (today Iran).

Alexander the Great was thought of by the Royalty of Persia as a Madman, a Barbarian who didn't have the men, the means or the money to attack them. Yet he did so with 1/10 the men and ten times the zeal. He brought the Persian empire to it's knees at a time when he was thought of as vastly inferior. Why do you think he's called Alexander the Great today? Because he had superior forces, superior weaponry and all odds at his favor? Victory doesn't Always go to the mighty.

When the American colony's declared war on the "SuperPower" of the day, do you think ANYONE in the British Empire thought they had a snowballs chance in hell of winning? Heck No!!!

At one point in History, the Russians were a superpower, the British where a superpower, the Germans, the French, Spain, Turkey (the Byzantine Empire), Hungary (the Huns), China, Iran (Persian Empire), The Mongols, The Romans and I could go on and on and on. Some of these empires lasted thousands of years, and some for a single generation, but each thought when they were on top that no one could defeat them. They were all wrong.

History has shown us that yesterdays 3rd world country is tomorrows Superpower, and today's superpower is tomorrows 3rd world country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great many people have thought that they were the penultimate civilization. A delusion as history has taught...

"Once you reach mighty status, there's no place to go but down." me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

Do I think weapons in the hands of 'madmen' are a good thing? No. But I am also a realist who believes that it would literally be suicide for any other nation to use a WMD against the United States. ...

Do you think that the Mighty Roman Empire ever thought that some "Barbarian Rabble" would ever challenge their empire? And yet this is exactly what happened, and the empire was brought to it's knees by the Goths, Gauls, Visigoths and Persia (today Iran).

Alexander the Great was thought of by the Royalty of Persia as a Madman, a Barbarian who didn't have the men, the means or the money to attack them. Yet he did so with 1/10 the men and ten times the zeal. He brought the Persian empire to it's knees at a time when he was thought of as vastly inferior. Why do you think he's called Alexander the Great today? Because he had superior forces, superior weaponry and all odds at his favor? Victory doesn't Always go to the mighty.

When the American colony's declared war on the "SuperPower" of the day, do you think ANYONE in the British Empire thought they had a snowballs chance in hell of winning? Heck No!!!

At one point in History, the Russians were a superpower, the British where a superpower, the Germans, the French, Spain, Turkey (the Byzantine Empire), Hungary (the Huns), China, Iran (Persian Empire), The Mongols, The Romans and I could go on and on and on. Some of these empires lasted thousands of years, and some for a single generation, but each thought when they were on top that no one could defeat them. They were all wrong.

History has shown us that yesterdays 3rd world country is tomorrows Superpower, and today's superpower is tomorrows 3rd world country.


So I take it you believe that Saddam Hussein was well on his way to subjugating the United States of America under his iron boot until we 'bravely' stepped in and stopped him?

I haven't smoked anything good in a while - what have you been smoking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

....

History has shown us that yesterdays 3rd world country is tomorrows Superpower, and today's superpower is tomorrows 3rd world country.

So I take it you believe that Saddam Hussein was well on his way to subjugating the United States of America under his iron boot until we 'bravely' stepped in and stopped him?

I haven't smoked anything good in a while - what have you been smoking?


When Hitler rolled into Austria and took over, I'm sure people like you were saying, "So what, give it to him, let's not provoke him and end up in war." Later when he demanded Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, again the forces of "Peace" said, Oh well, just give it to him, we don't want to go to war over this. Yet, just one year later, Germany rolled into Poland and plunged all of Europe into WWII. Keep in mind that back then, Germany was still considered "crippled" from it's rebuilding efforts since WWI, and wasn't considered a major threat, yet they almost succeeded in subjugating all of Europe. The ONLY reason Hitler didn't win was because of US intervention.

I'm not saying that we would have been subjugated by Saddam, but if he had been allowed to take over Kuwait, it would have given him a substantial amount of cash to finance an even larger army than what he had. Once he had finished pumping up his army, he could have headed for either Iran or Saudi Arabia, either one of those could have given him a total of around 40% of total World Oil reserves. With that kind of cash, he could have definitely become a major threat to the US. The Point is, we knew what his plans were. Why let it get to that? We could have stopped Germany fairly easily when he first went into Austria, it would have been a fairly short war, and things would have gotten back to normal fairly quickly, but instead we gave him the time and money needed to build up his army's to the point to where they were practically unstoppable.

Someone like you doesn't understand this because you think that everything can be solved diplomatically. You don't seem to realize that there are evil people out there that want you dead. You think that just because someone has become a ruler of a country, that this person must be a reasonable person that can be negotiated with, but that is not always the case. History has shown us that there are many rulers who are simply crazy, evil or a bit of both and simply cannot be trusted.

I'm sure that during his day, many people saw Hitler as a benevolent force for good. They would point out to his Olympic games and scientific contributions that his administration gave to civilized society, but it was a well orchestrated front designed to politicize every aspect of his life to get him to the point where he needed to be. People like you say that was in the past and people like that don't exist today, but they do, and we have to be vigilant, otherwise we risk repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there will be only two parties that use nuclear weapons in the future.

The first one will be a nation like Iran or North Korea. The second party (the rest of the nuclear powers perhaps) will absolutely destroy the first nation's government totally and for all time. After that maybe we'll all wise up some. I certainly hope it doesn't come to something like that.

BOOM! BOOM! Out go the lights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE

Some of you may have already seen this. There are many possibilities as to how and why this could have happened. It does appear for all intents and purposes to be the result of a premature news release to the BBC by someone culpable in the apparent controlled demolition of WTC 7 and the destruction of the TT.

Although various cuts of this video are available numerous places on the web now this one at LiveLeak has some explanatory text added.

What are your takes on this fellas?

VIDEO: BBC WAS HALF AN HOUR TOO EARLY REPORTING ON WTC7 COLLAPSE

On September 11th 2001, BBC World reported at 4:57pm Eastern Time that the Salomon Brothers Building (more commonly known as WTC7 or World Trade Building 7) had collapsed.

This even made the 5pm EST headlines, what is bizarre is that the building did not actually collapse until 5:20pm EST.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sure...

Somehow the US government alerted the BBC to this and the HUNDREDS of people who would HAVE to be involved to simply air it kept things under a tight lid until the Internet exposed it...

If the US government (led by GWB) was going to blow up its own buildings, do you REALLY think that they would alert a LIBERALLY-BIASED MEDIA to it and expect that it would be kept under wraps?

Heh, the media will report anything to get Bush in hot water... except the ONE thing that really would...

Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"do you REALLY think that they would alert a LIBERALLY-BIASED MEDIA it"

The whole Liberally-biased media business is a myth. No, I'm saying it is obvious the media was being used to shape the public perception of the WTC 7 destruction.

CNN, BBC, and now I hear ABC all reported the fall of building 7 before it happened.

This is purely a matter of reporters reading the teleprompter and trusting that the producer knows what they are talking about.

Several networks reported the same false information in much the same way at the same time. It seems reasonable to say they received the information from the same source. The source needs to be identified.

"Right"

Whatever the explanation wouldn't you agree that it needs to be throughly investigated? The evidence at this point is irrefutable. Major TV networks were feed a story about WTC 7 falling and "why" before it happened by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


The whole Liberally-biased media business is a myth. No, I'm saying it is obvious the media was being used to shape the public perception of the WTC 7 destruction.

Actually, its a pretty well-acknowledged fact.

The myth is perpetuated by people who try to pretend that fact doesn't exist.

quote:


No, I'm saying it is obvious the media was being used to shape the public perception of the WTC 7 destruction.

And, I am saying that you're wrong.

Conspiracy theories usually fail to pass muster because they don't stand up to logic. And, it is NOT logical that the Bush administration can use the media to conceal hidden 9/11 agendas but fail to get them to stop reporting about subjects not so flattering to them.

quote:


CNN, BBC, and now I hear ABC all reported the fall of building 7 before it happened.

Umm, nope. Actually, most of the feeds of the BUILDINGS falling on 9/11 on those stations are readily available on the Internet. Oh, and they SHOW THE BUILDINGS FALLING LIVE AS THEY REPORT IT. AT THE SAME TIME.

You've been conned.

quote:


This is purely a matter of reporters reading the teleprompter and trusting that the producer knows what they are talking about.

Clearly you know NOTHING about how news is produced. "Live" reporters don't read from teleprompters.

Anchors do, and ONLY during scheduled newscasts.

Hmm, but on most networks, reporters on the SCENE reported the tower collapse.

quote:


Several networks reported the same false information in much the same way at the same time. It seems reasonable to say they received the information from the same source. The source needs to be identified.

"Right"


But, you have absolutely NO PROOF that this occured.

Wait, you must have been able to pick up on something that EVERY news network and reasonable person missed for the last 6 years...

...or you got duped.

quote:


Whatever the explanation wouldn't you agree that it needs to be throughly investigated? The evidence at this point is irrefutable. Major TV networks were feed a story about WTC 7 falling and "why" before it happened by someone.

There IS NO EVIDENCE, not to mention NONE THAT IS IRREFUTABLE.

Logic: Think about how stupid it would be to give notice on an event such as this to the media when the media would CLEARLY require NO NOTICE to cover it.

Hmm. But the same people were smart enough to pull it off. Right.

Oh, and funny how this quote comes from a website reporting this so-called discorvery:

quote:


Although there is no clock or time stamp on the footage, the source claims the report was given at 4:57pm EST

Wow. Good job relying on an unidentified source.

[ 03-02-2007, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: aramike ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Logic: Think about how stupid it would be to give notice on an event such as this to the media when the media would CLEARLY require NO NOTICE to cover it."

That was hardly an exercise in logic and displays some ignorance about modern warfare and the importance placed on information control.It is conceivable and very probable that someone perpetrating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control the flow of information about it to ensure it is perceived in the manner intended. It's called Pys-ops and it is done all the time. We've already been caught manipulating the press in Iraq. Did you miss that one?

Due to the similarities in the CNN report it begs the question, Where did that information come from? A fax? A hand-written note? Did it come off an API feed or what? Those are reasonable questions to ask about this. I think they were handed something that came over the 'wire' or whatever and just read it. The CNN reporter had the savvy to know the building had not yet fallen and expressed dismay at the report as he was reading it.

And yeah, I've been in a couple of television studios during broadcasts. "Breaking News" can be something the producer snatched off the printer and handed to the anchor seconds before they come back from a commercial. The news rooms all over the world that day were in chaos.

Where is the logic in the BBC loosing all the tapes from that day? They are lying. Someone would have had to destroy multiple copies in multiple formats. They didn't loose anything. You have to ask yourself why they would say such a thing knowing that many people would understand the great unlikelihood of that happening.

"The evidence at this point is irrefutable. Major TV networks were feed a story about WTC 7 falling and "why" before it happened by someone." ...There IS NO EVIDENCE, not to mention NONE THAT IS IRREFUTABLE.

What do you call the footage? What do you call the admission of BBC that it indeed did happen? It happened that is irrefutable. We have it on video. You can watch it happen in the CNN footage and the BBC footage. They reported on the building falling and "why" before the event and then lost the feed before it did collapse. Lost the footage, lost the feed, ...but you can trust us ... sure we can.

Time will tell. I sincerely hope you're right and I'm wrong.

And yes, there are clips with timestamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


That was hardly an exercise in logic and displays some ignorance about modern warfare and the importance placed on information control.

Umm yeah. Perhaps I should clue you in to the fact that you're talking to a guy who's 17 year military career was in "information control".

quote:


It is conceivable and very probable that someone perpetrating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control the flow of information about it to ensure it is perceived in the manner intended.

I agree. But that's where your logic completely dodges my point.

Yes, someone perpetuating a hoax of this magnitude would want to control information regarding it. NO, they would not likely be ABLE TO.

quote:


It's called Pys-ops and it is done all the time.

Sorry, sir, but that is NOT Psy-Ops. Psy-Ops are information campaigns dedicated to causing a specific emotional and/or psychological response to information.

What you're referring to is called "Information Warfare" which involves the control and dissemination of information.

quote:


We've already been caught manipulating the press in Iraq. Did you miss that one?

Nope. Didn't miss that one.

Did you miss the fact that the IRAQI press doesn't have NEARLY the power of the American and British media?

Or, did you COMPLETELY overlook the fact that the American media has the FIRST AMMENDMENT protecting it's dissemination of information?

quote:


Due to the similarities in the CNN report it begs the question, Where did that information come from? A fax? A hand-written note? Did it come off an API feed or what? Those are reasonable questions to ask about this. I think they were handed something that came over the 'wire' or whatever and just read it. The CNN reporter had the savvy to know the building had not yet fallen and expressed dismay at the report as he was reading it.

Could have been a simple error. I mean, maybe its news to you but the press has been known to jump the gun in sensationalizing things.

Now, I know you probably WANT to think that its a grand government conspiracy, but...

quote:


Where is the logic in the BBC loosing all the tapes from that day? They are lying. Someone would have had to destroy multiple copies in multiple formats. They didn't loose anything. You have to ask yourself why they would say such a thing knowing that many people would understand the great unlikelihood of that happening.

Show me where the BBC ITSELF says they lost all of the tapes, not just where someone says that they say it.

quote:


What do you call the footage? What do you call the admission of BBC that it indeed did happen? It happened that is irrefutable. We have it on video. You can watch it happen in the CNN footage and the BBC footage.

The latest Star Wars took what, a year or so to make a FULL LENGTH film? People would have had YEARS to edit simple background footage on a news report.

The footage is not that impressive.

quote:


And yes, there are clips with timestamps.

Okay... where?

And why should we trust them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×