America's Role.

Lotharr · August 9, 2002

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!!!

August 9, 2002

I think what's sad is that while on certain terms I would agree that an invasion of Iraq, continuation of the "war on terror" would be a good thing in Republican's hands.

Lately though, Ashcroft and Bush and Ridge have done more to rip up the constitution than Reno or Clinton ever did.

I guess as long as they aren't snatching guns I can take some solace.

CommanderJohnson · August 9, 2002

quote:

When has the UN ever sanctioned one country taking over anotherÔÇªor aggression without reason?

You have been here the whole time right? I will put it to you again. Experts that have been called to testify about Iraq agree that he does not represent an immediate threat that the Bush administration would have us believe. So I would say before we run in guns blazing we use this time to create a multi lateral plan and then take action.

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. Have you studied history? Germany took over multiple countries before invading France. During all of that time, France didn't care. The same principle applies now. Why should we count on the *UN*, made up of MANY countries, to take care of the United States? 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.

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.

quote:

You work off the assumption that the international community is dumb as a box of rocks. I don't believe they are. They have shown more patience and deeper understanding then this country could begin to muster. Sorry but Europe lived war. We saved them and we think we some bad mo fo's....Vietnam took us sown a notch...as poorly thought out policy will. Perhaps we haven't learned the full lesson yet.

Your extrapolation is based off of a poor assessment of the global communitiesÔÇÖ situational awareness skills. They know Sadam is a problem and a threat. What they don't like (I believe) is the greater threat of a powerful country running around making calls without all facts. And I don't like it either.

But Bush is now taking his time because his betters have told him to hush for a while.

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.

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.

quote:

Global demonsrators at various conventions have been called terrorists and they didn't do anything but catch a beating. I do not assume that a group is actually terrorist because the admin tells me so.

But I think one thing is true. As totalitarian regimes fall it will be harder to dismiss people out of hand.

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.

quote:

Destroy Iraq! There gonna get us Destroy Iraq their gonna get us!! That's all I was hearing after 9-11 from our free media....but I'm still here somehow....

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.

quote:

They are going to be glad to see a power-hungry and dangerous leader like Saddam go

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

Make room for some CEO's

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.

quote:

Cool more fighting....you like this cause when your old enough you can still have a war to fight?

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.

quote:

You have no idea how pissing on the rest of the group leads to individual ruin. But one day you will have to work with others. I bet you don't run your personal life shooting from the hip.

In the dream world that you seem to be living in, everyone is valuable. Every life is valuable, every country is valuable, everyone's opinion matters. If a country has a point saying that attacking Iraq is bad, no matter which country, that point is valid and should be considered.

Now lets jump back to the real world. Everyones opinions matter in criminal activities and relationships. In international relations, it is totally different. What matters is power, utilitarian goals and results. If Trinidad doesn't want the US to invade Iraq because it's going to hurt Trinidad's supply of industrial sand, TOUGH. No one cares, and it isn't even going to SLIGHTLY affect Bush's decision to attack Iraq, simply because Trinidad can't do anything about it. Now if all of our European allies and Russia said they'd defend Saddam if we attacked him, then it'd probably change our minds. It's all about POWER, and you seem to ignore that.

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.

quote:

Don't have time for all that I'm a full time soldier at present. However I am joining the Guard and will reclass to 19D tomorrow. So after I get my PHD I will fill you in. For now I would settle for the UN.....international law....international decision making.

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.

quote:

Terrorists are people. To stop them we have to understand what it takes to stop people from strapping explosives on their backs. We don't let terror win...we allow freedom and liberty to prevail. And if some people have gone so far as to remove themselves from the humanity we cherish we have to deal with them.

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).

Terrorists dehumanized themselves by their actions, the US media and government is just repeating what I, and many others, already thought the second those planes hit the towers.

And yes, I agree with you, we need to figure out what it takes to stop people from strapping explosives on their back, but I already know the answer. You kill the ones you can before they can do it, and then you replace the governments of nations that feed the propoganda that makes them do it and/or sends their families money to do it. It's sorta simple. You can't be a suicide bomber if your dead, and you wont be one if your country is removed from governmental oppression and you have something to live for (such as building your own country and economy instead of destroying someone else's).

quote:

That was a good article. However, a lot is based on the assumption that Iraq will fall over and the region does not go crazy.

Of course it doesn't have to go crazy we can just piss enough people off that they feel they shouldn't deal with a rouge nation anymore.

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".

quote:

Lately though, Ashcroft and Bush and Ridge have done more to rip up the constitution than Reno or Clinton ever did.

I guess as long as they aren't snatching guns I can take some solace.

Happens during most major wars, it usually gets better after it's over. I agree with your comment about "as long as they aren't snatching guns". Bush's administration doesn't want to oppress the US citizens, they just want to make the US even more powerful (compared to the rest of the world) than it already is, and go down in the history books in a positive light as the leaders who wiped out terrorism from the globe. If they do it, I think everyone is going to be much happier . Just gotta hope Bush gets elected for a 2nd term so he finishes what he started. I'm betting it's going to come down between Bush and that really Bush-critical anti-war Democratic contender.

*is praying Bush doesn't directly screw up a war or the economy between now and 2004*

[ 08-09-2002, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

August 9, 2002

quote:

I just love when a person's own response does all the explaining for me.

DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!

And how did that do any explaining? It's a fact that the UN is a joke. I couldn't care less what they say, and niether should any US citizen.

I didn't order it, the terrorists did when they attcked the US and brought down the WTC towers and killed over 3000 of our citizens.

They are financed and trained by Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and others. And each and every one of them are going down. Iraq is at the top of the stack, and the rest will fall when Saddam is taken out. Afghanistan was first only because that is where the leadership of Al Quaeda was. The war on terror is going to happen, with or without the rest of the worlds support.

Saddam is going DOWN!! And then things will get very interesting.

DraconisRex · August 9, 2002

Dredd:

quote:

Just gotta hope Bush gets elected for a 2nd term so he finishes what he started. I'm betting it's going to come down between Bush and that really Bush-critical anti-war Democratic contender.

You might not be aware of this, but Congress won't remove a President from office during wartime, or permit it to happen. It's bad form, and there are policies in-force to ensure that the President stays in place until the end of the war. So, if the Middle East wants to play war, let 'em. After we get done, we'll call it the Middle Eastern United States Colonies....

Lotharr · August 9, 2002

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 beforeÔÇª.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 regionÔÇªif 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 timeÔÇª.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. TrueÔÇªhe did serve 2 ┬¢ years of a four year tour with the air national guardÔÇª.

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.

Lotharr · August 9, 2002

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!

August 9, 2002

quote:

We can be labeled a rogue nation. It can happen. If it does it won't be fun.

Rogue nation? BS, the UN would go out the window if they EVER tried to pass such a resolution. Our money is what keeps that organization going.

WON'T happen, NOT ever. They can all scream like little stuck pigs and it won't do them a damn bit of good.

And congrats on your new status, I was a 31V, communications. Worked on M1A1's at Ft. Knox for 2 years, and then spent 18 months in Turkey, can't tell you what I did there.

Thanks for your service...

Even if I TOTALLY disagree with your political leanings.

Lotharr · August 9, 2002

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....

CommanderJohnson · August 9, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by Lotharr:

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!

Congrats!

quote:

Wrong, the UN stopped unilateral aggression beforeÔÇª.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.

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?

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

Because all your arguments point to another power hungry regime that wants to take over the regionÔÇªif 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.

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.

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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 timeÔÇª.we should use it.

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.

quote:

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. TrueÔÇªhe did serve 2 ┬¢ years of a four year tour with the air national guardÔÇª.

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.

quote:

MAYBE IF WE WOULD WORK WITHIN THE UN WE WOULD NOT BE THE ONLY TARGET!

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.

quote:

Our misdropped bombs, left over mines, and ineffective policies claim more civilian life then terrorists....so far. We call it war. So do they.

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.

quote:

It would be the fastest.

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)

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

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.

No way the US can be labeled a rogue nation cause we are the key to the world economy. Us free nations stick together.

August 10, 2002

If we must engage in this campaign, it should be swift, and Constitutional Rights must be maintained. Bush and Congress writing themselves a blank check on powers and duct taping the judiciary's mouth shut doesn't fly well with me.

I'm so much happier when Congress is in recess... they can't create any more stupid laws.

I mean give me a break... we have enough laws on the books without them arguing over who wants to pass another and how many votes it will recieve.

All the common sense things are already on the books, snatching guns and forcing private school children into public schools are the only things to fight about... oh yeah and which constitutional rights to give up in a compromise for "security" which isn't any better than it was before 9/11.

Federalized Airport screeners disarm GI JOE and make a woman drink her own breast milk... and our wonderful loving all caring compassionate oppressive BIG BROTHER will take care of us all...

If you wanna fight the war on terror right, pass out rifles and ammo to everyone in the US and give free site seeing tours to foreign nations who hate us.

It could be like duck hunting, except tourists would shoot at the Iraqis or whoever...

Unforgiven_Killer · August 10, 2002

hmm...wow...BIG topic...ok I havnt been able to read all of this topic..but form what I think I have an understanding of it...heres my 2 cents (by the way..Ive only had 3 hours of sleep..so if I start misspellen shit and make no sense..just ignore me till tomarrow)

OK Ive seen the term WMD used alot....the US would never use a nuke ir anything similair to it. why?

1.We know that every country that hated us would hit us back..no fun there..

2. Even if we had the world support the radiation from the weapons would hit many other asian countries...they be even more mad at us..

3.using a nuke and taking out oil well would leave us outta luck

4. We have better way of dealing with countries..

If anything Id expect the US to send it some special forces and take out who they need to take out...either by assanination, "suicide",or by making it look like someone else did it....

For me I can care less with what goes on...as I see it...we're all doomed....someone buy a RANDOM and take out planet earth...lol

ALL this topic is doing is really nothing...the outcome will be told in history and by the actions of a few men...they may decide the fate of the world..

Ok that's my 2 cents...Ill wake tomarrow and think "what the hell was I thinking when I wrote this"....later

CommanderJohnson · August 10, 2002

quote:

ALL this topic is doing is really nothing...the outcome will be told in history and by the actions of a few men...they may decide the fate of the world..

Yes, but this entire topic will be a monument to the fact that I was right.

Lotharr · August 13, 2002

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 seeÔÇª.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 thatÔÇÖs 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.

CommanderJohnson · August 13, 2002

And I thought this topic was dead...

quote:

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...

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.

quote:

However your earlier observation was clearly incorrect. So this brush off, is just an easier way for you then admitting you were wrong....

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...

quote:

Perhaps unilateral action of this kind is just what Bin Laden wanted.....but I bet you dismissed that already

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.

quote:

Moderates shifting to extreme is not a reason?

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.

quote:

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

Hey, my analogy works REALLY well (just realized that). All you have to do is fill in "Saddam", "the UN", "Iraq", etc for the people involved. If you think MY scenario is obviously "arrest the kid", then it's contradictory for you to believe that we shouldn't take care of Iraq unilaterally if need be. And to continue the analogy, note that the entities that YOU would think the cop should discuss the issue with can't really do anything to stop the cop, and probably wouldn't even try.

Glad you agree about killing the bastard.

quote:

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 thatÔÇÖs not even mentioning the enlisted that make it happen.

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. The leaks are either irrelevent (since the plans were going to be discounted), or intentional (to leak that we ARE going to do it). 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. 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. 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...

quote:

I thought you said this guy was a threat to whole planet earlier?

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.

quote:

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.

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. AIMING at civilians though, is much worse than accidently killing them. If you can't make that clear moral distinction, we can't really argue it, but I assume you can.

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%!!!

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

Whatever. Could you explain that one in more depth?.

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.

August 13, 2002

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.

Your logic does not follow. I can give a dog a car but that doesn't mean he can drive it. Governments are only as good as the people who make it up. Our culture isn't exactly popular with theirs.

Their culture makes 'democracy' infeasible.

Lotharr · August 13, 2002

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 livesÔÇªand so do weÔÇª.

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 NCOÔÇÖs 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 ]

CommanderJohnson · August 13, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by $iLk:

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.

Your logic does not follow. I can give a dog a car but that doesn't mean he can drive it. Governments are only as good as the people who make it up. Our culture isn't exactly popular with theirs.

Their culture makes 'democracy' infeasible.

Their "culture" has been created through constant uncontested government propoganda combined with oppressive regimes where dissent is punished with death or prison. Removing the oppression creates a free flow of information that would cause a democracy to become feasible. If you look around the world, there aren't any "free" countries giving significant support to terrorism. It'd be unfair to assume that there is no hope for the people in the Middle East.

quote:

Why? Cause a few days go by without a post?

Yes

quote:

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.

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.

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.

quote:

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.

Stop whining about the loss of rights? Ok, lets think for a second here. The Constitution, and this nation, was founded on the principle that the CITIZENS of THIS NATION elect representatives to PASS LAWS that THEY WANT/ARE IN AMERICA's INTEREST, always being responsible to those who ELECTED THEM. What your saying is that the United States Constitution and citizens should follow laws that THE WORLD WANTS, that are decided on by OTHER NATIONS that do not always have goals that are in line with THE CITIZENS of THIS NATION. 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.

quote:

They had no international law that was followed. But WWII taught us about nations acting selfishly will cause great harm.

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.

quote:

Maybe...maybe not. Colin Powell seems to think an invasion is maybe not such a hot idea with anti-American sentiment running so high.

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.

quote:

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 livesÔÇªand so do weÔÇª.

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.

We can't get them to stop "hating us" until their leaders are gone. We can't FORCE the free flow of information into a totalitarian regime, cause they won't allow it. How do you think slavery in the US worked for so long? The people in power (whites) kept education (and thus reading, etc) from the slaves. Read "The Life of Fredrick Douglass". It shows tactics on a grass roots level how totalitarian regimes keep their power, in the setting of US slavery. 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 (there was a post on here about Iran hiring mercs to fight off protestors) (no Russian Revolution there...the people hired don't care about killing civilians of the country they are hired in).

quote:

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.

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...)

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.

The people in the White House, and the high up military officers, are probably all thinking about lives the same way. It's not military vs administration. Sure, the military people served during wars, but that doesn't mean they are going to value YOUR life more. They knew how much their life was valued in war, and that's how the system works. Your little more than a casualty number to Bush, Powell, and the other generals at the pentagon at the top. I just don't like the perception your getting that somehow the generals CARE A WHOLE LOT ABOUT YOU while Bush and his administration doesn't care if you rot in a foxhole. They all probably care about the same, maybe for different reasons, but they all care.

quote:

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 NCOÔÇÖs job is to accomplish the mission and take care of soldiers. They know better than any ten star what the deal is.

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.

quote:

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".

I've thought about the whole concept of world cooperation years ago, and I think it's a great idea. But short of a discovery of aliens or some sort of international threat or catastrophe affecting everyone, people's goals around the world would be too far out of sync with each other to be fair. Under your advocacy, it would be unfair to the citizens of the US. 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.

quote:

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.

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.

quote:

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.

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).

quote:

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?

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.

quote:

What do you mean? I am saying that marching off to war without the proper discussion and debate is the wrong answer.

I interpreted your comment as "we shouldn't bomb enemy targets during war because we might kill civilians".

quote:

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....

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.

quote:

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.

And you don't think the Muslims would do the same thing to the Israelis if they somehow took over Israel? Yeah, right.

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....

quote:

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.

Well, lets just take it down to the GUARNTEED level. If we invade Iraq, inspect for weapons, and change the regime (which i'm sure is going to happen), the following are GUARNTEED:

1. Iraq will not have WMDs or build them/be able to guild them.

2. The people of Iraq will be free from an oppressive dictatorship, have access to information, and have a voice in government.

Those two results aren't really arguable, and I fail to see how either of those are NEGATIVE effects.

quote:

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.

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.

August 13, 2002

quote:

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.

You expect me to take you seriously, after you say this. It is obvious you are spouting the liberal line here.

The truth is so far to the other side of that it is ridiculous.

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.

Keep spouting though, because you just make people realize how uninformed you truly are.

Lotharr · August 14, 2002

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 totallyÔÇª.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 personalÔÇªit 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 policyÔÇÖs 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.

August 14, 2002

quote:

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.

OK, lets talk about Bushs history, shall we?

quote:

GEORGE W. BUSH

(Republican - Texas)

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

GEORGE W. BUSH BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS:

POLITICAL: President of the United States, 2001-present [Elected 2000 (47.9% - 271 Electoral Votes)]. Governor of Texas, January 1995-December 2000 [Elected 1994 (54%); re-elected 1998 (69%)]. Senior Advisor, George Bush for President Campaign, 1988. Unsuccessful GOP nominee for Congress, 1978 (47%).

PROFESSIONAL: Managing General Partner, Texas Rangers pro baseball team, 1989-94. Founder & CEO, Bush Exploration Oil & Gas Company, 1975-86. Pilot, Texas Air National Guard, 1968-73.

EDUCATION: B.A., Yale University, 1968. M.B.A., Harvard Business School, 1975.

PERSONAL: Born July 6, 1946 in New Haven, Connecticut. Married to Laura Welch Bush. Two daughters. Methodist. Grandson of the late US Senator Prescott Bush (R-CT). Son of former President George H.W. Bush (R-TX). Brother of Governor Jeb Bush (R-FL).

16years as a CEO of companies, as well as a fighter pilot, sorry, it takes brains to do either of those, and LOTS of them. And he has an MBA from Harvard Business School, and he had very high grades, again, it takes brains, and lots of them to get that type of degree.

Now let's look at the person that you probably voted for, shall we?

quote:

ALBERT "AL" GORE, JR.

(Democrat - Tennessee)

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

BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS:

POLITICAL: Vice President of the United States, 1993 - present (Elected 1992; re-elected 1996). U.S. Senator, 1985-93 [Elected 1984 (61%); re-elected 1990 (70%)]. U.S. Congressman, 1977-85 [Elected 1976 (94%), re-elected 1978 (unopposed), 1980 (79%) and 1982 (unopposed)]. Unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, 1988.

PROFESSIONAL: Newspaper reporter, Nashville Tennesseean, 1973-76. U.S. Army (Vietnam), 1969-71.

EDUCATION: Vanderbilt University School of Law, 1974-76. Vanderbilt University School of Religion, 1971-72. B.A. with Honors (Government), Harvard University, 1969.

PERSONAL: Born March 31, 1948 in Washington, DC. Son of the late US Senator Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN). Married to Mary Elizabeth "Tipper" Aitcheson Gore. Four children. Baptist.

Was a reporter for 3 years, and an Army journalist for 2 years, Graduated Harvard with a degree in.... Government? Hoo doggy, now that takes some brains!! and then he dropped out of divinity school, ooohhhh, that takes brains too!!

Now let's take a peek at something else, shall we?

Now, this takes NO brains whatsoever, what kind of MORON points a rifle at his head? Good thing they NEEVER let him load it, he had his bodyguards to make sure that the senators son was kept safe!!

Then from you!

quote:

But you are a gun freak so I understand

What is that supposed to mean? I am an NRA certified instructor, I am an expert marksman with both pistol and rifle, I hold a Concealed weapons permit in both Washington State and Oregon. And I own guns.

I am in all honesty a constitution freak, but you wouldn't know anything about that, because you believe the liberal lie that it is some sort of living breathing document, when in fact that is so far from the truth it is insane.

I believe in the 2nd amendment and my right as a US citizen to keep and bear arms in order to defend myself and my family from criminal attack, and to keep the government in check.

If that makes me a gun freak in your eyes, then you have a definite problem.

And the does not excuse the inexcusable.

CommanderJohnson · August 16, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by Lotharr:

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 personalÔÇªit hits real close to home.

Note that today Saddam is STILL a danger. The "international sanctions" DONT SOLVE. The UN DOESNT solve. There's nothing the international community is going to do, and giving the choice to them just restricts the US.

Also, sure, your right, we have 80% or so of the resources. No one has a right to make us give them up except the American people (CHARITIES, VOTING). Giving that right to the international community is betraying the foundation of this country. I don't care how alive you think the Constitution is, you can't extrapalate THAT horrible idea as Constitutional.

quote:

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.

Yes, all parites should fix problems in the world, but should not be forced to since it violated the NATURAL RIGHTS of everyone in the United States. What your saying is "since the US happens to have worked to the top of the food chain, the rest of the world has a right to ROB THEM". Gee, nice to know hard work (it doesn't matter how "unfair" (arbitrary term) the work was, it still is proven that WITHIN the accepted system, the US "worked" to the top))

quote:

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.

Lets see, almost all options are already exhausted (give some if they aren), and there already IS global pressure on the region with no result. The more likely scenario is that no other country wants to attack cause the gun isn't aimed at their heads, they don't want to lose troops (and lose elections), so they are going to leave it alone till they are a target. Then they'll come back BEGGING US FOR HELP.

quote:

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.

Yeah, so do really rich billionares in China. But if they speak against Communism or for Democracy, they are never heard from again. Same applies to the Middle East. You can't trust the BS coming from the Middle East, and even those wealthy arabs probably DONT have all the information about America. They are still fed lies from their churches and government, and they probably don't hear a second side to the stories. Just cause they get US products doesn't mean they know anything about America.

quote:

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 policyÔÇÖs 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.

We sure shouldn't rethink our policy just because a bunch of wackos think that we are trying to kill children. Also, think about it, no matter how we rethink our policy, SOMEONE is going to be pissed at the US. The question is, what regimes should we support? Democratic regimes which, for the most part, support us and don't target civilians, or should we support Arab nations, most of which are totalitarian or theocracies, which don't mind targetting civilians, and believe in very low human rights. The regimes aren't going to end unless we FORCEFULLY get rid of them, and we're the only ones that are going to do it.

quote:

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.

If the US has less power, it destablizies the world cause we have less power to fix it. Think of how biggers powers cause numbers of wars to decline as time went on? If the US gets weaker, it just causes other countries to be stronger comparitively, and fight.

quote:

posted 08-13-2002 09:15 PM

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

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 totallyÔÇª.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 personalÔÇªit 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 policyÔÇÖs 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.

Thinking of your own example, again, why don't you apply it to other countries? If, after World War II, Germany ordered all occupying troops to leave, and then refused to admit inspectors mandated by international treaty to look for weapons, wouldn't you feel it justified to invade Germany? Iraq is hiding something, and we need to take out the country before it's too late.

quote:

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.

It is ultimately true, and bombs ACCIDENTLY hitting civilians is playing fair, even under just war theory.

quote:

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.

We don't have a problem, the Arabs do. It's not OUR Fault that the idiots invading Israel after it was created, and then the Israelis fought back and got MORE land. They got what they deserved. Also, the difference between Isarael and the Palestinians is the SAME difference (maybe even worse), as between America and Al-quida/Bin Laden. America and Israel TARGET terrorists/military targets, and may kill civilians. Palestinians/Bin Laden TARGET civilians or anyone else. That is notably repugnant under almost all religions and moral frameworks, and makes us better than them.

Also, I agree most of them aren't terrorists, and I don't think they deserve to get killed, but if they aren't trying to STOP the terrorism, they can't really complain. For some reason the ignorant bastards think blowing up buses during peace negotiations is going to get something. Thought they would have learned after ALL THESE YEARS.

quote:

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.

At the point the **UNCONTESTABLE** positive effects I listed happen, there is NO reason why it'd suddenly cause regional instability, or an increase of terrorist attacks. Also, when those thins I listed happen, there's no reason to think that they'd cause a Jihad. There's no logic behind the argument. And then, even *IF* your argument is true (which it isn't), the benefits of getting rid of Saddam (a much BIGGER threat to regional and world stability, since WMDs would let him do a lot), far outweigh any sort of "Jihad"/Terrorism.

quote:

Rebuilding is not that fast.

Quality of life still gets better because they are then free.

August 25, 2002

Looks like we have some MIA, haven't seen Lothar nor Menchise in a while.

Hey guys, where did you go?

August 25, 2002

Have we ever really successfully turned a country into what we wanted it to be? Well we have Germany and Japan, but those are two civilized nations anyway.

What about these Muslim nations? Have we ever successfully changed the way of life for people as uncivilized as the Muslims? Pardon the expression of uncivilized, but in the Middle East you can't really argue.

CommanderJohnson · August 25, 2002

We did make Israel, and it would work, if there werent so many radical muslims around them bombing them, it might work better.

Sign In

America's Role.

Recommended Posts

Lotharr

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest $iLk

CommanderJohnson

Guest

DraconisRex

Lotharr

Lotharr

Guest

Lotharr

CommanderJohnson

Guest $iLk

Unforgiven_Killer

CommanderJohnson

Lotharr

CommanderJohnson

Guest $iLk

Lotharr

CommanderJohnson

Guest

Lotharr

Guest

CommanderJohnson

Guest

Guest $iLk

CommanderJohnson

Please sign in to comment

Browse

Activity