Lotharr Posted September 14, 2002 Report Posted September 14, 2002 If that were true all news agencies would be running it....but they aren't...cause it's aint. When making decisions one needs to weigh facts....that sight is for people who don't use facts....they use emotion and want a target...and fast. So please spare us from obviously biased reporting. You have your OPINION and some guy with nothing better to do sets up a sight full of speculation, makes all these "connections" and draws lines from face to face...please guy, even you have to see the BS in that.. Bush did give a good speech at the UN....he didn't screw up once and he didn't look like a lost little boy....I was very proud. The sentiment is right....NATIONS MUST BE HELD TO UN RESOLUTIONS. But like I said before if the UN tries to stop American unilateral action and we violate that we have just demonstrated to other countries how to behave. That is scary when one considers China and India and Israel.... .... ...and America.
Guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Posted September 14, 2002 We are the UN, without the US, the UN would not exist. As Bush said, either they enforce their resolutions, or they become irrelavant. Guess what, they are about to become irrelavant, it will be my great pleasure to watch that socialist institution implode. We will then unilaterally act to destroy Saddam Insane. If the UN actually comes to it's senses, I will be very surprised. Bush made an excellent speech to them, no doubts of that, but if they back him, they will look like they can be beat up by the US, but if they don't they become irrelavant. I just LOVE catch 22's. especially when it comes to the UN.....LOL Time for the UN to go the way of the DODO bird, buh bye!!
Lotharr Posted September 14, 2002 Report Posted September 14, 2002 I would expect nothing less from a guy who gathers "facts" from unknown, biased, and agenda-of-war type sources. I will always believe that international law is an ideal that the world must and will move to. This idea will facilitate the survival of our planet. There are real global threats and we need to find real global answers. I don't agree that might makes right. In fact, all I've seen is might makes lazy. I think the world is coming around to this view as well. WeÔÇÖll see how this all plays out.
Guest Posted September 14, 2002 Report Posted September 14, 2002 Might in this case does make right. Saddam is going to build a nuke, there are no doubts of that. He has chemical and biologocal weapons, TONS of the stuff. He has no problem using them on his own people or on his war with Iran. He finances terrorists, see the palestinians, and AlQuaeda, no matter how much you wish to ignore that link, it exists. Once Saddam is taken out, we all will be safer. I am glad that peaceniks and globalists like you are not in charge, because the world would be coming to an end in the very near future as Iraq begins it's imperial ambitions along with China. The time to strike Iraq is now, and then China will not have the opportunity for it later. We take down Iraq, the other terrorist supprting nations will fall into line and then we can put the Fundamentalist islam on the ashheap of history. Lothar, so you not understand yet? THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!! THEY WISH TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES!! WHY? because they dream of the entire world becoming one huge islamic state, just like Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. If we sit back and say, we need permission, it will be too late. I love how you peaceniks do not look to the future dangers, just the present, la tee da, and then when it is upon you, you wonder why we didn't do anything about it before they were at our doorstep and killing us. History repeats itself because no one listened the first time, and you are not listening, or are deaf.
Lotharr Posted September 14, 2002 Report Posted September 14, 2002 quote: Saddam is going to build a nuke, there are no doubts of that. He has chemical and biologocal weapons, TONS of the stuff. Chem and bio is pure speculation but probable. He will seek to build a bomb. Israel has them why wouldn't he want to. You say it is ok to have these hypocrisies in the world...I do not. quote: Lothar, so you not understand yet? THEY WANT TO KILL YOU!! THEY WISH TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES!! WHY? because they dream of the entire world becoming one huge islamic state, just like Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. First of all "they" constitute a small group of extremists that need to be caught and prosecuted for violating international law. The only reason they have a terror network is because America set it up. And now, like then, we can think no farther then the immediate future...but we haven't even thought that far....look at Afghanistan...very unstable. What are we going to do in Iraq? Who will take over? How long are we going to stay there? How much will it cost? None of this is being addressed. We are most likely doing just what Bin Loser wants by taking aggressive and poorly thought out action. Like I said the hard right is almost always preferable to the easy wrong.....but I doubt this will end up being easy..... A variety of forces make unilateral action a disaster waiting to happen..... Islam is a peaceful religion. These people want the same things you do. However most of them are looking for potable water these days....you ignore the human aspect of our foreign policy....terror groups do not. They use it. They use these inequalities that exist in the world against the most successful and aggressive nations...mainly us. The UN and international community realize that in a world of limited recourses one has to consider the needs of all to provide for the security of all. We still haven't got there and you can most likely thank big oil for that. But that is just my opinion and it makes a lot more sense then......what's wrong with these people? they hate freedom....how could anyone hate us etc.... If we seek the economic/political domination of the world we can look forward to attacks until this country falls.....or our way of life is so drastically altered that we arent America anymore....these are my fearsfear of cowboy tactics, unilateral actions, and aggressively selfish foreign policy in general. You are thinker of a different time....but you do have friends in the executive government.... however their actions are more of a threat to the constitution than any liberal could ever be.
Guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 It seems Lothar is not going to listen to reason, therefore I must get serious. If this does not convince you Lothar, then you have a major problem with critical thinking skills. The link has gone down because the article is from NOVEMBER 2001. quote: 'Saddam controlled the camp' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Iraqi connection As evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to the 11 September hijackers begins to emerge, David Rose gathers testimony from former Baghdad agents and the CIA to reveal the secrets of Saddam's terror training camp War on Terrorism: Observer special Sunday November 11, 2001 The Observer His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre. Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The Observer has learnt that Atta's talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has 'credible information' that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s. In the strongest official statement to date alleging Iraqi involvement in the new wave of anti-Western terrorism, on Friday night Milos Zeman, the Czech Prime Minister, told reporters and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, that the Czech authorities believed Atta and al-Ani met expressly to discuss a bombing. He said they were plotting to destroy the Prague-based Radio Free Europe with a truck stuffed with explosives, adding: 'Yes, you cannot exclude also the hypothesis that they discussed football, ice hockey, weather and other topics. But I am not so sure. In Washington and Whitehall, a furious political battle is raging over the scope of the anti-terrorist war, and whether it should eventually include action against Iraq. According to the Foreign Office, British Ministers have responded to this prospect with 'horror', arguing that an attack on Saddam Hussein would cause terrible civilian casualties and cement anti-Western anger across Middle East. Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, heads a clique of determined, powerful hawks, most of them outside the administration - among them James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. The doves argue that an al-Qaeda-Iraq link is improbable, given the sharp ideological differences between Saddam's secular Baathism and Islamic fundamentalism. They also say that claims of Iraqi involvement are being driven by the agenda of the hawks - a group which has for years been seeking to finish the job left undone at the end of the Gulf war in 1991. Nevertheless, Saddam does not lack a plausible motive: revenge for his expulsion from Kuwait in 1991, and for the continued sanctions and Western bombing of his country ever since. In this febrile atmosphere, hard information about who ordered the 11 September attacks remains astonishingly scarce. US investigators have traced the movements of the 19 hijackers going back years, and have amassed a detailed picture of who did what inside the conspiracy. Yet what lay beyond the hijackers is an intelligence black hole. If they had a support network in America, none of its members has been traced, and among the hundreds of telephone records and emails the investigators have recovered, nothing gets close to identifying those ultimately responsible. It still seems almost certain, intelligence sources say, that parts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network actively backed the conspiracy: about half of the estimated $500,000 the hijackers used reportedly came from al-Qaeda sources, while some of the terrorists are believed to have passed through bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. At the same time, however, evidence is emerging of direct Iraqi links with the US hijackers in particular, and with radical Islamic terror groups in general. In the early period after the attacks, Western intelligence agencies said they knew of nothing to suggest an Iraqi connection. That position has now changed. A top US analyst - a serving intelligence official with no connection to the 'hawks' around Wolfowitz - told The Observer: 'You should think of this thing as a spectrum: with zero Iraqi involvement at one end, and 100 per cent Iraqi direction and control at the other. The scenario we now find most plausible is somewhere in the middle range - significant Iraqi assistance and some involvement.' Last night, Whitehall sources made clear that parts of British intelligence had reached the same conclusion. Uncomfortable as it may be, this reassessment is having a political impact. Last month, when the CIA was still telling him it did not believe Iraq was involved in 11 September, Powell said there were 'no plans' to attack Iraq. Last Thursday, speaking in Kuwait, he abruptly reversed his earlier pronouncements. He promised that after dealing with bin Laden and Afghanistan, 'we will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq'. The FBI is now sure that Atta, the Egyptian who had studied in Germany, was the hijackers' overall leader. He personally handled more than $100,000 of the plot's funds, more than any other conspirator, and he made seven foreign trips in 2000 and 2001 - all of which appear to have had some operational significance. Investigators lay heavy stress on a captured al-Qaeda manual which emphasises the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means. Two of those trips were to meet al-Ani in Prague. The Iraqi's profile has been supplied by defectors from Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, who are now being guarded by the London-based opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC). CIA sources have confirmed its crucial details. 'There's really no doubt that al-Ani is a very senior Iraqi agent,' one source said. The Observer has interviewed two of the defectors. They began to tell their stories at the beginning of October, and have been debriefed extensively by the FBI and the CIA. Al-Ani's experience in covert 'wet jobs' (assassinations), gives his meetings with Atta a special significance: his expertise was killing. According to the defectors, he has an unusual ability to change his appearance and operate under cover. One defector recalls a meeting in the early 1990s when al-Ani had long, silver hair, and wore jeans, silver chains and sunglasses. Al-Ani explained he was about to undertake a mission which required him to look like a Western hippy. A member of Saddam's Baathist party since his youth, al-Ani also has extensive experience working with radical Islamists such as Mohamed Atta. Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan. Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.' Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience. On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September. The senior US intelligence source said the CIA believed that two other hijackers, al-Shehri and Jarrah, also met known Iraqi intelligence officers outside the US in the run-up to the atrocities. It is understood these meetings took place in the United Arab Emirates - where Iraq maintains its largest 'illegal', or non-diplomatic, cover intelligence operation, most of it devoted to oil exports and busting economic sanctions. The source added that Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which has now effectively merged with al-Qaeda, maintained regular contacts with Iraq for many years. He confirmed the claims first made by the Iraqi National Congress - that towards the end of 1998, Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and a key member of the Mukhabarat leadership - went to Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he met bin Laden. The FBI believes many of the 11 hijackers who made up the conspiracy's 'muscle', Saudi Arabians who entered the US at a late stage and whose task was to overpower the aircrafts' passengers and crew, trained at Afghan camps run by al-Qaeda. But they have no details: no times or places where any of these individuals learnt their skills. Meanwhile, it is now becoming clear that al-Qaeda is not the only organisation providing terrorist training for Muslim fundamentalists. Since the early 1990s, courses of this type have also been available in Iraq. At the beginning of October, two INC activists in London travelled to eastern Turkey. They had been told that a Mukhabarat colonel had crossed the border through Kurdistan and was ready to defect. The officer - codenamed Abu Zeinab - had extraordinary information about terrorist training in Iraq. In a safe house in Ankara, the two London-based activists took down Zeinab's story. He had worked at a site which was already well known - Salman Pak, a large camp on a peninsular formed by a loop of the Tigris river south of Baghdad. However, what Zeinab had to say about the southern part of the camp was new. There, he said, separated from the rest of the facilities by a razor-wire fence, was a barracks used to house Islamic radicals, many of them Saudis from bin Laden's Wahhabi sect, but also Egyptians, Yemenis, and other non-Iraqi Arabs. Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab said the foreigners' camp was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein. In a telephone interview with The Observer, Zeinab described the culture clash which took place when secular Baathists tried to train fundamentalists: 'It was a nightmare! A very strange experience. These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying.' Asked whether he believed the foreigners' camp had trained members of al-Qaeda, Zeinab said: 'All I can say is that we had no structure to take on these people inside the regime. The camp was for organisations based abroad.' One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. According to Zeinab, women were also trained in these techniques. Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five. In Ankara, Zeinab was debriefed by the FBI and CIA for four days. Meanwhile he told the INC that if they wished to corroborate his story, they should speak to a man who had political asylum in Texas - Captain Sabah Khodad, who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994-5. He too has now told his story to US investigators. In an interiew with The Observer, he echoed Zeinab's claims: 'The foreigners' training includes assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking. They were strictly separated from the rest of us. To hijack planes they were taught to use small knives. The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was, "this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak".' Zeinab and Khodad said the Salman Pak students practised their techniques in a Boeing 707 fuselage parked in the foreigners' part of the camp. Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team. Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training. 'Of course we automatically took out the word "counter",' he said. 'I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect? Iraq presents a long-term strategic threat. Unfortunately, the US is not very good at recognising long-term strategic threats.' At the end of September, Donald Rumsfeld, the far from doveish US Defence Secretary, told reporters there was 'no evidence' that Iraq was involved in the atrocities. That judgment is slowly being rewritten. Many still suspect the anthrax which has so far killed four people in America has an ultimate Iraqi origin: in contrast to recent denials made by senior FBI officials, CIA sources say there simply is not enough material to be sure. However, it does not look likely that the latest anthrax sample, sent to a newspaper in Karachi, can have come from the source recently posited by the FBI - a right-wing US militant. 'The sophistication of the stuff that has been found represents a level of technique and knowledge that in the past has been associated only with governments,' Duelfer said. 'If it's not Iraq, there aren't many alternatives.' If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.' At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam. The case for trying to remove him now might well seem unanswerable. In that scenario, the decisions Western leaders have had to make in the past two months would seem like a trivial prelude. Additional reporting by Ed Vulliamy in New York and Kate Connolly in Berlin. Now that's just one article. Here's another. quote: If you wait for proof, you're dead Globe and Mail (Toronto) ^ | September 7, 2002 | Marcus Gee Show me the proof, says the Prime Minister. Before he will back any U.S. strike against Saddam Hussein, Jean Chr├®tien told reporters on Thursday, he wants solid evidence that the Iraqi dictator possesses weapons of mass destruction. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham went even further. He said that Canada requires evidence not only that Iraq has nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, but that it plans to use them. Only then, apparently, will Canada consider supporting the Americans. These sound like reasonable caveats. But they amount to impossible demands. There is no way to know for certain whether Mr. Hussein possesses such deadly weapons because he expelled United Nations inspectors four years ago and refuses to let them return. And there is no way to know for sure whether he would use those weapons because no one can see inside Mr. Hussein's head. All anyone can do is look at what he has done in the past and weigh the probabilities. We know that Mr. Hussein has started two wars of aggression against his neighbours. The first, against Iran, cost something like a million lives. The second, against Kuwait, devastated that country and triggered the 1991 Persian Gulf war. We know that he has used weapons of mass destruction in the past, attacking scores of Kurdish villages with mustard gas and nerve agents in the late 1980s. We know that he fired Scud missiles at Israeli civilians in 1991. We know that his country has been on the list of leading sponsors of terrorism for 20 years. We know that he spent as much as $10-billion (U.S.) on his nuclear-weapons program in the decade before the gulf war and was only months from getting the Bomb when he suffered his defeat in Kuwait. He kept trying throughout the '90s, playing cat and mouse with the UN inspectors and putting his country through years of international sanctions. As for biological and chemical weapons, Iraq was believed to be hiding stores of anthrax, botulinum toxin and VX nerve gas when the inspectors were expelled. He may have more now. Finally, we know that he nurses a bitter grudge against the U.S. and its gulf war allies. Mr. Hussein was humiliated during that war and tried to get revenge by ordering the assassination of George Bush Sr. Enough reason to act? Not for Canada. Even while conceding that Mr. Hussein is a menace, Ottawa hesitates at backing any pre-emptive action against him until he actually acquires the world's deadliest weapons and prepares to use them. As U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney said last month, this amounts to saying: "Yes, Saddam is as dangerous as we say he is. We just need to let him get stronger before we do anything about it." Waiting until Mr. Hussein has nuclear weapons would be the worst kind of folly. A nuclear-armed dictator could do endless damage, not just to the United States but to his Middle Eastern neighbours. Nuclear, chemical or biological weapons would embolden him to embark on new aggressions, to say nothing of the risk of an attack against civilians in North America or Europe. Do we know for sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? No. Do we know for sure that he would use them? No again. All we know is that he is a ruthless dictator who has tried for years to acquire the word's deadliest weapons and has shown no hesitation in using them when he does. Definitive proof will come only when a mushroom cloud rises above Tel Aviv or Washington. Do we wait until then, Mr. Chr├®tien? You want proof, there are hundreds more like it, but you won't see any of this in the US press. And now last but not least. quote: — LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair's promised dossier on Iraq is to reveal that Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The dossier is also expected to disclose that the Iraqi leader has reconstructed three plants to manufacture biological and chemical weapons, it said. Blair, facing opposition from within his own Labour Party over going to war with Iraq without U.N. backing, has recalled parliament to discuss the issue later this month and promised to publish a dossier detailing evidence against Saddam Hussein. The Sunday Telegraph said a draft version of the dossier contains detailed information on how two alleged leading al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad government. It said Abu Zubair was an Iraqi intelligence officer trained in using terror against the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Rafid Fatah also worked with him against the Kurds, the paper added. They were then said to have joined ranks with Osama bin Laden, accused by Washington of being the mastermind behind last year's September 11 hijack attacks. On reports that Saddam Hussein has reconstructed three weapons plants, the paper said evidence was based on "worrying activity" captured by American satellite photographs. One security official, quoted by the Sunday Telegraph, said the photos "clearly show very worrying activity of rebuilding work at these plants which we already knew were being used for developing chemical and biological weapons. That is what Saddam is doing again." We shouldn't go after Saddam? Yeah right. Israel has WMD's for defense, to keep what they have. Iraq has WMS's for offense, to take what it has no right to. If you still think that Iraq should not be attacked and Saddam overthrown, then you have a deathwish. Because he will get here with those weapons and he WILL kill us with them.
Lotharr Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 quote: If this does not convince you Lothar, then you have a major problem with critical thinking skills. There is a reason why some sources are considered worth listening to and some are not. I have never heard of yours. However I have heard of the Washington Post...a corporate and conservative American media source. To suggest that American media sources have confirmed a connection between terrorists and Iraq and have not reported it is not probable. I do not like mainstream sources because they are controlled by big business....as is Bush....but to think they wouldnt report something as big as that would be to suggest that our free press is so corrupt that we dont live in a democracy or a republic. quote: Israel has WMD's for defense, to keep what they have. Iraq has WMS's for offense, to take what it has no right to Isreal is just as oppresive if not more so to the poulations that live within their borders....they maintain a slave society...and they have nukes...sorry that doesn't add up to me. quote: If you still think that Iraq should not be attacked and Saddam overthrown, then you have a deathwish. Because he will get here with those weapons and he WILL kill us with them. Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... Yeah that's what I thought
CommanderJohnson Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 Ok, lets spell this out nice and simple: Saddam is: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them 2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons 4. Anti-America 5. A totalitarian dictator 6. Irrational in terms of international actions 7. *WANTING* Nuclear Weapons 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) Saddam is probably: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States The facts in 1-8 of what Saddam is doing do NOT suddenly change if the UN says "Don't attack Iraq". Just because other countries say "those problems aren't problems" or "those problems dont exist", doesn't make them magically disappear. What Bush did in his speech, and his statements following it, were very smart. He sent the message that either: The UN does it's job and keeps some semblence of legitimacy. OR The United States will take out Iraq and the UN will lose legitimacy and become irrelevent in world affairs. Like it or not, but throughout history, the groups with the guns/weapons/power were the ones in charge. After WW2, the US had the power, it had the nukes, and it was a superpower. Following the Cold War, the United States was the only one left. The UN is based on the idea that the United States is going to support it and go along with it and provide a military to enforce it's edicts. Without the US, the UN has no power, and means nothing. Back to Iraq. Iraq will be attacked and Saddam will be removed from power. Either the UN will do it, or the US will do it by itself. Either way, problems 1-8, and the "possible problems" will be solved. If the UN says no, then they are removed from the process of decision making, and all the better because of it. There is no way we can morally stand by and watch Saddam continue his reign of terror, and there is no way that we can pragmatically stand by and watch Saddam become a threat to the rest of the world. Regardless of if he is supporting terrorism or not, him gaining nuclear weapons just adds another possibility for terrorists to possibly get weapons, and his possession of chemical and biological weapons is just as bad. It's obvious that most of the other arab nations dont want us there, because when people see freedom and it works, they are much more likely to NOT like their own regimes, and rise against them. That's why we are getting conflicting messages from Arab nations. They secretly want Saddam out of power (because he's a threat to THEM due to his irrational behavior...if he nukes the US, I don't think we'd have an issue nuking him back and irradiating the Middle East), but they also don't want us in there (because the concept of another free nation besides Israel threatens their control over the population). Some may ask, so why don't we attack Saudi Arabia? They are oppressive to their people. Why don't we attack North Korea, they may be getting WMDs. My response: So what? It doesn't matter the order we do it, and it doesn't matter if we get them all. Iraq is the only country that meets all the problems I listed, and the other problems will be weakened after we take out Iraq. Maybe after we take out Iraq, other oppressive nations will fall. Maybe they won't. But one thing is obvious. If other threats rise because of our attacks on Iraq, we will take them out too, and any other threats, on and on until there are no more oppressive regimes, no more dictatorships, no more terrorism, and no more threats to our security.
Lotharr Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 Ok so..... Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... If it ain't broke don't fix it.... As far as the rest of it guy....please....this is about oil....you can think all the happy thoughts you want but that's what it's about.....why pretend...
Guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 If it were about Oil, then why aren't we drilling in ANWAR? or the Gulf of Mexico, or off the coast of California? Sorry, soesn't fly at all, it would be cheaper and easier to do all of the above. Maybe it's because we are afraid some nutball is about to get nukes and will therefore feel emboldened to do what he did before, only much more so? Nah, we won't attack him unless he launches a nuke at Israel or gives one to a terrorist who will bring it over in a ship and set it off in New York harbor, until then we just leave him alone. Is that it Lothar? Again, answer this question, HOW MANY AMERICANS MUST DIE, before you decide it's time to put a stop to this? HOW MANY?
Lotharr Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 Plenty of nuts have nukes...well...maybe not yet...however if the Pakistani government is overrun buy extremist then Iraq would be a freakin joke... quote: HOW MANY AMERICANS MUST DIE, You tell me...Iraq is not the threat. Saddam knows if he does anything with WMD his country is a glowing plain of glass....so where is the emergency?
Guest $iLk Posted September 15, 2002 Report Posted September 15, 2002 That was my point, Iraq is just as likely as North Korea, or the PROC to launch a WMD. Iraq is symbolic, but if we *only* attack Iraq and not the others who pose the same threat to us, I find it hypocritical. The war is more PR than ever. If a citizen of Egypt were to fly to the USA, and murder a US citizen with a knife, does that give us the right to attack his country? State sponsored terrorism, and terrorist groups themselves should be targeted, but we shouldn't just attack any country that has terrorists within it's borders. If so we should attack ourselves because cells of Al Qu... whatever are *here*.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: [QB]Ok so..... Then why didn't we go to war with Stalin...he was crazier.... Lets see. Lack of man-power, lack of public support for more deaths, a Soviet Union with nuclear weapons that would have wiped us out, the fact that ANYONE IN MODERN HISTORY WHO INVADED RUSSIA LOST? Oh yeah, not to mention Stalin was rational and wasn't going to attack us. Terrorists on the other hand WILL attack the US (empirically proven), and it's not a huge jump to think that Saddam might accidently LET a few terrorists get some WMDs to use against us. quote: As far as the rest of it guy....please....this is about oil....you can think all the happy thoughts you want but that's what it's about.....why pretend... As I already implied, nothing else matters except the 8 first 8 things I listed in my last post, and none of those are going to change, regardless of motive. I don't care if Bush is invading Iraq to avenge his father, or because Saddam said that his wife was hot. It doesn't matter WHY the government wants to invade, or if we'll make billions of dollars off of it, the first 8 facts I listed in my last post are unchanged. Attacking Iraq is a good idea BECAUSE OF THOSE REASONS. I never even TRIED to say that the government was doing it for those reasons, i'm saying why it's a good idea objectively and also from a personal standpoint. quote:Plenty of nuts have nukes...well...maybe not yet...however if the Pakistani government is overrun buy extremist then Iraq would be a freakin joke... 1. We wouldn't let the Pakistani government be overrun by extremists AND the leadership is pretty strong in the military to stop it. 2. If it was, we would make sure they get disarmed immediately. 3. If we couldn't get them disarmed we would probably invade before there was a threat. 4. Most likely, even if 1-3 didn't apply, India and Pakistan would kill each other from an extremist takeover before they'd bother us. 5. It doesn't matter who ELSE has nukes, Saddam is currently at the top of the threat list, and the only one to meet all 8 critera from my last post. quote:You tell me...Iraq is not the threat. Saddam knows if he does anything with WMD his country is a glowing plain of glass....so where is the emergency? Yeah, and Bin Laden knew that if his terrorists attacked the US, his entire training infrastructure in Afghanistan would be destroyed, his supporters would be killed, and he would probably be killed (which he is now). Did he care? No. Will Saddam? Probably not. Also, if Saddam thinks he can give one to a terrorist and be un-linked to it, then he'll try to get away with it. Saddam has cared very little for his or his country's well-being in the past, he wont care if he's nuked. quote:That was my point, Iraq is just as likely as North Korea, or the PROC to launch a WMD. China may be militaristic, but they have a rational (somewhat) government, and they know they'll be nuked if they do anything. Not to mention they know that hurting the US will just ruin their economy too. Korea is too far away in weapons development to be a threat for now. They are probably next on the list though. quote:Iraq is symbolic, but if we *only* attack Iraq and not the others who pose the same threat to us, I find it hypocritical. We'll attack more than Iraq if they don't do what we want. Gotta love Bush in that aspect. quote:State sponsored terrorism, and terrorist groups themselves should be targeted, but we shouldn't just attack any country that has terrorists within it's borders. If so we should attack ourselves because cells of Al Qu... whatever are *here*. We should take out all the oppressive/totalitarian regimes. Solve all our problems.
Lotharr Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 quote: not to mention Stalin was rational and wasn't going to attack us. It is good to see that "liberals" aren't the only ones who believe in fairy tales.... Stalin was a nut....but not suicidal....the same applies to Saddam. Deterrence has been highly effective and will continue to be so... No link can be proven that he supports terrorists...except the families of suicide bombers.... quote: nothing else matters except the 8 first 8 things I listed in my last post I will never agree that the ends justify the means. Understanding why an administration does what it does is critical in a free society....this country was not supposed to resemble a totalitarian regime...and I dont think it was supposed to run by big business.. quote: 1. We wouldn't let the Pakistani government be overrun by extremists AND the leadership is pretty strong in the military to stop it. 2. If it was, we would make sure they get disarmed immediately. 3. If we couldn't get them disarmed we would probably invade before there was a threat. 4. Most likely, even if 1-3 didn't apply, India and Pakistan would kill each other from an extremist takeover before they'd bother us. 5. It doesn't matter who ELSE has nukes, Saddam is currently at the top of the threat list, and the only one to meet all 8 critera from my last post. 1) You think so? So your prepared to have troops there also? How many and how long and what cost? 2) How? 3) With what force, how fast, where would the build up without getting nuked? Attacking a country like that is a bit different from Iraq.... 4) What is wrong with you....if they start shooting nukes at each other it could lead to possible global destruction....what is wrong with you? 5) Yeah I thought the terrorists were....I wonder who it will be tomorrow... quote: Yeah, and Bin Laden knew that if his terrorists attacked the US, his entire training infrastructure in Afghanistan would be destroyed, his supporters would be killed, and he would probably be killed (which he is now). What is wrong with you?!?!?! He knew exactly what he was doing....we have caught how many out of the possible hundreds or even thousands of terrorists? His networks are intact and his organization is made to work under present conditions......and he probably wants us to attack Iraqwake up. quote: Saddam has cared very little for his or his country's well-being in the past, he wont care if he's nuked. We put him power because we know he will always act in his best interest...face it. Your argument doesn't work. You buy all this crap but he is presently not a threat....and may not be for years if ever.... quote: We should take out all the oppressive/totalitarian regimes. Solve all our problems. How bout we do one thing at a time hero...like kill the terrorists.....I guess it is more fun to put on a light show and justify that HUGE budget.... We'll see if we solve the problem when we face the blow back of an Iraqi invasion....
CommanderJohnson Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: It is good to see that "liberals" aren't the only ones who believe in fairy tales.... Stalin was a nut....but not suicidal....the same applies to Saddam. Deterrence has been highly effective and will continue to be so... No link can be proven that he supports terrorists...except the families of suicide bombers.... Stalin was a great leader and rational, even though he was highly immoral and his whole basis was keeping and expanding Soviet power. Deterrence would dictate that the United States would never be attacked. There are two types of deterrence. Conventional and Nuclear. Since the United States HAS BEEN ATTACKED, it proves that deterrence isn't going to work. When people start believing that their own lives mean nothing and that they are going to heaven FOR KILLING AMERICANS, then they aren't going to care if we nuke them or bomb them back to the stone age. Your the one believing in a fairy tale... Oh yeah, and as I said in my last post, if Saddam thinks that he can "accidently" let a terrorist get a nuke and not get caught, he isn't going to worry about getting nuked. quote: quote: nothing else matters except the 8 first 8 things I listed in my last post I will never agree that the ends justify the means. Ok, you aren't making much sense. I list 8 things that are definitely wrong with Iraq/8 problems/threats/whatever you want to call em, and 2 possibilities, I say that we need to solve the problem (means=invading) then you say i'm making the argument that the ends justify the means?!? Ok, lets see how your argument makes no sense... quote:Saddam IS: 1. Oppressing his people/Violating their rights/Has no problem killing them Ok, stopping CURRENT evils through military action is immoral? Somehow, using the military to end an oppressive military/totalitarian regime is "bad means"? Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Your advocating that if a country is carrying on a Holocaust, that we have to "be nice" and use only "diplomatic channels" in order to stop it. Saddam isn't going to suddenly stop oppressing his people, cause then he'd lose power. No other means are going to work to end his oppression of his people and his totalitarian regime. Geeze, under your logic the Civil War shouldn't have been fought since invading the South was using force to maintain the sanctity of the Union. Your interpretation of "never use ends to justify the means" is flawed. Your using that catch phrase to say "you can never have a good result from any action that I don't like". Invasion isn't immoral if it's to stop death and destruction. All just wars operate under the assumption of self-defense or defense of a moral good (following natural law for moral guidance). And this is self-defense (since I don't need to wait for someone to point a gun at me AND pull the trigger...i just need to know they are going to point the gun), AND morally justified (he's oppressing his people and you say that WE SHOULD LET HIM?!?!? quote:2. Violating UN Resolutions/Agreements Ok, are you going to make a clear advocacy or not? FIRST you say the UN and international law is critical, now you say that regardless of international law, attacking Iraq is immoral?!? Your "ends cant justify the means" argument only applies if the MEANS are intrinsically *IMMORAL*. If the means are IMMORAL, then "international law" doesn't matter. Under your "ends cant justify the means" logic, invading Iraq is immoral, thus it doesn't matter WHO authorizes it. So, make up your mind. Is invading Iraq immoral, or is it allowed if the international community says it's ok. If it's allowed, then "ends dont justify the means" doesn't make any sense. If it's immoral, then your advocating that we let every atrocity in the world happen as long as we aren't getting physically shot at. quote: 3. Storing/devloping/has chemical and biological weapons Ever hear of self-defense and defense of human life? Invasion solves the problem, and it's the only thing that will (proven empirically over the past 10 years). Only means available to stop him. quote: 4. Anti-America Combined with the others, proves self-defense. quote: 5. A totalitarian dictator Combined with the others, proves oppression of people. quote: 6. Irrational in terms of international actions Look at history, combined with others proves threat to United States. quote: 7. *WANTING* Nuclear WeaponsCombine with others. quote: 8. Supporting Radical Islamic causes (Israeli suicide bombers) This one is really interesting. He obviously supports the goals of terrorist organizations like Al-Queda (same religious backing/terroristic), and yet you make the case that he won't give them weapons to use against us? There's very little reason why he won't either GIVE them the weapons, or tell them HOW to build the weapons. Both of which he is unlikely to get caught doing, ESPECIALLY if he only tells them how to build them. He's just as dangerous as them, and the only way to stop him is to invade. quote: PROBABLY: 1. Developing Nuclear Weapons quote: 2. Supporting terrorism against the United States Ok, so we should let him wipe out thousands of lives. Right. *sarcasm* quote: Understanding why an administration does what it does is critical in a free society....this country was not supposed to resemble a totalitarian regime...and I dont think it was supposed to run by big business.. Now, the "big business" comment is just typical liberal BS, and i'm going to ignore it, and makes no sense in regards to an attack on Iraq. A war, more likely than not, is going to HURT the economy and HURT big business, not help. As for understanding why an administration does what it does, I agree, it is important in a free society. I also think that government should be transparent so we know everything it does. But due to the way the government works, and the fact we can't read people's minds, we cant ASSUME the intent of government, because we dont KNOW the intent. You think that it's some self-serving reason, and I think it's for safety and security of the nation. But since we CANT find out the intent, we must look to the FACTS and RESULTS of an action. I listed the problems with Iraq that exist now, and that need to be solved, and that would probably be solved through an invasion (which the administration is planning) We have to judge governmental actions by their probably results, not by SPECULATION of intent. quote: quote: 1. We wouldn't let the Pakistani government be overrun by extremists AND the leadership is pretty strong in the military to stop it. 2. If it was, we would make sure they get disarmed immediately. 3. If we couldn't get them disarmed we would probably invade before there was a threat. 4. Most likely, even if 1-3 didn't apply, India and Pakistan would kill each other from an extremist takeover before they'd bother us. 5. It doesn't matter who ELSE has nukes, Saddam is currently at the top of the threat list, and the only one to meet all 8 critera from my last post. 1) You think so? So your prepared to have troops there also? How many and how long and what cost? 2) How? 3) With what force, how fast, where would the build up without getting nuked? Attacking a country like that is a bit different from Iraq.... 4) What is wrong with you....if they start shooting nukes at each other it could lead to possible global destruction....what is wrong with you? 5) Yeah I thought the terrorists were....I wonder who it will be tomorrow...1) The intent of my statement was that the PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT is strongly backed by the military. The leadership wouldn't let the extremists take over because the PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT would have the extremists shot. 2) We would turn to international law and the previous Pakistani government to get rid of their nukes quickly. 3) An invasion would be difficult due to the possibility of getting nuked, but in that case, we'd just nuke Pakistan, end of story. (not to mention the loss of American life due to an invasion would be much better than waiting for them to get a nuke into the US and kill us) 4) If they start shooting nukes at each other it'd lead to global destruction? What is wrong with *YOU*? A limited nuclear exchange in that part of the world would not kill us, since the number of nukes and power of them is nowhere near enough to cause a catastrophy. Additionally, i'm not saying that's a GOOD thing, i'm just saying that under your unlikely scenario of "Pakistani extremists take over", that the United States would probably not have to worry about Pakistan, since India would be the main target, not the United States. 5) Ok, tell me where the terrorists are, specifically? Thanks. If you can't target the terrorists specifically, you cut off their supply lines. Saddam supports the suicide bombers, and he probably supports Al-Q, not to mention that even if he doesn't support them YET, there's no reason why he isn't going to once he has weapons. quote: quote: Yeah, and Bin Laden knew that if his terrorists attacked the US, his entire training infrastructure in Afghanistan would be destroyed, his supporters would be killed, and he would probably be killed (which he is now). What is wrong with you?!?!?! He knew exactly what he was doing....we have caught how many out of the possible hundreds or even thousands of terrorists? His networks are intact and his organization is made to work under present conditions......and he probably wants us to attack Iraqwake up.Ok, he knew exactly that HE was going to get killed and his other LEADERS were going to get killed, and that his TERRORIST camps would be destroyed and the government of one of his HAVENS (Afghanistan) would be destroyed, and yet you make the case that all people (like Saddam) are rational and don't want to die? If BIN LADEN didn't care, then why should Saddam? Your sprouting two opposing viewpoints AGAIN. Pick one. Also, you claim that he WANTS us to attack Iraq. Other than the fact it's suspected Bin Laden is dead (even if he's not, my argument still stands since his top leaders have been killed), you were probably saying he WANTED us to attack Afghanistan. This is great, we assume that enemies WANT us to attack them, so we don't. That like assuming someone who pulls a gun on you WANTS you to shoot him, so you shouldn't do it. quote: We put him power because we know he will always act in his best interest...face it. Your argument doesn't work.You keep assuming that past events make current facts disappear. It doesn't matter if 15 years ago we called Saddam the second-coming-of-Christ, gave him our latest military hardware. and called Iraq a bastion of Democracy. CURRENT EVENTS REMAIN. 1-8 that I posted still apply. He is a threat and should be removed. quote: You buy all this crap but he is presently not a threat....and may not be for years if ever.... I posted 8-10 problems/threats from Iraq, and unless you explain away ALL OF THEM, there is justification for attacking him, and he IS a threat, unless "threat" to you is AFTER he already kills thousands of Americans. quote: quote: We should take out all the oppressive/totalitarian regimes. Solve all our problems. How bout we do one thing at a time hero...like kill the terrorists.....I guess it is more fun to put on a light show and justify that HUGE budget....We can do two things at once, not to mention your implying that there's some reason to justify a HUGE budget doesn't make any sense. No administration wants to spend money for the fun of it (except for the democrats and all their stupid socialistic welfare programs). Iraq truly is a threat, and needs to be stopped. And if you want some justifcation for it, look at the fact he's making the UN (and international law) look like a JOKE. quote: We'll see if we solve the problem when we face the blow back of an Iraqi invasion....We won't see a significant blow back.
Guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 Dredd, Those explanations were excellent, I'm gonna let you deal with him. Lothar Has got a death wish as far as I am concerned, but I don't, the sooner we take down Saddam the better. And th safer the world will be for my children and I have 2 with another on the way. I don't want some nutball Islamist Jihad type being able to take out 30 square miles because Sadam decided it was christmastime for terrorists and starts handing out WMD's like they are candy. He must be dealt with and dealt with now, BEFORE he is a Bigger danger then he already is.
Lotharr Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 This is getting out of hand.... I guess we both have fairy tale worlds....but in mine, Pax Americana is not a good thing. International law, furthering democracy, and building a sustainable economy take priority..... You advocate the way of empire, might over right, and short term thinking so I cannot agree. In fact, the way you describe these various scenarios tell me that you lack an understanding of history and human nature. I believe that your ideas will ultimately bring war and global destabilization and end by killing more Americans and civilians in general. So I guess we will see what we see.... But honestly I don't have time to respond to all that fantasy. Your military arguments lack practical knowledge and the rest is just hawkish nonsense.....sorry. Heh hehyou typed me into submission...for now... [ 09-16-2002, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
CommanderJohnson Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: This is getting out of hand.... I guess we both have fairy tale worlds....but in mine, Pax Americana is not a good thing. I'm simply advocating the safety and security of Americans and people throughout the world to be free from oppression, tyranny, and threat of death from biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. quote:International law, furthering democracy, and building a sustainable economy take priority..... International law-yep, it would be nice if the U.N. would do it's job enforcing it's resolutions instead of backing down all the time. Furthering democracy-yeah, I agree. We need to stop the oppression of people by totalitarian dictators. Too bad the UN isn't going to do it... Building a sustainable economy-well, sure. Go ahead and explain in detail if relates to the topic... quote:You advocate the way of empire, Empire? What? I'm saying we should stop totalitarian regimes, and you still fail to explain away the 8 to 10 points I listed about why Iraq is a danger. In no way am I advocating an expansionist empire (negative connotation) that is hurting the world. quote: might over right So your saying the stuff totalitarian regimes do is RIGHT?!?!? What the... Ok, i'm advocating right over nice. It's right to stop the problems in the world, it's "nice" to try to negotiate and be nice when it ISNT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. quote:and short term thinking so I cannot agree. Short term thinking is leaving it how it is because he's not a threat YET. Pre-emption is long term thinking. quote: In fact, the way you describe these various scenarios tell me that you lack an understanding of history and human nature. History-force ends totalitarian regimes, democracies and freedom promote peace. Human nature-if you believe that killing Americans will get you into the afterlife, they wont care about death. quote: believe that your ideas will ultimately bring war and global destabilization If we maintain resolve to stop threats, any war will ultimately benefit freedom and a common good. Global destablization? How? At worst it'd be only the Middle East, and maybe the destablization will end in a more stable and free world. quote: But honestly I don't have time to respond to all that fantasy. Your military arguments lack practical knowledge and the rest is just hawkish nonsense.....sorry. Heh hehyou typed me into submission...for now... What military arguments are lacking practical knowledge? They all make perfect sense. I assume your referring to the nuclear exchange arguments in regards to Pakistan, but those also make sense. There would not be any world escalation of a nuclear exchange since no one in Russia or the United States want the world to end. India and Pakistan would irradiate each other, and that'd be it. We have no interest in escalating it or helping one side or the other since we don't want a nuclear holocaust. We'd let em duke it out.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 Well, maybe Iraq is going to stop being so annoying. Lets see what this letter contains. Hopefully it'll meet with US approval, if so, it's better than going to war, even though it would be freeing a lot of people from oppression AND it'd be solving a problem that will undoubtably surface in the future. (Saddam will just wait for a gutless US administration...we all know it)
Guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 Saddam is stalling. This was too easy. When the inspectors get too close, he will boot them out. He is weeks away from a nuclear weapon, I almost guarantee it, and when he has one, the middle east will explode.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 16, 2002 Report Posted September 16, 2002 We're going to look so bad if we don't accept Saddam's letter. Geeze, it's going to be hell either way.
Herbie Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Saddam is stalling. This was too easy. When the inspectors get too close, he will boot them out. He is weeks away from a nuclear weapon, I almost guarantee it, and when he has one, the middle east will explode.Hey Jag! You crack me up. He's only weeks away, says who. He wants to blow us up eh? Supposing he aquired a nuclear capable device by whatever means do you suppose he would actually use it. What would his delivery method be? Perhaps a camel? If he used it he would be nuked. The only country threatening other, and making "contingency" plans for nuking people is the Good Ole US of A. The only country that decides who and what is "allowed" to have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Who gave them the right to decide. It's all about the oil. If there wasn't any oil do you think we would care. Here's the headline: US Invades Iraq, after a brief skirmish in which 5 US Soldiers die from friendly fire, US Captures 500000 square miles of sand dunes and rocks. LOL
Lotharr Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 Thank god someone out there can see through the BS....Herbie you da' man.... That is why I respect the international community (Europe + Canada)......they have this strange ability to see through the crap my people call truth...heh heh....god bless you Herbie your more of a patriot then those two and you don't even live here....heh heh...
Guest Grayfox Posted September 17, 2002 Report Posted September 17, 2002 well if you have problems with "your people" lotharr, then just friggin move and quit the friggin *****ing. christ youre in the armed forces... sounds hypocrtitical... if you disagree with what youre doing in the service or what they are doing then leave. you VOLUNTEERED, you should be able to QUIT just as easy. it was when i was in. but i sucked it up... lived thru haiti, and bosnia. you think that was a cake walk??? you think i thought it was right for us to be in either spot??? no, but i didnt go bashing the country either. youre a soldier in the united states armed services for christ sake, better pull your head out of your 4th point of contact. makes me frigign gag. matter of fact put in a 4187 for korea if you like it there. then ets and just jump the parallel into the north. or goto germany and ets there, i mean its not that hard to move to a different coutry if youre still in the service. i just got tired of the whining and the bashing you are doing and decided to finally post.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now