Lotharr Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 I thought I described him perfectly. He's like too many in this country...his ignorance (lack of knowledgeto be PC) is second only to his aggressiveness....I am not trying to insult him but rather put him in perspective. I really don't care what he thinks about my being a soldier...he thinks my views bring some kind of shame to the profession. Being a soldier in the American Army is about defending the ideas of democracy, freedom, law, and equality....we have not fully realized these ideals but with time I believe we will....I'm sounding off with my beliefs and so is he....however, where as I realize this is what this country is all about....it seems to scare and offend him. This potential war is about oil..it is clear as the evidence is reviewed.the hype is on the liberty and freedom we will spread..but accomplishing that is not clear. We dont know how many American will be killed in an urban assault. We have no plan to get out.like Vietnam. We dont know how much it will cost. We dont have real linkage of Saddam and terrorists. Blowback is a real issue that is not being discussed. We dont have any clear evidence that he has WMD or how close he is. We have a group that has attacked us and we cant seem to make much progress in apprehended them so we look for an easy target..and more importantly securing oil for our future use. To ask American service members to risk their life without even a real discussion of the FACTS is inappropriate. When American generals, on the job right now, express doubts before being stifled SERIOUS doubts are raised in my mind. Jag acts like a chicken-hawk and should try to get a job in the Pentagon. [ 09-29-2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 Lothar, You still don't get it, do you? Geez, you must be a grunt. Saddam has WMD's Saddam helps and encourages and finances terrorist organizations. Saddam does NOT trade in oil now, he pirates it through Syria. The free flow of oil from the OPEC countries. would HURT the companies that you think Bush would be helping. What happens when there is a huge jump in production? The price DROPS!!! This would not help ANY oil company. You need to put your critical think8ing cap on and think about the stuff you are talking about. You do not have a clue what the head of the army is thinking, what? did he come down there and tell you his problems personally? Or did you hear from the media that the Generals have some concerns about an attack on Iraq? Concerns are one thing, but the media blows them into something that they are not. Bush has the plan on his desk, and I assure you the generals are quite happy with it. Time to learn some CRITICAL thinking skills Lothar, time to pull the wheat, real information from the huge amount of Chaff, BS by the liberal biased media. Your Pacifist ways make it very easy for them to mold you to feel what they want you to feel. Whereas, if you would actually look at it, think about in a logical fashion, the answer just hits you right in the face. A: a free flow of oil would NOT help oil companies. your argument falls on it's face. B: Saddam HAS WMD's and is not afraid to use them. Your argument about he does not have WMD's falls on it's face. C: Saddam does not finance terror Wrong, he finainces palestinian suicide bombers to the tune of 25K a piece. There is now intellignce that links him to Al Quaeda and a chemical weapons training school for terrorists in Iraq. D: Saddam would never give a WMD to a terrorist organization, no rational leader would. Saddam is NOT rational, he is a megalomaniac, who will do anythuing to stay in power, up to and including giving a WMD to a terrorist organization to use against us or Israel. Your arguments fall on their face when looked at in a logical and informed way. So get informed, and use some logic, and quit being just a grunt!!
Guest Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 OK, here ya go Lothar, here's your playbook, read it, you are following it to the letter. Sounds pretty silly if you ask me. quote: The Quick And Dirty Leftist's Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism By John Hawkins Some disreputable people have suggested that Right Wing News is for the 'war on terrorism' or that we're 'biased against liberals.' What scandalous accusations! The truth is that we here at Right Wing News view ourselves as a 'fair and balanced' publication -- just like 'Arab News' or 'The Guardian'! But talk is cheap! That's why we decided to write 'The Quick And Dirty Leftists Guide To Arguing Against The War On Terrorism' to prove RWN's good intentions. Here are the key arguments lefties across the planet can use against those warmongering, oil guzzling, baby-killers on the right who are gungho about the 'war on terrorism'! Bush Should Have Stopped It--- But Not That Way!: Instead of focusing on what we should do now, claim that Bush could have stopped 9/11 before it happened by aggressively going after the terrorists pre-911. Then reflexively oppose every suggestion the Bush administration comes up with to prevent another attack because it will create a "police state." This one drives right-wingers crazy!! How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend? : We must force these right-wing zealots to realize that relationships between nations are NEVER are allowed to change. Since we were friends with Saddam in the eighties, it was hypocritical of us to kick him out of Kuwait and keep him from annexing Saudi Arabia. Even if he hates us now, is acquiring nukes, and has ties to terrorists we still can't attack him -- for some reason or another. I think there is a UN rule against attacking former friends for any reason or something. If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world peace! Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance : No one believes Saddam is going to actually allow unfettered inspections but we know from a decade of experience that he can literally run the inspectors around in circles for years. The more time Saddam wastes, the closer he gets to a nuclear bomb he can use to stop Bush's filthy war! It's About The Ordinary People : The most important reason you are against the war is because you care about the innocent people in Iraq. That's why you're so strongly against replacing the dictator who has starved, gassed, tortured, and oppressed so many of his own people -- you may not want to phrase it exactly like that, but you get the idea. Keep Moving That Goalpost : If the pro-war crowd starts beating you up too much because you won't support war under any circumstances, say that you are willing to use force.. A) As soon as Al-Queda is destroyed, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is over C) Afghanistan is a strong and stable Democracy D) Against Iran E) Against Pakistan F) Against Iran G) If inspections fail (again) H) Once the whole world agrees with us...etc. It really doesn't matter what you come up with here because the purpose is to delay things endlessly. Even if your condition were met, you would simply change the conditions you'd need to meet your goal. Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators : Act offended if anyone claims you are helping dictators and terrorists by opposing killing, capturing, or hindering them in any significant way. Sure that may be the actual RESULT of doing what you're suggesting, but INTENTIONS, not results, are what have to be considered. Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism : Just because you call Palestinian terrorists "freedom fighters", condemn every Israeli attempt to defend itself from terrorist attacks, believe Jews control the US media and government, and think a land dispute is an adequate reason for blowing up women and children at a bus stop (as long as they're Jews), does not make you anti-semitic. No matter how obvious your anti-semitism is, it doesn't count unless you ADMIT that you're anti-semitic. Remember Who The Real Enemies Are : Obviously, George Bush and America are to blame for the 'war on terrorism.' You should certainly never blame nations like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or the 'Disputed Territories', etc, for actually sponsoring terrorist groups that have no real purpose other than to murder innocent people. Show Me Osama's Corpse : Even though we haven't heard from Osama Bin Laden since the United States bombed the area he was in into blood, sand, and rubble, you must insist that the 'war on terrorism' is a failure since we don't have him in hand. Sure we haven't heard a thing from him in nine and half months but he's probably just laying low! The best thing about this one is that since Osama was probably blown into a fine red mist at Tora Bora, the Bush administration will never be able to 'prove' that he's dead. This means you can't ever be proven 'wrong' when you claim that he's still alive. Solutions? Uh.... : When pressed for solutions it's a good idea to mumble incoherently, or just say, "I don't know what we should do, but I know war isn't the answer!!!" If you're really pressed you can suggest that America should give more aid to the poor, that one never gets old. Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For : Demand that anyone who is pro-war sign up for the military because only people who are willing to risk their lives in combat have a right to advocate going to war. If they counter with "well if you believe that, then you should go to Iraq and throw yourself on one of Saddam's bunkers so you can be a 'human shield'" either quickly change the subject or say that you detest Saddam (despite the fact that you are firmly against any attempt at removing him from power). There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam! : Just because Hussein is a psychopathic dictator who gassed the Iranians and his own people, fought against the United States, tried to assassinate a US President, has massive stockpiles of WMD, is seeking nukes, and has ties to terrorists doesn't mean he's dangerous. In fact, we have no evidence that the global terrorist network is still a threat at all...except for 9/11 and all the other attacks across the world since then. War For Oil! : This war isn't really about terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, it's about oil like every big war America fought in during the last century! Well...except for WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and Korea... but the Gulf War was all about oil! Of course, Iraq only supplies 2.1% of America's oil and Afghanistan doesn't supply any...but "everyone" says it's about oil so it must be somehow or another! We'll Destabilize the Middle-East : It's common knowledge that the 'Arab Street' will immediately overthrow their leaders if Muslims are harmed anywhere across the world, no matter what the reason may be. Of course, we've gotten off lucky so far since the 'Arab Street' didn't erupt when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuke site, when Israel invaded Lebanon, when Israel 'invaded' the "disputed territories" about 500 times, when Reagan bombed Libya, when the US invaded Iraq, when the Serbs were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims, when the US invaded Afghanistan, when the US bombed through Ramadan, etc, etc. But this time the 'Arab Street' is REALLY SERIOUS!!! ______________ Congratulations! You've now learned everything you'll need to know to smash those favoring AmeriKKKan imperialism and hegemony! Now that is hilarious!!! Go ahead Lothar, tell me why we shouldn't fight and destroy Saddam!! Go ahead!! LOL ROFLMAO!!! [ 09-29-2002, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Guest $iLk Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 Jag that was hilarious . Interesting read.
Lotharr Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 quote: Bush Should Have Stopped It I don't play that game. quote: How Can We Invade Saddam When He Used To Be Our Friend? He was never the friend of the American people. He was chums with Rummy and Regan. They had lots of friend like him. We've learned a lesson about serving the greater good I think. quote: If We Preemptively Attack Iraq America operated in a clearly polarized world in the past. That is no longer the case. International politics have become more complicated. We don't need cowboy tactics or foreign policy controlled by the defense department. Even Kissinger agreed during his recent testimony before the Senate that might doesn't make right. And could not conceive of Bush acting unilaterally.....but I could. This is an issue of legitimacy. The world is becoming more resistant to US decree. Especially in the face of our concentrations of wealth, waste, and questionable democratic practices and competencies. Business as usual may have to change. quote: Insist That We Give Inspections A Chance He can only screw around if we let him. quote: It's About The Ordinary People Very much so. We have led the way on human rights issues and that has given us the moral right to lead. When we start losing that we start losing legitimacy. And I really could care less what a Republican would say about this. Big Business is destroying the lives of Americans. While both parties represent wealth the Republicans are shameless. America Inc. is sick. It uses good Americans who believe in family and Christian ideals to provide the voting base in their quest for the almighty dollar. It also leases our elected officials. I believe this sham will be exposed for what it is in time. quote: Keep Moving That Goalpost Not me home boy. If he violates UN resolutions he needs to pay the price. But not because of the war on terror. These two issues are not related....because of international law and global justice. quote: Never Admit That You Are Helping Terrorists And Dictators That is subjective. Some look at Bush as a dictator and his war advisors as terrorists. quote: Pretend To Be Offended When You're Accused Of Anti-Semitism Right....that's why America wouldn't let all the Jews into this country after WWII. Heh heh...that is so stupid. quote: Remember Who The Real Enemies Are Ever here of feeding the fire? Guess not. quote: Show Me Osama's Corpse Does it matter anymore? We aren't even fighting the war on terror. quote: Solutions? Uh.... Focus on the war on terror. Do not make more terrorists by foolish unilateral actions. Do not alienate those countries we need in order to be effective in the real war on terror. Hopefully "elect" a new president that can a least read a teleprompter. quote: Tell Those 'Chickenhawks' What For How about we listen to the experts and ask the tough questions that will get real answers. quote: There's No Reason To Bomb Saddam! Hey we can always find a reason! quote: War For Oil! Yes it is. Review the facts. This is a long term strategic oil grab that translates directly into power over other nations. quote: We'll Destabilize the Middle-East It is very possible.
Guest Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 Nice try Lothar, but your case makes little or no sense. That's OK, you and I can agree to disagree. I am beginning to think that not only do you not think logically, but are something else as well. I will not state it though, because it might hurt your feelings, and lord knows we don't want anyone to have hurt feelings now do we? Facts seem to be irrelavant to you, but hey, facts are irrelavant to all Liberals and socialists. So, what else should I expect from you?
Lotharr Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 I guess we'll have to see what we see.
CommanderJohnson Posted September 29, 2002 Report Posted September 29, 2002 quote: Your also failing to recognize he is oppressing his own people. Regardless of the *PERCIEVED* intent of the attack, a few facts remain that justify an attack: 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 I don't care if the administration is doing it because it'll help their oil or not. An invasion will STILL solve the above problems, and that's what we should care about.Would you please ANSWER the above argument (slight edit to #2, HAS historically ignored UN resolutions)? You keep talking about the Bush administration being evil, but you ignore the above, and you ignore the analysis in Jaguar's article about the Leftists position on a war on Iraq. You ALSO fail to respond to the argument that if Saddam is against letting inspectors into civilian facilities, he is OBVIOUSLY hiding something, since he doesn't allow property rights, and it'd be a perfect opportunity to blame the US for another "atrocity" if people's homes are searched. He also doesn't care about his people, so he wouldn't care about letting civilian facilities to be searched. You keep repeating leftist rhetoric while ignore the facts. Ok, the reason why destroying his own oil with nukes wouldn't make any sense: 1. Destroying oil would destroy the economy of his own country. 2. Threatening to destroy anyone else's oil would just cause a war to be waged against him. 3. It'd be more profitable to continue selling oil instead of destroying it. 4. The amount of oil we need can not be attributed to an attack on Iraq, since there is no direct relationship between Invading Iraq=more oil for the US. Not to mention that would just cause prices to drop for the oil due to less supply. Big business would = less happy/rich. quote: Cheney's/Rummy's administration could care less about the humanitarian issues....plus they have no real evidence that Iraq is close to a bomb...Iran is probably closer. Ok, who cares what the administration cares about as long as it benefits us? I may want Saddam dead because of the human rights violations, the guy next door may want him dead to help his stock portfolio, US troops stationed in the Middle East may want him dead because they dont want to be hit by bio-weapons. It doesn't matter WHY they want him gone, it matters that according to the facts, he SHOULD be gone. quote:Would it surprise anyone to know that all the people (more killers really) Cheney would install in New Iraq (the peoples republic of something) have vowed to cancel oil deals with any foreign powers that do not support America.no matter what we do.....imagine that.... Good, he's not replacing em with people who are going to hurt our economy and start a new dictatorship that oppresses the people and kills them. I'm glad. quote: Anyone who thinks that Saddam is actively supporting terrorists is just wrong. The reason Regan/Rummy set this loser up is because they knew he is an opportunist scum bag that is all about self preservation....he was an asset....that has now become obsolete. Yes that proves...proves.... ABSOLUTELY NOTHING . It doesn't even slightly relate to not attacking Iraq. Do you throw out liberal rhetoric for fun just to see us point out how it doesn't make sense? quote: This is about money for the policy makers and revenge for the patriots. Supported by the faithful crusaders and those that believe in the abstract notion of freedom.....but not necessarily in the Constitutional version of itand it stinks. 1. You fail to explain exactly how the policy makers are going to make money off of this. 2. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom for the Iraqi people by stopping Saddam. 3. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom for our people by getting rid of threats to their life. 4. You fail to explain how we aren't supporting freedom by stopping someone who is funding suicide bombers who kill innocent Israeli women and children. 5. You fail to explain how attacking Saddam is not going to solve the problems I listed above and posted TWO OTHER TIMES ON THIS THREAD . quote: No one should have WMD.from the petty and evil dictatorial regime to the God inspired fundamental/militaristic "democratic" one.Hebrew or Christian. 1. WMDs stopped all actual wars between superpowers. This has saved many lives and forced people to use diplomacy and economics instead of weapons, death, and destruction. 2. Sure, no one should have WMDs, but there's no way to disinvent them, so if anyone has them, it should be democractic nations that have freedom for their people and probably wont use them. 3. Totalitarian dictators should not have them, especially Saddam, because: a. He used them before. b. He is irrational and would have no problem using or selling them again. quote: Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote: Truth, law, due process, and fairplay.....this is what I value. This is my stance as a patriot. Patriot to what? The UN? Sad Lothar, very sad....quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Nope I'm a combatant....I just fight. No clearance required....and I'm an NCO. I take care of my soldiers and accomplish the mission. I could care less what you think my views mean to you....because its clear your just a trigger happy fascist while I'm still in the Guard and you just sit around and talk junk that your not even educated on.Jaguar is right, again. If someone questioned my commitment to the country, i'd get rather upset. You on the other hand seem to think that supporting the UN as opposed to America is the RIGHT thing to do. You don't even have any qualms with not supporting the US constitution. You took an oath to the *CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES* not to the United Nations. The second you forget that, is the second you betray our country for the benefit of other countries, and I don't think any of us would WANT you "fighting for us" under that scenario. quote: He's like too many in this country...his ignorance (lack of knowledgeto be PC) is second only to his aggressiveness....I am not trying to insult him but rather put him in perspective. 1. Calling someone ignorant is an insult. 2. Jag may get emotional/reiled about his beliefs, but he also supports it with logical analysis while pointing out flaws in your rhetoric, while at the same time posting articles. quote: I really don't care what he thinks about my being a soldier...he thinks my views bring some kind of shame to the profession. Being a soldier in the American Army is about defending the ideas of democracy, freedom, law, and equality....we have not fully realized these ideals but with time I believe we will....I'm sounding off with my beliefs and so is he....however, where as I realize this is what this country is all about....it seems to scare and offend him. 1. Being a soldier in the American Army is about defending the *CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES* and the *PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES*. 2. It's offensive and shameful when you openly profess to care more about a "world of peace and harmony" rather than the people of the United States. 3. a. Democracy-if you profess belief in the idea of democracy, you wouldn't advocate letting totalitarian dictatorships such as the one in IRAQ continue. b. Freedom-same concept as democracy, especially when the people are free to do what Saddam wants or they are shot, gassed, or tortured. And the people do not have freedom to gain information as we do in the US, so they are never free. c. Law-same as freedom. d. Equality-and again, no one will be equal when there are nations OPPRESSING THEIR PEOPLE via TOTALITARIAN REGIMES. quote: We dont know how many American will be killed in an urban assault. Or in a WMD attack on America or our allies. At least the soldiers signed up for it. quote: We have no plan to get out.like Vietnam. I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN. I think I posted about 2 paragraphs earlier on this topic about how there is NO COMPARISON to Vietnam, including but not limited to the political situation of the time (no China threatened by us to nuke us), geographical location (jungle vs desert), training (untrained vs gone to IRaq before), equipment (inaccurate and weak vs advanced and strong), desire (draft vs volunteer). quote: We dont know how much it will cost. Now you care about money? Which is it. Is life more important than money or is money more important than life? If he attacks us, one life would justify any cost. Also, we're going to lose a lot more money if we getting attacked by WMDs. quote: We dont have real linkage of Saddam and terrorists. Read the first quote I have in this post. Why, exactly, are you focussing on terrorism so much? There are plenty of non-terroristic reasons to justify attacking him, and there's always the possibility (at *least* 20% risk, i'd say), that he supports terrorists. quote: Blowback is a real issue that is not being discussed. That's because it's not a real issue. Please, give me a specific series of events that will be invovled in this "blowback" and why it would be bad? quote: We dont have any clear evidence that he has WMD or how close he is. Refer to first quote. Also, how close he is doesn't matter since we shouldn't wait till he's close to do something. That's taking a big risk. Sooner we stop him, the beter. quote: We have a group that has attacked us and we cant seem to make much progress in apprehended them so we look for an easy target..and more importantly securing oil for our future use. There is absolutely NO TRADEOFF. There are sleeper cells and terrorists spread throughout the world throughout many different nations, some our allies and democratic. Using the armed force to attack Iraq doesn't draw effort away from that since we can't/won't have army troops searching house by house in the United States, Canada, etc. Regardless, read the first quote on this topic about 10 times and understand that just because he's not a proven terrorist doesn't mean it's less important to attack him. Not to mention if you believe in freedom, democracy, etc, you wouldn't be making the argument that it has to be solely for stopping terrorism. Which is it, is all human life and freedom valuable (aka we attack Iraq) or is it not? (you don't support your own values) As for the oil argument, we get Iraq's oil now, and i've already responded to it earlier. quote: To ask American service members to risk their life without even a real discussion of the FACTS is inappropriate. The facts are clear. Your advocated nihilism until we get hurt. quote: When American generals, on the job right now, express doubts before being stifled SERIOUS doubts are raised in my mind. Ok, lets think about this. The American generals MADE THE WAR PLANS. Bush can't, won't, and isn't trained to make war plans. They are the military sphere. They plan the battles, and send in the troops when ordered. Their concerns about attacking are based on the argument that we shouldn't attack. Whether or not we should attack is NOT a military issue. That is a political issue. The GOVERNMENT runs the country, not the military. The elected officials act (supposedly) in the best interests of the American people after getting all the facts about the problems and dangers from Iraq, including info from the CIA, FBI, experts, satelite recon, Saddam's statements, etc (not all of which the military has access to). If they choose to attack Iraq, the generals have to make war plans, and they will make the best ones possible, but their opinion over how hard it is doesn't matter. What matters is it needs to be done, and they have to do it. Personal concerns don't factor in, since the military doesn't have all the facts. quote: Jag acts like a chicken-hawk and should try to get a job in the Pentagon. As for your responses to Jaguar's article, they don't even answer the arguments IN the article. You copy and paste the first 5 words and then make a statement without answering any of the arguments. I will respond to one argument, however: quote: Focus on the war on terror. Do not make more terrorists by foolish unilateral actions. Do not alienate those countries we need in order to be effective in the real war on terror. Hopefully "elect" a new president that can a least read a teleprompter. 1. Focus on the war on terror...so you've already stopped believing in freedom, democracy, law, and equality? Well, that means either: a. You only believe in it for the American people...but wait, you advocate it for the UN/everyone. b. You don't really believe in it, and are using it to hide a clearly pacifist attitude. c. You fail to see the atrocities in Iraq. 2. Don't make more terrorists? Please explain how this is going to uniquely happen from us attacking Iraq. Are the Germans going to start suicide bombings? The French? The British? Wait, the Mexicans are going to get mad and start coming from Mexico and carrying out suicide bombings because we attacked Iraq . The government's media in the Middle Eastern countries control what they see anyway. If we attack Iraq or not is irrelevent, the people that are going to be terrorists would have already done it due to the previous media propoganda in those countries, not to mention it's empirically denied cause terrorism didn't increase after Afghanistan. [ 09-30-2002, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]
Guest Posted September 30, 2002 Report Posted September 30, 2002 Dredd, After that. what else do I have to say? That was excellent, but it made far too much sense, so therefore, since logic is something that is totally foreign to Lothar, he is NOT going to answer any of your questions. He is in the National Guard, and is afraid that if PRESIDENT Bush actually goes in, he will actually have to fight, when in fact he was expecting some kind of free ride from the taxpayers. Sorry Lothar, you took an oath, and no matter what you think, the people with ACTUAL grey matter are going to make the decision. THANK GOODNESS. Saddam is going down, so either get with the program or get out!!
Lotharr Posted October 2, 2002 Report Posted October 2, 2002 quote: He is in the National Guard, and is afraid that if PRESIDENT Bush actually goes in, he will actually have to fight, when in fact he was expecting some kind of free ride from the taxpayers. There are those who plan war and those who fight it.
CommanderJohnson Posted October 2, 2002 Report Posted October 2, 2002 Yes, and those who fight in the war should never be the ones passing judgement on those who plan it since those fighting are always going to have a vested interest in saving their own lives even if it has more problems because of it. Oh yeah, and don't forget those who REALLY plan the war have already BEEN in the postitions where they'd have to fight it. Gotta love the concept of rank in the military.
Guest Posted October 2, 2002 Report Posted October 2, 2002 quote: There are those who plan war and those who fight it. Actually Lothar, you need to learn a little bit about the civilian government control of the military and why it is the way it is. The civilian government gives the military a mission. In this case, take out Sadam, and destroy the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Military looks at the mission and plans the war, the military then takes that plan to the civilian government and says, "here are the options". The civilian government looks at the plans, and gives the military the go ahead. In other words, the military, WHO WILL BE DOING THE FIGHTING, plan the war. So sorry charlie, you are WRONG, AGAIN!!! [ 10-02-2002, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Posted October 3, 2002 Fascinating article I ran across on my travels around the net. quote: Leviathan to the Rescue: The responsibility of the United States of America National Review ^ | October 3, 2002, | Paul Johnson The approaching war with Iraq is essentially a 21st-century problem. Strictly speaking, it has no precedent in history, and in terms of presidential power and national sovereignty, Mr. Bush is walking into unknown territory. By comparison, the Gulf War of the 1990s was a straightforward, conventional case of unprovoked aggression, like Germany's invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet I do not think Mr. Bush need hesitate to change the Iraq regime by force. Nor will he. He is quite clear on what he has to do. He can occupy Iraq by force under Security Council Resolution 678 of November 1990 and Number 687 of April 1991. To get further and explicit authorization from the U.N. is courteous but superfluous, and justified only by the need to line up as many allies as possible. Moreover, Mr. Bush, and the United States, are lawfully empowered to take action against Iraq by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which states plainly that nothing in the charter "shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense . . . until the Security Council has taken [the] measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." It is the last two words which are crucial. A year ago, the U.S. was subjected to an unprovoked attack of an unprecedented kind, which not only killed 3,000 people and destroyed much of the country's main financial district but was designed also to destroy America's legislative body and/or its executive, and its main defense headquarters. The scale of the attack, and the presumption that it would be followed by others, gave the U.S. the right, under Article 51, to punish the aggressors and to take all necessary steps to ensure its future security by destroying the source of their power, present and future. Hence the occupation and regime-change in Afghanistan was merely the first move. The ferocity of the 11 September assault, designed to kill the maximum number of people and demolish the heart of America's government and financial strength, made it obvious that its perpetrators would use any and all weapons of mass destruction the moment they acquired them. Hence, to ensure its security, the U.S. is plainly entitled, under Article 51, to prevent this from happening. There are two countries where sympathy for Moslem fundamentalist terrorists makes the possibility of supplying mass-destruction weapons likely. Pakistan already has a small arsenal of nuclear bombs. Mr. Bush has now satisfied himself that the present regime there will not supply them to terrorists and will prevent their theft. He would have an absolute right to prevent any change of regime, or indeed government, in Pakistan, if the consequences were likely to increase the risk of nuclear weapons' falling into terrorist hands. Granted Pakistan's instability and fragility, drastic steps such as the destruction of its nuclear stockpiles may still be necessary. Indeed the only long-term solution, desirable in itself, is the reunification of the Indian subcontinent, which ought to be an object of Western policy. Iraq's consistent sympathy and active support for terrorist movements, and the regime's record of unprovoked aggression, make us presume that its consistent efforts to make a wide range of mass-killer weapons will end in their use, against either the U.S. or Israel or both. Whether the regime plans to use them itself or supply them to terrorists is a detail. It is clear that the only safety for the U.S. is to ensure that the program is scrapped once and for all, and the experience of the past eleven years shows that this can be achieved only by changing the regime. Thus a U.S.-led invasion having this object is lawful under Article 51 and a country's inherent right of self-defense. What applies on the international plane applies a priori on the domestic one. It will be surprising if any substantial segment of opinion, inside or outside Congress, opposes the Bush resolve to end the threat from Iraq. The three basic tasks of government are to ensure external defense, to maintain internal order, and to operate an honest currency. Mr. Bush would be failing in the first two, and would make the third increasingly difficult, if he neglected to take all measures in his power to protect the people from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Instead, not only must he change the regime in Iraq; the question is: What further precautions must he take to make the U.S. reasonably safe? In the second half of the 20th century, the American government was obliged to answer this question by doing two very expensive and risky things. First, it had to build up a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons and continually update its delivery systems to maintain a balance of terror and/or first- and second-strike capabilities. Second, it had to construct a worldwide spread of alliances and bases to ensure its conventional superiority. These measures are still necessary but they have receded into the background. The foreground is occupied by the need to eliminate regimes which, in one way or another, make international terrorism on a large scale possible and threaten to produce mass-destructive terrorism. Such states include not only all "the usual suspects" ÔÇö Iran, Libya, Syria, Cuba, and North Korea (as well as Iraq) ÔÇö but Saudi Arabia too, whose authoritarian monarchy pays protection money to terrorists and spreads the religious fundamentalism which lies at the root of the problem. All these regimes need to be changed. By whose right, and with what authority, can the U.S. undertake such a wide-ranging program? It is this which takes us to the heart of the new, 21st-century form of geopolitics. The risk of great-power conflict is now small. The risk of nation-to-nation wars is diminishing. But the risk of colossal attacks on centers of civilization has increased, is increasing, and must be diminished. Imagine a world in which the United States was stricken by a successful series of nuclear, biological, and chemical attacks. Putting aside the appalling loss of American lives this would involve, the global consequences would be horrifying. The world would be plunged into the deepest depression in its history. There would be no power-of-last-resort to uphold international order. Wolf and jackal states would quickly emerge to prey on their neighbors. It would be a world as described by Thomas Hobbes in his Leviathan (1651), in which, deprived of a giant authority figure "to keep them all in awe," civilization would break down, and life, for most of mankind, would be "nasty, brutish and short." Hence, we do well to look at the crisis not as solely or even primarily an American problem, but as a global one. We need a Leviathan figure now much more than in the 17th century, when the range of a cannon was a maximum of two miles and its throw-weight was measured in pounds. America is the only constitutional Leviathan we have, which is precisely why the terrorists are striving to do him mortal injury, and the opponents of order throughout the world ÔÇö in the media, on the campus, and among the flat-earthers ÔÇö are so noisily opposed to Leviathan's protecting himself. But Leviathan will not be deterred. He is in arms, and knows what he has to do. Moreover, he is not a solitary autocrat as in Hobbes's day, but a constitutional ruler with an educated people of nearly 300 million behind him. To vary the metaphor, the clock is ticking towards high noon but the sheriff is buckling in his belt and the citizens are aroused. Mr. Bush has been given a mission by the brutal logic of events and he must carry it out promptly and in full. Is America, then, a world policeman? The answer must be: Yes, and thank God for it. Progress has contracted all distances and made destructive forces almost limitless. So the world is now too small, and the weapons of the malefactors too devastating, for us to do without a constabulary enjoying full powers and global reach. As Mr. Gladstone once said, "the resources of civilization are not yet exhausted," and Mr. Bush has no moral alternative but to put himself at the head of them, and point the 21st century in the direction of world order and peace. ÔÇö Paul Johnson, the British journalist and historian, is the author, most recently, of Napoleon. I agree with this assessment 100%...
Lotharr Posted October 3, 2002 Report Posted October 3, 2002 You guys are a strange breed.... All the people that actually served advocated we go slow...Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Wesley Clark, Norman Schwarzkopf.... Guess who wants to bomb first and think later...Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle...and Bush himself took a sheltered position in the National Guard.... Well at least we listened to those who actually served....strange days.... The below sums it up pretty good. http://www.democracymeansyou.com/satire/explainified.htm Dredd you must have a lot of spare time...
Guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Posted October 3, 2002 THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it? You may be brainwashed enough to think so, but if the founding fathers ever heard you call this country a democracy, they would have told you exactly where to take yourself. And what part of the 2% of the oil that comes into this country from Iraq is it we are going to war over. Anyone that says that this war is about oil is a MORON and doesn't understand facts, even when they kick them in the butt. [ 10-03-2002, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Jaguar ]
Epsilon 5 Posted October 3, 2002 Report Posted October 3, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: THIS COUNTRY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! Well the CIA world factbook says it's a federal republic with a strong democratic tradition. And looking in the dictionary, republic looks alot like democracy. Congrats. you definitely beaten the record for the longest topic. [ 10-03-2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ]
Lotharr Posted October 3, 2002 Report Posted October 3, 2002 Thank dredd and all those editorials.... Ahhh Jag, ever the calm and collected rational thinker I've come to loathe and admire Now watch...Dredd is going to write another page long rebuttal.... You two are an interesting pair...one will spurt emotional nonsense.....while the other will write such a load one doesn't have enough time to read it...let alone respond.... However in the end the truth comes out..... occasionally it makes a difference....usually it just drives people deeper into the world they've built or had built for them....well maybe oneday... Oh this just in.: 300+ days after Enron: 2 charges brought against former execs at Enron and 25 others through out the rest of corporate America.....the economy is still falling....and the corporate media drone on about war....well....between commercials that are trying to get you to invest...invest?....yes invest...I believe they think we're stupid....why would think that... God bless big business and the new aristocracy... [ 10-03-2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
Guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 Poor Lothar, facts don't mean a thing to you do they? I have given you as many facts as that little brain can handle, and it is obviously too much. You are now overloaded and kicked into old lessons learned from your liberal classmates and teachers. You live in a fantasy world, it would be amusing if it weren't so sad. Well, you keep thinking that Bush hid in the national guard, you keep thinking that the generals are all freaked out. You keep thinking that Bush was trying to Rush them. Because you aren't looking at the big picture, because if you were, you would see what a genius strategy this has been from the beginning. This is going to end with a minimum loss of life and a regime change in Iraq, COUNT on it. Bush knows exactly what he is doing, too bad you can't see the forest for the trees. The facts are all there, see if you can figure out what is going to happen. And NO, this war is NOT at all about oil, if we wanted oil so badly we would have taken those countries OUTRIGHT in the gulf war, who was gonna stop us? We have plenty of oil here at home, Iraq supplies maybe 2%, 2% is not and never will be a reason to go to war. This is about a dictator who has and is working on WMD's, whom we cannot trust NOT to give and share those weapons with terrorists. This is about getting rid of him, replacing that government with a democracy or a republic, either would be preferable over what they have now, and giving the Iraqi people freedom and security. Along with our allies and the rest of us. You are becoming very tedious, because the facts do not mean a thing to you. You just spout the old liberal line of how it's all about oil, NO FACTS to back that up of course. How the politicians are just ACHING for war and are rushing the military and the world into war. You have not been paying attention. You take the word of the media and just spout it. Learn to think for yourself please, it will make you a better person, and a better soldier. There is a word for people like you, and a good amount of Americans are the same way, so I can't blame you too much, but hopefully you will grow out of it, but at the rate you're going, not gonna happen. That word by the way is "sheeple"
Guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 Here's an article for you Lothar. The dude's an idiot, because his facts are out there in left field somewhere, half of his so-called facts are outright wrong and the rest is based on a really silly idea about fundamentalists, but I am sure you will love him. quote: Bush dead wrong about Iraq Pahrump Valley Times ^ | 09/18/02 | JAMES BO GRITZ The Islamic Jihad will strike America after Bush invades Iraq. The level of violence and damage will likely exceed Sept. 11, 2001! This I can promise you. Yeah right, with what? Jaguar Right now there are unguarded nuclear weapons in the U.S. waiting to be used by terrorists against us. Known as SADMs (Small Atomic Demolition Munitions) or "suitcase nukes," these pocket bombs have the blast power of 5,000 tons of TNT. Moreover, their surface radiation contamination and "fallout" magnifies the footprint of these man-portable weapons. SADMs are part of the many Soviet Unconventional Warfare caches secreted throughout America (as we did in Europe) during the cold war in anticipation of general war between the USA and USSR. These weapons use a tritium trigger, useless if not maintained extensively after 6 months The only countries that are capable of creating tritium are the US and Russia. We don't make it any more and Russia can't afford to make it anymore, so these weapons, if they have them are useless. Jaguar There will be no extreme acts of Islamic terrorism in the United States if Bush does not massively damage innocent Arab lives, property, infrastructure and economic means. This I can also promise you. The 9-11 attack was in direct retaliation for such "collateral" destruction during Desert Storm - even as Pam Am 103 (Dec. 1988) was retribution for the U.S. downing of an Iranian AirBus 300 (July 1988). BS, they want to attack us because they want to kill us, they have been doing this for thousands of years, this is nothing new and has nothing to do with the gulf war. Jaguar I am a loyal American citizen - not a mind reader, or in communication with any terrorist contact. The reason I know what will happen is because I understand the Holy Koran and Islam. I trained Afghan Muhajadeen, was an advisor in Saudi Arabia, and have conducted operations in East/West Africa (Muslims), Indonesia and Bangladesh. While this was more than 10 years ago, the Koran has not changed a single scintilla. After the WTC and Pentagon bombings, I publicly assured Americans that there would be no further acts of Islamic violence as long as Bush did not go beyond reason in searching out and exterminating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Koran is specific in concerning jihad warriors, revenge, and spiritual rewards. Islam cannot attack an enemy until attacked; then they must respond in a like degree - ergo following the Desert Storm blitz, the jihad targeted the WTC representing coalition economy, while the Pentagon was the primary military nerve center. We had no Islamic terrorism in American until we attacked Iraq. The jihad assaults against the U.S. Marines in Beirut, U.S. Airmen in Saudi Arabia, and U.S. Navy in Yemen were in opposition to U.S. military occupation in Islamic nations. There are many ancient Arab sayings - the thrust of many being: If you don't want trouble with Arabs, leave them alone. This guy again does NOT have a clue, (9:5) "Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them, capture and besiege them and prepare for them every kind of ambush." Qur'an (8:39) (2:193) "Make war on them until idolatory does not exist any longer and Allah's religion reigns universally." They want to kill us because we are the only ones that could actually stop them. Jaguar Not since the Goebbels and Hitler stage-production of the invasion of Poland, has the world witnessed such a snow job by the cast of George "mini-me" Bush and company trying to justify a second blitz of Iraq. They have failed to tie Saddam with Al-Qaeda, or prove that he has weapons of "mass destruction" beyond what we gave him during his seven-year war against Iran. What makes the Bushwhacker's cry for hair, eyes and teeth even worse is the means he intends to use. General Wayne Downing is a friend of mine. Before serving in the White House as chief advisor to NSC-head Condoleezza Rice and Tom Ridge (Homeland Security), Wayne was CincSOCom (Commander-in-chief, Special Operation Command, at McDill AFB, Florida). Every Navy SEAL, Army Ranger, Paratrooper, Green Beret, and Delta Force operative was under his command. Wayne walked away from the White House on 26 June because he could no longer support the Bush plan for taking out Saddam Hussein. The "Downing Plan" called for a small group of special forces working with Kurds and some dissident Iraqis to "cut the head off the snake" allowing the body to die, while placing only a handful of Americans in harm's way. Tommy Franks favored a 200,000-man military force to accomplish the same task. Bush gave the nod to Tommy and his army. Back to my warning and promise. General Downing's plan is completely within the Muslim law forbidding any retaliation. The Bush-Franks solution demands an equal reaction - more homeland terrorism - this time possibly big-time! More terrorism means more homeland defense. Where does it end? A slave is an example of a perfectly secure person. This is our country. We can stop the deployment of 18-year-old National Guardsmen and the invitation for greater terrorism in America. As individuals we can't do everything, but we can all do something. Notify our three congressmen to act for us in keeping our military guarding America so we can sleep peacefully at night. The Attorney General may say that Bush doesn't need Congress to attack Iraq, but it doesn't mean Congress can't bulldog mini-me before he stampedes the herd! This guy is so full of himself that it is hilarious. He does not have a clue what is going on, and we DO have special forces training dissident forces and Kurds in Northern Iraq as we type. This guys a fool and is totally clueless, he listens to himself WAY too much. Jaguar
Charles Lindsey Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 snip article by quote: ÔÇö Paul Johnson, the British journalist and historian, is the author, most recently, of Napoleon. quote:I agree with this assessment 100%... You do realize he is talking about building an American empire don't you? [ 10-03-2002, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Charles Lindsey ]
Lotharr Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 I would like to make an informed decision based on facts.....not fear. Bush has not presented anything resembling fact....Kennedy gave the country photo's...all this guy can give us is fumbled speeches and wild west tough guy talk.... Sheeple is reserved for a people that blindly follow policy without demanding any real evidence.... Face it Jag in a country where 1 out of 5 citizens don't have health care in the modern world....2 mil are incarcerated.....one government branch chooses the officials of the other...and it costs millions to run for office ....all the media is owned by 5 people..you and me are looking more and more like second class citizens....and Im seriously rethinking my position on gun control One dollar one vote..... [ 10-04-2002, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]
AWells Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 quote:The Bush-Franks solution demands an equal reaction - more homeland terrorism - this time possibly big-time!Oh... so this guy thinks 9-11 was some minor inconvience? I don't think question is really one of whether we should attack Iraq or not, but rather one of trying to decide on the best use of Saddam's remains... maybe the Bush administration could make authentic Saddam hide wallets to hand out to visiting dignitaries to the white house. Just imagine how much revenue can be generated by auctioning something like that off on Ebay.
Guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 quote: I would like to make an informed decision based on facts.....not fear. Bush has not presented anything resembling fact.... Where have you been? No facts, give me a flipping break, have you read the Blair Dossier, have you been listening to congress? has your head been in the sand or what? Bush has given PLENTY of facts, this fear thing your spouting is right out of the antiwar socialist talking points. How about some facts Lothar? Just a few....
Lotharr Posted October 4, 2002 Report Posted October 4, 2002 quote: Oh... so this guy thinks 9-11 was some minor inconvience? He thinks that it can get a lot worse. If a person wanted to they could find information that shows American policy is imperialistic. Not because we want it that way but because that is the nature of the "free market"....and being on top. Because our economy is dependant on others we will have an economic interest in certain areas we would otherwise stay away from.. Having an interest is one thing. Having the most powerful military force in the history of man is something else. Our reliance on power is the lazy answer in a world where civilized and wanna be civilized societies have to work their issues out in nonlethal manner. Hence, the resentment of Bush and his bully tactics...and unfortunately America in general. All civilized societies disagree with the notion that might makes right....except lately with the so called "leader of the free world". They have a culture that is very feudalistic in nature....and very devout. Male adherence to Muslims belief is significantly higher then in current Christian circles. They see capitalism as inherently counter to the teachings of Muhammad and anti-Muslim.a form of evil.a real evil in the perception of too many.. This strong faith...like that of the Christian martyrs and medieval crusaders should not be underestimated. If we attack Iraq without Saddam doing something that is clearly provocative and anti-Muslim in nature (attacking a country with out reason *yes that is highly subjective* ) we could face a levels of hate no nation has ever seen If this potential movement for jihad turns into something global.Id bet this country will be forever altered. to the point of impossible recognition by the standards of current living, liberty, freedoms etc. That is if, we as a nation can survive the radical reinterpretation of our Constitution by a government that is charged with saving a society by having to control that society..our daily lives evento make us safe.from the terror. But lets just take a step back.what if today only 1 out of every 500,000 Muslims join Jihad because of our unilateral support of Israel and other questionable agreements..what if that changes to 1 out of every 250,000 with our action in the Mid east.. Is it worth it? Intelligence is notoriously poor at penetrating these fundamentalist groups.and throwing money at the issue doesnt change that.we are still going to suffer attack after attack. We are being told to risk our way of life for what? To give freedom and liberty to a people that may not be ready for our brand of these ideals..for a people who see us as evil.a people we will have to destroy then rebuild in the American ideal..to promote what? Free Trade..stabilized oil markets.strategic oil controlis it worth it to you and me? I can understand the billionaire scumbag but do these reasons work for us? And Jag your wrongOn CNN today Wolf hand an expert in to talk about the economy.he says we should go to war as soon as possible..the uncertainty is hurting the market..and like the last war we will release oil from the national reserve and that will lower prices until the new oil can start flowing.To wolfs credit he did ask once about American oil interest.unfortunately the guy sidestepped the question and talked about other aspects of the economy. Time to look at the real interests and whats really at stake.Saddam got his job because he is reliably selfishhe is a business mandeterrence works. Bin Laden and other groups have labeled this man as an infidel and a potential target of assassination.Saddam is probably one of the best supporters of the war on terror because he has been labeled for termination by these groups there is no connection. The American people dont want this warand for good reason. Heh heh beat that Dredd....
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now