| Author | Message | ||
     Adrian Strata (Adrians) New Member Username: Adrians Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2003 |
Makes you want to reach out and rip their throats out!!! http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html Adrian | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 282 Registered: 07-2002 |
The Iraqi Misister to the U.N. yesterday, stated in the press room, in front of TV cameras, that Iraq was not feeling any tremendous amount of pressure to comply with U.N. Sanctions because of all the support they are getting from the protests in Europe and the U.S. and because of the apparent splits in the U.N. and NATO... | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 71 Registered: 08-2002 |
Are you really surprized? These are the same people that demonstrate at world bank summits. they are all anti capitalist or anarchists or commies or just plain stoooooopid. | ||
| Steve Andrews (Sillybus) Member Username: Sillybus Post Number: 173 Registered: 08-2002 |
I was watching "Dazed and Confused" this past Monday and I saw that you can put a spin on anything to have it support your "beliefs". A teacher in the movie commenting on the 4th of July said this: "OK, guys, one more thing. Hey, this summer when you're being inendated with all this bi-centennial, fourth of July, bru-ha-ha just remember what you're celebrating. That's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning aristocratic white males did not want to pay their taxes." I just about cracked a rib at that one. | ||
| Christopher Boese (Christopher) New Member Username: Christopher Post Number: 17 Registered: 10-2002 |
These are the kind of people who make any cause look poorly thought-out, on the fringe, and supported only by kooks. I saw plenty of these empty-headed leftist trendies at the march in LA last weekend. Fortunately, they weren't able to drown out the ordinary people who were there to support the UN and to say, "Hey, wait a second!" | ||
| Alex Cabrera (Alexcabrera) Member Username: Alexcabrera Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2002 |
Ah.. another ... 'we have a failed oil man as leader' post. Think about it. The whole auto industry is based on oil. From gasoline to engine oil to grease for your u-joints etc. Except with the recent advent of synthetics. Bush said it best with his statement 'we get (oil) from people that don't like us very much' Anyways.. Unless you don't care about the servicemen that are headed there to join a possible armed conflict, let war be the last option. All above are my opinions. Thats what makes this country great! | ||
| Patrick Oberg (Obie) New Member Username: Obie Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2003 |
"let war be the last option." Are you saying that war is NOT the last option? And if so... is it the first option? just curious... | ||
| Alex Cabrera (Alexcabrera) Member Username: Alexcabrera Post Number: 93 Registered: 12-2002 |
I guess folks here never been in a fight? How does it start. First there must be a reason. (unless your drunk) Second there are folks that try to reason with you or egg you on. Thirdly.. you either put up or shut up. This is where your choice of weapons come in handy. Heard the expression 'don't bring a knife to a gunfight' Don't know the way you process information but there are always options. The UN (including other) want more inspections. Although others might be inclined to think that the UN are a bunch of faggots for wanting more inspections.. that is an option. Diplomacy is an option. Saddam stepping down is an option. Can anybody else think of other options. I'm not saying that none of these will work but again, war should be last option. | ||
| John Abrams (Jabra2) New Member Username: Jabra2 Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2003 |
To Alex and anyone "anti-war" here, Let me first say that almost everyone is anti-war. Nobody wants to see or be a part of the atrocities of the worst failing of man. But not everyone is against the Bush plan. Please watch the video again and answer all the questions raised by the interviewer. We would all be very interested in what you'd have to say, as anti-war people, since I have yet to hear an anti-war person with legitimate answers to these questions. I am not trying to flame anyone, I respect everyone's opinion, but I don't respect it when a person doesn't have a legitimate opinion in the first place and starts requoting what he or she hears people say on tv when they get all excited about things and don't think logically. And it doesn't tickle me at all when a person goes blank when asked one of these questions, it really saddens and embarasses me to see we're a nation of ignorant people who don't even realize what they are or aren't supporting. So please, if you are against the Bush plan, watch the video and post your thoughts here. I know this is DiscoWeb, but I'd like to think that this is a place that enjoys the same kind of things I do, and I just want to see what people on this board think. Thanks! -J | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 151 Registered: 10-2002 |
John, I have stayed out of this thread because I am unable to view the video and therefore felt it inapropriate to make any comments. However, I am decidedly anti-war and, if you are willing to post the questions posed in the video I would be more than happy to express my opinions in an attempt to answer them. Alternatively, if you read the earlier threads, 'State of the Union' and 'State of the Union Part Deux,' I think you'll be able to get a handle on my perspective. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Jim H. (Victor_mature) New Member Username: Victor_mature Post Number: 9 Registered: 02-2003 |
Well spoken John Abrams, People who say "War should be a last option" are the same people who say, "only search until you find it." No kidding. (Why would you continue looking after you've found it?) In the 1930's Hitler massed weapons and troops while the rest of Europe "discussed its options to resolve the problem". Then Hitler rolled his tanks through Poland and Czechoslovakia and slaughtered people. Let me dwell there for a moment: He lined up men and woman and children and machine-gunned them into trenches, he slid them, alive, into ovens to save bullets, he gassed them. That was only 60-some years ago and, because he had such a head start, it took a world-wide war to stop him. In 1991 Saddam rolled his armor into Kuwait and it took a war to stop him. That war ended when Saddam basically surrendered, surrendered to the terms of the UN. In the years since then, he has reneged on those terms. And it will take a war to stop him. I'd prefer to do it before he has too big of a head start. Jim Hemauer US Army (retired) 2nd Battalion (Airborne) 187th Infantry Reg. Angels Over Hell | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 296 Registered: 07-2002 |
The same people who are against this war that has not happened yet. Were in full support of Clinton when he took it to Slobo. Why? Because they voted for Clinton and wanted to be the next Monica. And because he called it a "Peace Keeping Operation". These people are so ignorant that if Bush started calling it a P.K.Op. tomorrow half of them would start supporting him. But since he is a man of priciple, he won't do that. I'm not calling you stupid, just ignorant, start reading your history books, start thinking logically. Also: This non-war is about oil - France has 3 billion at stake in oil futures if the war starts. France also has a lot of weapons in Iraq and other countrys that are not supposed to be there. The war, when it starts, will be about stopping Saddam before he becomes another Hitler. | ||
| Dean Chrismon (Chrismonda) Member Username: Chrismonda Post Number: 65 Registered: 12-2002 |
Well, tonight I was watching the O'reilly Factor and he spoke about Sherryl Crow who went and entertained the troops in Cosovo. Why is she now so against us liberating Iraq? I think that alot of the leftist just hate GW. If Clintoon was is office all would be peachy | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 165 Registered: 03-2002 |
These protestors are all the same: shabby proto marxist-maoist dillitantes. You see them on TV all the time, grousing about something or other becuase they basically hate the US and what it stands for. Too bad we can't turn the cops loose on them like we did in the sixties. Better yet, lets let the NYFD have a crack at their effette, obnoxious asses......... | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 74 Registered: 08-2002 |
I agree these dissidents are anti-bush not anti-war. Where were these people when the previous administration ordered the military into Bosnia? Where were they when the aspirin factory got bombed? Where were they when hundreds of cruise missles were unleashed on Irak? They were at home chearing because a conservative wasn't calling the shots. -Chris | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 303 Registered: 07-2002 |
Don't you just love how night after night we hear on the news how bad it is going to be for our troops when they won't be able to come right home after the war? How we might have to stay in Iraq for peace keeping and nation building ops. Well, ya. I seem to remember Clinton actually promising that he would bring troops home from Bosnia - yet they are still there, doing nothing but contending with mines and the wimpy Smurfs. No mention about them on the evening news. | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 78 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jesus Christ, Jake, I can only hope you're mostly just blowing steam with that post. Karen | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 312 Registered: 02-2002 |
This potential for conflict shares some qualities of Germany in the late 1930s, and I can see parallels between Europe's stance in this present situation - "...give inspections more time". At the same time, there is a dynamic that wasn't so clearly presented in the early years of World War II - the ease by which vast numbers of American civilians might be eradicated by a disparate third party - Muslim extremists. Currently, we've got the whole world behind our search for terrorist cells - North Korea, Iraq and Iran notwithstanding. The international climate is servicable, even a Palestinian state may be close at-hand. I've not seen evidence that terrorist organizations are directly tied to Iraq, and the timing of our administration's headfirst-to-war-without-abandon attitide has some people stirred up. The economy is in the crapper, the tax-cut isn't going to pass (in either party), and Osama is still recording Hi-how-are-ya's? to the United States. If Saddam Hussein was such a threat, and George Bush senior had the information about his weapons program, why didn't we go all the way through Iraq in 1991? Because it wasn't the objective? Because the coallition would have eroded or disbanded? What is the present objective? The U.N., with China (the next Superpower to be sure), Russia, and the vast majority of Europe, is not behind this rush to action. Why do we need to go it alone? What increased threat is there to homeland security at this time that does not exist within the already riled Al Queda factions who are already at work in the U.S.? Surely, there is a time for war, but I want to know the reasons for going or sending someone from my family. We cannot predict the ramifications of doing so, however, even our government acknowledges that threats at home and abroad are likely in the face of an allout invasion in the Middle East. Do we sit around and see what happens - I don't know. I would say that if inspectors are ejected from Iraq or Blix indicates irreconcilable attitude or resistance - we go in there and do what we need to. Presently, more inspectors have (and are being) added, and progress has been made toward disarming Iraq. Might this take a year - perhaps? What is the present action through inspections costing us? Would you estimate that less is being spent on inspections than on an invasion? What is apparent is that Iraq's direct neighbors don't have an overwhelming sense of urgency here either, and they're the ones who might pay for an incursion into (or ignoring a real threat from) Iraq. There is a feeling amoung both Liberals and Conservatives that we should allow inspections to continue. If this news report is true: "...Iraq has agreed in principle to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles but U.N. arms inspectors must clarify the offer with officials in Baghdad, the United Nations said Thursday." -NY Times 2/27/03 Does this show good faith? At what point will Bush, who has deployed nearly 200,000 troops so far, pull back and abide by the opinion of the world on-whole? Has he gone too far to do so? Good Americans ask questions, and disagree. For what it is worth, I'm in my early thirties and have never been to a WTO protest, so please don't heap me into that faction. Please don't suggest that distrust for the government's motives in any way reflect an American's level of support for those that defend our way of life, because that's a bunch of crap. I also like living in the United States - I can think of no better place to call home. Clinton had many faults, to be certain - and I think we all know that Gore didn't invent the Internet, so let's not compare one administration to the other. As Americans, we've learned since Nixon to be wary of what the government tells us - because little of it is direct or even true. Patriotism should not be blindly tied to a willingness to shed blood. -Another opinion, e | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 79 Registered: 02-2002 |
Erik, Thanks for that post. I get sick to death of so many things being lumped together thoughtlessly. Greenie/liberal/commie/pinko/fag/you add the tag/you get the idea/. Just one point as a "for instance": When disagreeing with the administration, or even simply asking for more information, gets linked together with anti-patriotism &/or being anti-military. I can't think of anything more PRO military than asking for a damned good, clear reason to ask someone to risk getting their ass shot off! And let's not forget this country was founded on a bunch of dissident's backs. Karen | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 78 Registered: 08-2002 |
Thats all fine and dandy. Let me try this again. Where were these protests when Bubba was President? We went to Bosnia with the same uncertainty, but not one peep from this crowd. Now...Oh my God! Its a Bush running the show. He's got friends in high places, especialy evil energy companies, so it must be about that. But when Bubba bombs an aspirin factory to cover up a BJ well, thats ok cause it was just about sex anyway. You know, I swear some people have no idea what life is like under a dictatorship. If there was a protest in Bahgdad the participants would be rounded up and jailed, most likely murdered, and their familier too. And if you say I'm wrong than your just blind to the truth, does Tienemem Square sound familier. Thats standard practice. Folks this war is about freedom, and our defense of it. Jackles like Saddam, Moa, Castro use terror to rule...they are all terrorists. Geez... what more reason do we need?!?! | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 314 Registered: 02-2002 |
Christopher, What would you suggest we do to North Korea. That's a brutal dictatorship too - and now those crazy bastards have a nuke or three. What are you going to do to China - they have no Navy to speak of, but what will happen if their next leader turns on a dime and decides that Western ideals are not for his people? Do you suggest we invade China, North Korea - Iran? Let's add Saudi Arabia to that and Sudan - they all harbor terrorists right? Saudi Arabia is really ruled by religious clerics - how can we let it stand? My problem is, we put these dictators into power - Democrats and Republicans alike doing nationbuilding and then fifteen years later we don't think it is so funny. At what point in time (during the cold war methinks) did the United States become a colonizer? Our very good friends in Great Britain and France still suffer and pay for their folly in the 19th and 20th centuries. My father and his brother and both of my grandfathers served our country in action. My uncle was shot down in Vietnam trying to extract some troops from behind Cong lines. My mother's father was on the Arizona. Look, if we could prove - like December 7th, 1941 prove, that Saddam had some connection to 9/11 - you wouldn't have any resistance from me - level the place. But we live in a country where it's innocent until proven guilty and public record and freedom of information - so we need more than what has been presented. There is a reason 60 Minutes was consistently a highly rated program - Americans like to get beneath the veneer and see what's really going on. We all know someone who has made sacrifices for this country - but is this a good and righteous cause? Do you honestly believe we're liberating Iraqis? Have they got their hooks that deep into you? So, Christopher, when does it stop? When? e | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 166 Registered: 03-2002 |
Erik: I disagree with you, but I realize that arguing with someone who thinks that 60 Minutes is an accurate actual news show, its going to be hard to do. But lets start; 1. "My problem is, we put these dictators into power - Democrats and Republicans alike doing nationbuilding and then fifteen years later we don't think it is so funny" So what? Who is better suited to remove a strongman put into place to aide foriegn policy during the Cold war? Lets face it, many political acts are compromises and if these "helpers" have stepped out of bounds, then its up to us to take them out. By the way, we did NOT place Saddam in power, we aided him during the Iran-Iraq War (remember the impotent Carter Administration and the Hostage Crisis?) We did NOT place the Royal Family of Saud in power either, they have been there a long time (thus the name SAUDI Arabia). Regarding Korea: if they don't toe the line, ie vilolate the armistance put in place at the end of the fighting (remember a condition of war still exists there), then military action is warranted. Invade? Most likely not, but a couple of well placed nuke-tipped cruise missles will take care of the threat at hand. Thus neutered, Kim Jong-Il can then go back to starving his populace in the dark. The China issue will rest for now, they have too much at hand economically to risk. When does it stop? It stops when we reduce or eradicate the threat. I imagine that this doesn't set well with all you out there with a Mr. Rogers/Seasame Street mentality where if we all hold hands we will get along, but the world is a cold, nasty place where there are people out there who want to kill us just because of who we are: GET USED TO IT......... BTW: Karen, I was not just blowing off steam. The protestors shown on that video are a bunch of America-Hating subversives. There is a difference between questioning policy and being someone who wants to bring down the country. If anything, America erred in the 60s by not hammering the communist zealots that turned American streets into caotic scenes straight from the V.I. Lenin playbook. | ||
| Patrick Oberg (Obie) New Member Username: Obie Post Number: 4 Registered: 02-2003 |
FREE IRAQ! | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 317 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jake, Don't misquote me. I indicated that Americans watch 60 Minutes - I never said it was accurate reporting. You don't think we helped put Saddam into power and then maintain it? - do your homework. I think my biggest issue with your entire take on this is that you automatically lump everyone who's asking questions about the current situation with a bunch of hippies who believe armed action is never the answer. I'm not in that camp. Presently, George Bush and his administration have not proved the threat. Based on your post above I have three questions, you can just drop your answers right on in there: Are you part of the military now or a recent veteran? Are you under the age of, let's say, twenty-five? Are you part of an organized religious group? You seem to know and presume a lot about my demographic - let's talk about yours. e | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 80 Registered: 08-2002 |
Erik, First, North Korea=China. So any action against NK is action against China. That being said how do we deal with China? Believe it or not but a world economy is our best bet and a real big stick. Bit by bit poorer countries in the far east are booming. South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Vietnam come to mind. This will only preasure China as these small asian countries begin to grow economically. As they grow we can begin to sell arms to those countries that have democratic governments like we do with NATO allies. Even more pressure on China. In the end though thats about all we can do, ultimitly the people of China must revolt. The best we can do is turn up the heat. As far as linking Saddam to 9/11... I really don't care. The bastard kills anyone in his country who oppose him. The money he gets from export goes to great public works projects like Palace #67 and arms. His people are poor and oppressed... Damn it all its our democratic duty to liberate the people of Iraq. As far as "hooks"... Well my familiy, who thank God, got out of Soviet occupied Poland in the early 70's. I was fortunatly born an American citizen a couple of years later, Thanks Mom & Dad! Well they tell stories that would scare the hell out of you. Most Americans really have no idea what its like. A culture where if your seen talking with someone out of the ordianry you get a knock on the door in the middle of the night to find out if you were "conspiring". well lets just say they don't need a warrent or anything to search your home. And if they don't like the answeres to their questions or they find a book, letter, picture that they don't like... Well its off to the barracks for the REALLY bad interogation. So after the interogation if they still don't get the answeres they want but they can't quite prove you were conspiring they up and send you off to Siberia just to set an example...And Damnit you drop to your knees and thank God Almighty they didn't kill a member of your family. So you get home pack up the wife and kids and its immediatly off to Siberia for being "seen" talking with someone. Now, if you believe things such as this don't go in in Iraq, than your blind to the truth. Liberating Iraq is a rightous enough reason for me. -Chris | ||
| Christian Cartner (Cartner) Member Username: Cartner Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2002 |
What irks me, is that not one of these pacifist S.O.B's is willing to go volunteer to serve anyone but themselves...I mean, seriously, its EASY to disagree with ANYTHING. All you have to do is say "No. I disagree" and be cool with all your patchouli wearing pals...Put their ass on the line by volunteering for military service? no way. forget it, they won't because they don't care THAT MUCH, just enough to be obnoxious PIA's and say that we shouldn't do anything despite its long term effects to our nations security and citizens safety. If they don't like how its done, get in the system and change it, but they never will because they're not "THAT concerned" about the country, only their self interest. | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 89 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jake, My puny dial-up modem won't support a lot of the links posted here on DiscoWeb, and that link is one of them. BUT, I don't need to see it to completely reject your sentiments, and I quote, "Too bad we can't turn the cops loose on them like we did in the sixties." What do you want, Jake? Police dogs attacking protestors, like they did to those in the civil rights marches? Would you enjoy a return of National Guard troops shooting their own citizens on college campuses? How about some basic beating with batons? Tear gassing enough, or not enough for you? Rubber bullets? Is this how you deal with people whose ideas you don't agree with? Maybe I don't agree with them, either (I can't say, I haven't seen this clip), but if they are not breaking any laws as they protest, then they get to protest in this country. You have said in the past that you're a veteran. I would remind you that you served in part to assure we Americans the right to free speach, among many other rights and privileges. As long as no laws are broken, NO ONE gets to pick and choose who gets to have their say. And BTW, I didn't see this country go Communist because there might have been some protests in the 1960's that you feel were orchestrated by Communist sympathisers (and I don't know if that's true, I'm just paraphrasing your comment). I'm all for letting light shine on protests. When NAMBLA protests they look like the perverted jerks they are. When the KKK protests I love it for the same reason. Do you want to go down the slippery slope of who gets to protest and who doesn't? Well, my goodness, doesn't that sound like suppression to you? What does suppression lead to? Ah, dictators, perhaps? Karen | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 318 Registered: 02-2002 |
Chris, I agree that we've got it better than just about anyone - and the world is a really bad place. China kills its own, but you opt for economic engagement there, citing previous success in other forums. Why draw the line there - because you know we could not win a war against China, right? So let's just "liberate" those who we can help [read: those with weak regimes and comparitively laughable military infrastructure] and ignore the bigger problems in the world until we have another Japan at our door as we did in 1941? Chris, I've read your posts on other topics and think we'd have a good laugh over a pint, but on this one you might just as well go watch Mailcall on History Channel for that fix you're after. e | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 167 Registered: 03-2002 |
Erik: The Baathist party put itself in power, by coup, in the early sixties. We gave Hussien support during the Iran-Iraq war because 1) he was fighting Iran, 2) It hurt the USSR. As for your questions: 1.I am a recent (1999) US Army Veteran: I served for 20 years and was present at the Gulf War, Somalia and Bosnia 2.Obviously, I am not under 25, although I cannot imagine what this has to do with anything. If this is a "only the young fight and die" argument: Bullshit: our current forces have a higher average age than ever. Also we are an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE, everyone there signed on to be there and knew the risks before hand. The average age of the SF trooper in Afganistan is 35. 3. Again, this is a WTF question. I DO NOT belong to any "organized religious group". I don't even attend church. Nor do I burn offerings at a temple, or chant in the woods. What is your point? Are only non-religious folk are allowed to speak in this country now? If you read the postings from the beginning, you would see that this thread is dedicated to the protestors on the video clip attached. Those bastards are EXACTLY what I said they were. I spent 20 years of my life defending the right to free speech, so don't assume that you can lecture me on that. As I told Karen, arguing about policy is one thing, anarchistic rampages are another. Most of these rallys are sponsored by numerous communist front groups the mission of which is to destabilze and overthrow the US. I took an oath 20 years ago to protect and defend the US Constitution against ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC... think about it.... | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 319 Registered: 02-2002 |
Christian, You complain a lot and speak to the issue very little. This country was founded on debate, but you seem eager to exhaust debate and jump directly to war. Answer this: Is Iraq currently contained? Might Iraq be [better] contained in the weeks to come through broadened, further inspections? Looking at Afghanistan as an indicator, how contained is that country, or Osama bin Laden for that matter, through our recent military action? I agree, on the surface, in first light, we've helped the people of Afghanistan by extension. Was that our objective? Through the U.S. policy of regime-management we seem to have affected some positive results - should we do this in every instance? When we went in after Al Queda, I was all for it, roll it out in a decisive way. At the same time, we have a coallition of the willing in that cause. There is something in it for everyone, and the enemy, though elusive, is an easily defined evil target. If you've served, thank you. I appreciate your sacrifice and know that this country is better for people like you and those in my family that have. Now, let's debate why Iraq is such a hot-topic in these past months and why we can't let U.N. resolutions run their course. e | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 320 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jake, You seem a little hot - lots of CAPITALIZATION going on. That led me to ask if you were under twenty-five. Some younger people have a hard time containing their enthusiasm and anger, hence the question. With respect to my issues on organized religion, I just wanted to qualify if you were a member of the those that bore crosses, are the same that brought forces faction. You obviously are far from it! Insofar as your service goes, you did what good Americans have done since the beginning - defended our way of life for this and future generations. If you look at any post I've ever made, you'll realize that I'm pro-military, and fully support our troops whatever the deployment. What you, and other posters here seem to ignore, is the real dissention in America about going to war in this instance. Answer the questions I put to Christian - I'd appreciate a veteran's perspective. e | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 140 Registered: 02-2002 |
Well stated. Why don’t peace activists remember killing fields? Nashville City Paper ^ | 02/28/03 | Bill O'Reilly http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/853820/posts How many died during WWII because of appeasement during the 1930's? Will it be repeated? | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 82 Registered: 08-2002 |
Erik, Thats what I love about this country we can debate politics over a pint of beer and not worry because we are free. Oppressed people must keep their thoughts and beliefs to themselves for fear of torture and death. Wouldn't you want liberation if you were oppressed? Regarding China...We would win. But the result would be a thermo-nuclear world war. I don't know about you but I would try to avoid that if at all possible. Now this leads to Star Wars. If we build it and deploy it, now we have leverage over China. We can invade,win, and liberate. Like we always do. -Chris | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 313 Registered: 07-2002 |
There are two very simple points to support going to get Iraq now. There are also some very good arguments for waiting. One of which is the fact that the inspections are, to some very little extent, working. If we keep feeding money and time and manpower into the inspections they will probably do what is needed except for those two main points I alluded to above. First, the point is to stop Iraq BEFORE they become like N. Korea. The point is that we really can't do anything about N. Korea or China. Given the right circumstances they would both be more volitial than the U.S.S.R. ever was. And Iraq is well on it's way to becoming a nuclear power. If Israel had not destroyed the nuclear facility in Iraq they most certainly would have a bomb by now. All the documentation I have seen, (Iraqi defectors, Congressional hearings, GlobalSecurity.org, Jane's, National Defence Weekly, DoD releases, etc...) placed a time frame of 6-12 months on them having a viable weapon. Second, you must understand that the inspections are called inspections for the very reason that they are not searches, - the point is that we know, in fact Iraq has declared, that they have TONS of chemical and biological weapons. (VX can kill a whole room of people with one drop.) They have mobile labs for creating these things - they look just like semi-trucks. They have an area the size of California, and every citizen's residence, every cave, bunker, and even other countrys that they can send the stuff to while the inspectors are in Iraq. The inspectors are there to verify this stuff that we know. They are supposed to be escorted to the storage facilities where these things are located, to see that they are either still there or that they are being destroyed. The problem is that the inspections work only when Saddam allows them to work. They are completely impotent without his cooperation. That was the agreement not only in the U.N. sanctions (16 of them) and in the cease fire from Gulf War I. Do you see the problem? Do you see how Iraq has been playing cat and mouse for 12 years? The fact is GB and Schwartskopf messed up the first time around. Not on the prosecution of the war, but on the treaty after the war was over. GB went golfing while Stormin' was in the tent with the Iraqi generals and he had no instructions on what to do. They walked all over him and he didn't even know it. Since then Saddam has been planning for this day. In that case, it is not only out of fear that we should stop Iraq, but out of a duty to fix our mistake. The problem with the protestors is that they are two faced, as has been pointed out. They most certainly would support Clinton going into Iraq, in fact, when Clinton did have a congressional order passed in congress mandating force to be used against Iraq, the Democrates and all these "peace-nicks" signed on. Don't you remember that? I think it was 1998 - the press went crazy for about a week, "Finally, something is to be done about Iraq!" The only difference is that G.W.B. is in office. | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 321 Registered: 02-2002 |
Insofar as liberation goes, we effectively liberated ourselves from Great Britain. The French came in and lent a valuable hand toward the end, but we were already fully engaged with or without them. We wanted our liberation. Let the Iraqi people liberate themselves if they're so unhappy in their current situation. By the way, in case you forgot - this was Bush's foreign policy before we got blown-up. Please deny it. He had an isolationist policy that was downright scary up until that fateful morning. We had a tremendous effect on South Africa's future (for better or worse) through threat of sanctions and the will of the South African people. How fine a line was there between revolution and protest? Razor-thin, but there nonetheless. Why didn't Reagan or Bush feel the need to invade South Africa? They were also developing a weapons of mass-distruction program (nukes) and oppressed the vast population. The regime in Iraq will never make it easy for inspections / clarification of weapons intact or destroyed. That is a hard, tough reality - the rest of the world is content to continue with even more stringent inspections to slowly, decisively emmasculate the Hussein regime - why are we beating the war drums so loudly? With respect to histrionics - "Clinton said, Bush said" - we all tend to pick the parts we like best and ignore the rest of our government's warts because we love this place and the ideals. I'm curious, Mr. Bailey, would you assume me a Republican, Democrat, Liberatarian or Communist? I drive a Land Rover, so I obviously am not a member of the Green Party - LOL. e | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 314 Registered: 07-2002 |
No clue what you are. But I specifically have left out much of the past in my writting because of the issues of S.Africa etc... the fact is they are all different. The real comparison should be made to the lead-up to WWII, but again the situation is different. I am comparing the situation with Clinton to Bush because we are talking about the same Iraq, the same Saddam, the same weapons in question. We are talking about the same people who oppose this war now, but supported this war before. The only thing that has changed is the person who is in the leadership position. We would otherwise be using the same U.N. resolutions, the same army, the same cruise missiles. You get the point. And yes, G.W. did change his mind on isolationism - so did FDR, and most of Great Britain when WWII finally broke out. The person who does not change his mind for a good reason is someone who should not be trusted. | ||
| Alex Cabrera (Alexcabrera) Member Username: Alexcabrera Post Number: 97 Registered: 12-2002 |
Liberate Iraq!!! the headlines scream. Why? Oh the people need to establish a democracy. Oh!! Thats what it is. What about Cuba? Who is going to liberate them? Who knows what attrocities Fibel has done. (Libel) He owns Cuba. I hear other posters that US has other immediate pressing issues ie Korea. NK. I say bomb the hell out of Iraq if it means lower oil prices.... don't lie to the population by saying we'll free Iraq. What about Saudi Arabia? They are not free!! They are ruled by a family of prince/es. I'll echo a comment by a dude on tv. Why must we free our enemies but our friends are ruled by a puppet setup by the US. Hijackers came from Saudi!! Don't forget. Now Russia has said they will Veto!! What does that say about world sentiment. Ok. Maybe there is still the old enemity between us and them but.. Lots of people will be affected by a war. My opinions and .02$ Alex | ||
| Dan Watson (Dwatson) New Member Username: Dwatson Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2003 |
I saw on the news the other day that Saddam’s son swore that Iraq had NO weapons of mass destruction…………and would not hesitate to use them if attacked. The US cannot find and stop illegal drugs within our own boarders, so I have little hope that a few inspectors will be able to find WMD in Iraq. So then we are left to hope that Saddam, if left in power, would never pass them on to terrorist to use on us. Now if that were to happen, I, living here in nowheresville, would see and read about the tragedy in some large city within the US. But some of these protesters, and you anti-war wait and see types on this BB living in a large city are betting the lives of yourselves, your children, and/or your grand children. | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 130 Registered: 10-2002 |
If I can interject a little .... For the Anti-War crowd: Do any of you seriously think the President WANTS to go to war? Do you seriously thin he WANTS to pus a single service member in harms way? I would say NO, but.... One of things we have to realize is if we make actions as a country, we need to be willing to back them up. An agreement was made 12 years ago, and a certain individual has backed out and stalled full implementation of that agreement for 12 years. He's been given who knows how many "last-chances"? Hmmm .... Now it's time to pay the piper. How is it some of you put it on this board, "If you wanna play, you gotta pay."? Seems like that statement goes a lot farther than just wheeling. 12 years is enough, now it's time to do the paying. My last thought is that one of two things will happen once our country, as a whole, finishes taking care of a certain two bit dictator: the US will go into Iraq, find all of the WMD, and the President will be a hero; or, the US will go into Iraq, find out Sadam was telling the truth, and in 2 years we'll have a new president. Why, because that's how our government works. I would also lay odds that the populace of a certain country wishes their government worked that way to. | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 131 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oops, forgot to add, do you anti-war types really think you know more than the President ... i.e. do you get daily briefings from the CIA, FBI, NSA, DoD, etc, concerning the current status of the country, it's war on terror, or the capabilities of certain countries? | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 96 Registered: 02-2002 |
Todd, Of course we are not privy to much classified material, and perhaps not even to non-classified materials, I've said the same on another thread. But, I have to think the heads of other states have been briefed, and apparently they are not necessarily convinced that war at this point is the only answer. This is really a question of people to people. We recognize that many innocents within the Iraqi population will be killed in a war. It is not them that anyone is after, and if there is a way to remove their dictator without the innocent population paying with their lives, I'm all for exploring those possibilities. Karen | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 322 Registered: 07-2002 |
Look at France, war is not the answer for them for a reason... oil. War to them = loss of billions in Elf oil deals. It also means that when we mop up afterwards we find all the illegal weapons and technology they have given to Iraq despite sanctions. And what about the innocents in Iraq who are being killed even as we speak? | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 80 Registered: 10-2002 |
Don't know if this has been up here before but I always remember these words when I see the protestors on the news: "It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, that gives us the right to a fair trial. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." Father Dennis Edward O'Brien USMC (Did a search after I posted and Peter Carey posted Nov. 11, 2002-It's one of my favorites) | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 97 Registered: 02-2002 |
R.B.Bailey, If we invaded every country where innocents are being "killed as we speak" there would be no end to our invasions. If you elected to invade those countries where the MOST innocents are being killed on a daily basis, Iraq would be WAY down the list. Doesn't make any of these horrors any easier to contemplate, but once more, where does it start, and where does it end? War is always an option, but perhaps it's not the only option, and perhaps it's not the best option. It's there, lurking, if need be, but deciding when "need be" kicks in, that's what we're grappling with. Karen | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 133 Registered: 10-2002 |
Karen, The other countries probably do have the same information, however, I'm sure they have other alterior motives. Why does France oppose this so much? Could it be that they don't want us to really find out everything that they sold Saddam, like, oh say, weapons grade plutonium? Or, maybe, the air defense equipment that the Iraqis use everyda to paint coalition aircraft over the no-fly zones? And maybe Germany doesn't want us to know about all of the biological hardware that they sold Iraq? Or maybe both countries are just trying to placate their ever-growing Arab populations? As for Russia, it seems like the last time I looked Sadam was using Kalashinkov rifles and T-72 tanks ... wonder where they came from? A couple of other points that I forgot to make last night: 1) We are not at war yet! The President has never said that there will be a war. He said that if Sadam does not comply, he will use force. And everytime we make that threat, and move another 50,00 troops closer to Iraq, Iraq complies a little more. Hmm, I wonder why Sadam would do that? Does anybody think that Sadam would comply if the President said "We'll your not going to comply today, but maybe you will next week so we'll think about it then."? No, he wouldn't, he'd do the same thing he's donefor the last 12 years. Remember the old adage Walk softly, but carry a big stick."? Sometimes you gotta be ready and willing to use that big stick if you have to! 2) My other point is, the United States of America is not a democracy! The people don't decide national policy, and for a damn good reason. The U.S. is a democratic republic, so you get to chose a representative and then that person speaks for you in government. However, sometimes the right thing to to do isn't always the easiest, or the most popular thing to do, and it takes a powerful leader to be able to see that. Personaly, I'm glad that we've got a leader whose willing to stand up for this country and get the job done, pleasant or unpleasant. | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 168 Registered: 03-2002 |
"My other point is, the United States of America is not a democracy! The people don't decide national policy, and for a damn good reason. The U.S. is a democratic republic, so you get to chose a representative and then that person speaks for you in government. " Amen Todd! I grow tired of the nteworks showing the supposed "man on the street" who states that he has not seen enough evidence to go to war yet. That sfine and we all can have our opinion, but Congress speaks for the people, and they have already given Wubya the go-ahead for this action. The only countries I remember titled "democratic" were the worst oppressors of humanity I have seen, ie The People's Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, otherwise known as post Khymer Rouge takeover Cambodia. | ||
| KJ (Karen) Senior Member Username: Karen Post Number: 99 Registered: 02-2002 |
Todd, At the risk of contradicting myself, we ARE at war already. We are bombing the snot out of Iraq on a daily basis. I think if WE were being bombed we'd agree we were at war. Fortunately, the bombs being dropped now are mostly in the southern areas and are being dropped on targets in other than large population zones. As for the past 12 years, I'd submit that if George the Elder had listened to his own Generals 12 years ago, we wouldn't be sitting here right now..... old 41 cut a deal with Saddam, as if THAT was a viable option, sheesh! Who is surprised the deal wasn't kept???? And you are kidding yourself if you think we don't have ulterior motives, too, and they are NOT all altruistic. Each country is postioning themselves to their own ultimate best interest, and the US is no different in that regard. Karen | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 134 Registered: 10-2002 |
Karen, I will agree that the U.S. is posturing itself, and yes, has other motives. But, all also wonder what the motives would be? Oil? If all we wanted was oil, why not just use the 100,000 troops that are already in Kuwait and take their oil? Anyways, last time I checked, the French had the biggest stake in Iraq's oil fields. Maybe were after peace and stabiliation in the region? Maybe, if we can get one country settled down, then we can get the Israeli/Palastenion issue settled? As for the daily bombings, I believe those have been going on since 91. Everytime the Iraq wants to turn on one of it's French or Russian built targeting radars, we take it out. Hmm, French and Russian air defense systems, French and Russian opposition at the Un, French and Russian intrest in Iraq's oil fields, do I see a pattern here? | ||
| Scion_of_lucas (Scion_of_lucas) New Member Username: Scion_of_lucas Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
The French don't want war because they are already confused as to whom they would surrender to. The protesters in the video are indeed idiots and it probably didn't take too much editing to whittle down the segment into the braintrust represented therein. However, there are thoughtful people on both sides of this debate that make good points both for and against war with Iraq. For me, the frustrating central issue is with America's myopic foreign policy. I believe that we have had the best of intentions, but have given very little thought to the ramifications of our actions. Up until the end of WWII, we couldn't have given a rat's ass about the Middle East and Central Asia (and rightly so as it had little or no strategic/economic value to us.) However, during the Cold War, any means justified the end when it came to combating Communism. The CIA toppled a democratically elected government in Iran (thanks to Stormin' Norman's dad and Kermit Roosevelt), helped both Britain and France extricate themselves from sticky and embarrassing post colonial fiascos (Suez incident and Vietnam), and generally reneged on Truman’s post war promise to help "any freedom loving peoples" in their struggle for liberty. Unlike most Americans, the rest of the world usually pays attention and listens when American presidents speak and make promises (just ask the Kurds following the Gulf War). So, like it or not, we gave massive aid, both militarily and economically, to both Bin Laden & Hussein. Either not caring or out of ignorance, we helped spawn the rise of militant Islamic factions in the Middle East (not to be confused with the older and largely political terrorism of Qadafi, Abu Nidal, and Arafat) while the whole time decrying the Ayatollah Khomeni. Our foreign policy “experts” probably couldn't tell you the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni Muslim. They probably couldn't explain the Kurdish position as it relates to both Turkey and Iraq. Furthermore, Afghanistan is far from stable and, a look at history will show that the Afghans have brought down empires mightier than ours. While not very important to us, these issues are very important in that part of the world. My point is that we have opened a Pandora's box of age-old enmities, quicksand alliances, Byzantine power structures, and archaic ideology. India and Pakistan have nukes. Israel has already vowed swift and terrible retaliation if Iraq so much as sneezes in their direction. Russia's grasp on reality is tenuous at best. The Balkans can flash at a moment's notice. Is Teddy Roosevelt's "Big Stick" what we need right now? Patience and thought right now can't be too bad a thing. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 333 Registered: 07-2002 |
Actually, if you want a thoughtfull "other-sider" Bono is really the only person I have seen come out against the war with some really good points - I think he is wrong, but seriously, I think he is the only anti-war person in the media whose view I respect because he has obviously thought things through and simply has a belief, not an agenda. Bono: "Tony Blair is not going to war for oil. Tony Blair is sincere in his convictions about Iraq. In my opinion he (Blair) is sincerely wrong," "We must not make a martyr of Saddam Hussein. He is good at working the cameras. We shouldn't make it easy for him" My only reason for supporting a war in Iraq is this: Mad man with a gun. Stop him? Let him go? Which are you going to choose? And yes, those are your only choices, sanctions and inspections have already been tried. If we really wanted this war for oil don't you think it would be easier to attack the Alaskan Tundra? Or to just start paying Iraq for it like France is? | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 143 Registered: 02-2002 |
For those who are lost in the details, step back and look at the bigger picture. I believe the date of the Iraq war has been changed by this weekends capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Stratfor War and Geo-Political Analyais Email ^ | Recently | http://www.stratfor.com/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855738/posts Posted on 03/03/2003 6:29 AM PST by advocate10 Iraq, The War, and the next 5 years An Analysis: The backdrop of Stratfor's analysis: We are re-entering 'normality', and that the 1990s were a period of abnormality. That stockmarkets have gone up and down during conflicts [Korea, Vietnam] and that war is neither extraordinary in terms of the 20th century, nor is it inherently bad for markets. The Iraqi invasion itself is not about Al Quaeda being in Iraq. Nor is it about oil. The US is committed to a long-term presence in the region. Ř It is about Iraq being the single-most strategically placed country in the Middle-East ... having at its borders Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Kuwait. ..... | ||
| Eric Thatcher (Desertdork) New Member Username: Desertdork Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2003 |
Wow! I think Land Rover enthusiasts tend to be well read and opinionated. Strange combination of posts going on here. I love it. When you go to prison for breaking the law, you lose all your rights as soon as the jail cell door is closed. You look at your bunk mates for a moment or two... one thing is for certain... sodomy is not part of the sentance. But the situation precludes the option. When Saddam signed the surrender in 91 the cell door closed. No matter how good he looks on 60 minutes... he's walking around bow legged. Being an enemy of the U.S. brings it's own brand of torture. War is only a public formality. Like moving from your current jail cell to death row. I have to believe Saddam as well as Osama Been Forgotten have both gone without a good night's sleep for years. As the stupid public which we are, watching TV for small glimpses of truth, we have no earthly idea what reality is for these men on a daily basis. Saddam might be looking forward to death row right about now... at least he can go down as a national hero in his own country. My point is that covert and secret operations may be going on right now, may have been going on for years. Regan proved through Iran Contra that we don't need any reason or justification to do just about anything we want as long as we don't get caught!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 144 Registered: 02-2002 |
If your still against taking out Saddam, read this. THE SCOTSMAN: No morality in leaving Iraqis in the Republic of Fear The Scotsman ^ | March 3, 2003 | The Scotsman http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/855455/posts | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 154 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mark, If you really want to make a point try not to use someone the likes of Pollack. On more than one occasion his views have been wildly incorrect. You know an awful lot of this stuff smells in the same way as Kuwaiti assertions that their babies were being removed from incubators and thrown on the floor by the Iraqi horde that was invading back in August of '90. You remember that teary eyed woman relating the horror of Iraqi's stealing the incubators and sending them back to Baghdad. Oh, that's right she was the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US's daughter and in truth had no knowledge whatsoever of such events happening, they just sounded really horrifying so why not say them. I am not defending Saddam Hussein. What I am saying is that we all need to be far more selective about the propaganda we so readily open our arms to. I haven't gotten into this thread because I really don't see much point in trying to talk to a wall. However, I've enjoyed our conversations and I just couldn't let some of the drivel by Pollack go without putting my foot down. You know, if you wanted to really cite an expert on Iraqi affairs how about mentioning someone like Robert Pelletiere who was the chief of CIA operations in Iraq during the 1980's. He was directly invovled with Iraq's development of chemical and biological weapon. Surely his point of view regarding the coming conflict has been discussed on freerepublic. I'm just going to say a couple of more things before I go. First, I am finding it more and more difficult to tolerate this Hussein/Hitler nonsense. Anyone who has the audacity to compare the horror of Hitler to this two bit third world flunky really needs a serious history lesson! Finally, if you all are so determined to find an historical frame of reference regarding this potential conflict, might I recommend flipping a little bit further back in your history books to the Spanish American war. It was that war that defined yellow journalism and saw, for the first time, a country embark on the road towards imperialism. Not only that but we got to fight in the Phillipines to boot! Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 155 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mark, If you really want to make a point try not to use someone the likes of Pollack. On more than one occasion his views have been wildly incorrect. You know an awful lot of this stuff smells in the same way as Kuwaiti assertions that their babies were being removed from incubators and thrown on the floor by the Iraqi horde that was invading back in August of '90. You remember that teary eyed woman relating the horror of Iraqi's stealing the incubators and sending them back to Baghdad. Oh, that's right she was the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US's daughter and in truth had no knowledge whatsoever of such events happening, they just sounded really horrifying so why not say them. I am not defending Saddam Hussein. What I am saying is that we all need to be far more selective about the propaganda we so readily open our arms to. I haven't gotten into this thread because I really don't see much point in trying to talk to a wall. However, I've enjoyed our conversations and I just couldn't let some of the drivel by Pollack go without putting my foot down. You know, if you wanted to really cite an expert on Iraqi affairs how about mentioning someone like Robert Pelletiere who was the chief of CIA operations in Iraq during the 1980's. He was directly invovled with Iraq's development of chemical and biological weapon. Surely his point of view regarding the coming conflict has been discussed on freerepublic. I'm just going to say a couple of more things before I go. First, I am finding it more and more difficult to tolerate this Hussein/Hitler nonsense. Anyone who has the audacity to compare the horror of Hitler to this two bit third world flunky really needs a serious history lesson! Finally, if you all are so determined to find an historical frame of reference regarding this potential conflict, might I recommend flipping a little bit further back in your history books to the Spanish American war. It was that war that defined yellow journalism and saw, for the first time, a country embark on the road towards imperialism. Not only that but we got to fight in the Phillipines to boot! Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 156 Registered: 10-2002 |
Sorry about the double post! | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 146 Registered: 02-2002 |
Paul, Thanks for the perspective Paul. I found it interesting that The Scotsman is considered left wing. As for Saddamm, ask the Kurds. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 157 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mark, If you check back through all of my posts I think you'll find that I am no advocate for Saddam Hussein. Rather, I have said on several occasions that he is a thug who needs to go. However, this does not mean that I am in favor of US unilaterallism. Nor am I in favor of buying off countries on the Security Council in an effort to achieve some hypocritical majority. The billions being spent to win over Turkey could go along way towards relieving pain and suffering here in the US. I never did see you post a response to my last message on "State of the Union, Part Deux." I am in favor of inspections and selective sanctions. If containment could work to bring down the USSR and avoid a nuclear holocost why can't a concerted effort work on Iraq? Unquestionably this approach would present less of a drain on our already fragile economy. Hell, if I recall correctly, the cost of inspections gets paid for out of Iraqi oil production! One last thing, you've posted links to a wide variety of sites including some of my personal favorites like the UK Guardian and Arts and Letters Daily but they have always been through freerepublic. Do you ever visit the sites themselves. I only ask because it seems like everthing you post is through freerepublic and while I know that it's your belief that it is an invaluable source of information from all over the world I have to remind you that everything that gets posted there is done so because it serves a particular conservative agenda not because it is necessarily accurate or truthful (Pollack's claim of 10,000 gassed at Halabja for example). Cherry picking articles that fit an agenda from publications around the world hardly makes for a fair and balanced forum. This is not to say that I haven't found an interesting thread or two in the course of the month or so I've been visiting freerepublic. You'll remember the articles about anthrax that kept me up late sifting through them. But really, Mark you are far too sophisticated an individual to really buy most of the hubris that gets posted on that site. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 147 Registered: 02-2002 |
Paul, I hope most people see Saddam for what he is. I also hope people see the problem of ignoring a person like Saddam with the biological and chemical weapons he has developed. While Saddam and Bin Laden are not close friends, they do have common goals. Enemies will sleep together if its for a common cause. As for the WMD, we will never find them. I heard he had one of his high level scientist executed for "suspected" cooperation with the West. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this person was an example for the others. I don't believe inspections will work. I also don't believe this is the same as the USSR. Socialism and communism always fall of their own weight. While there was a arms race between the USSR and USA, there was also the ideological race to prove who had the best political and economic system. Reagans strategy was great. He waged economic warfare through a military build-up, that brought the weak USSR economic system to its knee's. We won the military cold war on economic terms. Iraq is a different beast. The problem with Saddam is the terrorist factor. Linked with Al Qaeda, they could keep the world economy on the rocks for many years through terrorist acts. These could include selective WMD deployments. On this I agree with President Bush. You don't wait for the next terrorist act, you preemptively take them out. You can't wage a ecomonic war with a terrorist state run by the likes of Saddam. Did you get a chance to review the Stratfor article? I'm not sure I agree with them. They have been wrong before but they are some smart people spending a lot of brain power trying to figure out the big picture. I vaguely remember an article written in the late 80's about the impact of the fall of the USSR as a superpower, that the US is the fist western nation to be the only superpower, and the historical need for one or more superpowers to create stability in the western asia and the middle east. I'll try and find it. It helps explain why the US is being drawn into this region of the world. As for articles, I post the link to FreeRepublic because some of the discussions are more valuable than the initial article. If you read several of the post related to a specific article, you will find many criticisms of the article or initial post. Sure the site is conservative, but boy some of the discussions can get pretty spirited. So keep in mind I don't buy into the hubris that gets posted on FreeRepublic. But I do find the discussions at FreeRepublic to be more intelligent and enlightening than many other sights. As for "State of the Union, Part Deux", haven't forgot it. Every time I think I will have time to set my thoughts to keyboard, I don't. Work has been REALLY busy and then there is play time, like a foot of powder at Winter Park/Mary Jane! | ||
| Christopher Dynak (Adtoolco) Member Username: Adtoolco Post Number: 86 Registered: 08-2002 |
Paul, I couldn't disagree more. Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Hussein... They are all of the same mold. To say one rises above the others is a ludicrous opinion. They are all murderous dictators. Is this a fair enough comparison for you? | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 161 Registered: 10-2002 |
Christopher, When you start to make links like yours you start to dredge up some frightful old bones. When you say that all murderous dictators are same and you start with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein, why not go on and list a few more notables like Pol Pot, Generalissimo Franco, the Shah, Marcos, Pinochet, Samosa, and Noriega? The majority of these murderers were adamently supported by our government over the years. Some, like Pinochet were installed only after a CIA backed coup which lead to the murder of a democratically elected president (Allende). They all were ultimately overthrown some by democratic uprisings, others by less savory means. My point is that there have been many brutal dictators our the years. No one in their right mind will deny that. However, to so quickly lump them all together is absurd. What Hitler, Stalin and Mao did was on a scale that the outstrips mankind's imagination. Between these three, tens of millions of deaths can be attributed. By comparison, regardless of the source we use, the bulk of the deaths attributed to Hussein came in bloody battles during the Iran Iraq War. I will not deny that he is responsible for thousands of deaths in an effort to put down revolts in the north and the south after the Gulf War but some of that blood is on the hands of our government as well. Bush Sr. told the Shia and the Kurds to rise up and overthrow Hussein and when they did (in expectation of our help) we turned our backs on them and allowed the insuing slaughter of thousands. What was that all about? An argument along the lines of the Gulf War contention that Iraqis were throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators is the gassing of innocent Kurds story. He did not gas tens of thousands of innocent Kurds, that is a fallacy. The Kurds at Halabja that did die from gas were fighting along side the Iranian National Guard and there are many, including Richard Pelletiere (chief of operations for the CIA in Iraq at that time) who assert that the type of gas used was only in the Iranian arsenal. The total dead as a result of that particular conflict was 3500 a horrible number no doubt but I mention this to make you aware of the levels of propaganda that exist in this country. It was not tens of thousands nor where they innocent nor was it even adaquately confirmed that is was Iraq that did the killings like Ari Fleischer and Kenneth Pollack contend. Propaganda is so rampant in our news media that I'd be curious to get an idea from some of the posters here as to why the first Gulf War even happened. Do you folks really believe that one day Hussein woke up and said "I think I'll invade Kuwait for fun today." I truly believe that if we citizens had a better grasp of history and world events would conduct ourselves very differently. The two military events that can be attributed to Saddam Hussein pale in comparison to Hitler's occupation of all of Europe. After each excursion Iraq wound up worse off than before. This kind of action hardly makes this two bit dictator into a Hitler clone. If his desire for WMD's make him a Hitler clone well what about Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea? If any Arab had desires and designs along the lines of Fascism it was probably Nasser not Hussein. One last thing. I read an interesting comment by an Iraqi expatriot who said the of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only five resulted in democracy, and in wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one, Panama. Hmmmmm. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 162 Registered: 10-2002 |
Meant to say that I read and interesting comment by the Christian Science Monitor in an article on an Iraqi expatriot. The article was in the NY Times Sunday Magazine. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 353 Registered: 07-2002 |
Define UNILATERALISM in the context of this decision to go to war. Try it by including England and the several others who will actually fight with us. Talk about letting propaganda influence you... sheesh. Forgetting a simple word definition - must be letting your mind wander with the evening news or something. Fact is we can't truely compare this present situation to past history. History is there to learn from. But everyone, and every event is different. It's not that comparing Saddam to Hitler is wrong or inaccurate, it's that it can only go so far in the argument for or against war. I think we have long past that point in this thread. The Gulf War is still on people. Iraq has repeatedly broken the cease fire, we have every right to take them to the next phase of the war. If we didn't have the spinless U.N. we would have this all done with by now. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 354 Registered: 07-2002 |
"spinless U.N." That's like saying the spinless reporters at CNN. SPINELESS U.N. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 164 Registered: 10-2002 |
R. B. Bailey, Take up the use of the word 'unilateral' with the Christian Scientist who penned the comment. I merely posted the comment because I thought it worthy of a moments thought. I guess in your case I was wrong. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Greg Parden (Greg_p) New Member Username: Greg_p Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
Looking for historical precedent for the invasion and war on Iraq? How about this one: "Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Abraham Lincoln Feb. 27, 1860. This was the famous "right makes might" speech that preceded 15 years of death and destruction known as the Civil War and Reconstruction, where half the country was destroyed in the name of "preserving the union". This speech and the war that followed set the precedent for a national policy of "right makes might" (or is it "Might makes Right"?)that continues to this day. Starting with the South, continuing on with the Indians, Mexico, Europe, Asia, Middle East...Anywhere that we declare moral superiority and see a problem that needs an asswhoopin'. Sometimes it's a valid policy. Sometimes it's perhaps not. But it is our reluctant though self-appointed role in the world, and we can't give it up now for fear of who might fill the vacancy. War may not always be the best way, but it's our way, and we are really good at it. We all know it's going to happen. The wheels have already been put into motion and nothing can stop them. So let's stop the protesting and whining and get on with the business of doing "our duty as we understand it." | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 158 Registered: 10-2002 |
Greg, Well put. | ||
| Jim H. (Victor_mature) New Member Username: Victor_mature Post Number: 19 Registered: 02-2003 |
I find it interesting that all the anti-war folks are convinced that if (when) we invade Iraq that Saddam will use chemical weapons on our troops. (I'm pretty sure he will too). But aren't these the weapons that he's not supposed to have? That he says he DOESN'T have?Even the peace-nics know that he still has these weapons, thereby being in default of the terms of the cease-fire in '91. JH | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2103 Registered: 02-2002 |
talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk... Some of you guys & gals I agree with, some of you simple-minded folk make me laugh, and some of you just make me sick. At least our President possesses the courage of conviction; and because of that fact, you stand a better chance of enjoying long, healthy, free lives. | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 25 Registered: 03-2003 |
Who saw the speach and Frontline last night? Stacey | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 26 Registered: 03-2003 |
Speeling no so good. mUST slow down. Stacey | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2105 Registered: 02-2002 |
Lo vi. |
