| Author | Message | ||
     Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2002 |
Just a few quotes to further fan the flames. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only upatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin "An elective despotism is not the government we fought for." Thomas Jefferson "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood just as it narrows the mind...and when the drums of war have reached a fevor pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." William Shakespeare "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold, and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life in any true sense. Under the cloud of war it is humanity, hanging on a cross of iron." Dwight D. Eisenhower Cheers, Paul | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2007 Registered: 02-2002 |
"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries (e.g. Green Mountain Boys) that helped to cast off the British crown (American Revolution)." U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo), a true patriot | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 170 Registered: 03-2002 |
WTF??? | ||
| M. K. Watson (Lrover94) Senior Member Username: Lrover94 Post Number: 705 Registered: 02-2002 |
sweet heyzeus....it has been my thought that there are those who talk and those who have to fight. often times the talker nevers stands a post in a hostile land. 'war is just an extension of diplomacy' mike w | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1273 Registered: 02-2002 |
Today I watched 2 of my buddies fly out to USS Boat for a one way pleasure cruise to Iraq. Before they launched out in their 30 year old CH-46 helicopters, I got to talk to them. "Paul, get those Ospreys rolling so we come back and fly something built this century" I Just hope these boys make it back...... | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 332 Registered: 02-2002 |
M.K., Are you inferring Teddy Roosevelt to have been a talker and pacifist, because he was far from it. Thomas Jefferson? What planet are you from? Pound the wardrums to drown the voices of the people. Paul, Your quotes represent a refreshing change to the DiscoWeb status quo - here's another from a true patriot (I don't think even Mr. Hartley can figure out what Blue is talking about). "...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants..." -Thomas Jefferson, The Tree of Liberty Letter 1787 Yet another unmistakable observation from our most outspoken founding father with respect to dissent and free-thought amoung the common man. Refute it - please. Or better, ignore debate and discussion, grab a torch and pitchfork and go stage a pro-war rally behind our leaders. We fought the revolution, civil war, and spilled enough blood in every subsequent cause to assure us all the right to disagree with our government and take these views to the streets. What is it with people running like sheep to the slaughter behind Bush? He says it is just, and you subscribe to his each and every word? Go ahead and quote freerepublic.gone again - it's about time for some of that propaganda. Let's inter some Muslims while we're at it. e | ||
| Dan Watson (Dwatson) New Member Username: Dwatson Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2003 |
Dear Dad, A funny thing happened to me yesterday at Camp Bondsteel (Bosnia): A French army officer walked up to me in the PX, and told me he thought we (Americans) were a bunch of cowboys and were going to provoke a war in Iraq. He said if such a thing happens, we wouldn't be able to count on the support of France. I told him that it didn't surprise me. Since we had come to France's rescue in World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and the Cold War, their ingratitude and jealousy was due to surface [again] at some point in the near future anyway. I also told him that is why France is a third-rate military power with a socialist economy and a bunch of pansies for soldiers. I additionally told him that America, being a nation of deeds and action, not words, would do whatever it had to do, and France's support, if it ever came, was only for show anyway. Just like in all NATO exercises, the US would shoulder 85% of the burden, and provide 85% of the support, as evidenced by the fact that this French officer was shopping in the American PX, and not the other way around. He began to get belligerent at that point, and I told him if he would like to, I would meet him outside in front of the Burger King and whip his ass in front of the entire Multi-National Brigade East, thus demonstrating that even the smallest American had more fight in him than the average Frenchman. He called me a barbarian cowboy and walked away in a huff. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Dad, tell Mom I love her, Your loving daughter, Mary Beth Johnson LtCol., USMC | ||
| Dan Watson (Dwatson) New Member Username: Dwatson Post Number: 11 Registered: 02-2003 |
It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given us freedom of the press. It's the solider, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It's the soldier,not the campus organizer,who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It's the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial. It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag,who gives the protester the right to burn the flag. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 355 Registered: 07-2002 |
Paul G. I agree with those statements 100%, but not one of them said, or proved that war is not at some time nessisary. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 166 Registered: 10-2002 |
Here's another one for you gentlemen. It's taken from an article in Sunday's NY Times Magazine. I know that for some of you that is little more than a commie pinko fag rag dedicated to the overthrow of all that is good and American but the comment is actually from the Christian Science Monitor, hardly the typical bleeding heart liberal forum. "War seldom creates democracy; according to a recent article in THE Christian Science Monitor, of the 18 regime changes forced by the United States in the 20th century, only 5 resulted in democracy, and in the case of wars fought unilaterally, the number goes down to one - Panama." I assume two of the remaining five are West Germany and Japan. Any guesses as to the other two?  Must be Italy and South Korea. It certainly wouldn't be Kuwait! Cheers, Paul | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 356 Registered: 07-2002 |
And by the way, that Will Shakespeare quote was not Will Shakespeare. Hillary C. or Barbara S. used that in an anti-bush speech a while back and had to retract her comments - of course she blamed her mistake on someone else. I was going to say though - I have been critical of past presidents, and I have been very critical of Clinton and of some of the policy decisions that Bush has made. I do not consider myself unpatriotic, so how could I call someone unpatriotic who disagrees with me? Dissagree all you want, it's part of what makes our two party government great. (we would be in a lot of trouble if either all Dems or all Repubs were in charge.) But when the final decision is made, support of our troops is critical. Support even, of the president who may not have made a decision that you fully agree with. Remember that those troops, whether you see it this way or not, are fighting for YOU. That is the way they see it, that is the job they decided to take. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2002 |
Blue, By the way, my wife can trace her family line right back to that drunken rabble rouser, Ethan Allen. Members of my family go back to the Revolutionary War also but most of my ancestors fled Ireland, Scotland and Italy in the 19th century. But I don't take offense at Rep. Kaptur's statement. From what I've learned about the antics of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys they truly were terrorists in every sense of the word. I've said it before and I'll say it again, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. R.B. Bailey you're absolutely right, sometimes war is a necessary evil it's just that this is not one of those times. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Erik Olson (Jon) Senior Member Username: Jon Post Number: 333 Registered: 02-2002 |
Dan, Don't confuse the issue - no one who argues furthered inspections has stated or inferred a lack of gratitude for those in our volunteer-comprised armed services and the freedoms we enjoy as a result of their sacrifice. Keep the debate on the issue at hand - do we follow Bush, Cheney and Powell into war while the world (to include at least some Americans) pleads for diplomacy? Is Iraq contained? How contained is Afghanistan after our military operation, and how long will we be deployed there to maintain containment? How much further do we push on the world's number one (and growing) religion before they push back in an incalculable way? Israel is engaged in the outright oppression of Palestinians - and is in violation of U.N. resolutions as well, why not attack them? Will we continue our failed (in 9 of 10 instances) nation-building excercises in Korea, Sudan, Iran etcetera? When does our tenuous foreign-policy draw question from even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like you, Dan? e | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 168 Registered: 10-2002 |
R.B. Bailey, I really fail to see the connection between our president's desire for war and my support of those who have elected to take on the roll of defense of this nation. Do you think that I hope for harm to come to the men and women who might be forced to do battle? In fact I am every bit as concerned for our soldiers as I am for anyone else who may come in harms way because of this war. Nonetheless, I cannot agree with you that they are fighting for me anymore than I can abide by the thinly veiled premise that this war is justified. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 169 Registered: 10-2002 |
Okay, okay here's another citation taken from "The People's History of the United States" that I think will go over a little better with you gentlemen. Writing to a friend in 1897 Theodore Roosevelt said "In strict confidence...I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." That comment came on the eve of another dubious war that was fanned by yellow journalism and the desire for revenge. You "Remember the Maine" don't you? Well I think The Spanish American War has a lot more in common with our latest adventure than does WWII or Vietnam. But hey, I'm just an ignorant protestor. R.B. Bailey, you are abosolutely correct about that Shakespeare quote. Damn if I didn't fall prey to another of those urban legends. You know, it just sounded too good to be true! Even still, I think Shakespeare would have appreciated that it was written well regardless of whether he'd have agreed with the sentiment. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) New Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2003 |
there is a bit difference in a freedom fighter and a terrorist. wake up! The freedom fighters you refer to wanted independence from an oppressive government. the terrorist want to kill every last nonmuslim on the face of the earth. If they could have killed every last one of us in the TT they would've. That is not freedom fighting especially when you seek to oppress. Would you like to see all the women here circumcized? Of course you don't. They are not seeking freedom, they are seeking oppression and total domination. There is proof that hussein is aiding terrorists and that they hide in Iraq. Of course they are going to tell it as these will be the first targets of the war. IF you want to be mad at someone for the war having to ocurr blame Hussein. As I recall, he is the one that has not lived up to what he promised to do 12 years ago. all these countries and people who want to try peaceful means have had 12 YEARS. I personally do not want to loose anymore americans to barbaric civilian attacks by a bunch of pussies who are too F%^cking timid to hit non-civilian targets. Other countries and factions are jealous of the US. When you are the strongest country, there is always someone who wants to take you out. so you can choose to BEND OVER for them or you can fight to live. "If you want Peace prepare for War" Clausowitz(sp) | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 142 Registered: 10-2002 |
Mr. Grant, I completely disagree with you that the President wants war. Nobody wants war, however, sometimes war is a necessary evil. What is worse, continued inspections that will reveal nothing while dragging out the timeline, therefore puuting more U.S. soldiers at risk due to the upcoming weather changes (read: it's going to get really, really, hot) in Southwest Asia, or, going now when we know we've got the people, the time, and the support? Personaly, as a former Marine (or still a Marine to some), I can know what those guys are going to go through running across that desert at MOPP4 (read: chemical suite and gas mask) in 130 degree heat, all because we wanted to wait for more worthless inspections. Also, I have to agree with Paul Morgan. Paul, get those Ospreys rolling so my friends can come back and fly in something built this century! | ||
| Michael Noe (Noee) Senior Member Username: Noee Post Number: 470 Registered: 03-2002 |
Erik(Jon): Are your questions rhetorical? Maybe. But if France, Germany and Russia continue to supply Iraq with the materials for destruction, not for long. Very much contained and guess what, we're there for the long haul, maybe permanently. Do some research about world religions. You're way off here. BTW, what do you consider that 9/11 was anyway?
Read about Israel. THey were attacked, beat back their attackers, captured land as a buffer. The UN resolutions for Israel are recommendations, NOT mandatory as the ones are for Iraq. This is common knowledge. Look, I'm not for war, but there can be no peace in Israel or the region until the terrorists groups are shut down and the only way to do that is by eliminating their funding support. You have to look at this in a historical context, you need to understand the relationships of these "countries" just in the last 80 years or so. The reality is that the US is being attacked on many fronts. Our so-called allies are using the UN and Iraq to shunt and distract us economically while so-called terrorist are hell bent on our outright destruction as a people and country. IMO our way of life and ideals are under attack, we face a pivotal point, I think, for our long term ability to grow and survive as a free people. Hopefully, war is not needed. Maybe it is needed on some cases, maybe in others, it is not. Is it worth fighting for? | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 171 Registered: 03-2002 |
"PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER" an axiom the US is about to prove (again) | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 172 Registered: 03-2002 |
Paul: Is the Osprey really going to work? I hope so, have a Frat brother that flys those 30+ year old helicopters.... Also: have you ever seen the Fairey aircraft of the sixties that demonstrates the same characteristics of the Osprey? A diverse company, made aircraft and overdrives for Land Rovers... got to love the Brits! | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1277 Registered: 02-2002 |
Yep Jake it works. It's a good plane and The Marines love it. I have flown in it a few times and it's truly amazing what it can do. Everybody forgets about all the aviation accidents that has happened in the past with just about every military airplane ever built. Our worst enemy is the media and the management of perception. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2008 Registered: 02-2002 |
But I don't take offense at Rep. Kaptur's statement. From what I've learned about the antics of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys they truly were terrorists in every sense of the word. I've said it before and I'll say it again, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Paul Grant, you make me fucking sick | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2009 Registered: 02-2002 |
and I apologize for leaving the question mark (?) off of the end of my first post. It should have ended as follows: U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D., Toledo), a true patriot? as if to say, "Paul Grant, do you consider this ignorant bitch a true patriot?" | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2010 Registered: 02-2002 |
R.B. Bailey, you are abosolutely correct about that Shakespeare quote. Damn if I didn't fall prey to another of those urban legends. You know, it just sounded too good to be true! LOFL...Paul Grant and Barbara Streisand both trying to quote Shakespeare with their heads buried deeply up their own asses. Who would have ever seen it coming? | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1844 Registered: 02-2002 |
Is NPR conservative, or liberal? I used to picture it as stuffy older rich conservatives as the ones who listen to it, but, my opinion shifted that it was liberal college ex-hippies that really supported it. I dunno which it is anymore. Regardless, I was listening to it this morning on my way to work. Really interesting bit: they were in Northern Iraq, interviewing citizens, even little children, who were praying for war, so that Saddam would be gone. Little kids, wanting the US to come help them, telling about their family members who were killed by Saddam, and how Germany and Russia and France are hindering their liberation. I want us to go help that kid, let him know that we have heard his plea. -L | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2011 Registered: 02-2002 |
NPR is traditionally about as liberal as they come, Leslie. This is my opinion, as well as the on-air, voiced opinions of NPR personalities themselves. I frequently flip between a local conservative AM talk radio station & NPR (mainly when my AM station breaks for commercials). Last week there was some wacko preaching the liberal line about how it is unfair that there are no talk radio personalities as famous as Rush Limbaugh, and the 2 NPR hosts chuckled about how NPR is certainly a liberal station, but not quite in the same league as Rush Limbaugh. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1845 Registered: 02-2002 |
Also, History is written by the winners.... if Britian had stomped the colonies back into submission, the UK history books would contain discussions about the localized terrorists in the colonies a couple of centuries ago. We liberated ourselves, and thus we have the right to have in our history books how we did it. Mayhaps tactics used by guerrilla fighters are akin to those implemented by terrorists, but the motivation is, as Paul said above, very different. Terrorism is about scaring mass populations into submission of oppression, where freedom fighters are trying to remove the oppression.... same tactics, but the direction is 180 degrees.... -L | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2012 Registered: 02-2002 |
and Leslie, some jackasses might say that the kid you are talking about is a dissenter while saddam is the true patriot. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1846 Registered: 02-2002 |
Blue, That's what I thought, that they were liberals, yet, people who I picture as extreme conservatives listen to it, too. And, the piece I heard this morning was as pro-war as could be. FWIW... -L | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1847 Registered: 02-2002 |
Well.... by definition, that's true: Saddam is a patriot to his government, and the child is a dissenter. If Saddam wins, then yes, that's what Iraqi history books will say.... Doesn't mean that it'd be morally right, though... -L | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 358 Registered: 07-2002 |
Paul G. We can agree to disagree about when to go to war and when not to. The reasons I believe that this is a time for military action is that diplomacy has not worked (You can't argue with 12 years of diplomatic history. 12 years of U.N. and U.S. sanctions and action.) The point of this war would be to destroy the threat that Saddam is to that region of the world. And the threat that he is to us through his ability to supply money and weapons to terrorists. Unless I am mistaken, isn't it $50k from Saddam that is going to the family of the suicide bomber on Wednesday morning - the one who killed an American? If they are not fighting for us, then who are they fighting for? Bush is certainly not pulling off a political coup with this action, like his father, it will probably harm him. The fact of the matter is that I don't know of one soldier who is NOT fighting for us. And about the quote, I don't know if it is still there, but B.S. had a retraction on her political action web site a few months back. I don't remember where she got it from. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2013 Registered: 02-2002 |
The "national" in NPR (national public radio) means "nation-wide" as opposed to "controlled by the government." In fact, I think that only a little bit of funding for NPR comes from tax-related sources (like 5%). The rest of the operating expenses are funded by the nation-wide network of radio stations and gifts & grants. NPR was formed back in the late 60's after an act of congress that intended to get more non-commercial, informational radio stations going. NPR's liberal lean is probably attributable to their formation in the late 60's, as well as the latent tendency for most news media to take on a liberal viewpoint. Of course, there are always opposing viewpoints & op-ed type pieces, and I have indeed heard a lot of conservative viewpoints expressed on NPR. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 359 Registered: 07-2002 |
This argument about history is interesting. Yes, History is written by the winner. Partly because they decide what will go in the books and partly because the outcome of conflict is history. I don't mind interpretation of history. We all do it even when we don't mean to. What is wrong is when people write revisionist history on purpose. A true historian is someone who is profoundly interested in history, and the people involved, not in what it can do for his or her polotics. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2014 Registered: 02-2002 |
And about the quote, I don't know if it is still there, but B.S. had a retraction on her political action web site a few months back. I don't remember where she got it from. Congresswoman Streisand got it from the same place Paul Grant got it - they read it on the internet. And Paul is guilty of the very thing he is chastising us for: believing everything you read and following blindly. Furthermore, the quote itself discusses whipping the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, emboldening the blood & narrowing the mind, infusing with fear & blind patriotism...all pretty goddamn ironic and funny in my book. | ||
| landy (Landy_73) New Member Username: Landy_73 Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
Following the above discussion, am I to assume that what makes the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is the fact that the latter will perpetrate violent actions such as bombing onto the civilian population instead of armed forces? Also, am I to assume too that France and/or Germany have sold weapons and materials to make weapons to Iraq in the past twelve years? Landy | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2015 Registered: 02-2002 |
Well.... by definition, that's true: Saddam is a patriot to his government, and the child is a dissenter. If Saddam wins, then yes, that's what Iraqi history books will say.... Doesn't mean that it'd be morally right, though... Leslie, I was hoping that you would write exactly that in response to my post. You are absolutely correct. If you take it further, you can see that "patriot" doesn't always have the pure, shining, glorious meaning that we take for granted here in the good old USA. It's all fuckin relative, man. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 360 Registered: 07-2002 |
Saddam is a patriot to himself and no other. That is why he would sacrifice his population to survive. Assassinate his own brother-in-law just to get respect and power - and that was his FIRST murder. And that is why he still thinks he won the first war. And yes the "official" title of terrorist does go to those groups that are willing to attack the civilian population outside of an official war action (because civilian deaths almost always occur in war anyway) They usually do so for political reasons. This is also why we have another designation called freedom fighters. Revisionist historians and poloticians would seek to switch these designations at their will. And yes, sometimes there is a thin line between the two. | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2018 Registered: 02-2002 |
saddam is a pig, plain and simple. He is about to be taken out. All this rhetoric about war-mongering, UN bullshit, resolutions, inspections, "it's not fair," etc. is unnecessary bullshit complication. It doesn't need to be complicated like it has become. Take out the pig saddam. Take out the people who try to prevent you from taking out saddam. Make sure a pig like saddam doesn't take his place. Simple, simple, simple. If people like Paul Grant's feelings get hurt in the process, fuck em. Simple. If you try to make everybody happy and spread warm fuzzies across the land, you'll suddenly realize that you're a pussy. Simple. | ||
| landy (Landy_73) New Member Username: Landy_73 Post Number: 2 Registered: 03-2003 |
So assuming that the definition for terrorist stands as above, one can safely say the Jewish underground group perpetrating bomb attacks across the British Palestine in the 20s, 30s and 40s were terrorists. Yet they did obtain what they were aiming for and got the free state of Israel. I guess they have become heroes by now. Also, I assume that the current state of affair in Israel is war as we have the Israeli army shooting big guns at the civilian population in order to get a couple of suspects. But then again the Palestinians are all terrorists; go figure! And still do not know if the French or the German ever sold any weapons to Saddam over the past twelve years as mentioned above... It's not that I want to be antagonistic but I guess I curious. Landy | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1848 Registered: 02-2002 |
Landy, Not "weapons", but "materials"... that get redirected into weapons programs. It wasn't the Jews that won themselves a nation during the 20s, 30s, and 40s; Britian sought to create two nations, one Israeli and one Palestinian; the Arabs of the area did not want a nation because they would have to accept the creation of a Jewish state: their hatred of another religion was great enough that they shot themselves in the foot. After Nazi Germany's genocide, the UN felt remorse and forced Israel into existance. -L | ||
| Blue (Bluegill) Senior Member Username: Bluegill Post Number: 2019 Registered: 02-2002 |
Landy, are you writing a dictionary? Do you think that people do what they do and then we define them, or do you think we come up with different definitions for classes of people, and then people decide to which class they wish to fit, and then the people act accordingly? I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is" is... | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 362 Registered: 07-2002 |
Every nation has the right to defend itself, even Iraq. When Israel retaliates they usually take it too far. But then, what else are they to do? If we had bombings on a regular basis from Canada or our Indian Reservations, we would retaliate. We might deserve (or did deserve) retaliation, but the fact is that a nation state has a different set of moral codes than an individual. Just like a father has the duty to kill or otherwise stop an intruder in his house even before he knows just exactly how dangerous that intruder is - but does not have the right to kill a man in the street for steeling his car, even if it is a Land Rover. When defending his home, he is not operating under the same set of rules. Israel is a nation, Palestine is not - and won't be until Arafat is out of control. You can make the argument that Israel does react too strongly some times, but you cannot say that they do not have the right to react with deadly force. | ||
| landy (Landy_73) New Member Username: Landy_73 Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2003 |
Leslie, please do not get me wrong as I am not at all discussing the validity Isreal, but history also mentions very violent bombings throughout the British palestine until the late 40s carried out by underground zionist groups. The fact of the matter is that at the time the victims were british and Palestinian civilians occupying what has become today's Israel. Those people are seen as the founding members of the modern jewish community and are remenbered as heroes. As for the materials sold by France and Germany, I still do not know what we are talking about here. Unless Europe has sold nuclear material or rocket propellant, I am still puzzled as to what the french or germans could have sold to Iraq over the past twelve years that could directly or indirectly be linked to any sort of weapon program. I am not into international politic, so I guess I do not know all of what has been going on in the last decade but I do respect true facts in any form of discussion. thank you anyway for taking the time to respond to my earlier post... Landy | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1278 Registered: 02-2002 |
Landy, In reference to your statement above: "And still do not know if the French or the German ever sold any weapons to Saddam over the past twelve years as mentioned above..." That footage of the jet spraying chemicals is a French Mirage. Keyword, French. The Germans may not have sold complete weapons systems, but they have sold 'materials' to build weapons. And in reference to: "I assume that the current state of affair in Israel is war as we have the Israeli army shooting big guns at the civilian population in order to get a couple of suspects." The Israelis are not just shooting blindly at civilians, but rather eliminating those who support the suicide bombers. For example, there is great footage of Israeli Cobras (Helo Gunships) launching missiles into Apartment complexes. When this is done, they actually can chose what window for the missle to enter in order to kill the correct individuals. I applaud Israel for holding back and not eliminating the threat all togther. | ||
| landy (Landy_73) New Member Username: Landy_73 Post Number: 4 Registered: 03-2003 |
Paul, Again, I am not at all discussing the attitude of the Isreali army. Also I will not even discuss the ability of the cobras, but the fact are that I hear of many women,young kids and civilian in general being killed on both side. As for the french mirage, correct me if I am wrong as I understand you are an army chap, but those planes date back a few years. I doubt that Saddam has bought those dinosaurs over the last twelve years, which is what we are discussing about here. Landy | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 170 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hello folks, Boy I was away for only a few hours and it appears as though more than a few of you are hemmoraging a bit. Blue, calm down or you'll have an embolism and then we'd be at a loss for your provacative thoughts and eloquent demeanor. Let's see, I've got a lot to answer to. First, regarding the mistaken use of the Shakespeare quote. I have acknowledged it as being incorrect and thought I covered the error well enough. I make no excuse. But how about that Secretary of State of ours, you know, Colin Powell speaking before the Security Council quoting from a plagerized, out dated, piece of work only to attesting to its veracity. As I recall, the British Intellegence community was pretty well mortified by that error. If you can't believe everything you read, at least I'm in good company. More to come. Cheers Paul | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 173 Registered: 03-2002 |
Blue: You are ROCKING today! Keep up the good works. It is plain and simple, we are going & Saddam is leaving...world be damned. PS: I think that I owe you a beer now.... | ||
| Leo P. Hallak (Leo_hallak) New Member Username: Leo_hallak Post Number: 6 Registered: 02-2003 |
late, but.. We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. George Orwell -leo | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 363 Registered: 07-2002 |
I think Powell did it on purpose! | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 171 Registered: 10-2002 |
Back again. Now, about my poke at Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. Do you gentleme know some of the escapades that were conducted by these thugs? Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys got their start as a result of two colonial governors (NY and NH) issuing titles to people for the same land shortly after the end of the French and Indian War. Ethan Allen and his gang held title to land issued by Governor Wentworth and begain to populate western VT. As they expended their claims over the Green Mountains and closer to NY they ran into settlers who carried similar titles to the very same land. It was at this point that Allen and a number of friends and relatives formed an unauthorized militia with the sole purpose of intmidating NY settlers from crossing the Green Mountains to settle property they held claim to. Interestingly enough, the longer the Green Mountain Boys exerted pressure on settlers from NY the less violent they became. At the beginning of their campaign they frequently used violence and would all too often burn down homes of those they had disagreement with. But, as time went on, their reputation became such that their mere appearance on the scene was enough to make settlers abandon their claims and flee for their lives. As the rebellious activities in the Massachusetts colony excalated Ethan Allan was wise enough to join in the coming revolution as he saw no alternative in going with the Tories in NY. The efforts of Allen and The Green Mountain boys played an undeniably important role in the early days of our revolution. Nonetheless, he and his boys got their start in a less than glorious way asserting their preemminence over those these able to advance their own claims. Does this mean that they are on a par with Al Qaeda, of course not but what I think someone like Rep. Kaptur was trying to say was that the goals of Ethan Allen were in no way pure in those days preceding the revolution and in many ways were extremely self serving. Leslie, I couldn't agree with you more about the contention that history is written by the winners. Does that make it right or for that matter honest, hardly. However, there are ways; sources available to us all if we chose to make the effort, that can fill in gaps or offer alternative takes on events to help us gain a broader perspective. Unfortunately, I don't think enough of us are willing to make the effort or take the time to really educate ourselves. More to come. Cheers, Paul | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 364 Registered: 07-2002 |
Why are France and Germany possibly wanting to stay out of Iraq? From Global Security.org: "...it became apparent that technical data and construction documents classified as confidential pertaining to German centrifuges types had already made their way to Iraq...." "In 1988-89, Iraq moreover endeavored within the Federal Republic of Germany to obtain experts on the development and construction of gas centrifuges for a cooperative effort in Iraq. The extent to which these efforts were successful could not be definitely ascertained as of early 1990." "At the time of the Gulf War, most Western analysts -- with the notable exception of the French -- believed that the chemical enrichment facility at Tuwaitha "Building 90" was not yet operable. Subsequent inspections by the IAEA, under auspices of the UN Security Council Resolution 687, found lab-scale experiments in chemical enrichment, but no evidence of success or any plans for a production plant. Since the French technology is both proprietary and subject to export controls, the Iraqis reportedly resorted to clever negotiation tactics to garner considerable amounts of design information on the process, ostensibly with the goal of licensing the technology at some point in the future. Their techniques reportedly included pressing for more and more technical details during a contract negotiation and then breaking off discussions just before closing a deal." "The Iraqi nuclear program was massive, for most practical purposes it was fiscally unconstrained, was closer to fielding a nuclear weapon, and was less vulnerable to destruction by precision bombing than coalition air commanders and planners or US intelligence specialists realized before DESERT STORM...." AND, talking about the reactor that was bombed by Israel: "This project - which foresaw the construction of an indigenous research reactor to replace the capability that would have been provided by the Osirak (Tamuz-1) research reactor - had originated in 1984/85 after the breakdown in Iraq's negotiations with France for the rebuilding of the Osirak reactor." ...do you think we might find some interesting things other than Mirages when we go into Iraq? Not if France keeps stalling for more time to get it all hidden. | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1279 Registered: 02-2002 |
Landy, Point taken about Israel. That is a real mess over there. What really sucks is the Israeli kids that have to go to school in fortress like compounds just to be safe. As far as the Mirage thing goes....Military Jets are like used cars. Countries all over the planet surplus their outdated crap to anyone with a big enough pocket book. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 172 Registered: 10-2002 |
R.B. Bailey, I think that the problem we have in reaching a common ground is that I have been against military incursion dating back to August of 1990. Till the day I die I will firmly believe that the Gulf War could have been prevented before Iraqi troops ever crossed the border into Kuwait. I asked if people believe that one day Hussein woke up and thought 'I'll invade Kuwait today" on another thread but got no response. The way I see it, Iraq went from being a creditor nation with some $35 billion in the bank in 1980 to a debtor nation owing in excess of $85 billion in 1988. This was the result of a long, protracted war with the newly installed fundamentalist government of Iran. The war was over territory that had been in dispute for years and with the perceived weakness of the Iranian government coupled with an assassination attempt on Taraq Azziz (sp?) Hussein thought the time was right to regain control of access to the Persian Gulf. All of the oil rich Arab states were pleased with Iraq's move against Iran hoping that it would stem the flow of fundamentalism into their own countries. The US saw this as an opportunity to pit two Arab powerhouses against one another in an attempt to weaken them both. Remember, in 1980 we didn't even have diplomatic relations with Iraq and as far as Iran was concerned well I think we all know the history there. The French and the USSR also saw the war as a gold mine for armament sales to a country awash in petro-dollars. As time went on, however, the petro-dollars soon dried up. You remember the sinking of oil tankers and what about the USS Stark being hit by a French Exocet missle from an Iraqi MIG! As the war grinded on the Iraqi's fell deeper and deeper in debt, principly to other Arab states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Arab Emirates. Another fact is that as the war continued our support grew as well to the point that by 1988 the amount of supplies we gave to Iraq far outstripped that of France and the USSR. At the conclusion of the war it was Iraq's intention to pump its way out of debt with the Persian Gulf safe for tanker travel again. There was one problem, the value of a barrel of oil was at all time lows due to overproduction by a number of OPEC states. No matter what Iraq did, with the value of crude at depressed levels they were unable to make a dent in their debt. Hussein and his ministers, during 1989 made numerous calls upon their fellow Arab states asking for them to forgive some or all of their war debt. However you may agree or not, it was Iraq's contention that their war with Iran was, to some extent, a proxy war for the rest of Arabia in an attempt to keep fundamentalism at bay. Needless to say, their efforts were rebuffed by Kuwait and the Arab Emirates, two of the largest debt holders. Simultaneously, Iraq pressed its claim with OPEC that several of its member were violating quota agreements by over producing, leading to lower prices for crude oil. Unfortunately, their claims fell on deaf ears. To be continued. | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 366 Registered: 07-2002 |
You're right Paul, Saddam didn't simply wake up and attack Kuwait. But none of the history you wrote out above gives him an excuse to attack Kuwait. And if it does - if oil and money are good reasons for him to go to war - then why wouldn't it be better for America to take control of Kuwait's oil instead? After all, we would make sure the prices were low, and we wouldn't rape and pilliage the place in the mean time. Saddam's debts were procured out of a stupid war of hate. Why should the others forgive that debt? Saddam doesn't just do anything - he taught Clinton everything there is to know about politics! HA - but you get my meaning; he is first and formost a ruthless politician looking for power. And he is very good at it. Let me ask you this - should we have taken out the terrorists in Afghanistan? That was a military incursion. So was the invasion at Normandy, and Iwo Jima - if you are simply against military action for the obvious reasons that people get killed then you don't live in reality. Some people should be killed, some that are killed shouldn't be. Life isn't fair - if it were, we would all be in a lot of trouble! (Just think of how many speeding tickets you would have.) | ||
| Stacey R Abend (Srafj40) New Member Username: Srafj40 Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2003 |
Greetings to all, I have been lurking around going back to R.B. Bailey's H2 thread that was posted on Cruizers.com. Great topics and rather witty debate. Paul, you bring up the idea that Iraq had no choice because of the fact that Iraq's fellow Arab countries were involved in over production. This could be so, but it did not drive down the price of oil. At this same time there was two new drilling sites that came on line. The North Sea field and in Alaska the pipeline was now fully functional. This reduced dependence on Arab oil is what droped the price not over production by the Saudi's. Kuwait had money in the their banks, Saddam knew this resented it, and attacked. Stacey | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 173 Registered: 10-2002 |
Part II At the end of the Iran Iraq War we were the single largest source of agricultural and industrial supplies for Iraq. But, a curious thing happened in the span of a few months. Certain members of our government began raising the issue of Iraq's use of chemical weapons during its eight year war with Iran. After one meeting between ministers from Iraq and US official in Washington, DC the Iraq minister was assailed with legitimate questions from the news media. Unprepared for the line of questions the Iraqi's offered no explainations or excuses. Now, I am in no way going to defend Iraq for its use of chemical weapons during the war. That must be perfectly clear. Yet, it is essential that we accept the roll that we played in their use from the stand point of materiel, and logistics. Enough said. So, by early 1989 we saw a distinct move by the US away from its support of Iraq. There were still enormous agricultural loans and grants that were easily convertible for military use but overall, it can be said that a chill began to fall over our relations with Iraq. This is notwithstanding a Congressional visit to Iraq by the likes of Senator Dole who praise Iraq and attempted to increase agricultural aid. Hey, he was the senator from Kansas, what would you expect. By 1990 the political climate in the middle east was changing. Iraq was still feeling the crush of its debts from the war. The rest of the world was experiencing record low oil prices thanks to OPEC overproduction. Iraq, sitting on the world's second largest oil reserve was spiralling further into the abyss. Even with what many characterized as the fourth largest army in the world, Saddam Hussein was sitting on a potential powder keg of dissent. At the same time that this turmoil was fomenting in the middle east, in Europe the Berlin Wall came tumbling down with calls all throughout the US for a 'peace dividend.' But, we still had the fourth largest army in the world within days of the valuable oil fields of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This is where the problem for the US lie. During the Iran Iraq War we had played both ends against the middle in the hopes that both military powers would be ruined. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way. Iraq, regardless of how potent its army really was, could still mount a sizable force to intimidate any of its neighbors. That fact was intolerable to the US so when Iraqi officials came to the US asking for help both with war debt and OPEC overproduction we offered absolutely no help. With all avenues for a peaceful resolution exhausted and the fact that Kuwait had been cross drilling into Iraq's Rumallah (sp?) oil fields, there was little left for Iraq to do. During the summer of 1990 they began amassing troops along the Kuwaiti border, all the while calling upon the US, OPEC, the Saudi's, anyone to help resolve their dispute with Kuwait and the Arab Emirates. It is my contention that during that fateful summer when we were in almost constant diplomatic contact with the Iraqi's that if we had wanted to we could have exerted pressure on Kuwait and the Arab Emirates to resolve their issues peacefully. Instead we got that famous statement by April Glaspie...you know the one about how we don't get involved in inter-Arab conflicts. If memory serves me, three days latter Iraqi tanks rolled across the border. Not unlike today, the US had to drag the UN into military action because during the initial stages of the occupation there was a flurry of diplomatic activity conducted in an attempt to reach a peaceful settlement. Nothing worked but again it is my contention that just like today it didn't work not because of Iraq but rather because it didn't suit our goals. Our goals, of course, were the complete destruction of the Iraqi army so as to remove, once and for all, any possibility for them to have any influence in the region. The secondary goal was the creation of a new bugey man for us to focus all of our military might against in an effort to justify maintaining exhorbitantly high defense expenditures. Oh, and I almost forgot. The Gulf War provided another opportunity for the US. We were able to put on a military trade show the likes of which this world had never seen. The result of course was order books filled for weapons like the Patriot Missle System. Hell, the war even spawned a new consumer car company, Hummer! To be continued. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 174 Registered: 10-2002 |
Okay, let's move forward to 1991 with Iraq in retreat and its forces being decimated as they retreat. How many were killed on that highway to hell? Now before you go and attack me for sympathising with the invader understand that I am not advocating any of these actions. THE INVASION WAS ILLEGAL AND MORALLY WRONG. However, our handling of the events that led up to and through the war weren't much better. Now, what about all the Kurds and Sh'ia that Hussein and his Royal Guard massacred. That too, was in no way right. However, our hands are not without bloodstains as well. George Bush called for these peope to rise up and overthrow their government but when they did he turned his back on them as they were slaughtered. Have we no sense of remorse, no sense of decency? R.B., as far as your contention that 12 years of inspections haven't worked, I beg to differ. In the 7 years that inspectors were on the ground in Iraq they destroyed more than twice the number of weapons as were destroyed during the war. That is a fact. It is also a fact that at the time UNSCOM was pulled out of Iraq between 90-95% of their weapons of mass destruction had been found and dismantled. If those inspectors hadn't been pulled in late 1998 because it was discovered that some were working for the CIA perhaps the other 5-10% would have been found. You know, there are also many documents that indicate that the majority of Iraq WMD were destroyed right after the end of the Gulf War. I'll post a link to documents held by the UN that were given to them by Hussein's son-in-law when he defected. http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html The bottom line for me is that the inspections worked and are working today. Yes, I know that Hussein hasn't been as cooperative as he should but remember, INSPECTIONS HAD BEEN WOKING and still are today. They are far less costly both from a monetary as well as political perspective. Most importantly, inspections are not costing the US any loss of life. To be continued...but I need to take a break! Cheers, Paul | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 367 Registered: 07-2002 |
You talk about how it was wrong for Bush to not do anything about the uprising in the North of Iraq after the first war. What about now, should we still do nothing? You seem to be saying that U.S. aid to Iraq for humanitarian and agricultural reasons allowed for Iraq's ability to build the chemical weapons he has used. By that line of reasoning we should cut off all aid to any questionable nation. On the other hand, if we accept your argument that it is in fact, our fault for "building" Saddam, and by your line of reasoning, pushed him to attack Kuwait, then shouldn't we take the responsibility for fixing the problem? Honestly, I think we should go ahead with the inspections, but I am not going to second guess the final decisions of Bush in this case. I can't get past the fact that they must know a lot more than we do, and if we are this close in our arguments to go or not to go, then what do they know that is pushing them over the edge? So what if some of the previous inspectors were CIA, more power to them! That's their job. There is no reason why we should not have sent our own military and civilian inspectors in there after the cease-fire. Iraq is and was a defeated nation and should abide by the terms of that agreement. Despite our views of the inspections, they really are not working. If they were, we would know what happened to the tons of chemical weapons, we would have been presented with evidence that they had been destroyed. Not a lie about destroying the weapons, then destroying the machines that destroyed them, then destroying the documents that talked about destroying them. My point is, again, that the war isn't really over until Iraq is actually disarmed. And that Bush and the others obviously see a danger to the U.S. and others in the region. I would be worried if he didn't care about Iraq. | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 175 Registered: 10-2002 |
In an attempt to bring this running commentary to a close I will try to offer my perspective on what this war is about. The first, most obvious point of this war is to secure the second largest oil reserves in the world. I know this is simplistic but it does grease the skids (pardon the pun). Going in with or without the UN puts us in a position to insure the steady flow of oil and more importantly, the steady flow of work on the oil industries infrastructure. That in and of itself is no small task and the benefits of being in Iraq on the ground floor are incalculable. The second outcome of a war would be the establishment of a permanent military force within the heart of Arabia. I know that Bush claims we'll be there not a day longer than we need be but come on if I started listing his false assertions DiscoWeb would run out of room. And don't start in on me about Clinton because he was no better. That's part of what I find so amusing about this Clinton did this, Bush did that argument. It is so infantile! They both have plenty to answer for in the court of world opinion. Bush gets mentioned more in my comments because he is the sitting president that's all. The third item onthis administrations agenda is even more far flung. That being the opportunity to bring democracy to Iraq after the fall of Hussein. This is supposed to be accomplished under a military rule using mush of the Baath Party apparatus. Give me a break! Not only is this very notion far fetched but the thought of giving Turkey control over the Kurds in the north is even more outrageous. I know it's all in an attempt to prevent a Kurdish uprising with Turkeys borders. Those poor souls are on the verge of being sold down the river again. This war was in the planning years before Bush took over the White House. Take a look at this link if you want your blood to boil (without, of course the narrowing of the mind that faux Shakespeare warned of). http://truthout.org/docs_03/022803A.shtml What I find so incomprehensible is that while we keep growing the defense budget, introducing troops into potential combat theaters, offering billions in payoffs for support on the front and in the Security Counsel we're also witnessing drastic cutbacks in funding for education, health and social services. Have you soldiers seen the way that this administration is cutting funding for off base education? Schools in San Diego and Seattle, just to mention two, are seeing the potential cutbacks as life threatening. What about the cutbacks in medical care offered by the Veterans Administration? Aren't any of you bothered by what the future holds for you if, after serviing proudly for this country, you find the benefits that you were promised, gutted? What about the senior citizens, many of whom served in wars across the globe, who have to go to Canada for their medical prescriptions? Never mind the 40 million plus who have no coverage at all. What about cutbacks and restrictions on public education that leave millions without the opportunity to learn and grow to be productive citizens? I could go on for pages. WE HAVE FAR MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DOING THAN TRYING TO OVERTHROW A TWO BIT TYRANT. At the rate we're going, what with the ceding over of our rights thanks to fear mongering this country will be a hollow shell of what is once was. It will be a country where a fortunate 2% of the population hold 90% of the wealth while the rest of us scrape and scramble to barely keep ahead. Will it be a country with its media held in the hands of just a few powerful corporations spewing yellow journalism in an effort to undermine all forms of dissent? Will, in ct, our democracy fall to the tyranny of the masses as Alex D'Toucqueville (sp?) warned far back in the 19th century? To me, this is what this war is really about. As we chase paper tiger after paper tiger we only make ourselves weaker and weaker. These forays around the globe (next stop the Phillipines) only undermine our moral position. WE ARE TOO GOOD A PEOPLE TO LET THIS HAPPEN TO THE AMERICA WE LOVE. With that, I'll say goodnight Paul | ||
| R. B. Bailey (Rover50987) Senior Member Username: Rover50987 Post Number: 370 Registered: 07-2002 |
I'm done too, but let me reply: If the war is about oil, then it is stupid because we get less than 15% of our oil from the entire Middle East. We already have a permanent military force in the region. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. We look back at the success of Japan after WWII, the success that was brought about by our military occupation of that nation and the building of their new government out of that. The Kurds: Maybe they should get together with the Palestinians and then they would actually have enough power to get their own nation... Why would we simply let them do what they want when the war is over? The war has been planned for years because they see it the same way I do, as an unfinished mistake left over from the first engagement. Our work is not done there. And as far as opening the whole new can of worms that you did after that! Well, there are too many taxes, too much spending on things we don't need, too many stupid laws, too many stupid lawsuits, too many people in government who have nothing else to do - last I checked congress was supposed to be a temporary service to country, not a carreer path. etc, etc. etc. | ||
| Leslie N. Bright (Leslie) Senior Member Username: Leslie Post Number: 1851 Registered: 02-2002 |
Paul, RB's right, to claim that this is about oil is, pardon my French, utter bullshit. If we wanted Iraqi oil that bad, we'd just buy it from them. Bush Sr. was beguiled into not finishing the job, to try to play nice with everyone after the Gulf War, and thus the job was unfinished. We had to sit around 8 years with Hillary in office while Bill played kissy-face with everyone. After 9/11, Bush got his jump-start... he's been keeping the momentum up, and I say get out of his way and let him go to work. IMHO, FWIW..... -L | ||
| Mark & Bev Preston (Markp) Member Username: Markp Post Number: 149 Registered: 02-2002 |
Paul, Raising hell hey? I haven't had much time lately but thought I'd add a couple of points. You have left out some significant issues relative to Iraq and Kuwait. From http://www.historyguy.com/GulfWar.html "There are three basic causes to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. First, Iraq had long considered Kuwait to be a part of Iraq. This claim led to several confrontations over the years (see link), and continued hostility. Also, it can be argued that with Saddam Hussein's attempted invasion of Iran defeated, he sought easier conquests against his weak southern neighbors. Second, rich deposits of oil straddled the ill-defined border and Iraq constantly claimed that Kuwaiti oil rigs were illegally tapping into Iraqi oil fields. Middle Eastern deserts make border delineation difficult and this has caused many conflicts in the region. Finally, the fallout from the First Persian Gulf War between Iraq and Iran strained relations between Baghdad and Kuwait. This war began with an Iraqi invasion of Iran and degenerated into a bloody form of trench warfare as the Iranians slowly drove Saddam Hussein's armies back into Iraq. Kuwait and many other Arab nations supported Iraq against the Islamic Revolutionary government of Iran, fearful that Saddam's defeat could herald a wave of Iranian-inspired revolution throughout the Arab world. Following the end of the war, relations between Iraq and Kuwait deteriorated; with a lack of gratitude from the Baghdad government for help in the war and the reawakening of old issues regarding the border and Kuwaiti sovereignty." I remember the cross-drilling issue. I also remember that the actual border was in question. As for IRAQs WMD being destroyed, I think your numbers are wrong. Just reported today: Blix disputes Iraq's anthrax claims reuters ^ | 3/6/03 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/858681/posts The UN doesn't believe Saddamm destroyed the WMD. The same organization that you claim found and destroyed 90% of the WMDs. Inspections have not worked. Bottom line - Saddamm has a significant amount of chemical and biological weapons. You have read the report on Sept 11th Anthrax link to Iraq, in conflict with truthout.org. We know that Saddam supports terrorism, both in the Middle East and around the world. Taking out Osama is not the end of the terrorism road. Too many think that capturing bin Laden is the end goal. If you listen to mainstream media you would think that once we capture or kill bin Laden, the war on terrorism is over. That couldn't be farther from the truth. One final point for tonight. I've read that many believe democracy is the answer and that we would like to see democracy in the Middle East. Interesting position considering that we are a republic. A true democracy never works. - Mark | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 182 Registered: 10-2002 |
Leslie, In my comments about the reasons for war I said that more importantly, the successful prosecution of said war would put us in a position to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq's oil industry. That responsibilty holds forth greater opportunity for the US than does the actual control of production. What with retapping old wells, digging new ones and building new pipelines there is far more money to be made than from pumping the roughly three million barrels a day Iraq has the capacity for today. This production level, three million barrels a day, is part of what I perceive as a large hole in Bush's argument about rebuilding Iraq after the war is over. I've heard it said countless times that Iraqi oil will pay for the rebuilding of the country after the war is over. How is the approximately $15 billion a year Iraq sees from its oil sales going to come close to the cost of rebuilding a destroyed infrastructure. I've seen estimate ranging as high as $250 billion over the next ten years. How will $15 billion pay for health and social sevices at the same time it is needed for expanding the oil industry. The numbers don't add up. This is only compounded by our administrations unwillingness to be truthful with us over our long term costs for the war. Are we really going to leave Iraq after twenty four months as I have heard advocated by members of the Bush administration? Do we really believe for an instant that a country so ravaged by an autocratic regime like Hussein's has any concept at all of how to run a democracy? Our administration is being as disingenuine about the task that lies before us after the dust has settled as they have been about the effectiveness of Karzai's government in Afghanistan. We have neither the talent or the patience for nation building but that is the very task that lies before us if we engage ourselves in this war. And please don't get me started by trying to exhume post war Japan and Europe as examples of our capacity. Europe was the result of the Marshall Plan not a martial plan and sadly, I'm not sure in this day and age that we have either the will or the money for such a noble gesture. Mark, Thanks for yet another cool site. I think historyguy.com will provide a lot of entertainment and education. I don't think there is much disagreement between us as to many ofthe facts leading up to the war in '90-91. I'll admit that I didn't say enough about Iraq and Kuwait's border dispute history. I remember back in '90 laughing about the 'line in the sand' metaphor. Desert sands are always shifting. As far as my numbers are concerned, you and I both know that this is a very fluid situation. It will be interesting to see what gets revealed over the nex few days. You know we'll keep each other on our toes! One last thing, we are a democratic republic. A republic by its very nature is the embodiment of democracy. The claim that we are a republic not a democracy is specious at best. Cheers, Paul | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1286 Registered: 02-2002 |
Here ya go Landy, From the Washington Times: "A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck. The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January. Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said. The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action...." No these parts are not WOMD, but they represent input into France's GNP. | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1108 Registered: 04-2002 |
Why must every war the United States fights be against countries with French and Russian weaponry and hardware? The US is bad enough about giving hardware to the rest of the world but geez it sure seems like we are always fighting against the god damn french and russians military hardware. | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1109 Registered: 04-2002 |
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/29/132221 | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1110 Registered: 04-2002 |
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21982 | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2003 |
I have a strong feeling that once Iraq is secured there will be a hell of a lot of evidence that France and Germany have benefited greatly from dealings with Iraq. That and the fact that they are jealous of the US are the biggest reasons they will not join with us in military action. not that we need their 15% help when we have shouldered 85% of everything the united nations has attempted to.....Just heard the Marines are cutting DMZ fencing along the Kuwait/Iraq border...Let's roll! | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1111 Registered: 04-2002 |
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/iraq/deployment.map/index.iraq.html | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2003 |
www.francesucks.com | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 186 Registered: 10-2002 |
Okay, I can see that this thread is taking on the scent of a boys junior high school gym locker so I'm make my point as briefly as I can. First, if any or all of you posters here believe for one second that corporations in the US have not been supplying Iraq with sanctiond goods then you're world view hasn't evolved past the days in that gym locker room. Undoubtedly, France, Germany, England, Russia, China, Japan, North and South Korea have all had a hand in helping Iraq grow its military capability to some extent. But to stand there and not own up to our own part in making Iraq what it is today is absurd. Shortly after the 12,000 page Iraqi report on disarmament was released to the Security Counsel an unedited copy was released to the German press. It detailed at great length the international corporations that had provided Iraq with technology and materiel for the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. The list read like a veritable who's who of Fortune 500 companies including two who plead guilty today for selling illegal technologies to China. Hughes Electronics a division of GM and Boeing Satellite plead guilty to 123 charges of providing advanced technologies to China. So people, grow up. The trade of armaments is far too lucrative t believe for an instant that US corporations aren't involved as well. Lastly, Paul that drivel you posted about French Jews could easily be turned on the US for its treatment of any of its minorities. We have no right to be sanctimonious when 40 million Americans have no health care and cannot get any preventative health services. The percentage is highest among minorities. We have no right to hold our heads high when our infant mortality rate is among the highest of indutrialized nations. Even higher still for minorities. We have no right to preach abut our morality when millions sleep on the streets without knowing where their next meal is coming from. Hell, many of the working poor are regularly forced to skip meals. We, in 'the wealthiest country in the world' should hold our heads in shame!!! You gentlemen need to wake up because the country you profess to love and voice such desire to go to war for is falling apart at the seams. You know, if we keep prosecuting this war against terrorism all around the globe before long we'll be fighting it here in our very streets and it won't be against Muslim Fundamentalists it will be against our own brothers and sisters. Have fun with these thoughts. Paul | ||
| BW (Bwallace35) New Member Username: Bwallace35 Post Number: 26 Registered: 07-2002 |
Paul Grant, I applaud you for your sincere interest in our country, but it appears to me that you are selectively adopting key facts and opinions that only shape your own ideas. True, the same can be said for many pro-war posters on this thread. Regardless of how vast your research is, you are just an American citizen. You are not privy to the intelligence afforded our leaders in the Pentagon. We all agree that the the media is not trustworthy. Not one news agency reports fair, balanced and accurate news. Knowing this, it's nearly impossible for any of us to form sound opinions. Most of us here have not conducted as much research as you. That's clear. However, that does not mean your right about our forthcoming war in Iraq. It just seems to me that your not keeping an "open mind". Your not the only one making good points. One might see that after you gather everyones facts and no opinions, that forming an opinion is pretty darn difficult. With that said, most of us are left with one option . . . and that is to choose a side. After you choose to back your President, everything else seems easier to deal with and is comforting to most. Your close-minded views come across as someone who does not back the President. That my friend is your choice. More power to you for you feverish interest, but don't make the BIG mistake for assuming the rest of us are nationalist who will march blindly into war because we have chosen to believe and back our President. If you are a Christian, you should thank your lucky stars that Bush is too. As strongly as you feel about this topic I hope that you too are praying for peace and praying that Bush makes the right decision. | ||
| Dan Watson (Dwatson) New Member Username: Dwatson Post Number: 13 Registered: 02-2003 |
I’m going to take BW’s post a step further, Paul you take arrogance to a new level. You speak down to people here, like we’re your students. One should never confuse knowledge with intelligence. You are woefully lacking in the latter, IMHO. | ||
| Jake Hartley (Jake) Member Username: Jake Post Number: 175 Registered: 03-2002 |
Paul: You are an arrogant self-rightious prick. You mention things that are "wrong" with this country as a reason not to eliminate a rogue, terrorist state. It DOESNT matter who armed or helped Saddam, he is still a threat to our world and our nation, more specifically. You claim to have compassion for the "people" in America: will it take a smoking hole where a major city full of the people you want to help so much is to realize that a real threat is there? I spent 20 years in the Army, and most of the last 15 were involved in Middle East affairs, and have been privy as an officer to have recieved briefings that illustrate the threat, and believe you me, it is real. OPEN YOUR EYES: if we do not depose and disarm the Iraqis now, then we will be attacked here on our shores by something that is immensely worse that 9/11. You wont have to worry about the "millions" of homeless sleeping on the streets when NYC or LA or DC is reduced to a smoking glowing hole. I am grateful that you and your spineless brethren are in the minority in this country and we have a President who will do what is needed to save our country. I thank God every night that Al Gore did not get elected to the most powerful leadership posistion in the world, as he would have let you idiots have your way. Do us a favor: grow up, shut up, and get out of the way and let the real adults and patriots get the job done. | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1291 Registered: 02-2002 |
Jake, Amen Brother! When I read the numerous Grant statements last night; two things came to mind: #1 Eric's statement that this is Discoweb not Disco-governemnt- web. We are kinda getting out of hand here. #2 Fuck you Paul Grant, Fuck You! Paul, perhaps you should move to Hollywood and bunk with the Sheen Family. That way you and they could hold hands, sing songs, and talk bad about the United States on TV. | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 83 Registered: 11-2002 |
Well there is something I like to say. "Dont come to me with problems , come to me with solutions!" There is a problem and a few guys have come up with a solution. Its the way this country was built and the way its been maintained. The most signifigant post in this thread was Blues when he said it really wasnt that complicated. People like to complicate such things as it makes them feel important and gives them something to talk about. But in the end , you will have soldiers doing what they have been doing since the dawn of time. They are the tools that solve such problems... Plain and simple.... Anyone that says we dont have a problem with Iraq is well , ,, , just silly.... Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Paul Grant (Paulgrant) Member Username: Paulgrant Post Number: 187 Registered: 10-2002 |
Kyle, I hope that you will allow me an opportunity to defend myself against the comments above. Your saying about offering solutions to problems is valid. I'd like to think that, whether posters agree with them or not, I have offered solutions to this situation on numerous other threads. BW, you specifically asked me, on a thread last month what I would do and I told you. It was my impression that while you didn't agree with my position you conceded that it was my right to feel as I did. In essence, it was my impression that like reasonable adults, we agreed to disagree. With each and every day my feelings have only been confirmed by what I've read and seen. Just yesterday in his report to the UN Security Counsel Dr. Hans Blix said "it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months." This is what France, Germany and Russia have been saying. Why is it that we are unwilling to allow these inspections to run their course. Why are we so willing to rush headlong into a war that holds forth so many risks when the very men and women on the ground in Iraq performing the work of the UN are asking for months to complete their task? BW, I'm sorry that you see my thoughts as being indicative of a closed mind. All I can say is look again at a few of the citations that led off this thread. The ones by Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. I understand your finding solace in agreement with our current administration and its actions. Try to understand that for me many of the actions this administration has taken generate a very different feeling. Am I pleased with my feelings of discontent? Of course not. Do I take pride in a sense that I and my opinions are being marginalized. Not at all. The negative things I have said here have not been said with joy or pleasure. They manifest themselves out of a deeply felt concern for the America I grew up loving. While I am not a religious person in a traditional sense I do find that many things that Jesus said during his time on this earth are especially timely today. I made mention of a number of his actions and words on another thread that was focusiing on ideological issues. I'll just quote him e here. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Dan, it was neither my intention or purpose to talk down to you or any of the other posters here. Nonetheless, if you look at a number of responses to my posts in the past I think you'll see a number of them that are less than adult. I have always tried to refraiin from direct personal attacks but will confess to a less that polite hypothetical post about obesity. I will not apologize for my comment about the locker room because I found the 'francesucks' post barely rose to the level of junior high school sophistication. Nor will I apologize for the arrogance or lack of intelligence you perceive in my posts. Jake, what can I say. I don't think there is much that we could find common ground on but that sometimes happens in a world as diverse as this. I am not attacking this country as you say. I am trying, however desperately, to call attention to the many pressing issues that are all to quickly falling through the cracks in America. This should not be confused with a willingness to allow a 'rogue state' to do as it sees fit and I fail to see where, in any of my posts, I even hinted at that. As I said above, when BW asked what I would do with Iraq I responded. I know you don't agree but to say that I would do nothing is erroneous. Also, Jake I know that you lost someone who you were close to in the attack on the Pentagon and I am truly sorry for that. As I stated in another thread my family andI not only lost friend and acquaintances but because many of my cousins are fireman, the overwhelming impact of 9/11 was never far from us as funerals for comrades went on for well over a year after that day. Maybe that's why I was so outrages on that other thread when I perceived that the poster was using the deaths of those brave souls to promote a particular political end. I don't think you would have appreciated that thread if it employed the memory of your lost friend to promote a liberal agenda. Paul, what can I say. "Fuck you, fuck you." I never thought I had it in me to raise such ire. I haven't heard those invectives against me since I was a teenager. Please, don't take that as an insult. I thought that we, too, over the course of numerous threads had reached a level of detente. My comment about the locker room was not directed at your post. I remember over a month ago when we first got into it and you asked me what wars I had served in. You warned me that I could expect many flames for expressing an opinion that ran contrary to the beliefs held by many here on DWeb. I feel bad that you felt the need to vilify me but I guess you did give me advanced warning. In the end, I guess I've said enough on this thread. As long as my privledge to post doesn't get revoked I'm afraid you'll have to live with my occasional comments. I thank Kyle and Ho for the service they provide as it is worthwhile in many ways. Nonetheless, just as many of you would do anything you could to exercise your Second Amendment right I will do the same for my First Amendment right. Goodnight gentlemen, Paul | ||
| Zach Jaggers (Mountenn) New Member Username: Mountenn Post Number: 12 Registered: 03-2003 |
The only horse I have in this race is my good ol' selective service number, and all I have to say is this: Paul, do you know any French? | ||
| Greg Hirst (Gregh) Member Username: Gregh Post Number: 94 Registered: 10-2002 |
Finally decided to read this thread as it doesn't seem to die. Paul- Your comments remind me of my first college advisor twenty years ago. I was an econ student. He is a devout marxist and had a life size picture of Mao Tse Tung above his desk in his office. He would quote history with his own interpretation of "why" something occurred which usually was based on an assumption that every historically important decision was based on US or western intent on capitalistic exploitation of the rest of the world. If you didn't accept this premise as self-evident then you were simply a deluded pawn who "bought" the government line. After a couple of months I switched advisors to someone with an open mind. In reading your posts with your jumps in logic and the assumptions you make I'm compelled to believe that you would say that we deserved to nuked by Iraq or Iraqi supported terrorists due to our history of economic expansionism, racial inequality, and our morally bankrupt international diplomacy. I don't disagree with you that our country doesn't have serious probs domestically. It most certainly does. What does that have to do with Iraq? BTW-(To quote someone else on this BB) ARE YOU FRENCH? "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me". -Gen. George S. Patton | ||
| Kyle Van Tassel (Kyle) Moderator Username: Kyle Post Number: 86 Registered: 11-2002 |
Look , this is the United States. WE didnt get where we are and you didnt get the life you live by being polite and never pissing anyone off. In fact , if you want to talk about history and quote people. We became the US by pissing people off and then defending our decisions. I keep hearing about Hans this and blah blah that. Frankly I dont give a shit. Have we stepped on toes ??? O jesus christ , , YES!!! Will we again ??? Your damn skippy we will. Americans pick and choose the ones they want to get behind but the fact still remains that WE are where we are today because of our history , right or wrong. Its like this. Its never popular to be a bully but allot of people want a bully to be their friend. Are we a bully ? Yep..... Does that benifit YOU???? Yep... Can you say that it is right or wrong ? Well , I think you would have a better shot at convincing me it was wrong if you were telling us about how you are moving to another country.....Staying here and living a good life because we have become who we are through these deeds is just as bad as the guys that start the ball rolling on them.. Personally I would like to hear ole Hans say "Ah fuck it , why are we doing this Circus act anyway , lets just get it on and get it over" Kyle "Blow me" | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 45 Registered: 02-2003 |
its funny, with all the international meetings over the weekend with reps from france, germany, etc, not one of them said that Iraq was complying, only that inspections were working. I think people are fucking stupid to thinkg that destroying these missles is compliance. that is only a delivery system...what were they planning on delivering in these? they sure as hell aren't surrendering anything else. We may push our weight around at times but the us is not imperialistic. bosnia wasn't imperialistic rowanda(sp) wasn't imperialistic. we are in south korea to keep north korea form invading. we remained in germany due to the threat of russia driving tanks in. As much as we have done for other countries, its about damn time they back us up. I just hope we get out soldiers in before it gets to hot. those chem suits have got to be a pain in the ass to wear and fight in. | ||
| Greg (Gparrish) Senior Member Username: Gparrish Post Number: 1117 Registered: 04-2002 |
I came across the conversation between Lord Mountbatten, First Sealord and then commander of a destroyer flotilla, and Werner Lott, German U-35 boat Captain. "The entire crew of U 35 was taken to the Tower of London, arriving there on 03 December 1939. Placed immediately in his own, very cold cell, Werner Lott, commander of U 35, said he would go on a hunger strike until he was seen by an officer. On the second day, Werner Lott was visited by Captain Lord Louis Mountbatten, commander of the destroyer flotilla which had sunk U 35. Part of their conversation, as remembered by both men: Werner Lott: "I should like to thank you for the way that we were treated onboard the KINGSTON and KASHMIR after the whole of my ship's company was captured by them. We could not have been more correctly treated and Lieutenant Commander Somerville even let me have a cabin of an officer on leave. Finding he was unmarried I obtained the name and address of his mother so that I could see she was properly looked after." Lord Mountbatten: "She is a free woman living in a free country. You are a prisoner-of-war in our hands. I don’t see what you can do to help her?" Werner Lott: "Not now but next Summer when we invade England and take over. Then I would like to make sure that she is well treated by the occupying forces." Lord Mountbatten: "I am afraid you don’t understand what is going to happen in this war; yet you should as you are a naval officer. In the 1914/18 war your army was victorious everywhere but the Royal Navy blockaded you to the point of starvation, surrender and revolution. In this war your army will unquestionably be victorious in Europe when they come to over- run France next year but you still have got to cross the sea to invade England. The Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force will prevent that. You will find the Germans confined to a conquered continent without having conquered the United Kingdom. Then in due course Hitler will make the same mistake that the Kaiser made which will involve the United States of America coming into the war on our side. When that happens it will be we who will invade the continent and defeat Hitler on land. That will be the end of the war with victory for us and defeat for you. I think therefore you had better start learning English and preparing yourself for the difficult times you will find in Germany after your release." I think this says a lot about the French and what is going on in the world right now. |
