Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: LWACE on March 14, 2004, 02:29:13 AM
-
Everytime you look around on the BB you see posts about war against and for. I wonder why people are always against war and bushes war in iraq and afghanistan?
I personally dont like war either, good people die, young people who havent even got a chance at life really. But IMHO war is inevitable and world peace is impossible, i think there will always be war if there is people, there is always gonna be someone who is pissed and decides they need to kill people to get what they want, we've seen it over and over from ww1 and 2 to the gulf war.
Sure the iraq war wasnt totally justified, but IMO taking saddam out of power was justification enough, going to afghanistan and removing the taliban and rooting out members of terroirst groups IMHO is all needed, it might not stop war or terrorism overall, but it might save some innocent peoples lives.
War is a lose lose situation, if we do nothing, terrorist will still attack us and kill people, if we go to war, people will still die and we still get attackd. I hear stuff about people saying if we werent at war, there wouldnt be terrorist attacks all the time now,but what about 9/11 and all the other attacks before we were really at war?
overall IMHO war is bad but it is needed, itd be nice if world peace was possible and everyone got along with each other, but to me that seems damn near impossible, with the population of the world at afew billion, there is always gonna be some who see different than others.
So im just asking what everyone else thinks about war, and the current war we (the allies) are in, there is no need to flame each other or the post, its just my view on it and i wana see what others think of war. What else could bush have done? Why should we have not removed saddam and why should we not hunt for bin laden and members of terrorist groups?
1 last note again, if your gonna post some smart arse commet etc, dont way ur time, save urself the time and effort and go flame somewhere else, cuz i could care less who agrees or disagrees with me. I dont care if you do disagree, just post it in a civil way.
also if grammer and spelling etc is wrong, i typed this really fast, sorry for anything mispelled or wrong in the post.
-
The bombing in Madrid a few days ago was a direct result of Spain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan sais Al Quaida in new videotape.
Sometimes hitting back is not the way to do it. After the US with its allies started a war agains "terror" after 911, groups like Al Q have gotten more indirect support from poeople that otherwise have had no problem with USA.
So, rather than just having "a few" fundamentalits as enemys, the US now has alot more folks that see the US in a far less positive way than before the war on "terror".
After 911 almost the entire world was behind the US and felt truly sorry for the american people. The "terrorists" got their way when the US responed in the way they did.
-
....hmmm Ostrich politics?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
The bombing in Madrid a few days ago was a direct result of Spain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan sais Al Quaida in new videotape.
Sometimes hitting back is not the way to do it. After the US with its allies started a war agains "terror" after 911, groups like Al Q have gotten more indirect support from poeople that otherwise have had no problem with USA.
So, rather than just having "a few" fundamentalits as enemys, the US now has alot more folks that see the US in a far less positive way than before the war on "terror".
After 911 almost the entire world was behind the US and felt truly sorry for the american people. The "terrorists" got their way when the US responed in the way they did.
Again, I do not see any alternative posed by the fence sitters,
what, exactly should the US have done?
-
Going in cowboy style with guns blazing is not the way to go. To hit the US and any other nation for that matter is easy cause its a BIG target. Trying to take out terrorists and evern one person using armys and artillery is extremly difficult as we all can see. Maintaining good relations and building networks with the nations that actually can help to stop terrorist is alot smarter.
If the US goverment thinks that it can get support by saying "we are going in wether the rest of the world likes it or not" is not the way to go, and im afraid that terror is gonna grow alot in the years to come.
The reason for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq was a way for the US goverment to say to its voters.."hey look at us, we are doing something"
-
The second gulf war was an inevitable consequence of the first. The business was left undone (for valid reasons) and the ceasefire agreement was always going to be unacceptable to Saddam. Saddam had been in violation of the ceasefire from at least '98 onwards, if not earlier. No-one (including the US and the UK) had the political will to take it to the inevitable conclusion until after 11th September 2001.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime was a good thing. Hoping to build a successful democracy amongst the failed dictatorships of the middle east is a noble, if extremely ambitious, project. It's success will not be measured in a month's time or in six months but years from now, probably after Mr. Bush has left office.
The doctrine of pre-emption has been implicit in international law since the rise of nuclear weapons (and even before that when it was thought that conventional bombing could deal a "knock out" blow). If your enemy can do significant harm to your infrastructure in one attack your only option is to hope you get wind of it and attack first. That being said there is littel proof that Saddam Hussein was planning or supporting any attacks at the time of the invasion. Taking pre-emption to the level of "he might do somehting at some unspecified time in the future" is what has caused the controversy.
The fact is that the second gulf war was a giant object lesson to other "rogue" states in what it means to challenge the US and it's allies. Everything else was secondary to this. In and of itself going to war to teach people a lesson is not the most morally sound activity. Mr Bush obviously believes what this will make the US and it's allies safer, which is a perfectly ethical aim. Whether he is correct remains to be seen. I am sure it has cautioned other states (Libya being an example) however this might be outweighed by the mileage terrorist recruiters can make out of it. It has also lead the US from the moral high ground which weakens it's support amongst it's allies and the world in general. Perhaps the time has come where the US does not need any allies anymore but recent events concerning Iraq seems to mitigate against this. If the US was willing to devote more money to defence spending then in a few years time it may not need the likes of the UK, Poland and Australia. France and Germany obviously believe they do not need to rely on the US much any more.
This war, like any other conducted by reasonably non-corrupt regimes is a matter of realpolitik. The aim is to make things safer but it is a huge gamble. Time will tell: either Mr Bush will be recognized as a far sighted risk taker or he will be regarded as a warmonger.
-
What prolly bothers me the most is leaders that refer to the civilian deaths that always follows these pre-emtive actions as "unfortunate but inevetable".
These "unfortunate" deaths wich alot of the time is counted in the thousands are always someones families and friends. If those "unfortunate" deaths was american, british or watever there would be public outrage and goverments may even fall. When those deaths are on the other side of the world then they may just get a few lines in a paper and a shrug from those responsible.
-
I was for the war in Afganistan.
I still believe the war in Iraq was a miscalculation the costs of which outweigh the gains. We have expended a considerable amount of lives, material, money and world support to take down Saddam. Its good that he is gone, but I think that he and his government were way down the list of threats to the U.S. I would have much rather have seen all these troops that are in Iraq over in Afganistan/Pakistan and for us to have made Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership our priority.
Basically, I don't have a problem with a war on terror. It has to be done. I do have a problem, however, when we expend the resources that we have to fight this war in such a quixotic manner. I think the current administration has us chasing windmills in Iraq insofar as our security interests are concerned.
-
Ok, you had some good points and some ignorant points. Yes I agree that war is both bad and unavoidable. Sticking your head in the sand is what led to ww1 and ww2. Getting involved early saves lives in the end. Sitting on our hands will eventualy cost thousands more lives. If other insignificant countries don't like what we are doing that thats just too bad. If they get in the way, we will kill them too..
Nielson10: This is not a personal flame, and I am of norweagen decent so I say this with respect. It was not your country that was attacked over and over for a dozen years leading up to 9/11 and then had thousands of innocent people killed all because some crazy nut with a towel on his head didn't like the fact that there were american troops on his native soil. He (Bin laden) started this, and we had a chicken watermelon president during much of this "war" who refused to do anything but lob a few cruise missles into the dessert and call it revenge.
What people like you don't get is you think that if we pull out, stop and go hide with the covers over our head that they will stop. We were not doing anything on 9-10-01 to provoke that. You act like this is some game of who gets in the last punch, well its no game, its kill or be killed. I would rather be in a state of war any day over living in fear in a state of "peace". War sucks and people die, that is just a fact of life, get over it.
-
I think Osama and Saddam just had bad childhood experiences. Perhaps we could have offered them a few sessions with Dr. Joyce Brothers and avoided all this unpleasantness.
Even now the people of Evil Spain should apologize to Osama for siding with the Evil Amreekans. Spaniards should burn our Embassy to show their repentance.
A soft answer turneth away wrath, so we should speak gently and softly to Osama, begging forgiveness for our existence.
It might have worked in '39 too. But the Evil Breeteesh and Freeencheesh didn't work hard enough at maintaining good relations and building networks with the nations that could have actually helped to stop unfortunate, inadvertent border crossings by huge armies.
Let's all get together now and work on
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind's true liberation
with the open-minded folks that support and understand Osama and his unfortunate childhood. Like the Taliban; they truly liberated the minds of Afghanistan and here we've gone and messed all that up.
-
Dont worry medicboy..i dont take any of this in as personal flame. :)
Sticking your head in the sand is not an option i would recomend either, but there is a big diff between doing that and attacking nations and people that may or may not pose a threat in the future. How do you decide who will and who will not do something like 9/11? If we in the "west" claim to be morally superior to terrorist and "rouge" nations than "we" should act that way to. You can't expect to be respected while going around and performing pre-emptive strikes.
Btw. One of the reasons for Bin Moron and his fellow tards to attack the US in the first place was because he and his gang was abandoned after fighting off russia in afghanistan when the US didnt have any use for them any more. Something similar to this happened in Iraq during part 1 of the war there. People dont like beeing used and abandoned...much like women ;)
-
scene one::
< a man gets off a airplane, he waves a paper in the air and he says:>
"i hold in my hand a piece of paper signed by Mr Hitler, guanteeing PEACE IN OUR TIME"
< crowd cheers wildly and chants>
"PEACE NOW ...PEACE NOW....PEACE NOW"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
peace is the dream of the wise, war is the history of man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To link the bombings to Spain's involvement in the Iraq war doesn't make any sense if you believe, as the 'Left' insists, that there was no link between al Qaeda and Iraq, and so, no justification for the war. But, if al Qaeda carried out the bombings in Spain then there is the justification for the war. Period.....
-
Yes it does Otto, if Bin Laden thinks of it as an attack against the injustice they belive was done to Iraq and Afghanistan.
That would also mean that if the US and some other nations would attack say Iran or North Korea etc, Bin would also use that as a reason for doing terrorist attacks on the US and its allies. But it does not have to mean that Iraq and Bin Laden where in bed making nasty babies.
-
Surprised this hasn't been pointed out.
By moving assets away from the war on terror, (invasion of the Rack) It allowed AQ to regroup...
-
GEEEZ...ever since the 60's and the Vietnam fiasco the world has turned into a bunch of rutabagas....what other solution other than the actions we've taken do you suppose would get rid of the problem countries/people in the world? If we never did anything...Bin Laden would still attack us because he hates us for being a wealthy nation with alot of influence, and he believes that everyone should have the same religious beliefs as him and uses the ancient method of trying to force people to believe. Could we as a world community sit back and let 2 countries terrorize their own people? And we are involved in other countries affairs that we don't profit from so don't pull that "it's just for oil" B.S. We went into Iraq without most of the world's help. Now that there is money to be made all the countries that wouldn't fight all of the sudden want to help with the rebuilding process...well F**K them. We do what we do because as a country we think it's right. And if the rest of the world has a problem with it..I invite any nation to try to stand against us.:mad:
-
Im afraid you may get your wish Coolridr.
If one or a few countries go on a cruisade to relive the world of "evil" nations and organisations without the backing of a majority of the world, then alot more nations and individuals may look the other way if they "spot" a terrorist reather than reporting it in and doing something that they otherwise would have.
I got a mail from someone here :D who said i supported saddam and al q by posting my crap, so i say the same thing here that i did in my reply:
A unified world agains terror is alot more effective and cheaper then having a handful of them trying to do it alone just to get it done sooner or on their terms. Teamwork involves swallowing a few camels to get the job done.
-
There never has been and never will be any real teamwork in the world...every differnt nation has its own stance based on how much they will profit from it. So while we sit in the UN and let rutabagas like france china and russia keep the job from getting done..our enemies dig in and prepare.. Sometimes we have to take matters into our own hands.
-
Good luck with that Coolridr. You do realise how many people you just said was inferior to yourself dont you? :p
-
i never said anyone was inferior...just said that sometimes things have to get done and there isn't always time to sit in committee until everyone agrees
-
ehh.. if they are rutabagas and those sharing your views are "though" are you not labeling them inferior? or are you saying that beeing a pussie is preferable?
;)
-
I was refering to ducking out of the conflicts...and then trying to step in afterwards to get reconstruction contracts...I don't look down on most countries' people as being inferior...maybe their politics are or their leaders are.
-
perhaps they are just different?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
Im afraid you may get your wish Coolridr.
If one or a few countries go on a cruisade to relive the world of "evil" nations and organisations without the backing of a majority of the world, then alot more nations and individuals may look the other way if they "spot" a terrorist reather than reporting it in and doing something that they otherwise would have.
this type of "relative morality" is bull****.
We would have prevented those women and children from dying if the US had been nicer to us.
Wow. What a proud chapter to add to any nation's history. Nations will either stand with the US against terror because it is wrong or they will not.
The fence-sitters that dangle their allegiance out there to see what it "will get them" are simply not worth having.
Sooner or later this type will let you down. They just don't see the danger yet. They don't want to win bad enough.
Osama and his boys want it real bad.
-
When it comes to the contracts then the most competitive bidder should get the them. I also belive that the iraqi goverment should decide who they will give them to...after all its alot of their oil money that will pay for it.
-
wow this looks good so far, interesting points, amazing no hardcore flames yet lol.
i semi agree with coolridr, after vietnam everyone was pissed at the waste of thousands of lives over nothing, every president up until bush has been very cautious about going into war, and IMHO bush wouldnt have if it werent for 9/11.
I also agree that to have much of the world on our side is about impossible, im not saying they are rutabagas, but to sit around and wait until everyone agrees is impossible, wed still be sittting there, and who knows maybe would have been attacked horribly again already.
Good stuff guys, keep it civil:aok
-
That is one way to put it Hornet. I still strongly belive that a united world against terror is more effective. If you insist on doing things your way whatever the cost you are bound to get more enemies than friends in the long run. That applies to this situation as well as in other areas of conflict and in a normal society for that matter.
-
LWACE..if one cant argue/discuss on a bbs without resorting to a flamewar then there really is no hope for "real" conflicts :)
Keeping this thread from sliding into a mess also has to do with the participants. The folks here so far are civil and passes their opinions in a civil way.... just a matter of time tho before the "hardcore" guys busts up the party :D
-
lmao yea, im hopen they will skip over it, or post somethin worth reading, guess time will tell.
-
Yiou are right...maybe rutabagas is not the right word and with the spirt of keeping this as a civil discussion I'll refrain from the name-calling of other countries and their people.:D
-
:)
No more putertime for me today sais my preggie gf so i better obey her....as usual
tata :aok
-
later Nilsen10
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
perhaps they are just different?
And perhaps if they cleaned their OWN house, we wouldn't
have to step in to try it ourselves. But then you wouldn't be able
to smugly secondguess everything while risking nothing of your
own. So I guess it all works out.
-
Yeah later Coolridr :)
Risking nothing of our own Rino? Shows how little you know. Of course me as a person don't risk very much infront of my puter but neither do you. If you are refering to my country then you are sadly mistaken Rino.
-
see now it starts...we were having a good discussion of our views and then someone came in to try to flame one of us....LAME
-
oops, almost got pulled in by it to :D
ehh..where were we Coolridr.
-
Basically my point is that while all of us "westerners" are targets..not everyone is willing to pitch in and fight for the cause...The USA would love to have the world fight with us...but that is not the case..so we can't stop just because no-one will join us. We did manage to put together a small group but countries that are on the security council are hampering us. And besides the lowest bidder, why should a country that refused to fight with us deserve to get multi million dollar reconstruction contracts?:confused:
-
(http://www.dd841.com/images/tard2.jpg)
-
Nilsen, you have posted on this threat 14 times.
-
you have a point Coolridr but i think the Iraqi people should get to choose when/if they get a working goverment.
I dont think Norway should get any contracts in Iraq just because we have troops there if "our" companies are not competitive. The Iraquis should get the best they can for their money cause there is alot of rebuilding to do.
If im not mistaken (on soft ground here) there has been some discussion on wether they should get the CDMA? or GSM cellphone system. Some european suppliers have offered GSM while one or 2 american companies have offered only CDMA?. This is one of those desitions that the people of iraq will have to live with for a long time and should be chosen by them. This was just one of the issues and a trivial one but still..
Yeah Otto, i know.... Its sunday and only crap on tv. I picked a thread that i had an opinion about and decided to stick with it :D
-
We are only asking the Iraqi people take time to write a constitution that will work before we just hand the country back over...their police and military must be rebuilt as with most of the other departments in the government. Our stake in that is to try to weed out Saddam's people from those positions. so it won't just revert back to the way it was.
As for the contracts..you have a point....Alot of us Americans just like to hold grudges against those who so loudly disagree with us (Namely the French)..especially from countries that kinda owe their existance to our need to be involved outside our borders.
-
No doubt about that. The goverment, police, basic education, basic healthcare and the military (partly) will have to be in order before withdrawl. The UN or some sort of foregin security force will also most likley have to be in Iraq for a long time to make sure and also to protect Iraq from neighbours who may take advantage of the lack of a strong goverment/army.
On the contract issue i see your point too....trust me, but the needs of the iraqi people has to come first imo.
-
Ahhhh..we are reaching a coomon ground here I think....By the way...Loved working with the Norwegian Navy while on my many deployments to the Baltic and Med.:aok
-
lol yeah..looks like we are aproaching some sort of undersanding :)
when was that? maybe we have met.
-
USS SPRUANCE (DD-963) BALTOPS '96
USS SPRUANCE MED '97
USS LABOON (DDG-58)MED/GULF Feb-Aug 2000
USS LABOON MED/GULF Jun-Dec 2002
The only ship name I remember was the Tronheim? I think that is right....Actually visited Oslo in '96
-
Aha Spruance class, nice ships. I got the grand tour on the USS Caron in 95 or 96 i think it was when she was in Oslo.
Yeah the Trondheim is an old hull that is now one of 3 heavily modernised but OLD frigates. They are beeing replaced by 5 new from next year.
I didnt serve on them tho, i was on "PT's" FAC's for a few years (1994-97 and was a reserve until last year)
-
The Spuance was my favorite so far...much more roonm than a DDG-51 class like I just got finished serving on. Too bad they will all be gone by the end of 2005. I've been in since '93..right now I'm an Air control instructor at our Fleet Combat training center in Dam Neck, Virginia Beach, VA..My rating is calles OS (Operations Specialist) and I'm a First Class petty officer...what was your job/rank?
-
My rank when i got out and transfered to the reserves was Ensign, but Petty Officer 2nd class as serving rank.I was in charge of the ops room (nickname OPS on board). Radar and ew warfare is my speciality tho. Had some good years in my blue tux :)
-
just a small point , Iraq has to be "rebuilt" not because of the war but because for 35 years saddam stole the oil money to build palaces,buy weapons of war , and bribe friends in the UN, oh he also banked billions.
-
thats my job...radar..and air control..ops room stuff(combat information center)
-
hehe yeah cic would be your name for it :)
could get real buisy at times *pheuu* but still the best job i ever had.
Small world ain't it?.
-
Yup..small world...Got any Norwegian Navy stuff you want to trade? I collect Naval Hats from around the world
-
Sorry, only got one uniform hat and i need it to keep my uniform intact and my beret is also a nice thing to keep. You are not the only one collecting stuff like that. whenever we were on excersises with USN we traded all kinds of stuff and i still have some stuff like a zippo with the name of a sub somewhere. It was a 688 class but cant remember the name. Is there anywhere i can find out what sub was in norway at one point? Was Bergen in october.
-
what year?
-
94, october, maybe november at Haakonsvern in Bergen
-
Just looked it ip...looks like the only sub to visit there in 1994 was the USS Jacksonville SSN-699...which it's a cooincidence that sub is named after my hometown of jacksonville,FL
Here is a webpage for ya
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3499/jaxhistory.html (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3499/jaxhistory.html)
edit: fixed the link
-
thanks, gotta find the box with my loot someday to make sure :D wow, the world really is small.
For some reason they didnt allow visitors that night..think they were all resting from something and a few of the guys were out drinking. I spoke with a nice "guard" for a long time tho, a fella from Kentucky.
-
Our subs rarely allow any visitors....our "bubbleheads" are wierd that way..
-
I know some guys got a tour earlyer that day (or atleast they said so) but i arrived at 2100+ and the Kentucky guy said he was sorry but nobody onboard now. It was pretty quiet down there so maybe they just wanted to keep it that way.
Better join my gf and her big belly in bed now...0025 here...night coolridr :)
nilsen10 out :cool:
-
later nice talkin' with ya:aok
-
I personally supported the war in Afghanistan strongly. It was effectively destroying the beehive, although many bees have scattered throughout the world. Nevertheless, I still think it was the best thing we could have done at the time.
However, I do not really support the war in Iraq. Not because I am a flower-waving hippy, or that I don't think the Iraqis deserve freedom. I think it is a good thing that Saddam and his dictatorship are gone. However, that is not the justification that President Bush gave. He tried to justify it by saying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was ready to use them on the west. I have many reasons to believe he lied to the American people, and that is why I do not support the war.
-
Irritant.
I understand your position on the war. But, it was never really about WMD. It was about 'payback' for New York. We had to takedown an Arab country (one with oil) to get the point across to the rest, that if you support groups that are trying to kill Americans that you'll suffer the same fate. They got the message...
-
Originally posted by irritant
He tried to justify it by saying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and was ready to use them on the west. I have many reasons to believe he lied to the American people, and that is why I do not support the war.
"Mr. President,we have every reason to believe that Saddam Hussien will continue to do everything in his power to futher develope weapons of mass desstruction and the ability to deliver those weapons without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is in his interest to do so".....Senator John Kerry
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
Just looked it ip...looks like the only sub to visit there in 1994 was the USS Jacksonville SSN-699...which it's a cooincidence that sub is named after my hometown of jacksonville,FL
Here is a webpage for ya
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3499/jaxhistory.html (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3499/jaxhistory.html)
edit: fixed the link
born there in 59
moved around alot but grad Terry Parker HS '77
-
Otto-
I understand your viewpoint, but I disagree. As I recall, President Bush made clear that the main reason for going to war was about WMD. Even if the real main reason was to make a point to the terrorists, the truth was not told.
In my opinion, the war in Afghanistan was the real 'payback' for the 9/11 attacks. The message did get across, but terrorism is still a threat in Sotheast Asia and Europe among others, but especially Southwest Asia. Iraq had little (if any) affiliation with terrorists, in fact, Saddam Hussein despised them. Meanwhile terrorism is an almost regular occurance in Saudi Arabia.
Offhand question- Why did you say that we needed to invade a country with oil? How would it make a difference?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen10
What prolly bothers me the most is leaders that refer to the civilian deaths that always follows these pre-emtive actions as "unfortunate but inevetable".
These "unfortunate" deaths wich alot of the time is counted in the thousands are always someones families and friends. If those "unfortunate" deaths was american, british or watever there would be public outrage and goverments may even fall. When those deaths are on the other side of the world then they may just get a few lines in a paper and a shrug from those responsible.
911....those were "unfortunate":confused:
-
VFJACKAL. Either you misunderstood or you read what you wanted to read.
Civilian casualties in a shoting war, not terror victims like 9/11.