Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickey1992 on September 25, 2007, 08:12:11 AM
-
A good read from Michael Totten in Iraq.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001519.html
“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I said.
“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”
-
I hear from alot of grunts that Anbar is not what it was even 2 years ago. 2 years ago it was a major hotzone. Now....quiet as a mouse.
-
shhhhhh, you will get the anti-war people upset.
-
Good read. thks for posting it.
-
OBL is very very upset at the democrats for not ending this lousy war that the americans are losing. Truth is, whoever is elected President will keep American forces in Iraq. We are there to stay.
-
If you think Anbar is quiet because of the surge you are really brainwashed. Anbar is quiet because the Sunnis want it that way. And why? Because they know we are leaving soon and want to consolidate power NOW. The surge went almost exclusively into Baghdad.
-
ah... I see... the democrat stategy of "run and hide" has pacified a whole region.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If you think Anbar is quiet because of the surge you are really brainwashed. Anbar is quiet because the Sunnis want it that way. And why? Because they know we are leaving soon and want to consolidate power NOW. The surge went almost exclusively into Baghdad.
Post a link, please.
-
The only reason Al-Qaeda ever existed to the scale it did in Iraq is because we invaded. That's it. So we're not winning anything by putting out a fire we started, we're just back at square one. The bottom line is, why hasn't the administration been charged with misleading the American public to war? They told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that turned out to be a flat out lie. We invaded because we had undeniable intelligence according to those in charge. They should be held accountable for this misjudgment and for destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and wasting billions of taxpayer Dollars.
-
soviet, can you prove that saddam did not have WMD before the invasion, and that he did not hide them in the desert and/or move them to Syria?
Of course you can't, but you just keep banging that same old drum, no WMD---no WMD---no WMD.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
The only reason Al-Qaeda ever existed to the scale it did in Iraq is because we invaded. That's it. So we're not winning anything by putting out a fire we started, we're just back at square one. The bottom line is, why hasn't the administration been charged with misleading the American public to war? They told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that turned out to be a flat out lie. We invaded because we had undeniable intelligence according to those in charge. They should be held accountable for this misjudgment and for destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and wasting billions of taxpayer Dollars.
Post a link please.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Post a link please.
post a link for what? Did i hit a nerve? Did we find some wmds an hour ago?
-
Originally posted by Soviet
The bottom line is, why hasn't the administration been charged with misleading the American public to war? They told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that turned out to be a flat out lie.
Are you going to indict every Senator that told us there were WMD's in Iraq too? They "misled" us just at much as the POTUS did and it was their votes that enabled the administration to go to Iraq. Why would you stop at the administration if you really wanted to see justice done. Why wouldn't you want the rest of our leaders held accountable?
Maybe you just are a Boosh hater... or do you really want to all see those who "misled" us taken? to task?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If you think Anbar is quiet because of the surge you are really brainwashed. Anbar is quiet because the Sunnis want it that way. And why? Because they know we are leaving soon and want to consolidate power NOW. The surge went almost exclusively into Baghdad.
The people I know that are over there say the that the surge has worked.
As for Anbar being quiet, that is mostly a result of the US using it's troops in a different manner and because of a commander (Patreus) who actually understands the issues at hand, and is making large strides towards helping the people of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
If you think Anbar is quiet because of the surge you are really brainwashed. Anbar is quiet because the Sunnis want it that way. And why? Because they know we are leaving soon and want to consolidate power NOW. The surge went almost exclusively into Baghdad.
What evidence, if any, do you have to support your anti-American-success view?
-
Originally posted by Soviet
The only reason Al-Qaeda ever existed to the scale it did in Iraq is because we invaded. .
Oh, and FWIW, I'd much rather have them fighting our professional soldiers over there than have them fighting in our strees and in our cities.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
post a link for what? Did i hit a nerve? Did we find some wmds an hour ago?
No nerve hit. Just want to see some proof to back up your rants.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Are you going to indict every Senator that told us there were WMD's in Iraq too? They "misled" us just at much as the POTUS did and it was their votes that enabled the administration to go to Iraq. Why would you stop at the administration if you really wanted to see justice done. Why wouldn't you want the rest of our leaders held accountable?
Maybe you just are a Boosh hater... or do you really want to all see those who "misled" us taken? to task?
I'm not a partisan. Anyone responsible should be brought to justice, republican, democrat, or independent
-
Originally posted by Soviet
The only reason Al-Qaeda ever existed to the scale it did in Iraq is because we invaded. That's it. So we're not winning anything by putting out a fire we started, we're just back at square one. The bottom line is, why hasn't the administration been charged with misleading the American public to war? They told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that turned out to be a flat out lie. We invaded because we had undeniable intelligence according to those in charge. They should be held accountable for this misjudgment and for destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and wasting billions of taxpayer Dollars.
Al-Qaeda is a bit difficult to find walking down the streets. They dont exactly wear uniforms and carry flags saying "here I am."
that being the case. inasmuch as you cant easily identify them walking down the street.
And you cant very well just sit around and wait for them to come to the US attack us in the US again
Wouldnt it be better to go to their backyard throw a party and let them come to you there?
One of the things the US does is as my mother used to say "fight our wars overseas so we don't have to fight them on our own soil."
Seems to me that's what we are doing
Misleading the public about WMDs?
Ahhh another sound bite directly from then DNC.
Congratulations. Your brainwashing is just about complete.
Astounding how easily its proved that if you lay out a line of bull watermelon long enough people will start to believe it.
Must be the short memory span of the American public
They forgot to mention that they were among the first to make the claims that Iraq still had WMDs back in the prior Democratic administration.
Matter of fact. they were acting on the same intel that was given to the prior administration.
I'll go along with bringing charges against the current administration so long as the same charges are brought against the previous one.
If Bush lied. then so did they
Now if it were all "lies" as you say. they I would have to logically conclude that Clinton was the largest culprit. And I would have to charge him for intentionally falsifying intel that would cause the new administration to go to war.
That would have to be the only logical explanation for such faulty intel that they both shared.
If you look at it honestly and without party bias. The options are limited.
If Bush is guilty of lying. then so is Clinton
so Either WMDs were there and were moved (IMO the most probable)
Both Bush and Clinton lied about WMDs (lets make sure we include Hillary on this as we know she had to be made privy to such information and hey. she voted IN FAVOR of going to war so we would have to include her in any culpability)
The Intel was wrong.
Or people in the intel community lied to both administrations.
There is no way, NO WAY. Anyone can logically make the claim of "Bush lied" without including the previous administration and the prior first witch in that claim
-
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
-
Oh and I'm not calling Bush the only liar, he's not the only lying politician out there.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
You tipped your hand as a Bush basher by refusing to answer the question. You are dismissed from any serious conversation.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
You tipped your hand as a Bush basher by refusing to answer the question. You are dismissed from any serious conversation.
Disagreeing and having dissent against our President automatically disqualifies me from conversation? Perhaps it is you that is ignorant and brainwashed. I'm a bi-partisan basher :D
-
(http://www.taylormarsh.com/images2/homer-eating-popcorn-c7873_sml.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm a bi-partisan basher :D
Baloney, or, Llike I said, you would have called for more than just the administration's head.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
Well, I'm not privy to where the WMDs are now, but these folks could sure prove that they existed:
Iraqi WMDs Anyone (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695648)
if they weren't DEAD that is.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Perhaps it is you that is ignorant and brainwashed.
I voted for Bush over the left wing nutjobs he ran against but I highly diapprove of his work as a President.
He had 6 years of command when he had control of both houses and did NOTHING. IMHO, Bush has been a huge disapointment and he betrayed all conservatives who voted for him. If that's brainwashed.... you got me.
-
I voted for Bush in 2000 for a smaller American government. So we could stop policing the world as he promised. And he didn't
[EDIT] Everything Bush promised in 2000 made me believe that he was the right man for the job. However his execution was terrible and he never delivered on his promises. Don't get me wrong, there are Republicans and Democrats in power right now who are both a bunch of scum. We need to start voting people in the office who are principled and tell the truth. Unfortunately in a recent poll I read most Americans look at a candidates appearance and personality and lastly party affiliation before the vote. This troubles me deeply.
The government is not a legal mafia, it is supposed to work for the people.
And in regards to Clinton. I think he was a terrible President, especially because he policed the world like our current President.
There needs to be an investigation into the WMDs, and if it is ultimately proven to be a lie all of those need to be held accountable. It was right we impeached Clinton as the issue at hand was him lying to the American public. Anyone given a position of power needs to be held accountable.
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Well, I'm not privy to where the WMDs are now, but these folks could sure prove that they existed:
Iraqi WMDs Anyone (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695648)
if they weren't DEAD that is.
EagleDNY
$.02
All I see is about attacks all of us have known very well about that were conducted 20 years ago. You also neglect to mention who gave him those WMDs and how we stood by his side in the Iraq-Iran war. This is why we should just stay the hell out of the middle east. Whoever is your ally one day is your enemy the next. It's not worth the headache nor is it worth the dollars and American lives it spends. I value our wealth, our liberties and our life. I don't enjoy seeing it being thrown away carelessly in entangling alliances with other nations.
You need to remember before we started sticking our nose in foreign affairs, wars constantly raged on around the world, which never threatened us. This doctrine of "fighting them there so they won't come here." Doesn't make sense. Nor can we prove it's success as no one has even tried to come here, save the War in 1812. We have the most powerful military and 300million citizens. Hopefully most of them patriotic enough to pick up a rifle should anyone even dare to invade us. They'd be stupid to even try.
No terrorist was attacking America before we decided to abuse our super power state by policing the world and trying to control politics in the Middle East. Leave that to the bureaucrats at the UN. Which we should not be a part of
I'm not afraid of terrorism, nor should you be.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
Isnt it possible they were there and were moved?
After all. Saddam just about gave away his entire airforce to Iran in the first gulf war.
What to make us beleive he wouldnt also get rid of anything else he might have had?
And the amount of Bio weapons we were looking for you could easily fit in a garage.
Remember when we had the Anthrax scare here how they were saying what just a teaspoon of the stuff could wipe out an entire city.
With Bio weapons. You dont need huge stockpiles.
as they used to say in the old Brill cream commercial
A little dab will do ya.
Now envision how easy it would be to hide the contents of a garage in a place the size of Texas.
There are airplanes that get lost in this country they cant find. and thats here.
Also wouldnt be hard to smuggle that amount of stuff out of the country.
I dnot see why it is so difficult to beleive that they couldnt have smuggled the stuff out.
The insurgents certainly manage to smuggle enough stuff IN to Iraq that we cant see.
Why isnt it possible that stuff was smuggled out?
Same thing with Chemical weapons.
for example
"a conventional 155-mm shell could hold as much as "two to five" liters of sarin, which is capable of killing thousands of people under the right conditions in highly populated areas."
Five liters isnt aot. but is certainly able to kill alot.
Again. a little dab will do ya.
Another thing people fail to realise is everyone expected to find large stickpiles of shells filled with WMDs. And that simply not how Saddam had it set up.
Saddam. like most brutal dictators was a paranoid SOB. He wasnt going ot let that kinda stuff be available for just anyone to use. Even his top generals.
This task was intrusted to a very small group
And most of this stuff was mixed up and loaded on site just prior to using them.
not to mention that althought I dont know what chemical weapons are comprised of what chemicals. and the web doesnt reveal much on that front. I think its a pretty safe bet that alot of not all the chemicals used in chemical weapons individually have other legitimate uses.
Much like all sorts of nasties can be made from widely available chemicals from poison gas to explosives.. The makups of which I wont mention here.
Its not at all surprising to me what so little has been found.
but sill. Somet things have certainly been found. Just not in large quantity.
Any of a number of things could have happend to them.
Just because they havent been found doesnt mean they werent there.
It only means they havent been found.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But again. if we were lied to. The Clinton family and the rest of his administration. as well as a hell of alot of other government officials are all guilty.
But Lets look at this angle for a moment.
As I mentioned. Clinton made the same claim.
Hillary Clinton. when it came time to vote voted in favor of going in.
Now if anyone would have known if there were there or not certainly Hillary would have. After all. her husband is the former president.
If he didnt beleive they were there dont you think he would have told her not to vote in favor of the war? Long term she would have the moral high ground if she had voted against it and was later proved correct in doing so.
It would have made more sence for her to vote against it. then to vote for it.
She could have been able to say "I told ya so in the first place. Thats why I should be president."
If it was all a lie it was a lie commited by ALL of our government. both parites. and alot of different offices.
Originally posted by Soviet
Oh and I'm not calling Bush the only liar, he's not the only lying politician out there.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
No terrorist was attacking America before we decided to abuse our super power state by policing the world and trying to control politics in the Middle East.
so it's all America's fault?
-
Still clutching at straws I see. Perhaps Osama took the WMD ... or perhaps Hillary! :lol
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
Exactly where are the weapons [chemical and Bio] we know he DID have? Those are the wepons he used on the Kurds.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a partisan. Anyone responsible should be brought to justice, republican, democrat, or independent
Great:rolleyes:
There goes Washington....:eek:
-
Originally posted by Soviet
Oh and I'm not calling Bush the only liar, he's not the only lying politician out there.
If this is so then why are you singling out Bush administration?
Originally posted by Soviet
The bottom line is, why hasn't the administration been charged with misleading the American public to war? They told us there were WMDs in Iraq and that turned out to be a flat out lie. We invaded because we had undeniable intelligence according to those in charge. They should be held accountable for this misjudgment and for destroying the lives of thousands of Americans and wasting billions of taxpayer Dollars.
He had the same intelligence as the previous administration and the rest of the world.
So please post a link showing proof that he lied and intentionally lead us into this or just keep ranting since thats what liberals like to do instead of coming up with proof.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Still clutching at straws I see. Perhaps Osama took the WMD ... or perhaps Hillary! :lol
no. But Im not stupid enough to allow myself into being duped into thinking that just because we didnt fnd em. means that he didnt have them.
Or are you trying to use the "if the glove doesnt fit you must aquit" standard?
but then again. it worked for OJ so..
Hey maybe OJ took em
-
I'm more of a "innocent until proven guilty" standard guy. The so called "proof" your government presented in the UN SC was laughable and no one believed you. France didn't even have to veto. You wanted this war, and you got it. Reap it.
-
So your saying Saddam was innocent? Tell that to the people that he gased.
-
Without the aid of external reference, name 3 people Saddam gassed.
-
Whenever there is any good news out of Iraq, I can imagine MT with his hands over his ears saying "lalalalalalalalalal" over and over.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Without the aid of external reference, name 3 people Saddam gassed.
So your saying there were no Kurds gased by Saddam? Next your going to say there was no Holocaust.
-
Originally posted by Tango
So your saying there were no Kurds gased by Saddam? Next your going to say there was no Holocaust.
No. I'm trying to decide how important the Kurdish plight really was to you.
-
Originally posted by VOR
No. I'm trying to decide how important the Kurdish plight really was to you.
How important was the Jewish plight for you?
I guess not much.
-
Anbar is quieter than it was, but 157 US troops have still been killed there so far this year (it's been averaging 350 per full year in the past), so I'd hardly describe it as "quiet as a mouse".
On the other hand, 359 Americans have been killed in Baghdad so far this year, compared to 265 in the whole of 2006 (and 229 in 2004).
Overall, US casualties are up by a large amount this year, so I can't quite understand the claims that they are down due to the "surge". August was the second worst August for US deaths since the war started. July was the worst July, June the worst June, May the worst May, April the second worst April, March the worst March.
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a partisan. Anyone responsible should be brought to justice, republican, democrat, or independent
By using the word justice you imply that there was something illegal. There is no proof of that, only the biased rantings of groups like Moveon.org who have a far left agenda.
The truth is that Saddam DID have WMD's at one point and they found many sites, shortly after the invasion, where they had been produced. Saddam just willingly giving up WMD and nuclear research is far fetched at best. Since people like to assume this ridiculous notion, i will assume a more plausible one; Saddam moved them as a political move. Make the coalition look foolish to garner support, and it worked.
-
How many US casualties were there in 1945? How mnay on D-Day?
I'm sure those soldiers wanted nothing more to be home as well but knew they needed to be there to stop the enemy. Just like the soldiers in the ME do.
-
Back to the topic:
For those of you Amerihaters...you need to read the whole article.
What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I said.
“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”
-
some schmo with a name like soviet?...Gee I wonder.....
there was another reason for wacking saddom...but you wotn mention it ..becuase it doesnt fit your party line feed.....bahhhh bahhhh goes the wittle sheep
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Well, I'm not privy to where the WMDs are now, but these folks could sure prove that they existed:
Iraqi WMDs Anyone (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4695648)
if they weren't DEAD that is.
EagleDNY
$.02
yeah... times were good for saddam back when the neo-cons were his apologists.
-
Progression of thread: Leftists:"We are losing we are losing we are losing".... Right-of-center guy shows major point in Iraq where Alqueda tried its best and lost......"We should never have been there.. We should never have been there..We should never have been there.."
And WHO says what our left-tard representatives isn't studied by our enemies:
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): My creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and an insecure atmosphere, they try to control all in the name of combating insecurity and terrorism.
KERRY July 24th of this year: The president is trying to scare the American people into believing that Al-Qaeda is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people.
Russ Feingold, May 8th, 2006.
FEINGOLD: The president violating the law by authorizing illegal domestic wiretapping.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years these people are displaced. For 60 years these people are being killed. For 60 years on a daily basis there are conflict and terror. For 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads!
Jimmy Carter on The Tonight Show, December 11th, 2006.
CARTER: In Palestinian territory, there's horrible persecution of the Palestinians who live on their own land, and they have occupied the land. They have confiscated. They've colonized it, and they've forced Palestinians away from their homes, away from their pastures, away from their fields, cut down their olive trees and severely persecuted the Palestinians.
AHMADINEJAD (via translator): This is not Guantanamo Bay! This is not a Baghdad prison! This is not a secret prison in Europe. This is not Abu Ghraib. This is Iran! I'm duh president of this country!
Senator Durbin, Dick Durbin, floor of the Senate, June 14th, 2005.
DURBIN: If I read this to you and didn't tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime, Pol Pot or others, that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that's not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their own prisoners.
Ahmadinejad and the Dems seem to have similar goals.....
-
President Bush and none of the othes claiming there were WMD's in Iraq mislead us. Misleading someone means you know better and did it on purpose. Bush and his cabinet don't know anything, so i can forgive their stupidity. That's intelligence, sometimes your right, sometimes your wrong, but they acted on what they thought they knew. I think there still could be WMD's, i always felt like during the fog of war and when invasion was imminent they could have trucked that stuff outta there. Probably wasn't though. I felt like invading Iraq, in my gut feeling was wrong even with the WMD evidence i still didn't quite believe it.
-
Originally posted by Tango
How many US casualties were there in 1945? How mnay on D-Day?
I'm sure those soldiers wanted nothing more to be home as well but knew they needed to be there to stop the enemy. Just like the soldiers in the ME do.
Us being in Iraq isn't even going to stop the common cold.
WW2 and Iraq are two different kinds of wars. WW2 was a conventional war. This is a guerilla war.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
some schmo with a name like soviet?...Gee I wonder.....
there was another reason for wacking saddom...but you wotn mention it ..becuase it doesnt fit your party line feed.....bahhhh bahhhh goes the wittle sheep
Those that don't want to fight a pointless war are smart. Those that do are stupid.
-
You also neglect to mention who gave him those WMDs
No one handed Saddam chemical or biological weapons. Did the US sell Saddam dual-use chemicals. We sure did, and so did a bunch of other countries. The US isn't even at the top of the list of suppliers. The US isn't even the country that sold him the equipment so he could manufacture his own chemicals.
Selling chemicals to Saddam that could be used to make chemical weapons doesn't mean that we sold them to him knowing he would make weapons with them. In fact, as soon as it became known he was using chemical weapons, the US stopped all sales of dual-use chemicals to Iraq. Same thing with biological agents, as soon as it became known Saddam was trying to make biological weapons all dual-use sales stopped.
All of this has been posted on this board before. You can do searches to find the information. You won't though because, for whatever reason, you choose to believe that the US handed him weapons of mass destruction.
-
Doesn't make sense. Nor can we prove it's success as no one has even tried to come here, save the War in 1812.
Guess you forgot about the Aleutian Islands in WWII....oops.....
-
What the hell is so bad about invading/occupying a country for their resources? We did indeed elect a couple of energy tycoons, what did we expect.
We're simply sustaining our way of life. Good or bad, we're paying the bills. Real simple stuff.
In this light, our occupation of Iraq is totally justified. Saddam was a threat to our way of life (google "saddam euro to dollar" "cheney energy task force"...) and everything is as it ought to be; normal.
-
Originally posted by john9001
soviet, can you prove that saddam did not have WMD before the invasion, and that he did not hide them in the desert and/or move them to Syria?
Of course you can't, but you just keep banging that same old drum, no WMD---no WMD---no WMD.
Yeah we can prove it. Intell came out after the invasion that Saddam had deceived everyone, including his top generals, that he had nuclear wearpons.
-
Originally posted by Tango
How important was the Jewish plight for you?
I guess not much.
Not especially. It happened before I was born and I don't personally know any holocaust survivors so it's not much to me besides an historic point of interest.
-
I think that we made mistakes but I am certainly not worried about "being lied to about WMD"
As I recall... the sadman had been working on the things every single chance he got... we had to stop his nuke program once earlier and his government had used gas.
It was... and is... safe to assume that he would not change his stripes... if we knew that he had none... why send inspectors? that was devilishly clever by Bush eh? If he had none... why defy the sanctions and not allow the inspections to continue? Why try so hard to look guilty to the entire world..
Point is.. if he didn't have em... he shoulda just let the inspections continue.
I believe that he probly had some before the inspections but moved em around at first and then probly flat got rid of em or moved em sometime during the inspections.
I firmly believe that he would do everything in his power to get more the minute he thought he could get away with it... I do believe that he would invade hid neighbors as soon as he could.
He did all these things.. what about him at the end indicated to you guys that he was a changed man?
Truth is... I never felt threatened by the terrorists. I don't go to blue cities any more than I have to which is very seldom indeed. I don't miss the twin towers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
President Bush and none of the othes claiming there were WMD's in Iraq mislead us. Misleading someone means you know better and did it on purpose. Bush and his cabinet don't know anything, so i can forgive their stupidity. That's intelligence, sometimes your right, sometimes your wrong, but they acted on what they thought they knew. I think there still could be WMD's, i always felt like during the fog of war and when invasion was imminent they could have trucked that stuff outta there. Probably wasn't though. I felt like invading Iraq, in my gut feeling was wrong even with the WMD evidence i still didn't quite believe it.
You straddle the fence so much it`s a wonder you haven`t pulled a groin muscle.
-
Originally posted by Tango
So your saying Saddam was innocent? Tell that to the people that he gased.
Originally posted by Tango
So your saying there were no Kurds gased by Saddam? Next your going to say there was no Holocaust.
Originally posted by Tango
How important was the Jewish plight for you?
I guess not much.
Since you are obviously drawing parallels between the gassing of the Kurdish villagers and the Holocaust I must ask: What do you actually know about the "gassing of the Kurds"? To me it sounds like you know very little indeed. To even mention the incident in the same context as the Holocaust is an insult to the victims of the Nazis and to the Jewish people as a whole. At the time, the gassing of the Kurds wasn't even illegal.
-
Originally posted by Viking
At the time, the gassing of the Kurds wasn't even illegal.
:huh
-
At the time, the gassing of the Kurds wasn't even illegal.
Does that make it less reprehensible?
-
Originally posted by Dadano
What the hell is so bad about invading/occupying a country for their resources? We did indeed elect a couple of energy tycoons, what did we expect.
We're simply sustaining our way of life. Good or bad, we're paying the bills. Real simple stuff.
In this light, our occupation of Iraq is totally justified. Saddam was a threat to our way of life (google "saddam euro to dollar" "cheney energy task force"...) and everything is as it ought to be; normal.
saddam uero to dollar first site, this was written before the war:
"It is plausible that the aftermath of the Iraq war and a U.S. occupation of Iraq could increase Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism against U.S. targets, or more likely create guerilla warfare in a post-war Iraq."
-
blah blah blah - another thread with the same players on the same sides ...
if you don't think we should be in Iraq, wait until the dems pull out us if/when they win in 08 - you'll be electing the candidate in 2012 who is running on the platform that will put us back in Iraq at 10x the cost and you won't blink an eye about it...
-
Originally posted by Soviet
I'm not a democrat so i'm not being "Brainwashed" From the Democratic party. Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where are they? We went to WAR over that and they weren't there. We were lied to, I can't see how it could be any more clear.
In addition to WMD's, there were some other reasons in the joint resolution of congress.
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population.
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were known to be in Iraq.
Iraq continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, (signed by Clinton) the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
A lie is a deliberate statement intended to mislead the listener. One can be wrong without deliberatly trying to offer false information.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Whenever there is any good news out of Iraq, I can imagine MT with his hands over his ears saying "lalalalalalalalalal" over and over.
I know you daydream about me Dago... just remember to clean up when you're done.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Misleading the public about WMDs?
Ahhh another sound bite directly from then DNC.
Congratulations. Your brainwashing is just about complete.
Astounding how easily its proved that if you lay out a line of bull watermelon long enough people will start to believe it.
Must be the short memory span of the American public
See now this bugs me just a little bit because to me it sounds like you've been brainwashed to spew the same rhetoric that the Republicans push everyone with. Contributing to the discussion intelligently would have you engaging what he said with facts, not attacking the person as dumb and brainwashed.
Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? Starting to believe the long line of bull that Bush has been laying for 8 years?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In addition to WMD's, there were some other reasons in the joint resolution of congress.
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's brutal repression of its civilian population.
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were known to be in Iraq.
Iraq continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, (signed by Clinton) the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
A lie is a deliberate statement intended to mislead the listener. One can be wrong without deliberatly trying to offer false information.
Iraq's support of Al-Qaeda was miniscule compared to the support they recieved from parts of Saudia Arabia, one of our "allies".
This argument for invading Iraq became real popular after WMD's obviously were not to be found.
How come we aren't invading Burma to help the people fight its brutal government?
How come we aren't invading parts of Africa to keep warlords from recruiting 12 year old soldiers?
etc. etc. etc. Why aren't we doing something about all the other dictators? cause America likes dictators that play ball and like us, hell we've put them in power in plenty of places (Pakistan anyone?). We don't like ones that don't do what we tell em to.
I think Iraq got invaded because Jr. wanted to invade from day 1 and terrorism gave a good excuse (also I personally think he thought he could finish what his daddy didn't; guess he shoulda read his dad's book with its clear message of no exit strategy to get out of Iraq, whoops!). We should have kept the pressure up in Afghanistan instead of giving these crazies another playground.
-
Members of al-Qaeda were known to be in Iraq...
Iraq continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
(Citation needed)
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, (signed by Clinton) the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
Key word "promote". This resolution speaks clearly against any kind of invasion or occupation. ( H.R. 4655 (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm) )
(http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
This argument for invading Iraq became real popular after WMD's obviously were not to be found.
How come we aren't invading Burma to help the people fight its brutal government?
How come we aren't invading parts of Africa to keep warlords from recruiting 12 year old soldiers?
etc. etc. etc.
I think Iraq got invaded because Jr. wanted to invade from day 1 and terrorism gave a good excuse (also I personally think he thought he could finish what his daddy didn't; guess he shoulda read his dad's book with its clear message of no exit strategy to get out of Iraq, whoops!). We should have kept the pressure up in Afghanistan instead of giving these crazies another playground.
Funny. I remember making alot of those same arguements BEFORE we went into Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
(Citation needed)
Key word "promote". This resolution speaks clearly against any kind of invasion or occupation. ( H.R. 4655 (http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm) )
(http://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, (signed by Clinton) the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
No. Key words are "Policy of the US" and "Remove."
Gotta remove the regime before you can promote a democratic replacement.
And you cant to that by passing silly resolutions no matter what the UN might try to tell you :p
How you read what your reading into it nis beyond my understanding
-
wait, which arguments? just need some clarification to understand what your saying.
:aok
-
Woodwards book covers the WMD point in some detail. First, the search component was an afterthought that was poorly funded. Still, the resource list given to the first team raised a lot of questions. Most of the information predate the 1991 Gulf War.
Well, after not finding any WMDs, and with pressure starting to mount, a second effort was launched. This involved a new team with a pure intelligence approach to the problem. Unfortunately, in spite of significant cash rewards and the offer of green cards they could not find a single scientist, stockpile guard or other person involved with such a program post 1991. No truck drivers, janitors, scientists, military liaisons -- nada. This in spite of numerous efforts to fraudulently cash in on the offers. There was a recording of one scientists wife begging her husband to make something up, anything, to get the reward and green card. The conclusion arrived at was that Saddam didn't relaunch his WMD programs.
The nuclear program that had been far more advanced than thought pre 1991 was not worth mentioning. Gulf War I completely dismantled that. Chemical and biological programs were not in place formally, and the best that could be offered was that he was in a position to restart them if needed, at some point. But, no programs in place, no modern weapon stockplies, etc.
Funny story on the aluminum tubes. It seems that a friend of Uday had the contract to develop some rocket artillery propellant. Unfortunately, the quality was poor. But, this was a friend of Uday. So, the solution was to find hitech aluminum tubes (stronger and lighter) to meet performance requirements with poorer propellant. An expensive solution, but the only solution available in Saddam's time.
Why not allow inspections? The theory was quite simple. 1. Saddam didn't feel the US would go through with it. 2. The fear of the weapons made him stronger regionally after 1991 than he would have been otherwise (and at home with the Kurds, etc.). 3. Backing down on inspections would be a personal sign of weakness for whatever Saddam II was waiting in the wings, and was less of a personal risk that a US invasion.
Charon
-
Originally posted by VOR
Not especially. It happened before I was born and I don't personally know any holocaust survivors so it's not much to me besides an historic point of interest.
Unlike you I don't want events like that to happen again if we can prevent them. Sounds like you would be more like those German citizens that looked the other way while the Holocaust was happening.
-
Originally posted by Viking
To even mention the incident in the same context as the Holocaust is an insult to the victims of the Nazis and to the Jewish people as a whole. At the time, the gassing of the Kurds wasn't even illegal.
BOTH incidents were the murder of innocent civilians. How is it an insult to "mention the incident in the same context as the Holocaust"?
Are you saying one was worse than the other? BOTH cases was murder and needed to be stopped.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Unlike you I don't want events like that to happen again if we can prevent them. Sounds like you would be more like those German citizens that looked the other way while the Holocaust was happening.
Darfur.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Unlike you I don't want events like that to happen again if we can prevent them. Sounds like you would be more like those German citizens that looked the other way while the Holocaust was happening.
Big on accusations aren't you? :lol
-
Originally posted by VOR
Big on accusations aren't you? :lol
Small on caring aren't you?
-
No, I'm not small on caring but I am big on honesty.
Unless I'm mistaken, that was another accusation?
-
librul::"we should attack every evil dictator in the world at the same time."
librul::" the US military is "broken" and can't even win in Iraq, bring the troops home and end the war"
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
librul::"we should attack every evil dictator in the world at the same time."
librul::" the US military is "broken" and can't even win in Iraq, bring the troops home and end the war"
:rolleyes:
Careful John. That could be considered an "accusation".
-
Originally posted by john9001
:huh
What was unclear?
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Does that make it less reprehensible?
Depends on whether you consider legality and morality to be linked. I personally do not, so my answer to your question is: No. Whether it was legal or not does not affect the morality (or immorality) of the act.
Originally posted by Tango
BOTH incidents were the murder of innocent civilians. How is it an insult to "mention the incident in the same context as the Holocaust"?
Are you saying one was worse than the other? BOTH cases was murder and needed to be stopped.
Not true. The Holocaust was the mass murder of millions of innocent civilians for nothing more than racial bigotry and cruelty. The Holocaust is perhaps unrivaled in the cruelty and complete pointlessness of the crime.
The chemical bombardment of the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988 was an act of war. Halabja was located on the front line of the Iran-Iraq war and was at the time of the bombardment occupied by Iranian forces and Kurdish guerrillas fighting on the Iranian side. Yes ... the Kurds betrayed Iraq and fought for Iran. Chemical weapons were used by both Iraq and Iran during that 8 year war, and was not at the time classified as a "weapon of mass destruction", but as conventional munitions. Iraq and Iran were not signatories to the treaty banning chemical weapons, and neither was the Unites States of America for that matter. Under international law and the articles of the Geneva Conventions Halabja was a legitimate military target controlled by an enemy force, attacked and bombarded by weapons that were legal at the time (though frowned upon).
Considering that you are from a country that has used nuclear weapons on two cities and firebombed several others I find your outrage more than a little hypocritical.
And yes ... it is an insult to compare the horrors of the Holocaust to an act of war. By doing so you belittle the people that suffered and perished and degrade the meaning of the word "Holocaust".
-
Originally posted by Viking
Considering that you are from a country that has used nuclear weapons on two cities and firebombed several others I find your outrage more than a little hypocritical.
Considering that you are from a country that welcomed the german invaders and gave up it's natural resources and women i don't think you are in a position to criticize what USA did in WW2.
The US fought the war and did what it had to do to win.
-
Actually Norway was fighting the Germans long before the USA even entered the war and we kept fighting until VE day, but ... I'm not criticizing what the USA did in WWII, and that's my point that obviously went right over your head. Snappy knee-jerk reaction though! :aok
-
Originally posted by Viking
... it is an insult to compare the horrors of the Holocaust to an act of war. By doing so you belittle the people that suffered and perished and degrade the meaning of the word "Holocaust".
I find it interesting that Human Rights Watch considered the gasing of the Kurds genocide, as well as the rest of the world, but you consdier it an act of war that was justifiable.
As for the Holocaust, it was one of the, if not THE most, disgraceful acts of evil ever commited. I know that and have known that, and I find it offensive that you make it sound like what was done the Kurds was justified.
ANY dictator that commits genocide needs to be taken out of power. Peacfully or with force. If the people of Europe in 1938 had stood up to Hitler, millions of Jews may have been saved. Instaed many of them chose to look the other way. Pretty much the same way alot of them did with Iraq and now Iran.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
See now this bugs me just a little bit because to me it sounds like you've been brainwashed to spew the same rhetoric that the Republicans push everyone with. Contributing to the discussion intelligently would have you engaging what he said with facts, not attacking the person as dumb and brainwashed.
Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? Starting to believe the long line of bull that Bush has been laying for 8 years?
My thoughts exactly. They say everyone else is brainwashed, when they themselves sound like a tape recording. Alot of ventriliquist dummies.
I honestly can't see why half the people here thought Iraq was a good idea, is a good idea, and will be a good idea. It's pretty obvious were're getting sucker punched over there. Can't see how that's a good idea. Only a masochist would want to continue at this rate.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I find it interesting that Human Rights Watch considered the gasing of the Kurds genocide, as well as the rest of the world, but you consdier it an act of war that was justifiable.
As for the Holocaust, it was one of the, if not THE most, disgraceful acts of evil ever commited. I know that and have known that, and I find it offensive that you make it sound like what was done the Kurds was justified.
ANY dictator that commits genocide needs to be taken out of power. Peacfully or with force. If the people of Europe in 1938 had stood up to Hitler, millions of Jews may have been saved. Instaed many of them chose to look the other way. Pretty much the same way alot of them did with Iraq and now Iran.
I didn't agree with that either Tango. Genocide is genocide. As for the second part, what possible justification could their be for going around toppling dictators? The U.S. military should be used to protect the U.S. that's it. Not going around toppling people we don't like. I think we should stay out of those things unless we are going to be directly effected.
I hear the argument by a lot of folks here. "Look what Sadaam was doing to his people he needed to be stopped" Why the sudden outpouring of support. I say if there was no oil in Iraq he can do whatever he wants to his people, it's not our business. Soldiers lifes or worth more than that, i can barely stomach that they are dieing over there for basically amounts to oil now.
-
Originally posted by john9001
librul::"we should attack every evil dictator in the world at the same time."
librul::" the US military is "broken" and can't even win in Iraq, bring the troops home and end the war"
:rolleyes:
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but I think priority would be what most would want! When we go around and only appear concerned with the lives of a nation that has resources to plunder, it takes away from our moral position. It is inexcusable and irresponsible to act in such a manner. It is defintiely not the way I want our government to represent me. Does political pride mean more to you than doing the right thing?
Well if you answered no, then we have to prioritize the needs and procede with very calculated planning. :aok
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
You straddle the fence so much it`s a wonder you haven`t pulled a groin muscle.
Acting on information that is to the best of your knowdlegde (WMD'S) true, to me is not being dishonest. Acting on information that is to the best of your knowledge false and then putting the burden of that on other people is to me misleading, dishonest, reprehensible and impeachable. I believe Bush commited the former. Bush is not smart enough to be misleading on purpose. Now should he be impeached, possibly, for blatant errors and malfeasance he has thrown on the backs of our soldiers, and other lies i believe he has told and knew were lies and continued to propagate at the expense of the fighting men under him. For the latter to me that is an impeachable offense. For plain being stupid which i believe Bush is, that's debatable. To me however Bush has done many more wasteful and detrimental things with regard to human life, than Bill Clinton ever did for his laughable offense. Hell they'd have to impeach more than half the presidential alumni if that was the offense.
-
Originally posted by Tango
I find it interesting that Human Rights Watch considered the gasing of the Kurds genocide, as well as the rest of the world, but you consdier it an act of war that was justifiable.
Well, the HRW also call the Israel vs. Palestinians a “creeping genocide”. People use the word so much that it has almost lost its meaning. If you google for “genocide in Iraq”, of the first 10 hits will be 4 links to something about Saddam and the Kurds, and 6 links to something about America committing genocide in Iraq or some other nonsense. Silly isn’t it?
The “rest of the world” you say … hmm … name ONE country that officially considers the chemical attack on Halabja a “genocide”. I’ll start by naming one that don’t: The United States of America. The USA didn’t even recognize that it had happened until the late ‘90s, blaming the Iranians instead.
If you think killing 5000 people (the highest estimate of the civilian casualties in Halabja) in a war zone is the same as the systematic extermination of 6 million Jews … I mean, what can I say to that? :huh
Originally posted by Tango
As for the Holocaust, it was one of the, if not THE most, disgraceful acts of evil ever commited. I know that and have known that, and I find it offensive that you make it sound like what was done the Kurds was justified.
Well if you don’t think using indiscriminate but legal weapons against a military target in a populated area is justified as was done in Halabja (500-5000 dead), Hiroshima (90,000-140,000 dead), Nagasaki (40,000-75,000 dead), Tokyo (80,000-100,000 dead), Berlin and every other major German city (300,000 civilians killed and 780,000 wounded, 7,500,000 made homeless) … then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or are you going to be demanding we drag WWII vets to the gallows next?
Originally posted by Tango
ANY dictator that commits genocide needs to be taken out of power. Peacfully or with force. If the people of Europe in 1938 had stood up to Hitler, millions of Jews may have been saved. Instaed many of them chose to look the other way. Pretty much the same way alot of them did with Iraq and now Iran.
Why 1938? Let’s just say that the people of Europe stood up to Hitler a lot earlier than the people of America, and in fact when the Nazis started gassing the Jews we were at war with Germany … America was not. Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939 … America waited until Germany declared war on her in December 1941.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why 1938? Let’s just say that the people of Europe stood up to Hitler a lot earlier than the people of America, and in fact when the Nazis started gassing the Jews we were at war with Germany … America was not. Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939 … America waited until Germany declared war on her in December 1941.
You euro's have been killing each other for hundreds of years and the USA wanted to stay out of it this time , but the USA was dragged into it, so the USA went to europe and kicked bellybutton and ended the war.
when germany invaded norway they captured all ports and major cities on the first day, two months later norway surrendered and then 15,000 norwegians volunteered to join the german SS. Yeah, you really "stood up to hitler".
-
Let’s just say that the people of Europe stood up to Hitler a lot earlier than the people of America,
Why should we have stood up to Hitler? It wasn't our fight until Hitler declared war on America.
-
Well boys, it's easy enough to make accusations that the president "lied" to us. Nancy Pelosi and others threatened to start impeachment proceedings against Bush during the last congressional elections, because they thought it would play well in Peoria.
And it did, to a certain extent, but now that she is in power Pelosi has backed off of that threat because, when push comes to shove, she would have to prove the accusations. That would be problematic, for nearly every intelligence organization in the western world believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. What would you do, indict the man for believing what his own intelligence agency those of our long-time allies told him was going on in Iraq?
If so, then the heads of every intelligency agency that supplied the governments of the west with this faulty information should roll.
You can disagree with Bush's war policy, if you must, but is making mistakes during war an impeachable offense? I think not, else the government would have to fire every general involved in the conflict.
It appears, from many of the criticisms aimed at the war policy, and the constant references to Iraq being a "quagmire", that Osama Ben Laden is right about us; Americans no longer have the backbone for a sustained conflict. By way of comparison, consider this: 25,000 Americans lost their lives during the Revolutionary War, or roughly one percent of the population. Our forces have suffered 4,000 casualties in Iraq. That's approximately 0.000013 of our population. Of that number, nearly 30% were the result of accidents unrelated to actual combat.
For those who believe that establishing a viable democratic government in Iraq is taking too long, consider this: the time that elapsed between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of a stable government under the Constitution was eleven years.
We are too impatient, wanting instant results and a swift resolution to knotty and complex problems. Some things simply cannot be solved in a year or two.
As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times said, after visiting the mass graves of Saddam's victims, the presence of wmds was no longer necessary to convince him that the overthrow of Saddam was justified.
I, for one agree with that, and will never apologize for taking him down.
(http://www.starman417.com/grave7.jpg)
-
Originally posted by LEADPIG
As for the second part, what possible justification could their be for going around toppling dictators?
If you believe that then I guess you think we never should have gone to war with Hitler.
-
Originally posted by Tango
If you believe that then I guess you think we never should have gone to war with Hitler.
Hitler declared war on the United States. We didn't go to war with him as a way of proving our moral superiority or because "he needed killin" although those concepts certainly helped sell alot of war bonds.
-
Originally posted by VOR
Hitler declared war on the United States. We didn't go to war with him as a way of proving our moral superiority or because "he needed killin" although those concepts certainly helped sell alot of war bonds.
HOWEVER he was seen as the biggest threat to the world and we put more resources into taking him out BEFORE finishing the war with Japan [who attacked us and got us into the war]. Thank God that we didn't have as many liberals back then or libertarians.
-
Originally posted by Tango
HOWEVER he was seen as the biggest threat to the world and we put more resources into taking him out BEFORE finishing the war with Japan [who attacked us and got us into the war]. Thank God that we didn't have as many liberals back then or libertarians.
However? No, there is no however. The US would likely have left him alone if not for honoring his alliance with Japan and declaring war on our country. We were quite content to sit back and mind our own military business (and let Europe handle Europe's problems) until then. That's a popular libertarian concept, by the way. ;) Of course, you could argue that via the lend-lease we were already invested in the war in Europe before DEC 7, but our investment was more financial than ideological at that point when you get down to brass tacks. The proof of our collective disinterest is in our lack of preparation to fight.
I doubt either a liberal or a liberatrian would have any qualms about engaging any country that formally declares and prosecutes a war against our nation the way Germany did. To think otherwise is actually pretty stupid especially when you consider the balance of US political party power during the early to mid 1940's. Since you're obviously a very intelligent and well-informed kid of guy I'm sure you already knew that, so I am assuming this was just a test to see if I knew, too. How did I do?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I know you daydream about me Dago... just remember to clean up when you're done.
Keep your gay tendencies to yourself.
-
Originally posted by john9001
You euro's have been killing each other for hundreds of years and the USA wanted to stay out of it this time , but the USA was dragged into it, so the USA went to europe and kicked bellybutton and ended the war.
when germany invaded norway they captured all ports and major cities on the first day, two months later norway surrendered and then 15,000 norwegians volunteered to join the german SS. Yeah, you really "stood up to hitler".
Norway never surrendered. The government and royal family continued the war from London. As the war progressed the Norweigan government used the proceeds from Nortraship (a company set up in England that controlled our free merchant ships – who btw. transported a quarter of all goods and war materials from the US to the UK) to buy planes and ships for the free Norwegians to fight with. By the end of the war Norway had bought hundreds of Spitfires and ships. In fact during the allied landings in Normandy one of the 24 warships lost on D-Day was the Norwegian destroyer KNM “Svenner”. She was one of 60 Norwegian ships that took part in the operation. Above them RNoAF Squadrons 331 and 332 provided cover in their Spitfires (we actually have a Norwegian skin for the Spit16 in AHII ! :)).
As for the Norwegians that joined the SS to fight the Russians. Yes, that was rather common at that time since the “Reds” were considered a big threat by many and German propaganda exploited this very well. However, they were hardly alone; many non-Germans fought for the Germans in their misguided belief that the Russians were the greater threat. Alonside SS “Wiking” and the other SS volunteer corps they also established a “Britisches Freikorps” of British volunteers … and even an “Amerikanisches Freikorps” :aok
Some Americans even made it pretty far up in the ranks of the Waffen-SS considering they joined after Germany went to war:
Hstuf (Captain). Josef Awender, a medical doctor in the “Frundsberg” born in Philadelphia in 1913.
Ustuf (2nd Lieutenant). Robert Beimes, a signal officer in the “Hitler Jugend” born in San Francisco in 1919, whose father was a translator in the SD.
Ustuf. Dr. Hans Eckert, born in Buffalo, NY in 1917 and assigned to the SS hospital at Dachau in November 1944. (Nice … an American SS “doctor” in a death camp :aok)
Ostubaf (Lt Colonel) . Viktor Fehsenfeld, born in Elk Rapids, Michigan in 1884 and an administrative officer in the SS-WVHA.
Hstuf. Franz Stark, born in St. Louis in 1901 and assigned to the SD.
Hstuf. Eldon Walli, born in New York City in 1913 in the SS-Kriegsberichter Abteilung (war reporters).
Hstuf. Paul Winckler-Theede, born in New York City in 1912 and who was a military judge in the “Das Reich” division.
Even as late as 1944 Americans were still defecting to Germany and volunteering for the SS. Even a USAAF P-38 pilot defected:
“Second Lieutenant Martin James Monti (born 1910 in St Louis of an Italian-Swiss father and German mother) went AWOL Oct 1944, travelled from Karachi to Naples (through Cairo and Tripoli) where he stole a F-4 or F-5 photographic reconnaissance aircraft (photo recon version of the P-38) and flew to Milan. There he surrendered, or rather defected, to the Germans and worked as a propaganda broadcaster (as Martin Wiethaupt) before entering the Waffen-SS as a SS-Untersturmführer in SS-Standarte Kurt Eggers. At the end of the war he went south to Italy where he surrendered to US forces (still wearing his SS uniform) claiming that he had been given the uniform by partisans. He was charged with desertion and sentenced to 15 years hard labour. This sentence was soon commuted and Monti rejoined the US Air Corps, but in 1948 he was discharged and picked up by the FBI. He was now charged with treason and sentenced to 25 years the following year. He was paroled in 1960.”
So running away from home and joining the SS seems to be one of those things kids thought was cool back then. ;)
-
sooo.. you are comparing the 1/1000th of a percent of german-Americans who joined the SS with the masses of norweigans who joined the german army?
What would the two ratios look like I wonder?
lazs
-
I don't think anyone should be slagging off the Norwegian contribution to the war effort. The fact there were a few 'Quislings' shouldn't cloud the reality.
In any case, none of this is relevant to the original discussion, which is about Iraq. I cannot provide many references, so feel free to ignore it.
The original comments that the US is fighting Al Qaeda is true. It is also true they were defeated, in part because the US army had the support of many of the Sunni tribal leaders in the area. Quite simply because Al Qaeda overplayed their hand and tried to Talibanise the Sunni areas. The tribes do not like outsiders telling them what to do. That include Americans.
Here's a reference: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=82&sid=1247160
That's fine as far as it goes but Iraq was never about defeating Al Qaeda or even provoking a situation where Al Qaeda could be defeated. Even without it, Iraq is still a mess and the conflict between the Sunni and the Shia remains the issue.
To be frank, I see a lot of wishful thinking on the part of some of you. The situation is coming to an end game for the US. It simply cannot go on indefinitely. In Vietnam, most people did their year and went home. Now some military personnel are on their third tour in Iraq, not even mentioning Afghanistan. Just how long can that continue? How long do you think soldiers will put up with being back to Iraq every six months for the forseeable future. That as much as anything is why some resolution is needed.
Whatever happens, if the US pulls out without leaving a stable Iraq. The reasons are well rehearsed. To the right, it was the media, the Democrats, Al Qaeda, Iran and everybody who failed to believe in the war. To the left, it was, Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, the neo cons, etc etc.
None of this is particularly helpful to the people out there getting killed.
-
Uh, we never went to war over WMDs. We went because Sadam was violating UN sanctions repeatedly, even to the point of shooting at our planes. Bush et al, made a terrible mistake bringing up WMDs. However, as I understand it, they did have those weapons. We gave Iraq those weapons to fight Iran (not our friend either). Unfortunately, he used them on his own people.
I don't like seeing our soldiers hurt and killed. I am so proud of them and the great job they're doing.
Now Bush is so far from favorite president it isn't funny. Didn't care for his dad either and sure hope Jeb doesn't run. I'm a staunch conservative btw.
-
Originally posted by Tango
Post a link please.
Here's a story about how a small-time loser Jordanian became a rockstar after the Bush administration started yammering on about the dangers of "Al Qaeda Iraq". Which BTW didn't exist in Iraq before the war, so in reality AMZ and his paid Al Qaeda "followers" are new to those Sunni areas and are not liked for that reason alone... on top of the fact they were formed by a fat kid from Jordan that Sunni tribal leaders didn't respect and considered a metrosexual.
Al Qaeda being kicked out of Iraq is little more than the Sunni tribal leaders cleaning house of a trouble making distraction inserted into their lands by a fat kid from Jordan who was only there thanks to the war, and had lots of $$ to pay "followers". Al Qaeda didn't have a home in Iraq before the war, and neither the Sunnis (backed by the Saudis) or Shea (Iran) have any interest in sharing power with them anytime soon, they have each other to worry about.
Besides that, kicking out Al Qaeda insured that there was one less question about who was attacking Sunnis in those areas, and who needed to be paid back.
http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20071001_110054_110054&page=4
"The American role in the promotion of the terrorist organization is not some mad conspiracy theory, but a well-documented attempt by the U.S. government to demonize the insurgency and make it appear to be the central front in the war on terror..."
"... evil foreign terrorists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a chubby Jordanian freelance terrorist, were setting upon the popular U.S. Army. AMZ, as the U.S. Army jauntily called him, existed, but he was a minor figure unlikely to get much of a following on his own in Iraq. Jordanians are not greatly respected by Sunni tribal Iraqis, who tend to view them as the metrosexuals of the Middle East. ..."
"The ploy backfired. As AMZ (he was killed in June 2006) got more and more airtime, he gained more and more legitimacy, money and volunteers..... Thanks to the Americans, al-Qaeda in Iraq became the Greenpeace of the jihadi world."
-
Originally posted by Getback
Uh, we never went to war over WMDs. We went because Sadam was violating UN sanctions repeatedly, even to the point of shooting at our planes. Bush et al, made a terrible mistake bringing up WMDs. However, as I understand it, they did have those weapons. We gave Iraq those weapons to fight Iran (not our friend either). Unfortunately, he used them on his own people.
I don't like seeing our soldiers hurt and killed. I am so proud of them and the great job they're doing.
Now Bush is so far from favorite president it isn't funny. Didn't care for his dad either and sure hope Jeb doesn't run. I'm a staunch conservative btw.
Per a "secret memo" leaked in Spain, that the Bush people don't dispute:
The story about the urgency to get rid of Saddam, turns out to be a fairy tail.
Saddam was willing to leave Iraq and live in exile before 1 shot was fired, and Bush knew it, but rejected the idea because Saddam would allegedly take "information" about the WMDs that were never found. Bush was even told that there would be many opportunities to assassinate Saddam after he left, but in his stellar judgment, Bush decided war was the better option.
Bush also opined back then his future war would only cost $50 billion, which is 20x less than it already has...
So we went to war to prevent a guy from leaving with information that would fit maybe on a notebook, or a few hard drives?
" The nervous Aznar asked repeatedly whether Saddam might perhaps be persuaded to leave Baghdad without military action -- eliciting a cryptic admission from Bush that it was indeed possible because the Egyptians were secretly discussing a possible deal with the Iraqi dictator that would allow him to depart with a billion dollars and "all the information he wants on weapons of mass destruction."
"...Bush quipped that sending Saddam into exile would save '$50 billion', his administration's ridiculously low estimate for the war's cost (which will now exceed at least 20 times that amount)..."
But Bush quickly waved away any such tantalizing possibility, along with all the rest of the concerns and proposals.... he sternly warned that any foreign leader who continued to oppose him would be punished."
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=20648
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/09/28/aznar_iraq/
-
oooooo "secret memo"
:noid
-
Originally posted by VOR
However? No, there is no however. The US would likely have left him alone if not for honoring his alliance with Japan and declaring war on our country. We were quite content to sit back and mind our own military business (and let Europe handle Europe's problems) until then. That's a popular libertarian concept, by the way. ;)
Maybe you should go and read some history books. It was agreed that the Germans were the biggest threat and is why more resources were put into finishing there first.
As for the "popular libertarian concept", popular with whom? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
You can disagree with Bush's war policy, if you must, but is making mistakes during war an impeachable offense? I think not, else the government would have to fire every general involved in the conflict.
I have a problem with any president who is so unintelligent that he claims such a war will take a matter of months. It's been four years and counting. If you think this war is going to wipe out terrorism your dead wrong. I was quite suspicious when Bush all of a sudden started talking about Iraq like it was the most important thing in his life. I have a problem with a president that takes us on so many rides that he doesn't seem to know where he's going himself. A man that lands on an aircraft carrier and anounces the main ground offensive is over. Meanwhile i watched that and i knew it was not. A man that has so little common sense to see where he's going and what he's started in respect to the problems he had in the first place. This president has lead us down so many different paths and then denied them. All these costly mistakes at the expense of the fighting man. I can't stomach that ammount of stupidity. These mistakes as you call them, are not mere wartime mistakes, but are the blunders of man too feeble in mind to hold the job he now has.
Shuckins
For those who believe that establishing a viable democratic government in Iraq is taking too long, consider this: the time that elapsed between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of a stable government under the Constitution was eleven years.
We are too impatient, wanting instant results and a swift resolution to knotty and complex problems. Some things simply cannot be solved in a year or two.
Are you content to have this president announcing goals and then extending them repeatedly, as to show you that he himself doesn't know what he's doing. I have no patience for that. A democratic government in Iraq will never happen, can you honestly look at Iraq with all it's religiuos, social, and cultural fanatism, and think a democratic government will hold together two seconds after it's installed, if it's installed. If not then our soldiers have been wasting there lives for four years. Installing governments for other countries should not be in our repetoire. Some things are not worth starting or continuing. Beating your head into a wall gets you nowhere. A smarter more forethinking president should have known that. I am not content to wander the desert as the lead camel behind a guy who takes us to every mirage and tells us it's water. To follow a guy like that you'd have to be stupid or a masochist. I don't want instant results, i want results from a leader who seem's to know what he's doing and what he's causing and what he's getting us into and what we'll achieve from it. I want efficiency not blatant wasted motion.
Shuckins
As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times said, after visiting the mass graves of Saddam's victims, the presence of wmds was no longer necessary to convince him that the overthrow of Saddam was justified.
I, for one agree with that, and will never apologize for taking him down.
Read this America..You are not your brothers keeper, you are not the worlds police, you are the government representing America no one else. Not every country wants to be like you. It is not your business to go around solving everyones problems. While human atrocities are regretable it is not up to us to stick our nose in something unless it effects us. America respect other countries enough to let them handle their own business, unless asked. They will respect you back.
-
Lead, that is exactly why nothing is being done about Darfur; complacent westerners don't seem to know that the answer to the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" is supposed to be "Yes."
Many of the things said in your reply were also said in the 1940s: the mess in Europe, according to some, was none of our business; American blood shouldn't be shed in a European war that does not concern us.
To a great extent, the responsibility for the events that took place in Europe, the murder, rapine, and genocide, must be laid at our own doorstep. Complacency and an isolationist sentiment kept us from becoming involved in those events until it was almost too late.
The history of warfare shows that, when the bullets begin to fly, the best laid plans often go astray. If you actually believed that the Iraq war would be over in a matter of weeks, and that no long-term problems would crop up during the occupation, then you were deluding yourself. Ben Laden is right, the typical modern American, who believes in quick results, hasn't the internal fortitude for sustained struggle.
Personally, I believe that much of the criticism of the war stems from partisan political rancor that has been festering and growing since the election of 2000, and is becoming so bitter and acrimonious that it may leave the government permanently divided.
This criticism, while not totally unjustified, at least in terms of the government's lack of foresight about postwar problems, is often blind and unfair. Despite recent revelations that the corner has been turned in the fight against Al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq, the partisan critics continue to demand that we pull out and cut the Iraqis adrift.
By the by, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to declare that the Iraqis would never be able to make a democracy work? Such an attitude implies that they are, as a people, somehow unequal to the task of establishing a democratic government. Sure, they're having more than their fair share of problems, but who are you to assume that they don't have what it takes, and are, therefore, undeserving of our time, wealth, blood, and respect?
If Americans are going to be this divided every single time that our forces are committed to a fight in a distant land then we should disband our military and withdraw entirely from any involvement in international events.
-
lead.... and I have a problem with you constantly saying how "unintelligent" anyone who doesn't agree with you is... on just about anything... it comes of as weak.. as if you have nothing better.
And.. why not? you never have any answers... just like xmarine.. (another man of leisure)... you sit and criticize... it comes off like whining to me. Give us some real answers... tell us where Petraous is wrong... show us how to get out without making things worse.
Ok...you guys hate Bush and wish we had not got involved... we get it. Course... if he had done nothing and the lefty news kept showing poor iraqis being slaughtered or if a few of your precious blue cities had been vaporized...
Imagine the whining then! you would be crying like babies about how Bush didn't do enough to make all the taxi riding blue city commies safer... how he didn't "care" or was toooooo stupid to see the threat...
Either way.. all you guys seem good for is sitting around and whining.
I cant take whiners seriously... not till you come up with some solutions that make sense...
You don't like Bush or the war... we get it. There are(gasp) mistakes being made in a war... whouda thunk?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Tango
Maybe you should go and read some history books.
lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
oooooo "secret memo"
:noid
Bush kept it secret knowing that scores of Springer fan voters are scared of the word "secret".
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/09/30/4537867-sun.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=20648
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/iraq/2003906568_iraq27.html
Maybe it's just me, but it seems a bit odd Bush went to war to replace a guy who was willing to replace himself. But I do really dig the Bush excuse: "He seems to have indicated he would be open to exile if they would let him take $1 billion and all the information he wants on weapons of mass destruction."
I'm real sure Saddam said "I must be allowed to all the weapon of mass destruction information I want!!!" .. as if Saddam hadn't had years to hide all his 'information' on a magic device called a hard drive.
-
Guess I'm not a conspiracist. I don't think the secret letter that leaked to spain was real. Actually, and I'm going from memory, I think it was debunked shortly after it came out.