Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on April 05, 2002, 10:26:46 AM
-
Bout time! Bush puts his foot down. (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/04/mideast.diplomacy/index.html)
-
President bush is quite the babe:
(http://www.randomdudes.com/bush/wgirlval03[1].jpg)
-
President Bush..... need I say more :)
-
As far as the left is concerned (Due to the idiocies and humiliation of 8 years of the Clinton Regime, and the love of revenge that so many have)..if Bush had America involved in this from the get-go, the left would have been saying "Stay out of it, its none of our business!", then demonstrations would have started.
Now, they say "You have not done enough! Get involved!"
So, Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. (Shrugs)
-
Well speaking for my little section of the left (which includes me and.....well...... me) I understand that GW has been a little preoccupied with that other little thing called the WAR. He may be a little late getting involved, but not terribly so.
I think this (Israel / Paletinians) needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of at least the moderate Arab States before any more can be done in the War on terror. (Like squish Iraq)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well speaking for my little section of the left (which includes me and.....well...... me) I understand that GW has been a little preoccupied with that other little thing called the WAR. He may be a little late getting involved, but not terribly so.
I think this (Israel / Paletinians) needs to be resolved to the satisfaction of at least the moderate Arab States before any more can be done in the War on terror. (Like squish Iraq)
Agreed. I laughed at that "Like squish Iraq", hehe!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
As far as the left is concerned (Due to the idiocies and humiliation of 8 years of the Clinton Regime, and the love of revenge that so many have)..if Bush had America involved in this from the get-go, the left would have been saying "Stay out of it, its none of our business!", then demonstrations would have started.
Now, they say "You have not done enough! Get involved!"
So, Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. (Shrugs)
Completely agree. No matter what Bush, or America in general for that matter, does we are always criticizied for it. For years other countries have been squeaking and moaning about America's involvement in foreign matters. Now they are mad at us because we are not doing enough to stop the escalation of hostilities. What can we do? Very little. The problems in the Middle East have their roots so deeply dug into the ground that there is almost nothing that could easily solve the problem.
-
I have a sense that Bush is sincere and basically honest. (Unlike his predecessor, who I would not lend my car to, much less my country). However, my fears about the inherent dangers of nepotism are coming to the fore. The one big black mark on his daddys presidency was leaving saddam in place. I think GWB is intent on erasing that mark. I think he is looking at the middle east problem as nothing more than a nuisance that is slowing his ambitions toward Iraq. Well, It is far more than a nuisance. It is a 40 year old puzzle box that nobody has been able to crack. And it will take a lot more attention than he has paid to it.
-
The reason that Saddam was left in power following the Gulf War was simply because there was no clear successor to his place and the resulting chaos would have thrown the entire region into a power struggle. Iran would have definetely been involved, as well as other Middle East countries that had viable military's, and it would have been a rush to see who could gain control of Iraq.
-
Same 8ball from Warbirds? 8bal I think it was?
AKDejaVu
-
how long till the election ?
-
"The reason that Saddam was left in power following the Gulf War was simply because there was no clear successor to his place and the resulting chaos would have thrown the entire region into a power struggle. Iran would have definetely been involved, as well as other Middle East countries that had viable military's, and it would have been a rush to see who could gain control of Iraq."
That a bit like saying we should have left hitler in power, because there was no clear successor.
-
Interesting easymo. But isn't big business' involvement in funding American political parties more worrying? Huge multi-nationals whose only accountability is provided by err... accountants suddenly unable to add up properly at the mere mention of a cash filled brown envelope.
We have similar issues over here.
Anway, I thought the consensus in here was that the US should continue to support Israel - not make a humiliating demand of our much touted 'only democratic friend in the Middle East' to remove several hundred tanks from Palestinian towns?
Praised if you do, praised if you don't? :D
-
Easymo:
"Problem":Iraq has invaded Kuwait.
"Solution":Remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
Mission accomplished. It was not Bush's business (And Im very certain the Oil-glutten states of Saudi Arabia made this very clear to him) that he was NOT there to remove anyone from power, The US was there to remove a military force from invaded land that had US special interests (oil). End of story.
-
8ball - that's definitely NOT the reason Saddam was left in power. The real reason is that there was no UN mandate to go to Baghdad and the coalition would have evaporated if the US et al had made moves in Saddam's direction.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
Same 8ball from Warbirds? 8bal I think it was?
AKDejaVu
I never played Warbirds online because I never had any money. I played Fighter Ops though and I'm sure my name was something like 8ball.
That a bit like saying we should have left hitler in power, because there was no clear successor.
Yes, it is. I didn't make the decision though. Had I been president Saddam would have been gone and somebody else, more friendly to the US of course, would have taken his place. However I was not the person making the decision. I wasn't justifying the decision to leave Saddam there, I was just explaining the reasoning for it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
8ball - that's definitely NOT the reason Saddam was left in power. The real reason is that there was no UN mandate to go to Baghdad and the coalition would have evaporated if the US et al had made moves in Saddam's direction.
Maybe not a reason but definately a concern.
-
I was going on what Colin Powell said in a BBC documentary a couple of years back...
-
Doesn't Palestine HATE the US?
Doesn't the Arab would despise our sinful and worldly ways & only tolerate us for our oil $$$?
So how is the arch enemy of one of the sides in the conflict going be able to broker "peace" in the region?
All the US can do is try to reign in Israel by cutting off the money & it will have ZERO effect on the nutcases running the show on the Palestine side. Their isn't a controlling entity on the Pale's side which could guarantee compliance to any agreement. Sort of like making an agreement with a severely retarded child and wonder why he doesn't follow through with his promise.
The Arabs would be the ones to handle this as in the end it is an Arab/Muslem problem, not a US one.
The nutbags ( the controlling authority for the Palestines) in the region just use it as an excuse to hate us and openly show it ...
Nothing will change ...
-
"The US was there to remove a military force from invaded land that had US special interests (oil). End of story."
Wrong. That was not the end of the story. Ask the Kurds that he murdered. And to make that matter even worse. Our spooks led them to belive we would support them if they made a move on suddam.
Our troops were in place at the time. We didn't need the freaking coalition. It was time to do the right thing.
-
Originally posted by easymo
"The US was there to remove a military force from invaded land that had US special interests (oil). End of story."
Wrong. That was not the end of the story. Ask the Kurds that he murdered. And to make that matter even worse. Our spooks led them to belive we would support them if they made a move on suddam.
Our troops were in place at the time. We didn't need the freaking coalition. It was time to do the right thing.
Sure, then risk complete destabilization of the entire region, not to mention pissing off the worlds largest numerical denominational religion, Muslims. Add to that trying to play "policeman" in an occupied territory such as Bagdad, while trying to keep US casuaties low.
See, thats why your not a politician Easymo. ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
8ball - that's definitely NOT the reason Saddam was left in power. The real reason is that there was no UN mandate to go to Baghdad and the coalition would have evaporated if the US et al had made moves in Saddam's direction.
Not the entire coalition. Britain and Canada have always stood by America during military conflict. But regardless, we wouldn't have needed any assistance or permission to remove Saddam from power. The other countries may not have liked it, but they wouldn't have had any choice but to just accept what we were doing and move on.
-
"Sure, then risk complete destabilization of the entire region, not to mention pissing off the worlds largest numerical denominational religion, Muslims"
Give me a break. When in history has that region EVER been stable. And it is a well known fact over there that saddam is no particularly religious. In fact most of the people in his own country would love to see the amazinhunk gone. He is a dictator
The only reason we didnt finnish it. Was that Gen. Powell got a poo poo feeling in his tummy, when he was looking at dead camel jockys.
-
Originally posted by easymo
"Sure, then risk complete destabilization of the entire region, not to mention pissing off the worlds largest numerical denominational religion, Muslims"
Give me a break. When in history has that region EVER been stable. And it is a well known fact over there that saddam is no particularly religious. In fact most of the people in his own country would love to see the amazinhunk gone. He is a dictator
China's leader is a dictator too, does that give us Carta Blanc to march on China? Believe me, I too would have LOVED to see us go all the way to Bagdad, but I also understand foreign affairs to the point of when the guys with lots of oil say "don't do it", you either start drilling more in your own country or you say yes to them. The liberals in this country was us as "yes men" since they don't want us drilling more in Alaska.
-
Wow, Ripsnort has 11k posts now :eek:
But that brings us to another point, how ungrateful some countries are. We saved Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and probably the majority of the middle east, from being taken over by Saddam. How are we re-paid? They shove a small stick up our bellybutton instead of a big one..
-
China's leader is a dictator too, does that give us Carta Blanc to march on China? Believe me, I too would have LOVED to see us go all the way to Bagdad, but I also understand foreign affairs to the point of when the guys with lots of oil say "don't do it", you either start drilling more in your own country or you say yes to them. The liberals in this country was us as "yes men" since they don't want us drilling more in Alaska.
What the hell does that have to do with what is being descussed?
Lets look at the scale of this thing for a minute. All together there are only 250 million people in all of the Arab states. And most of these are very backward buy western standards. Hell, 6 million Jews have held them at bay for decades. China has a billion people.
BTW. OPEC has no where near the clout that it had in the 70's. This is also often over stated. Venezuelan oil, British oil, Ect. have taken away much of the touted "oil power" of the Arabs.
-
Originally posted by easymo
BTW. OPEC has no where near the clout that it had in the 70's. This is also often over stated. Venezuelan oil, British oil, Ect. have taken away much of the touted "oil power" of the Arabs. [/B]
True, our second largest source of oil is currently Canada. If the Russians ever manage to get the Siberia area drilled they could possibly take over as number one source of our oil. That would completely remove our 'ties' to the Middle East and would let us handle situations there without having to be 'nice' so that we don't loose our oil.
Of course, we could always drill Alaska more but then the tree-huggers would go nutz.
-
(http://www.phillips66.com/energyanswers/images/Charts-Graphs/OilImportsByCountry.gif)
-
Forward thinking says it's not a good idea to exploit oil reserves in Alaska yet, let the arab sources run dry first.
Then we can let them live in the dark ages WITHOUT our cash to sustain them. ;)
-
Originally posted by easymo
What the hell does that have to do with what is being descussed?
Ask yourself the question. You brought up Saddam as a dictator, then said "We should have marched right in there..." (because he's a dictator?!?)
My alignment was that of one where just because someone is a dictator does not give us the right to do what we want. We need global approval in todays world, this isn't 1945.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(http://www.phillips66.com/energyanswers/images/Charts-Graphs/OilImportsByCountry.gif)
What year is that from?
-
Originally posted by weazel
Forward thinking says it's not a good idea to exploit oil reserves in Alaska yet, let the arab sources run dry first.
Then we can let them live in the dark ages WITHOUT our cash to sustain them. ;)
Or develope alternative fuel sources, such as the bill GW signed 2 months ago. ;)
-
8ball, easymo - please tell me how you were supposed to conduct an occupational war in Iraq without the support of Saudi Arabia etc - i.e. the coalition?
Saudi would not have stomached a conflict of that kind. Without Saudi you cannot invade Iraq. Simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
8ball, easymo - please tell me how you were supposed to conduct an occupational war in Iraq without the support of Saudi Arabia etc - i.e. the coalition?
Saudi would not have stomached a conflict of that kind. Without Saudi you cannot invade Iraq. Simple as that.
That was my entire point, but obviously alittle over ones head in this case.
-
IIRC the fundamentalist Muslim movement was quite strong in 1990 / 91 and removing Saddam would NOT have ensured "someone friendlier to the US". It might have left a vacuum that would have been filled by a Taliban-like mullah. I think this was on the minds of our leaders at the time. We were only 10 years removed from the fiasco in Tehran.
-
Oct 2001 as far as I can tell 8ball.
-
FWIW, Dowding is right WRT the reason Saddam was left in power. 8Ball may have elucidated a contributing factor, but there is no way we could remove Saddam without Arab support.
-
venezuela's oil reserves are expected to be exhausted by 2005, maybe 2010 tops.
-
The wierd thing about that graph (not commenting on its validity or anything) is how it says "Countries importing oil to the US" where it should read either "Countries Exporting Oil to the US" or "Countries the US is importing oil From" Just an oddity. A country can't "import to" You either export to or imort from"
-Sikboy
-
as bad as Saddam is, he ain't our biggest problem. One day he will die and some other idiot will take his place
Our true enemy is:
the fundamentalist Muslim movement
growing, getting stronger and nutty by the day ... this is our future enemy of WW3. As soon as they get armed with modern technology, the rest of the free world will have a huge problem.
Our push should be on the Muslim leaders to condem the nutbags extremists of that religion <- chase them out of town. They seem pretty mute about the whole thing - wonder why ...
-
What with this all being way over my head. I'm not sure I should comment. But:)
It seems to me that the Republicans have done a great job of spinning this, to cover their ass, over the years.
At the time, saddam was universally distrusted by his nabors. There would have been the mandatory statements of outrage, no doubt. But in privet, nothing but a big sigh of relief.
To this day he is considered little more then a middle eastern version of a banana republic strong man. And this destabilization, sales pitch, is nothing but Rep. spin.
Also most of the "experts" on the region, that I have read. Indicate that the locals would love to see his bunch gone. So why on earth would we want an occupying force. Think Afghanistan.
-
Originally posted by Nash
(http://www.phillips66.com/energyanswers/images/Charts-Graphs/OilImportsByCountry.gif)
Invade Canada!
eskimo
-
I have a really stupid question. Why is it we (the U.S.) are the ones that have to quell this? Why are fingers pointing at the U.S. for not doing something about an issue on the other side of the world?
I do not get it and probably never will.
-
Eagler is dead on.
to them, America and westerners ARE the enemy.
The only ones that mistakenly think American politicians will have any sway are the American public.
it doesn't matter what we do/say. They are fanatics and not to be reasoned with or trusted.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
The wierd thing about that graph (not commenting on its validity or anything) is how it says "Countries importing oil to the US" where it should read either "Countries Exporting Oil to the US" or "Countries the US is importing oil From" Just an oddity. A country can't "import to" You either export to or imort from"
-Sikboy
I noticed that too, Sikboy. I believe that graph is the work of the Canadian Ministry of Propaganda. Sheeesh, first they claimed to have won the Olympic Hockey gold medal, and now they claim to be the largest supplier of oil to the US?? I don't think it's necessary to look halfway around the world for enemies- all we have to do is look North.
-
er....
Actually I saw the typo (or whatever you'd call it) too... Knew it was gonna be picked apart. :D
Here's from the US government department of energy site:
"Imports/Exports
Slightly lower U.S. crude oil production in 2000, combined with slightly increased oil demand, led the United States to import (gross) an estimated 11.5 MMBD of oil (crude and products) during 2000, representing around 58% of total U.S. oil demand. Around 45% of this oil came from OPEC nations, with Persian Gulf sources accounting for about 22% of U.S. oil imports during the year. Overall, the top suppliers of oil to the United States during 2000 were Canada (1.81 MMBD), Saudi Arabia (1.57 MMBD), Venezuela (1.55 MMBD), and Mexico (1.37 MMBD). "
Can't even remember why I posted the graph in the 1st place... I guess to dispell a myth that the US is completely dependent on those nutcases for oil.
-
Oh no, Nash. The U.S. isn't dependent on that oil. The Bush's are dependent on pissant 3rd world countries to raise their approval ratings. :D
You watch... the day Dubya gets a 20% approval rating is the day he drops a nuke.
-
I don't need no damn oil I pissed my tank!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
as bad as Saddam is, he ain't our biggest problem. One day he will die and some other idiot will take his place
Our true enemy is:
the fundamentalist Muslim movement
Hussein is well known for his hatred of Muslim fundamentalists, and his attack on Iran in 1980 was partially to stop the influence of Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamist revolution in Iraq.
All religious fundamentalism is an enemy of peace, not only the Islamic faith. Northern Ireland shows than even similar faiths connot live in peace together.
-tron-
-
I agree with Tronski.
Now let's start talking about nuking Christian fundamentalists as well.
But wait a minute, they are generally white, speak English and are Western!! Oh my!! How the hell are we going to lump them into one incomprehensible, foreign, homogeneous mass!?
The truth is that religion is often used as an excuse for actions when the real motivation for absurdity is simply good old fashioned territory and wealth.
In NI for instance, the IRA is now a huge drug peddling organisation using punishment beatings and kneee-capping as means to enforce its authority.
-
I a bit late to this. But 8ball is right in the reason that Saddam was left in place. I was with the 101st in the Guld War. The week before the ground war was launched, our Platoon Leader briefed us each day on what the plan was and out part in it. And we were told that it wasn't part of the plan to take out Saddam. The thought was that if he was taken out, he had killed anyone that looked liked they were a threat to him, no one was left to take over from him. We thought that Iran could of taken over Iraq after he was gone. Tom Clansey in 1 of his book had it part of his book.
So it was thought of long before the war begain and finished.
-
not originaly posted by EAGLER
as bad as Bush is, he ain't our biggest problem. One day he will die and some other idiot will take his place
Our true enemy is:
the fundamentalist christian movement
growing, getting stronger and nutty by the day ... this is our future enemy of WW3. As soon as they get armed with modern technology, the rest of the free world will have a huge problem.
Our push should be on the Cristian leaders to condem the nutbags extremists of that religion <- chase them out of town. They seem pretty mute about the whole thing - wonder why ...
HEHE just changed 3 words i cant explain it i just had to :)
"god bless palistine"
nonEAGLERtarian