Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sandman on August 15, 2002, 07:42:06 PM
-
Don't start the second Gulf War (http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/commentary/index.html).
-
Cato is nothing but a liberal suckhole spouting the crap agenda of the looney left
-Sikboy
-
LOL... well, the guy did work for Reagan. :)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Cato is nothing but a liberal suckhole spouting the crap agenda of the looney left
-Sikboy
They are libertarian, not liberal.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
They are libertarian, not liberal.
miko
I know Miko, I was just pulling Sandman's chain. CATO often falls on the GOP side of the fence. That makes his source extra tasty, and IMHO, it makes this post worth a bunch more than if he quoted an article out of The Village Voice.
I'm a big fan of the Cato Institute.
-Sikboy
-
Didn't Cato work for the Green Lantern? Or was that the guy who lived with OJ?
:p
-
Hey Target,
Check your email
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I know Miko, I was just pulling Sandman's chain. CATO often falls on the GOP side of the fence. That makes his source extra tasty, and IMHO, it makes this post worth a bunch more than if he quoted an article out of The Village Voice.
I'm a big fan of the Cato Institute.
-Sikboy
I download Cato to my PDA every day. I get the feeling that they don't much appreciate Dubya.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Hey Target,
Check your email
-Sikboy
Back atcha
-
"Hey look everybody, I gave Hitler part of Europe, and now he promised he wouldn't invade anywhere else!" Says Prime Minister Chamberland.
Every ten years or so the U.S. needs to invade somewhere just to stay in fighting shape. Saddam is doing something sneaky in his weapons factory, very similar to what Germany did in the post-World War 1 years.
The U.S. lost less guys in the Gulf War than the peace time average for military deaths (training accidents, natural deaths, drunk driving).
What could be the worst thing to happen if we invaded? Bad economy? Too late. Perhaps terrorist would attack the U.S.? Already happened. Israel and Palestine would re-new attacks? They never slowed down.
If we don't stop Hussein, it wont be too long until Quaeda starts comming into the U.S. with nuclear weapons.
-
would be a good time to get rid of some dust which wasn't removed in 1991.
...this time US could actually help iraqi civilians, instead of just going in and out.
Just like they say they're doing in afganistan.....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I download Cato to my PDA every day. I get the feeling that they don't much appreciate Dubya.
Dubya is a freaking embarassment. It would have been better to have Gore in the White House and have a clear shot at him ridiculing his liberal policies.
What are you going to do when you endorse a supposedly conservative candidate and he conducts liberal policies - or at least caves in and allowes them...
fdiron: If we don't stop Hussein, it wont be too long until Quaeda starts comming into the U.S. with nuclear weapons.
I do not see how those two statements are connected. Al-Qaeda will be coming after us regardless of what happens to Hussein. Their natures are too different for them to cooperate - unless we force them to. There is no evidence of such cooperation. They would much rather have us topple anti-religionist Hussein. Then they will have a shot of taking over Iraq.
miko
-
The funniest thing ignored by the press:
Everyone who was a part of the coalition in 1991 has at least some obligation to support further military action vs. Iraq.
Why?
Free access to Iraq's weapons programs by U.N. weapons inspection teams *was one of the key points of the cease fire that left Hussein in power and kept Iraq from being invaded and 'reorganized'*.
Plain and simple - no debate possible - Iraq is in violation of a cease fire it signed before the U.N.
Which is why you see Iraq talking more and more about allowing weapons inspection teams back into their country...as it becomes more and more apparent that they may be seriously attacked.
Every Nation who was a part of that coalition in 1991, every Nation who believes in the authority of the U.N. - if they disagree with Iraq being attacked and Hussein being overthrown then they had better make a significantly better effort to coerce Iraq into *abiding by the terms of the cease fire agreement that it signed off on*.
When (WHEN - unless his development is interrupted) Hussein accquires a relatively crude low yield nuclear device, do you really think he'll have a hard time finding 5 suicidal terrorists to transport it to Tel Aviv and set it off? If he's caught doing this...so what? He's just become the greatest hero of the bad side of the Arabic world. Do you think an Israeli counterstrike would actually find Hussein? Not likely. Does he care if 4 million of his slave-citizens die in said counterstrike? Absolutely not. Would the entire middle East erupt into an everyone vs. Israel, the U.S.A., and whoever else gives a damn that Israel is allowed to exist? For certain.
2 very simple questions for everyone:
1. Do you believe that Hussein will accquire a nuclear weapon within the next 10 years if his efforts to not do so are 'interrupted'?
2. Do you think that no evil will come to pass if he accquires such a weapon?
Mike/wulfie
-
miko2d points out another thing commonly mistated by the press and 'experts' on the internet everywhere:
Hussein is *not* a supporter of fundamentalist Islam. He has brutally beaten down fundamentalist Islamic movements that have tried to gain a foothold in Iraq.
Which is why you see various Iraqis being presented as potential 'Kings' (as in royalty as opposed to religous rule) of Iraq if and when Hussein is overthrown.
miko2d - leaving Iraq's nuclear weapons program unmolested would certainly make it *easier* for anti U.S./Israel/U.K. terrorists to accquire a nuclear weapon. He doesn't support fundamentalist Islam but he'd sure as heck use them as a weapon vs. his enemies. Giving them a bomb to use vs. Israel is not the same as allowing them to have a presence in his dictatorship.
Mike/wulfie
-
Henry Kissinger recently advised Bush against invading Iraq.
Also a top advisor from the Bush Sr administration has reportedly done the same unless substantial proof showing Iraqi involvment in 9/11 is demonstrated.
-
Kissinger has too many financial and personal vested interests in just about everything international that he can no longer be taken seriously. Who knows... attacking Iraq may lose him alotta coin.
Legitimate reasons for attacking Iraq aside, I can't help thinking that Jr. really wants this for his daddy. That and the fact that this is about the only thing that will give him *any* possible chance of getting a 2nd term.
Oh yeah:
:p
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Didn't Cato work for the Green Lantern? Or was that the guy who lived with OJ?
:p
Yeah... Bruce Lee played Cato... he was a bad mutha:)
-
No thats Kato I think. With a K not a C.
-
wulfie:
miko - leaving Iraq's nuclear weapons program unmolested would certainly make it *easier* for anti U.S./Israel/U.K. terrorists to accquire a nuclear weapon. He doesn't support fundamentalist Islam but he'd sure as heck use them as a weapon vs. his enemies.
He is our enemy only because we deemed it so. There is nothing he wants from us other than to leave him alone. He would gladly sell us oil for the same price - even kuwaiti oil. He would not risk his power by supporting terrorists - we know where he lives.
As for unintentional leak, vigorous and restrictive iraqi regime is much more likely to control whatever measly store of nuclear material and knowlegeable personnel than corrupt and out-of control russian government could safeguard it's enourmous stores and thousands of starving technologists.
Giving them a bomb to use vs. Israel is not the same as allowing them to have a presence in his dictatorship.
That may be a valid reason - going there to protect Israel. But why not say so? Or why not let Israelis handle that? They have enough power to deal with Iraq. They do not seem much concerned about Iraqi threat - especially those who build all the new settlements on the land even US does not recognise as theirs...
The same reason why he would not attack US is why he would not do it to Israel - his rule will not survive it if he gets caught in the process or if he succeeds.
Anyway, it is a reasonable statement - (at elast according to knowlegeable israelis), that Israel is not capable of conducting a limited war - or rather they cannot conduct a prolonged war, so they dare not fight a limited one. That follows from their finite stores (of jet fuel, etc), geographic vulnerability and matters of secrecy and surprise - which would be compromised once any conflict starts.
For example once they disclose exit locations of their underground runways by flying against one country, they will be known to all countries. The same goes for other assets and supplies. They cannot afford to suffer losses and disarray while potential enemy militaries have time to find and refine targeting solutions, mobilise unmolested and wipe them out at their convenience.
If any war breaks out, their only option is to smash all their potentially hostile neighbours since they could not afford to leave any one of them intact - Egypt, Lybia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi - whatever. If the nukes start flying, they will nuke everyone on their list too - starting with Iraq.
There are a lot of fundamentalists in the area that would be willing to take a shot and get to their promised virgins - Hussein is not one of them (he probably has a life-time supply of them anyway).
miko
-
Tonights news... Big Light In Sky, slated to appear in East.
Tonights Weather.. mostly dark, followed by an increasing period of light..