Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on October 08, 2002, 01:00:50 AM
-
Bush's speech was exactly what I expected. And, we get a war. Check the demands out for NOT going to war:
1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.
2. End its support for terrorism.
3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.
4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.
5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.
"I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said. "And military conflict could be difficult."
Ok, no. 1 is doable. But no.2? Iraq won't be abe to convince teh US they're not harboring terrorists - the US will simply not believe anything Iraq says here.¨Iraq face a difficult task - if they're not harboring terrorists, they'll have to prove a negative. "Prove that there aren't great red hippos living in an oasis in the centre of the sun".
Number three. This is a bit silly - if this was a criteria for avoiding war, a helluva lot of countries arond the world ought to fear invasion. So in order to avoid double standards, the US would have to invade these too. I gather soon we'll have USCA - United States of Conquered Africa - and why stop there? :D
4. Righto. Do this while the US cease to import heroin and cocaine :)
5. Perhaps they cannot account for all personell. Perhaps the pilot went down with his plane and his remains were scattered over a large area. Small piece of human material decompose rapidly. Don't mean to be disrespectful of the pilot who lost his life, but this is the cruel fact of life.
So, soon I'll be watching LGB's and GPS guided munitions killing people on CNN again.
I hope Bush/Blair find more evidence before that though. So far they've made a convincing argument, but one that lacks heavy, solid evidence. It'd be good if they got something on this guy - otherwise goiung in with a lighter into a powderkeg is unwise. Some evidence might help to make the powder a little bit less dry.
Please read this post from the position of a neutral - I don't care if this speech was made by Bush, Blair, Hussein or our Rasmussen. Just evaluating it for feasability And it lacks that.
-
Remember that guy in elementary who had a ball ? You could only play if you followed "his rules"(I am allowed to score, but not you!).
This is what I'm thinking about now, of course... it's only morning, but... :)
-
The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem.
The US did a great job of harbouring Real IRA terrorists after the Omagh bombing, even though the British government had outlawed them. So to start getting all sniffy and holier than thou at this late stage, simply because of Sept 11th, is as transparent as Rumsfeld's rhetoric.
-
Seems that every Bush starts a war somewhere ;)
-
Dowding:
"The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem."
So what heppens when he kicks them out again, or to use your liberal descrimination victim terminology creates a hostile workplace environment for the inspectors leaving them no choice but to depart? Do you support military action then, or do we go back to yet another round of wishful: "The decision to invade Iraq should concern weapons of mass destruction alone. Get the inspectors in, if there's no obstructions, there's no problem.". In all these Bush speech whine threads I have never seen anyone mention his numerous clear statements that in fact war would hopefully be a last resort if other attememts to get a solid NEW UN inspections and WMD regime implemented. Why a new one? Because the old one was a disater. I wonder why you fellows fail to quote these parts of the speech.
-
it was a great speech
but thanks for the meaningless commentaries from across the pond :rolleyes:
-
You're welcome, Eagler. Just give a shout if you need any clarification.
Yellowherz - you see all those other conditions attached to the ultimatum. What the shreck do they have to do with WMD? Nada.
And yes, if the inspectors were kicked out, I would support military action. I've said that many times before, in many different threads...
... but the other 'terms' are unadulterated BS and have nothing to do with WMD.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
And yes, if the inspectors were kicked out, I would support military action. I've said that many times before, in many different threads...
Haven't they already been kicked out?
-
Folks, im not sure where all this will end up,
Afghanistan is still explosive and far away to be a peacefull place,
Israel - Palestine is still burning and high explosive too,
and now another War in that region ?
I hope Bush knows what he is doing.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Seems that every Bush starts a war somewhere ;)
Oh, did Bush invade Kuwait in 1990? Huh! didn't know that!
-
Ripsnort:
The liberals idea of peace is letting a dictator swallow up countries. Like Hitler did in 1938 with Czeckoslovakia. Its only a war when the good guys start to defend themselves.
An extreme example were the "anti-war" activists after 911. To them the "war" only started if we attacked the Taliban - the actuall 911 attack was not the start of war in their minds.
I am not sure but I beleive this attitude comes from their fundemental hatered of our and thus their own western society and culture.
How else can you explain them thinking President Bush actually started the Kuwait war in 1990?
-
I am not sure but I beleive this attitude comes from their fundemental hatered of our and thus their own western society and culture.
I am not sure, but I believe your beliefs stem from a dangerous and hate filled bitterness felt towards Western society for not actually stepping in to the Balkans and stopping your brethren from killing each other.
However, your difficulty in accepting other people's views that happen to differ from your own, as well as your inability to comprehend the concept that dissent or criticism is not heresy or sacriledge, is as clear as day. It's almost as though you want to live under a totalitarian regime, where the prevailing views of the government are the only views to hold.
You're the embodiment of everything that isn't Western generally, or American specifically. In your hurry to be seen as a patriot in your new country, you overlook the most fundamental ideals the state was founded upon.
Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Liberty
-
Just one question: Are you ready to see pics like This (http://www.stagas.net/warpics/cemetary.jpg) and This (http://www.stagas.net/warpics/casualties.jpg)?
In war there's always casualties thought I'm sure U.S would have better K/D ratio.
If there's a way to avoid war every health person would use it.
-
here is a interesting articlehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-10-5&id=2328
-
The spectator is a pretty poor publication.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
The spectator is a pretty poor publication.
Never heard of it, liked the article tho.
-
"Freedom of Speech and Expression, and Liberty"
Where in anything I say do I deny you rights of free speech. Perhaps you are so wrapped up in your left wing political correctness victim mindset that you see any form of disagreement, dissent in left wing speak, with your ideas as a form of oppression. I fully accept your views, but that doesnt stop them from possibly being wrong or dangerous and thus me disagreeing with them and criticizing your arguments.
LIBERALS:
People who disagree with you, and express that disagreement to you are not opressing you, they are simply disagreeing with you....
-
Originally posted by Staga
Just one question: Are you ready to see pics like This (http://www.stagas.net/warpics/cemetary.jpg) and This (http://www.stagas.net/warpics/casualties.jpg)?
In war there's always casualties thought I'm sure U.S would have better K/D ratio.
If there's a way to avoid war every health person would use it.
One question back to you, if we do nothing, are YOU ready to see pics like this (http://www.turkishforum.com/pkk/img/photos/pkk15.jpg) or this? (http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Rwmohawk2.jpg)
Which is worse, waging war for prevention, or waiting for war?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
An extreme example were the "anti-war" activists after 911. To them the "war" only started if we attacked the Taliban - the actuall 911 attack was not the start of war in their minds.
Them folks shoulda been volunteered to go clean up the WTC, maybe help'em get a clue.
On the conditions, 3 is the only one that doesn't make sense to me. What do I care if the Iraqi regime slaughters thier own civilian population. Long as it stays within thier borders it's not my concern. Do I approve of that? No, but when it comes down to the line it shouldna be one of the factors.
2 and 5 will probably be the hardest to meet. There's the problem of proving they aren't supporting terrorists anymore and there is no telling what happened to the missing pilot, unless they captured him and have him hidden away somewhere. Or already did away with him.
1 and 4 are pretty straight forward.
Instead of an all out war why not just send sniper teams into Iraq and basically cut the head off the snake one night. Several cooridnated teams all pick off thier targets in the same night, Iraq wakes up to a change of leadership. Seems alot simpler than just going for an all out and out war. And if the new regime can't tow the line do it again. And again. Etc etc until a regime takes the reigns that can tow the line. Seems a better solution to me than getting bogged down in a full blown war over there.
-
Staga:
In the leadup to WW2 people were asking, are you ready to see this:
-
Or this:
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Instead of an all out war why not just send sniper teams into Iraq
Woohoo!!.......I like that
:D
-
Many sensible people said no, so soon they saw this:
-
Or this:
-
Personally I am in favor of an all out global campaign to crush any nations with anti-american policies or attitudes among its leadership or population. This may seem harsh, but the fact remains that the lives and happiness of my kinfolk and children far outweigh the importance (imho) of the lives of people who would destroy them if they could.
sorry world...
(http://www.ultimateflags.com/usahist/images/donttreadyellow.gif)
-
Originally posted by Monk
here is a interesting articlehttp://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2002-10-5&id=2328
That's a pretty good read. What's the matter Dowding, thier views run contrary to yours?
But I wonder if the rest of the anti-Yank set have thought it through. When they squeak about America’s warmongering but think the UN’s the perfect vehicle to restrain it, you know they’re just posing, and that, though they may routinely say that ‘Bush frightens me’, they’re not frightened at all. America could project itself anywhere and blow up anything, but it doesn’t. It could tell the UN to go diddly itself, but it’s not that impolite. Imagine any previous power of the last thousand years with America’s unrivalled hegemony and unparalleled military superiority in a unipolar world with nothing to stand in its way but UN resolutions. Pick whoever you like: the Soviet Union, Imperial Japan, the Third Reich, the Habsburgs, Tsarist Russia, Napoleon, Spain, the Vikings. That’s really ‘frightening’.
That is a pretty scary thought.
N1kPaz I'm all for protecting our family/friends/loved ones, but I'm not for whole sale slaughter.
We just need to train more snipers :D
-
I heard Bush's speach and it didn't sound like to me he was talking about starting a war. He was saying he COULD/MIGHT if the conditions were not met.
As for the conditions well each one makes sense if you look at them.
1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.
UN resolution not US resolution. There for UN support!
2. End its support for terrorism.
There in case we need to attack on our own. Public support!
3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.
There to help the people of Iraq. Again needed to get UN support!
4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.
Saddam is taking the food that we trade for oil from the people that need it the most. Needed for UN, Iraq people, and public support!
5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.
There were reports that said that there were some Americans still being held in Iraq. Public support again!
Look it comes down to this....the more support we have the less chance we have of actually having to go to war.
If Saddam sees he has no chance to win he will cooperate.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I heard Bush's speach and it didn't sound like to me he was talking about starting a war. He was saying he COULD/MIGHT if the conditions were not met.
As for the conditions well each one makes sense if you look at them.
1. Declare and destroy all weapons of mass destruction in accordance with U.N. resolutions.
UN resolution not US resolution. There for UN support!
2. End its support for terrorism.
There in case we need to attack on our own. Public support!
3. Cease the persecution of its civilian population.
There to help the people of Iraq. Again needed to get UN support!
4. Stop all illicit trade outside the U.N. oil-for-food program.
Saddam is taking the food that we trade for oil from the people that need it the most. Needed for UN, Iraq people, and public support!
5. Release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including one American pilot whose fate remains unknown.
There were reports that said that there were some Americans still being held in Iraq. Public support again!
Look it comes down to this....the more support we have the less chance we have of actually having to go to war.
If Saddam sees he has no chance to win he will cooperate.
yep, Bush/America is just trying to get Saddam to stick to the original 1991 agreement as the rest of the world just twiddles their thumbs and looks the other way or are too busy making money from him ie France/Russia.
-
How many more do we need ya'llhttp://home.achilles.net/~sal/un-resolutions.html
-
"How many more do we need ya'll"
My superior impartial left wing liberal scientific training has led me to conclude that only a further 197 UN resolutions are required to solve once and for all the Iraqi problem. No other action is needed in this matter.
-
Grunherz, if that's your porn collection, please put it away. SOB's is way better.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Grunherz, if that's your porn collection, please put it away. SOB's is way better.
I'm all for jokes pretty much always but considering the serious nature of this thread/subject and the serious intent behind my posting those terrible pictures your comment is both tasteless and misplaced.
However I am courious was this simply a poor attempt at humor made in innocent error or some pathetic attempt to once again change the subject and deflect my criticizm of the foolish "anti-USA" left wing postion?
If you feel you have made a mistake in posting that joke and your intentions were indeed innocent then I kindly ask you to remove the comment. Otherwise if this is an intentional insulting attack on my argument then by all means leave it up, for it reflects badly on you and your position and not on me.
-
You can't help yourself, can you Grunherz? You validate my last post completely - you consider anything posted that disagrees with current US policy as anti-USA. You fail to see a difference and that is your problem. You view dissent as traitorous. You want unanimity. You're paranoid about anything even remotely left-leaning and feel a need to label people with ridiculous titles.
Anyway, if anyone was tasteless it was you for posting those pictures. We've seen them all before and you aren't shocking anyone. Saw was just lightening the mood, having a laugh. Something I can't imagine you doing without monumental effort.
-
Anyway, if anyone was tasteless it was you for posting those pictures. We've seen them all before and you aren't shocking anyone. Saw was just lightening the mood, having a laugh. Something I can't imagine you doing without monumental effort.
that is the idiotic statement I've seen to date. lighten the mood, having a laugh? about a past such as this? what a fekin' moron.
you better come out of your fantasy world bud and take events like this serious. think it can't happen again? I cannot even begin to fathom how anyone can laugh at that or defend anyone who does.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
4. Righto. Do this while the US cease to import heroin and cocaine :)
Newflash:The U.S. doesn't import heroin and cocaine.It is SMUGGLED in because the U.S. has ruled it's use illegal.
-
I don't know, I thought it was a pretty good speech. Completely devoid of substance, but not delivered too badly.
-
Interesting what sort of images you could find to be entertaining and amusing Dowding.
And I put the these serious pictures up to make a serious point of what people like you let can happen because of their foolish fearful "anti-war" sentiments in dealing with maniac dictators. They had the same exuses and tactics of your types today, oh Hitler is reasonable, oh Hitler just wants to be left alone, oh Hitler can be contained, oh why bother with Hitler hes just a two bit agitator, oh dont worry about him we are building this huge wall of forts and will deter him, oh shut up warmongering has been politican churchil, oh this and oh that then all of a sudden oh toejam
50 million people die.
And still your only force of argument is merely insult and wild accusations concerning my violations of your freedom of speech - simply because we disagree. Brilliant! You cannot suggest any alternative to US led pressure save the vaunted "UN", an oraganization that is utterly meaningless without US military or economic support behind it- so ironically you both attack agressive US Iraq policy yet the legitimacy of your sole wishful alternative is entirely dependent on US will to act.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
One question back to you, if we do nothing, are YOU ready to see pics like this (http://www.turkishforum.com/pkk/img/photos/pkk15.jpg) or this? (http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Usa/Tests/Rwmohawk2.jpg)
Which is worse, waging war for prevention, or waiting for war?
thanks rip, you beat me too it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
The spectator is a pretty poor publication.
Really? did you read the article?
-
Grunherz, why post them then ? It seems you haven't seen enough and you blame ME for commenting ? At least previous posters had the taste to post a link.
Stop repeating yoursel & try to pay attention to what poeple say... anyway, I have a feeling I'm shooting at thin air again.
yes yes, I know, the "Rest of the world" should look like a glassed parking lot... I know :rolleyes:
-
To make a clear point. By the tone of your reply I assume you are one of the "anti-war" crowd and the awful joke was actually an insult to deflect my criticism - shame on you for that.
Anti war types in 1930s let that happen, they let dictators and maniacs the world over believe they could get away with anything - and they tried.
I will not hide their misdeeds and crimes for motives of civility, you people must realize what your style of actions and ideas have led to in the past. Dictators feed on weakness like that in search of an opportunity to exploit those around them. Your kind were blind in the 1930s and they are blind in 2002. No matter, the USA was there in the 1940s and we are here now - we will clean up. Lead, follow, or get out of the way!
And no I dont want to nuke the rest the world, another silly dissapointing insulting comment from you Saw.... Why?
-
Not intended at you personally Grunherz (cfr last reply). Just tired of the olde "USA knows what's best for you, blah blah...". And I did not see the point you had by putting those ugly pictures on my face.We've seen those enough.
You just look like you're anticipating/already drooling about this. Maybe I'm missreading you. I hope I am.
What do you think will happens next if Iraq is flattened ? That all the middle east is going on it's knees and beg you ? come on...
Anyway... cya tomorrow, I have a date at 21:00!
-
Rip, AFAIK daddy Bush invaded Panama, Iraq and Somalia.
Bush Jr only invaded Afghanistan and now goes after Iraq.
-
Well..the anti war thing is europe could be understood to a point. They had just gotten over one world war fought in thier back yards. A second was pretty chilling. Unfortantly Hitler knew this and determined he could use this fear in basicly a black mail sort of manner. Thus several nations fell before anybody reacted.
Saddem is a threat. Dont fool yourselfs. He's a hardcore coldblooded killer w/alot of power and no morals. The ONLY thing that holds him in check is the threat of nations LIKE the U.S and the Brits.
As far as war goes... I dont want it. I dont want US boys dieng in some god forsaken land that is filled w/people that dispise them. BUT if it means paying a butchers bill at a much lower rate today than waking up to a mushroom cloud next year or when ever then so be it.
He has declared himself our enemy. He supports those who profess to find anyway to destroy us. THIS ALONE makes him and his government a legit target.
Now..that being said, IRAN is a bigger threat in the long run and sorry but or Paka "allies" have more terrorists and groups supporting them in their nation than all Iraq I think,lol.
All in all....its one nasty stew. Here...YOU eat it.
xBAT
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Rip, AFAIK daddy Bush invaded Panama, Iraq and Somalia.
Bush Jr only invaded Afghanistan and now goes after Iraq.
Yeah, gee, wonder why they're such meanies? Jeez!
-
In 1939 Germany was the invader and agressor, 1990 Iraq took that job and it sure looks like 2003 the agressor will be U.S.
Not that I care: during Gulf-war CNN and BBC did show some really nice footage :)
Just remember that some of your own will die, maybe even inside of the borders of U.S.
Attacking against arab country when situation in the middle-east is what it is now could bring those nations together which would be worst thing what could happen now.
-
Staga, as you know, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Either way, the outcome will be the same.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Staga, as you know, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Either way, the outcome will be the same.
pay me now or pay me later
as batdog stated, the bill seems to be slightly less expensive today than it will be tomorrow
I hope we can get the inspectors inspecting like the nutbag agreed to in '91
I hope they abide by the signed agreement of '91, the country realizes it'd be better off with someone else running the show and THEY take there future in THEIR own hands joining the global community
... just don't think any of it'll happen until the Global robo cop, the US of A kicks his sandflea arse outa their
too many scared thumb twiddlers for it to go any other way
-
US govt asked number of countries to sign an agreement where US soldiers can only be trialed in US for future warcrimes, and not by any UN or local govt body.
Is Bush clan up to something ?
-
Is Bush clan up to something ?
World Domination....
ve vill crush you! Ze Third Reich will prevail!
In any event, if it makes a peaceful tommorrow... I'm all for it... but this sitting around and playing pocket pool until the big toejam hits the fan ain't exactly working towards world peace or anything remotely resembling it.
-SW
-
Something that I haven't seen yet is whether or not the UN inspectors have to give notice to Iraq regarding which site they want to see (i.e. a weeks notice etc). It may have been someplace but I've missed it.
What I would like to see is this, as an alternative to going to all out invasion.
The U.S. puts 3 a/c in the air, loaded for bear. The U.N. inspectors say, "we want to see this site, today. (with no head up notice). If Iraq says no, or hesitates, those 3 a/c go in and remove that site from the map within the hour. Done.
This process continues until the U.N. has unrestricted acess or Iraq is out of targets.
Listening to monkey boy last night didn't inspire my confidence one bit. He's bound and determined to bring home some body bags :(
my .02 worth
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Instead of an all out war why not just send sniper teams into Iraq and basically cut the head off the snake one night
My COD, do you people actualy think that we would contemplate going to war without having prior ground assesment? Believe me, we do have and have had operatives incountry gathering intellegence and waiting for orders to act on.
The assumption that we would go into battle without having previously located, assesed and identified likely targets by using intellegence gathered on the ground shows a lack of knowledge of modern warfare.
We are there and I would bet that on more than a few occasions Saddam himself has been in one of our operatives scopes crosshairs.
The fact that we haven't acted during these opportunitys shows that we are indeed using restraint. How long that restraint will last rests solely on Saddams shoulders.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Interesting what sort of images you could find to be entertaining and amusing Dowding.
And I put the these serious pictures up to make a serious point of what people like you let can happen because of their foolish fearful "anti-war" sentiments in dealing with maniac dictators. They had the same exuses and tactics of your types today, oh Hitler is reasonable, oh Hitler just wants to be left alone, oh Hitler can be contained, oh why bother with Hitler hes just a two bit agitator, oh dont worry about him we are building this huge wall of forts and will deter him, oh shut up warmongering has been politican churchil, oh this and oh that then all of a sudden oh toejam
50 million people die.
Was this before or after he invaded Poland?
-
the USA did not "invade" Somalia. the warlords in Somalia were stealing the food aid from the starving people. the US troops went in to get the food to the people.
then clinton became prez and pulled out the marines and their tanks and left the rangers without support, officers in Somalia asked clinton to send the tanks back in but clinton said , no , it would make the USA look like a aggressor.
44MAG
-
Originally posted by Eagler
---snip---
I hope we can get the inspectors inspecting like the nutbag agreed to in '91
I hope they abide by the signed agreement of '91, the country realizes it'd be better off with someone else running the show and THEY take there future in THEIR own hands joining the global community ---snip---
Funny, almost exactly what I have been saying, but I am a hand wringing, USA hater? Go figure.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny, almost exactly what I have been saying, but I am a hand wringing, USA hater? Go figure.
Don't take the Rights hate mongering to heart Mid. That is and has been their tactic whenever a discussion about politics arises.
That is why a two party system is so damned important...to keep the radicals on both sides in check.
There's an old tag that is used for describing a rabid Rep. "Yellow dog Democrat". The concept that ANY canidate that is Republican is better than any Democrat on any given ballot is not only flawed but history has shown that it's even dangerous. The reverse is also true.
I am on the political fence on most things but one important reason I'm not a goose stepping Republican is that they, for the most part, cannot see the benifits and the NECESSITY of having a two party system.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Was this before or after he invaded Poland?
Excellent question! This was during the time he was annexing Austria, annexing the Sudetenland (thx chamberlin ) and later openly invading the rest of Czechoslovakia, breaking most Versailles treaty obligations, just a bit before invading Poland - which when everyone apparently agreed he was a pretty bad guy.
So I ask you "anti-war" types today what will your Poland be? Perhaps an Iraqi nuke in Tel Aviv?
-
Originally posted by MrLars
My COD, do you people actualy think that we would contemplate going to war without having prior ground assesment? Believe me, we do have and have had operatives incountry gathering intellegence and waiting for orders to act on.
The assumption that we would go into battle without having previously located, assesed and identified likely targets by using intellegence gathered on the ground shows a lack of knowledge of modern warfare.
We are there and I would bet that on more than a few occasions Saddam himself has been in one of our operatives scopes crosshairs.
The fact that we haven't acted during these opportunitys shows that we are indeed using restraint. How long that restraint will last rests solely on Saddams shoulders.
Ermm..... ok.....
I'm thinking you misunderstood what I'm saying with that.
Yes I'm fully aware the intel gathering apparatus is in high gear and keeping target lists updated.
But what I'm saying is instead of feeding the updated target data to all the planes/tanks/helos/infantrymen, send in some sniper teams and give them the updated target data. Then let the snipers do thier thing and wipe out the Sodamn Insane regime and see what fills the gap. If the next one is just as bad knock it out too, etc etc.
Why go and get a buncha folks killed when several small teams can sneak around do the job in a surgical manner?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Not intended at you personally Grunherz (cfr last reply). Just tired of the olde "USA knows what's best for you, blah blah...". And I did not see the point you had by putting those ugly pictures on my face.We've seen those enough.
You just look like you're anticipating/already drooling about this. Maybe I'm missreading you. I hope I am.
What do you think will happens next if Iraq is flattened ? That all the middle east is going on it's knees and beg you ? come on...
Anyway... cya tomorrow, I have a date at 21:00!
I know you did not see the point of those picture and that is the problem. Prewar inaction helped cause those pictures. No more inaction!
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
Ermm..... ok.....
I'm thinking you misunderstood what I'm saying with that.
Sorry Cave, that response wasn't directed at you but more to the majority of people that tend to dismiss or forget that we have a very active intelligence community with their hands in most if not all of these targeted countries.
The problem with using snipers to take out Saddam is that, w/o internal change, that would most likely backfire in a very ugly way. The best way to peace in Iraq with a regime change is for the populace to revolt and get rid of Saddam the same way the Itialians did with Mosolini, the image of the Iraqi's stripping, hanging and desecrating Saddams body would go far in improving US/Iraqi relations....and put a huge smile on my mug :D
The use of snipers would cause the US to loose even more support from friendlies, something I don't think we can afford.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
There's an old tag that is used for describing a rabid Rep. "Yellow dog Democrat". The concept that ANY canidate that is Republican is better than any Democrat on any given ballot is not only flawed but history has shown that it's even dangerous. The reverse is also true.
in Texas, I was always told that a Yellow dog democrat meant that they would rather vote for a yellow dog than a republican. I guess the meaning is the same anyhow.
funny how this war argument looks like the presidential election.
50 percent support the president and 50 percent are busy trying to make everything he does and says look like the end of the world.
-
Saddam has survived at least 12 assassination attempts and reportedly been shot 4 times. This has lead to an image of an 'immortal' among the Iraqi's.
Plus hes savvy to snipers etc. Sorry send ya sniper teams home boys.
-
Someone wrote:
Newflash:The U.S. doesn't import heroin and cocaine.It is SMUGGLED in because the U.S. has ruled it's use illegal.
Heh newsflash: the Iraqi's do not import . It's smuggled in because the world has ruled its use illegal.
The Iraqis are just the consumers. Just as the yanks are with cocaine.
The only wee bit of difference is that a some of the stuff smuggled in is done so with the governments blessing.
Seen from a social perspective, Iraq is just a small subculture within the society known as the World. Sorta like drug users in the US.
And it be pretty hard to stop drugs from entering the US, wether the government tries or not. That was my point :).
At any rate, we get a war. Damned thread hijackers :D
-
So is there any new cool and sexy weapons we could see in CNN?
I hope the quality of the pictures taken from guidance cameras of the missiles are better now, those B&W footages were not looking too "high-tech" :)
-
Using snipers to take out Saddam is political assasination, which is a no-no in US law. It's not allowed.
Why? Perhaps, maybe, it gives licence to other countries to use the same means. On the US, even. Don't want that. Wouldn't be prudent.
Same deal with the world court stuff, aint it?
Anyway...
No, you must make a formal declaration of war. And you must barge in with men, tanks, planes and an ample supply of body bags. That way, it's all civil-like. And, well... who in the world is gonna challenge the US in this particular brand of *legal* "regime change". They'd get their arses kicked! Right? Hell yeah. Perfect.
Strikes me as, well, notable that in order to make this whole regime change legal, or legit, it's probably a good idea to get (for all intents and purposes) US "guided" UN approval.
Actually... lemme digress.... Ya know what? I'm typing this thing... this "regime change"... and looking at it for almost the 1st time. It's funny how words or phrases just sort of enter our common lexicon. Regime change. Now, I know this to mean "overthrowing of government". But man, a "regime". Regimes are bad, right? It's not a government... it's a (brace for it) regime! Oh the horror... Anyway, those guys in Iraq are certafiable, but I can't help but feel dupped every time I robotically just say stuff that's undoubtedly concocted by the White House marketing dept.
"Hey George, Mikey came up with this great thing over coffee.... get this dude: "Regime"... It's so brilliant I pissed myself. No literally I'm dead serious I was standing in a pool of it and even I had to laugh. Yer gonna say it 18 times in your next speech, George...Ok? Ok. Because we all know - eighteen exposures makes a SALE!" .... Hi-5's ensue.
K... what was I blabberin' on about before?
Oh yeah! No... in a civilized world (laff), it seems the only proper way to go about messin' with toejam is with UN approval (and yeah, tanks and planes and alla rest of it). But like, lets assume Mr. Hussein has a difference of opinion with the US. Perhaps they smell funny to him. Just what the hell is he gonna do about it? "Yes Mr. Kofi please, we entertain a greivance". Uh huh right.
Now don't get me wrong.... Iraq is like a toejamE example....heh completely absurd... but I'm havin a goof here and pretty much wingin' it - SUE ME.
But.... on some level.... What if Saddam said: "Know what? I got a sneaking suspicion the US has weapons of mass destruction and it turns out, they don't really like us so much. Now I aint one to split hairs here but I think we got some kind of self preservation issue arisin'. That's just a guess but... Yo Kof! Can I get a witness!" And Kofi's like, "Dude, do I know you?"
And Saddam's like... "Hey man I'm in a real pickle here. A real fricken bind. Throw me a bone here.... something."
And Kof's all like "Ssssshhht Jesus Christ will ya quiet down? Last time I checked your sig wasn't on my pay check. You damn well KNOW I can't authorize some kinda regime change on your behalf. That toejam aint CHEAP! Go back and run the numbers; count in triplicate the barrels and get Russia and France to sign on to your PO form and THEN maybe we'll get to the skinny. But aim HIGH dude, cuz this man Bush seems pretty determined, fascinated almost... not even almost... he's geeked out about the whole entire thing".
Oh crap I can't even continue with this goofiness. Too drunk. I apologize! :D
But it bugs me in a way. Minutes after 9/11 we get someone at state goin' "Sir we have to parlay this into a reason for an attack on Iraq". (huh? where did that come from?) Then we get this other guy saying "No no, George, we can't roll out this product, this war, during the summer... the play is bad and sheep feed in the fall". Some geek tellin' folks to "watch what they say and do". Donald screeching "oh for the love of GOD let us blast stuff up!". Nuther guy beggin' for the right to tap every phone line and dig through yer c: drive no doubt outta prurient interests cuz he aint gettin' it at home or some such other catholic type weirdness.
It's odd... "republicans and individual rights". I just don't get that. "Hello, this is the operator. Will you accept a long distance collect call from DISCONNECT?"
Hmm... back to the front....
It's the economy, stupid? No way - it's the WAR stupid. Any war.
Anyone seen anything substantial on Iraq's nuke program? You seen it Rip? Have You Eagler? I'm guessing no, you haven't. Oh wait, you have?!!! What is it! Do fill us in. Oh.... ok... no... you haven't. All you know is that Bush says there's all kinds of nastiness going on. How luscious for you. Er, don't feel left out - he aint givin' anyone else any more info than he's giving you.
But appearently we're all in need of a regime change over there. Cuz it's important to us and everything.
Back to the thing I started this total nonesense with... political assasination. I guess Hussein tried to off Bush Sr. Well hell, I'd be RIGHT pissed if someone tried to do that to my dad. I might even order men and tanks and planes and alla rest of it to go in and set that POS straight.
We humans... we're pathetic, really. :)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Someone wrote:
Newflash:The U.S. doesn't import heroin and cocaine.It is SMUGGLED in because the U.S. has ruled it's use illegal.
Heh newsflash: the Iraqi's do not import . It's smuggled in because the world has ruled its use illegal.
The Iraqis are just the consumers. Just as the yanks are with cocaine.
The only wee bit of difference is that a some of the stuff smuggled in is done so with the governments blessing.
Seen from a social perspective, Iraq is just a small subculture within the society known as the World. Sorta like drug users in the US.
At any rate, we get a war. Damned thread hijackers :D
Ummm...there is a bit of difference here.The U.S. actively tries to stop the import of Heroin and Cocaine,and NONE of the stuff smuggled in has the government's blessing.
Iraq has been exporting goods(I.E.-oil)not to buy food for the people,but to rebuild it's military and and possibly weapons of mass destruction.This however,is being done BY the Iraq regime,and is hardly being slipped in unnoticed.
I guess Saddam is sitting in his palace,wringing his hands while those nasty ol' Iraq smugglers export his oil,and buy weapons.I'll bet as I type this,he is probably trying to figure out a way to stop it.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Staga
So is there any new cool and sexy weapons we could see in CNN?
I hope the quality of the pictures taken from guidance cameras of the missiles are better now, those B&W footages were not looking too "high-tech" :)
how about this stuff (http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst.jsp?view=story&id=news/aw1004dir.xml)
-
.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
We are there and I would bet that on more than a few occasions Saddam himself has been in one of our operatives scopes crosshairs.
;)
-
Like any scapegoat out there ;)
-
question...
the war has begun and ..
saddam and his merry band of arse kissers turn up in location for some real hi level meeting.
Our military knows 100% they are there. But we can't get to him by any other means than a couple of cruise missiles or smart bombs. We know he is in this location of say about 6 buildings. To be sure he & his crew are taken out, we'd have to destroy all the buildings. Problem is the other buildings are full of men, women & children used as human shields. Say btwn 50 to 100 of them.
question:
would America have the it in them to do what Israel would do in like situation?
Would the media understand and support such action, would the public?
would you?
think in terms of how many US lives it would save ...
how about before he launches a chemical/bio attack on Israel or our ground troops? what about after such an attack, would that change your mind? WHy? there would still be 100 civies dead ..
-
Eagler the question would be would we ever know who was in the other buildings? Our side could say all the people were bad and their people would say they were all civillians.
How would we know for sure AND would we really care?