Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on January 21, 2003, 03:27:32 AM
-
Yep, Bin Laden despises Hussein. He's a secular ruler who has persecuted the Shi'ite marsh Arabs and is an obstacle to the instigation of Shariah law in Iraq. Shariah law is the very cornerstone of Bin Laden's crusade against the West.
During the last Gulf War, he wanted to send his nut-jobs to go take out Saddam, but Saudi Arabia wouldn't let him. Maybe his men would have succeeded - afterall they were CIA trained. Makes you wonder how much influence the Saudis have over him.
Strange how this hasn't been mentioned by Blair and Co. Instead we are lead to believe they are best buds, and are godfathers to each other's sons or something. If Al Queda were in Iraq, they could well have been there to subvert the government, just like they do with any other secular state.
Some other interesting facts:
1) Poison gas was cleared for use against Iraqi tribes in 1919 by the British, but lack of an effective delivery system prevented deployment - the intent was there
2) Indescriminate bombing of women and children in Iraq was a tactic espoused by Churchill himself
3) We scoff at Hussein's rigged elections. The British put a king on the throne without any mandate from the people 60 years ago.
Hardly safe moral high ground upon which to perch.
What disgusts me about this inevitable war, is the way Bush linked Iraq to the WTC attacks on the VERY day of the anniversary of the attack. That made me angry. Here's a man, along with half of his administration, that has deep ties with the oil exploration and exploitation industry, using the death of 3000 of his own people to justify an attack on one the most oil rich countries in the world. It stinks to high heaven.
Saddam is undoubtedly a threat, but North Korea is so nuts, even the Chinese have distanced themselves from the regime. They send 20 scuds to Yemen, a country with strong links to Al Queda, and the story disappears within days. They reinstate a nuclear weapons program and threaten war, while throwing inspectors out, and the US and UK send another 50,000 troops to the Gulf. We're told diplomacy will work with Korea, but not with Iraq. The former is run by a man who is quite prepared to watch millions of his people starve, but he's deemed a reasonable participant in a diplomatic effort?
-
Ayup.
Prepare your flame suit though. You're a liberal and therefore wrong per definition. Bush is a good man and cannot have ulterior motives. It's just not so that a God fearing Republican can be capable of making a few bucks and staying in power by using cheap tricks.
That's what immoral indecent lustful dumbocrats are for.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
.....Some other interesting facts:
Poison gas was cleared for use against Iraqi tribes in 1919 by the British.........Indescriminat e bombing of women and children in Iraq was a tactic espoused by Churchill himself...... British put a king on the throne without any mandate... ..
wow.... didn't realize the British were such sons o' squeakes. I guess haggis and kidney pie mess with your brain.;)
-
wow.... didn't realize the British were such sons o' squeakes. I guess haggis and kindey pie mess with your brain.
Every nation on the world has his share of SOBs...
-
I have resolved that I shall no longer cast pearls before swine.
Its not worth the grief nor is it going to change any Die Hard Nationalists.
Apparantly I am an Anti-American Communist so what do I know.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Ayup.
Prepare your flame suit though. You're a liberal and therefore wrong per definition. Bush is a good man and cannot have ulterior motives. It's just not so that a God fearing Republican can be capable of making a few bucks and staying in power by using cheap tricks.
That's what immoral indecent lustful dumbocrats are for.
Eh eh, Santa, God is with you!
:)
-
yep, you finally figured it all out ...
OBL is really the good guy and Bush is really the bad guy :rolleyes:
-
Where did Dowding say that OBL was the good guy??? Oh yeah, I forgot, he is a liberal communist america-hater... :rolleyes:
-
Case in point...any second now Grun should walk in :D
-
The fact Saudi Arabia did not let him and used the US instead is what drove him into the final stages of his meltdown. Since then Saddam is much more an enemy of the US in Bin Laden's eyes than he is an enemy of Bin Laden.
-
I think it's kinda dumb to portray Sadam as friend of fundementalits based on past behavior. But then again Saddam used to be our ally and then he turned on us and invaded Kuwait and started towards Saudi Arabia, clearly an act contrary to US interests - so I dont think he is neccesarily beyond teaming up with anyone wanting to hurt america if it would suit him. Plus I think the case to oust saddam, which I think is unavoidable because he will never give up his desire for WMD, can be made on the merits of his individual actions alone.
So what do you want out of this post Dowding? Should we just drop the Iraq business ad invade NK? Perhaps do both? Somehow I dont think you really care or have any ideas yourself, seeing as you both disagree with a war strategy per iraq and a negotiation strategy per NK. Pardon me if I get the wrong idea here but it seems you just get off disagreeing woth whatever Bush is doing.
-
Why did he invade Kuwait? Because they were slant drilling Iraq's oilfields. If anyone were to slant drill any other coutries oil fields i'm sure they would be pretty peeved too.
-
Politics is just what fit's the lane best.
I think North Korea is more dangerous than Iraq at the moment to.
On the otherhand Saddam is an awful dictator, under whom Iraqy people suffer very hard.
Communism is dictatorship to, N-koreans suffer under that to.
But we can only guess that coz the country is totaly isolated.
Wich is very frightning, and they do have nuclear weapons.
Iraq is a very big oil exploitant who cannot sell oil so this oil is gonna be cheap when this country is invaded.
Hell money is involved it's very obviously.
Money fits the lane.
There is nothing to get in North Korea.
Blind political leaders are our greatest enemy
BUSH IS AN IDIOT!!!!!!
-
We should have listened to Robert LaFollette.
-
Originally posted by Toad
We should have listened to Robert LaFollette.
it's a joke or it's his real name ???
:) :) :)
-
So Bug do we attack NK now or do we negotiate?
-
Originally posted by thrila
Why did he invade Kuwait? Because they were slant drilling Iraq's oilfields. If anyone were to slant drill any other coutries oil fields i'm sure they would be pretty peeved too.
Yep just like all those nasty subhuman Polacks mistreaing the Volksdeutsche forced Hitler into WW2... How unfair that such upsanding fellas like Hussein, Hitler and Stalin are always forced into invading their evil neighbors... :(
-
A couple of things to remember...
1. Alot of people, including many (now dead) Iraqis (along with their extended Families) have wanted to kill S. Hussein since the day he came into any kind of real power. It's not 1% as easy as it sounds. When it comes to outsmarting would-be assassins he has alot of experience - and obviously some natural talent because he's been doing it successfully for so long.
'Slant drilling oil fields'? Well, at the time of the invasion of Kuwait that was not on the list of Iraqi 'reasons'. If it were such a justifiable provocation, why wasn't it mentioned? If it were really happening, why did so many Arab led Nations join the coalition vs. Iraq on the premise of 'defending a small Arab Brother from unjust and unprovoked invasion by a more powerful Arab Brother'? People seem to forget that Iraq was given no small number of warning, over a time period spanning a couple of months, to leave Kuwait.
2. North Korea is both more and less dangerous, and in very imporant ways.
2A. In terms of WMD, it is infinitely more monitorable. When the reactors begin to be employed for the production of weapons grade fissionables, the concerned Nations will know overnight. From that point onward, there is a well known rate of production when it comes to enough material to make a nuclear weapon. We're talking in terms of 1 weapon/x month(s) here. If and when production is actually begun, and has gone on for some time, expect bad things to happen.
2B. It is much more dangerous in terms of innocent lives threatened to attack N. Korea than it is to attack Iraq. Iraq's AD network, C3 network, etc. are very well documented/targeted/etc. If Iraq wants to take innocents down with itself in a 'blaze of glory' the main option is poorly guided and somewhat interceptable bio/chem armed missiles at Israel. N. Korea, using artillery, could effectively eliminate Seoul at the outset of any war (for those not aware, Seoul is in range of thousands of N. Korean artillery pieces).
In other words, you want to shut down Iraq *before* they get anywhere near N. Koreas capabilities. Mainly due to proliferation and 'region control' issues.
N. Korea has China as a next-door neighbor, and Russia as a close neighbor. Both of these Nations do not want N. Korean nuclear weapons leaving N. Korea in the hands of private parties. With the help of China, Russia, and Japan N. Korea could be very effectively isolated (if need be).
Iraq has much less predictable types as neighbors, and isn't 'blockadable by sea' along most of its borders. If Iraq developed a nuclear weapon there'd be almost no way for someone to stop it from being smuggled somewhere (and we wouldn't know when it was produced - unlike the case with N. Korea stated above).
Also, China and Russia are very dependent on trade with Japan for economic stability and prosperity. N. Korea knows it would be a province of China in about 1.5 weeks if it fired a WMD at Japan. Sadly, Iraq knows it would be the 'Hero of the Arab world' with many Arabs if it fired such a weapon at Israel and scored a hit. The major thing preventing this - even S. Hussein knows that if he ordered a WMD fired at Israel that Israel would kill him at all costs. Unafraid to commit attrocities and Unafraid of certain death are 2 different things entirely.
In short, N. Korea has to be handled more delicately. Iraq needs to be sorted out before it reaches a point where it has to be handled more delicately.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. The world is a dangerous and rough place. The British were brutal because you couldn't maintain an Empire any other way. Calling them 'evil' because of those actions is like calling an 18th century doctor 'incompetent' because he used leeches. It's not a fair judgement - that was the way things were done back then.
-
Anyone here think that the US and UK won't go in before April? Seriously, now. It's inevitable. It's a 'done deal' as Jeb Bush would say. Before the US was persuaded to go the UN route, the determination to take Saddam down was there - the UN is a formality.
This is personified by Hans Blix himself. Empty shells do not constitute a material breech - I'm really interested to know exactly what the UK/US has on Saddam to warrant sending so many troops at this time. I want to see the material breech before any action is taken.
NK is a trickier proposition. A harder war, but the threat is greater in my opinion. Why not go there first? Pass a resolution about nuclear proliferation by Korea, get a coalition together including China maybe.
Now you have a large part of the British army on its way or standing in the desert. A third of our country's army FFS.
Meanwhile, amidst all this confusion you have decisions that have been very controversial being passed. The US missile defense shield project has been given the go ahead to upgrade the radar station at RAF Fylingdale. Passed, agreed, signed - as Tommy Cooper would say - 'just like that'. No parliamentary debate. Nothing.
Meanwhile, we have nutcases, who have spent time in Yemen etc coming to the UK as assylum seekers and then spitting their poison on national TV etc.
Toad - LaFollette had some good ideas on racial equality and governmental reforms, but that's not really what this thread is about. Good effort though. Could do better. Unless you want to elaborate in the direction I know you're going with that statement... :p
-
We'll deal with NK when we are ready....and without the help from any of you, of that I'm certain. Well, maybe the Brits...I've always been partial to them....they have salt and have walked a tough path requiring tough decisions. The problem is that just like in America, too many of them have forgotten or never learned what it took by others to give them the choices they now enjoy.
-
You make a good argument wulfie, and I see the logic behind most of it. It's going to be interesting how the US/UK deals with Korea.
Rude - did you make those sacrifices you talk so readily of?
I'm sick of hearing people allude to a parallel between the war in Iraq versus WW2 (for instance). Fresh shiny apples and rotten, dirty oranges.
-
I'd guess some ppl ( the libs of the time) were comparing WW2 to WW1 in the same light, eh DOwding?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I'd guess some ppl ( the libs of the time) were comparing WW2 to WW1 in the same light, eh DOwding?
That makes no sense.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You make a good argument wulfie, and I see the logic behind most of it. It's going to be interesting how the US/UK deals with Korea.
Rude - did you make those sacrifices you talk so readily of?
I'm sick of hearing people allude to a parallel between the war in Iraq versus WW2 (for instance). Fresh shiny apples and rotten, dirty oranges.
My family lost life to uphold what we believe in....they paid for what we have as a nation today. I myself pay everyday in a different way. I watch my money support folks that bite the hand that feeds them. My point is this....if ya think we are pickin on poor old Saddaam or little o'l NK, then I would back off entirely and let you folks deal with it....oh wait, I forgot. The UN already dealt with this issue...17 resolutions not kept nor inforced.
You must expect us to lose another 3000 lives or worse before we recieve your approval to take action? I hope Bush runs that coward in Iraq into a hole so deep he won't know what hit him. When it's over, let's see how upset the Iraqi citizenship really is along with the other Arab leaders on the block.
And before I go, why don't you tell us how you became so wise as to know what Bush and his Administrations true intent is by taking this action. At least I'm secure enough to admit that I don't really know for sure....I can only support my president until he proves he doesn't deserve it.
I know this....Sadaam is a tyrant and a murderer....you want to align yourself with him, it wouldn't suprise me a bit.
You guys and your polyanna viewpoints are laughable....it's not a fair world nor is it just...not all solutions and methods have the luxury of being squeeky clean, feel good kinda choices.
The most amusing aspect of this type of thread is how you criticize, yet offer nothing as an alternative.
What would you do Dowding, as the American President?
-
Dowding,
I think if war in Iraq is a 'forgone conclusion' it isn't because the U.S. is 'spoiling for war'.
The big problem with having any chance of a peaceful resolution of the situation is this - S. Hussein is a brutal dictator. His grip on power, and his security, is maintained by threats, fear, etc.
He can't back down. The moment he shows some weakness there's a good chance of one of his highest ranking subordinates having him killed ("He's weak, we've never seen him back down before have we? Join me we can kill him and seize control!", etc.).
That's why every rumor of him making arrangements 'for deportation to a neutral Nation' is immediately denounced by the Iraqi (and totally S. Hussein controlled government).
It's known he's been hoarding cash, diamonds, etc. for a long time - that's where alot of the $$$ generated thru 'U.N. sanctioned' oil sales has been going since '92 or so (and why so many people 'in the know' get supremely annoyed about media reports stating that the U.N. sanctions are responsible for starvation, infant mortality, etc. in Iraq - if S. Hussein gave a damn about his people the $$$ generating capability is there to feed them and get them medical treatment - every notice how kids are dying in Iraq from malnutrition every day...but S. Hussein's entourage always has 'this year's Mercedes-Benz' as the standard vehicle?). If his close associates discovered he had a plan to leave the country for some estate in a secure part of some 'neutral' Nation, some of his 'confidants' would take a crack at killing him for the cached $$$ alone.
Now I'll admit that the U.S. probably knows they have him backed into a corner. I.e. they know that the chance of him allowing the U.N. full access, etc. is almost zero (that would show weakness as well). But if he's being 'hoist on his own tyrannical petard' you can't blame the U.S. for it.
If it was a Nation of free individuals, with a truly representative government, he wouldn't have to fear for his life upon losing his power. Richard Nixon broke the rules in a major way, and he had to go. He stepped down. He was never afraid of a coup putting him in a shallow grave somewhere in Camp David.
Basically, some Senior Iraqi is going to have to take care of business for war to be averted...unless S. Hussein manages to set up a 'way out' and then decides to use it. He may not care - he's a little 'nutty' (NOT the same as foolish) in his old age.
If he backs down before the U.N., he'll be dead at the hands of his own guys inside of a year I think.
Conventional wisdom says the attack would have to start before the temperature gets too high in the region.
That's my take on it.
And don't worry about your guys being gone from the U.K. for too long. If and when the attack goes down it's going to be over very, very quickly. Allied C3I is 10x better (or more) than it was in '91. Iraqi C3I is both degraded and there's also been 9+ years of constant recon vs. the Iraqi military.
Mike/wulfie
-
Dowding:
You guys want the missile defense shield active. Every Nation in Europe should want it active. 5 years before most of the potential 'nutball leaders' in 'Eurasia' have the ability to launch on the U.S. you guys will be within effective range.
Mike/wulfie
-
If you bother to remember, the first PR aim of the administration was to capitalize on the terrorist angle which failed - just like the first attempt to paint Kuwait as a fight to free a democratic regime from tyranny failed in the Gulf War. The PR “spin” fall back that worked in the polls the first time was WMD, and since you have basically the same team in power today making the decisions, it's not surprising to see the justification being used again. It’s a lot easier to let your countrymen die, and to kill others if you feel it’s because of a personal threat.
We probably realized after Sept 11 just how unstable our friendship is with Saudi Arabia, the real partner of terrorists. An Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia would be devastating to the world economy. While mainly Europe gets its oil from Saudi Arabia, all the oil used in the world can be considered as coming from the same production pool. Remove production, the pool gets smaller and prices go up for all.
Iraq provides a buffer to this loss of oil. Ancillary benefits and justifications include:
1. Saddam is really a bad guy, and a running pain in the bellybutton for any administration dealing with tat region.
2. Iraqi oil is low sulfur, which helps with the coming diesel sulfur rules I believe.
3. There are infrastructure opportunities.
4. Multinational oil companies should benefit in the US and Western Europe, though France and Russia might lose out. However, both countries are working to become players in the eventuality of a change in power in Iraq.
5. The issue is "personal" for Bush.
Chemical and biological weapons are low tech and available, potentially, to just about any nation. Nuclear is much harder, but easier to contain with the border, surveillance and trade controls we have in place in Iraq. WMD do pose a threat, but the threat comes in the form of regional leverage as opposed to an attack on NY or Chicago, which has more emotional appeal at the polls. Unlike the NK leadership, you get the impression that Saddam wouldn’t use a WMD until Delta Force was blowing in the doors. He’s a survivor who didn’t get where he is today by doing dumb things. Kuwait wasn’t even so dumb, considering he apparently though it was outside our area of serious concern.
The question is, does ensuring the safe supply of oil for the continued survival of Western economies justify a proactive military action that will cost the lives of both allied and enemy forces and civilians (real, human lives, your son, for example). I'm not so sure it does right now, but my mind might change in the middle of a steep, worldwide depression. I suppose I'm just aggravated that it's PR as usual instead of an honest debate, but the honest debate is harder to spin. Oil isn't a factor? Right.
Charon
-
One thing that's funny about WWII.
All of Europe except Britain experienced occupation. Britain experienced the Blitz.
Americans were safe at home, life going on as normal. Yet sometimes it seems as if the Americans understand the suffering during that time best, since they sent troops to Europe. I do not want to diminish the effort by those fighting men, but I need to state that they were soldiers, not civilians.
There's been two world wars fought here. I can say that's its now rooted itself deep in the cultural consciousness of Europeans. Perhaps it is why things aren't as black or white here as in the US. I don't know.
I'm thankful for the sacrifices done by the US during that time, but one must remember that just about everything was done to avert WWII - leniency to the extreme. When it did happen, everyone suffered.
Although WWII was tough on the US it was not near as tough as for Germans, Russians, Chinese and so forth.
Our collective psyche has 'been there, done that'. The US hasn't. It's a bit preposterous to suggest that the US knows more about the sufferings of war, since none in modern time has been fought on the US mainland.
One tires of 'we saved your arse, therefore you must agree with everything we do' type arguments. This is especially true since those who argue for a military solution are in a tough spot, since the same argument can be made about NK - then the former 'warmongers' would be 'ignorant doves allowing evil' if they dinnae agree to an attack on NK
Am beginning to feel old as of late. Mayhap I should stay away from this board for a bit.
-
StSanta, apparantly a small British isle was occupied :)
It was just a small Isle but still qualifies no? :D
-
Diplomacy, preparation for war, and war are all part of the same spectrum. I believe to the core of my being that there would be no inspectors in Iraq today without the threat of action by President Bush and the active support of PM Blair and other Western leaders. Without the credible threat of unilateral (read this as non-UN-sanctioned) military action by the US and other like-minded nations, the resolution re-instituting the inspections would not have been passed (unanimously, in case some have forgotten). Without the hawkish posture of the Bush administration, Iraq might have simply ignored the resolution. In other words, Bush is playing the diplomacy game, and doing it effectively. You can choose to believe he is just a dumb bully, but I do not.
Take a look at how this is playing out. They (Iraq) acknowledged Resolution 1444 (number?) reluctantly, believing the US and its allies would invade if they didn’t. They began almost immediately to play the same old games to buy time for international resolve to disintegrate. I offer the 12,000 page “declaration” as proof, along with Iraqi insistence that it was full and complete (hint: it wasn’t even close, and even Hans Blix, a man who’s past words and actions make it clear he’d rather believe Iraq’s assurances than find the truth, said it was 12,000 pages of doggie dung). The inspectors report that Iraq is not truly cooperating, and that this must change. The US and UK continue to work the diplomatic scene to build a “coalition of the willing”, while building that credible threat to the point that it’s clear we’re committed to a military solution if need be.
Knowing the US and its allies (allies against Iraqi, not necessarily other traditional allies like France and Germany) see the 27 Jan report to the UN Sec. Council as a go/no-go decision point on material breach, Iraq suddenly softens their tone and pledge greater cooperation (again, playing same old game). The discovery of the nuke program papers in Bahgdad and the chem.-weapon shells further softens Iraq defiance. Why? Because they know that if Blix and the IAE guy (sorry, can’t remember his name) report on 27 Jan that Iraq isn’t cooperating, then by the UN-agreed to resolution they will be in material breach. Military action will be assured, because Iraq believes Bush and Blair when they say, “Enough is enough!” Again, the tough talk by Bush and Blair, backed up by obvious preparations for war are forcing Iraq to cooperate. “If you would have peace, be thou then prepared for war.” Bush understands this. Will it be enough to force Iraqi disarmament and (possible) a regime change? Perhaps, perhaps not. The danger of carrying the big stick is that you may have to use it.
On the other hand, a bunch of Arab neighbors of Iraq are pressuring Suddam to go into exile. His own generals have probably already told him they can’t win a war with the West. I don’t believe Suddam cares about the Iraqi people, but I do believe he cares about himself. I believe he fears death. There is hope he may yet capitulate if he believes it’s the only way to personally survive. But he will not believe that unless he believes the US-led coalition is ready and willing to take him out by force…period.
N. Korea is a different story, and a different situation. Anyone complaining that the US should be dealing with these two partners in the Axis of Evil in the same way is hopelessly naive regarding geopolitics and diplomacy. One-size-fits-all international relations are impractical if not impossible. It is possible and even practical to remain consistent in our stance on WMD proliferation while still being flexible in how we deal with rogue nations attempting to procure/proliferate them. In closing, please remember that Suddam, not Bush, has not only sought to increase his WMD capability, but has used it against his own people and his neighbors. Suddam, not Bush, has ruthlessly oppressed, tortured, murdered, and starved his own people and the people of neighboring countries. The US has spent considerable resources in developing weapons that defeat the enemy with a minimum loss of non-combatant life, while Suddam has been doing the opposite. I challenge anyone to argue that Suddam’s Iraq is only [barely] contained today because Bush senior and Bush junior (and of course other stout-hearted leaders from allied nations) were willing to lead, rather than simply dither and fret through the dark corridors of UN impotence.
-
Originally posted by Ping
StSanta, apparantly a small British isle was occupied :)
It was just a small Isle but still qualifies no? :D
So was Guam. Now quit splitting hairs.
(http://image1ex.villagephotos.com/extern/640697.jpg)
-
for your information LaFollette sound like "the Gayette" in french poor guy :D
-
Sabre, the 1991 war came as a result of a UN resolution. I know the US dislikes the UN. I think part of the reason is because it's an alternative source of authority - although the US has great influence, it doesn't have total influence. And why should the biggest baddest boy on the playground have to listen to a collection of lesser ones?
My point about Iraq/NK war was to merely point of the possible hypocricy involved. One can easily argue for a war against NK. one can easily argue for a war against Iraq. But it is also possible to argue against war *in both cases*. if one does that, then the 'you follow we lead, you're indecisive, we take action' comments are warranted.
And in the case where such comments are voiced one place and then the other sides arguments taken on the oterh - well. I I hope you see my point. Nothing naeive about it - just pointing out an argumentative trap, if you will.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Sabre, the 1991 war came as a result of a UN resolution. I know the US dislikes the UN. I think part of the reason is because it's an alternative source of authority - although the US has great influence, it doesn't have total influence.
please explain what the UN is without the US?
an indecisive, hand wringing paper tiger
And why should the biggest baddest boy on the playground have to listen to a collection of lesser ones?.
we are the biggest gooddest boy on the playground & don't have to listen to a collection of the lesser ones :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we are the biggest gooddest boy on the playground & don't have to listen to a collection of the lesser ones :)
atchaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
self assessment.
-
My family lost life to uphold what we believe in....they paid for what we have as a nation today.
And mine didn't? Does your sacrifice give you the right to make condescending remarks such as:
"The problem is that just like in America, too many of them have forgotten or never learned what it took by others to give them the choices they now enjoy."
...to anyone who might hold a contrary view to yours? Furthermore, doesn't it strike you as a little ridiculous to bask in the reflected glory of deceased relatives by taking that position?
I myself pay everyday in a different way. I watch my money...
To go on to talk about the 'sacrifice' you make in same breath as talking about war-dead is frankly bordering on the comical. You make a sacrifice? By paying income tax? By using your VISA? Jesus, maybe you were right afterall - people have forgotten why people gave their lives so many years ago - and, ironically, you are a case in point.
You must expect us to lose another 3000 lives or worse before we recieve your approval to take action?
Saddam Hussein had nothing, nada, to do with WTC. In 12 years he's had the time to cook something like that up - but hasn't. Saudi Arabia had more to do with the WTC attack than Iraq. Yet who's our 'ally'?
I know this....Sadaam is a tyrant and a murderer....you want to align yourself with him, it wouldn't suprise me a bit.
Oh purleaze.
The most amusing aspect of this type of thread is how you criticize, yet offer nothing as an alternative.
What would you do Dowding, as the American President?
Like I would get to be American president even if I was American!
I've already detailed the alternative - keep the inspectors in Iraq, get tough with Korea.
And I'd definitely stop the tri-weekly 'I'm getting tired of you, Saddam - I'm impatient - time is running out' rhetoric that's been coming out of Washington in the last few weeks. As if sending carrier group upon carrier group doesn't show true intentions? Or tens of thousands of troops? The Iraqis know what's coming.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Sabre, the 1991 war came as a result of a UN resolution. I know the US dislikes the UN. I think part of the reason is because it's an alternative source of authority - although the US has great influence, it doesn't have total influence. And why should the biggest baddest boy on the playground have to listen to a collection of lesser ones?
My point about Iraq/NK war was to merely point of the possible hypocricy involved. One can easily argue for a war against NK. one can easily argue for a war against Iraq. But it is also possible to argue against war *in both cases*. if one does that, then the 'you follow we lead, you're indecisive, we take action' comments are warranted.
And in the case where such comments are voiced one place and then the other sides arguments taken on the oterh - well. I I hope you see my point. Nothing naeive about it - just pointing out an argumentative trap, if you will.
StSanta, I respectfully disagree. The resolution you refer to that "authorized" the first Gulf War to was only passed after it was clear that the USA and allies were going to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, with or without UN approval. Some parallels with our present situation, I'd say. And no, I don't believe the USA dislikes the UN because it's an alternate source of authority. Rather, it's the fact that the UN has become a forum for stalling and ineffectiveness, full of hypocracy and riddled through and through with anti-western bias.
I also disagree that there is hypocracy inherent on the USA's different approaches to dealing with North Korea and Iraq. I have four children. I try to be consistent in the values I hold them to, but how I achieve that differs from child to child. So it goes with dealing with other people...and other nations. The message to both countries is the same. WMD proliferation is bad and you should stick by the promises you've made to stop doing this. The geopolitcal situation, internally and regionally, along with where each of these two contries is at in the WMD development timeline dictates a different approach. However, I welcome the reasoned discourse you bring to the discussion.
-
You guys want the missile defense shield active. Every Nation in Europe should want it active. 5 years before most of the potential 'nutball leaders' in 'Eurasia' have the ability to launch on the U.S. you guys will be within effective range.
You are unusually misinformed, wulfie. The shield does not protect the UK. There are no plans for it to protect the UK or any other part of Europe, in the future. It makes the UK a target for a pre-emptive strike, simply because we have a key part of a system that offers no benefit to us, on our soil.
Or maybe that's the idea? Use the UK to 'draw them out', thus giving the US valuable minutes to launch a retaliatory strike.
It makes me wonder what kind of deal was done over this... I have no qualms over mutual defense. We all need that. But this just isn't it.
Perhaps the US will donate one of their older carriers in return? :)
-
Santa....
Ya think it's possible that this time around, appeasment may not be the best solution?
And regarding NK....we will go there next. Many here would prefer to see Bush go down rather than Sadaam....he has made a wise choice to fight our fights on our terms and no one else's.
I believe, not specific to all who post here, but in general, Europeans suffer from Empire Envy.
I personally believe all of this must take place and I believe as well, that it will get much worse....anti- Americanism will flourish in the years to come and collectively, Europe will move against the US and specifically Isreal....anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe as well as the US.
Not a good time in history to worship yourself.
-
Rude why do you and other use those "anti" word when someone disagree with you ?
When I'm against actual Isrealy(American) policy I become an anti-sémite(anti-American) ?
-
Originally posted by Rude
And regarding NK....we will go there next.
What are next weeks lotto numbers please.
Many here would prefer to see Bush go down rather than Sadaam....he has made a wise choice to fight our fights on our terms and no one else's.
Oh roadkill. Is that why he capitulated to France and Russia? If he was fighting the fight on his terms, then the security council would have adopted the US plan for a resolution.
I believe, not specific to all who post here, but in general, Europeans suffer from Empire Envy.
What crap. Oh yes, eveyone is envious of the US. I believe that Americans have some sort of sad desire to feel like everyone envies them. Some sort of justification. "See Iraq, ya they envy us." "See the terrorists, ya they envy us to." "See Europe, more envy there." What a poor explantion for anti-americanism.
I personally believe all of this must take place and I believe as well, that it will get much worse....anti- Americanism will flourish in the years to
Well gee, maybe if Bush wasn't such a unilateral potato peeler, this wouldn't happen. Maybe if he didn't try to run roughshod over other countries, other countries wouldn't be as anti-american.
Anti-americanism has been growing all over the world since Bush got into power. Now either the rest of the world has suddenly become deranged (must be all that pent up envy being released :rolleyes:) or Bush is moron and his foreign policy is toejam.
-
Thrawn.......
I understand this is tough for you to swallow, but your opinion of things is just plain wrong, while mine is precisely correct.
Sucks don't it?
Straffo....
My use of the word anti, had nothing to do with anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me....it's just a word describing a sentiment which exists in this world of ours. Don't take it personally as it was not meant that way:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Thrawn.......
I understand this is tough for you to swallow, but your opinion of things is just plain wrong, while mine is precisely correct.
Sucks don't it?
Classic Rudeism. :D
-
Well argued Thrawn. Don't agree with everything you wrote, but you sure wrote it purdy.:)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You are unusually misinformed, wulfie.
I don't know about the 'unusually' part, but in this case...you're it! :)
The missile defense program is a very wide one. The part of it that primarily makes the (irresponsible) media reports is the part that would protect the U.S.A. from an ICBM launched from China.
I say irresponsible because the U.S. based media somehow overlooked the fact that the Russians began secret, and totally 'illegal' (per signed treaties) work on missile defense systems back in the mid-1970s. There were radar arrays detected in/around Moscow that were purpose built for the direction of anti-ICBM defenses. So calling the U.S. missile defense plan 'destabalizing' wasn't a really accurate thing to say.
Anyways - back to the point - the missile defense program in it's entirety has many different components. One of the most important is the 'theater' missile defense shield. This part is one of the most important as it's designed to prevent a medium range missile from being used vs. friendly troops operating away from the U.S.A., or - in your case - a medium range missile fired from one Nation to another nearby Nation.
This is why alot of the tests have involved Aegis-class cruisers. One of the main ideas behind theater-level defense is to base it on the very powerful (and presently very underutilized) Aegis equipped warships. There have been briefings and concept write-ups involving the positioning of such ships in the gulf of Arabia to protect friendly troops involved in combat in the middle East and/or to protect Israel. The same briefings detail positioning such warships in the English channel and/or the Adriatic Sea to protect large areas of Europe from mid-range missiles.
This is why China (due to Taiwan) is so pissed by the idea. They already hate the fact that the U.S. keeps some Aegis equipped warships very near Taiwan (guranteeing massive Chinese air losses in case of an attempted invasion). But when these warships can act as part of a theater missile defense system the medium range missiles targeted on Taiwan are no longer a 'sure bet'.
The whole point of the program as a whole is to prevent the 'rogue' use of missile delivered WMD by anyone. Think about it - 2 nuclear weapons targeted on 'the right 2' major cities in Europe would have a truly devastating effect on the world economy. Just defending the U.S.A. would almost be pointless - especially when you can cover almost anywhere with 'theater defenses' at a very small overall increase in cost.
Not to mention the fact that the 'annoying/clueless Cowboy attitude' of the U.S.A. (which can be naive at times for certain) - i.e. "We'll come fix 600 years of problems in a year or two becuase we know what's *right*" works both ways. The American public (for the most part, barring Jane Fonda and certain other groups) sees the world very much in terms of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Civilians in the U.K. and Europe are very much in the 'good guys' category. Can you imagine the public outcry in the U.S.A. if it was determined that the U.S.A. could have protected the U.K. from a rogue ICBM and didn't?
Warship deployable theater defense plays directly to 'our' strengths. This is the first time in history where 'the good guys' (U.S., U.K., N.A.T.O., Russia - i.e. predictable major powers with beneficial relationships) have total control of the sea. Think about that - for the previous 400 years no one group of Nations could basically operate 'unchallanged' at sea. That's not the case today. No Nation could keep 'us' (i.e. U.S., U.K., N.A.T.O., Russia) from deploying such a defense - anywhere in the world - for more than 2 months I'd say. And by 2 months I'm saying 'deploy into the most hotly contested areas', i.e. off the coast of India.
We couldn't let the U.K. get nuked. The loss in good beer and people to keep Germany from dominating the world cup would be unbearable. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Anti-americanism has been growing all over the world since Bush got into power.[/B]
I don't really buy this (and I'm not saying you, personally, are the only one saying this - I'm talking about 'media' reports mainly).
I have seen CNN reports of anti-U.S. demonstrations over the past 1.5 years, where there were 'counter' 'Pro-U.S.' demonstrations very nearby. I know because I was in the immediate area. The 'Pro-U.S.' demonstrations rarely make the news.
Take South Korea - everyone who can remember the Korean war is largely pro-U.S. The only reports on the 'opinion' of South Korea that you will ever see on any TV media have to do with 'angry anti-U.S. South Korean students'.
Go check out some Phillipino news sites on the internet. You hear about Phillipinos against U.S. military forces operating vs. terrorists in the Phillipines...but if you look at the actually regional coverage you have reporters (again, who never make CNN, etc.) from the 'North' who are terrified of the terrorist presence - they literally tear into those in the 'South' who argue vs. U.S. presence but have never been robbed, strong armed, etc. by the 'muslim rebels' (read: terrorists).
As far as unilateral - you need to be fair. If the U.S. was truly acting unilaterally, the pace of developing events in certain parts of the world would be far different. The inspection deadline is a deadline set by the U.N. Don't hammer the U.S. for 'being ready to go at the drop of a hat'.
I think 'anti-Americanism' is reported in such a way as to make it seem far more prevalent than it actually is. I *know* that alot of the 'international rebukes' delivered at the U.S. are primarily for 'internal consumption'.
Mike/wulfie
"Alllllllll weeeeeee aaaaaaaaaare saaaaaaaaaaayiiiiiiiiing, iiiiiiiiiiis giiiiiiiiiiiive the Maaaaaaaariiiiiiiiiiines a chaaaaaaaance". :)
Sorry, it had to be sung. :)
-
One last poke and I'm outta here:)
Has anyone noticed that a large majority of the disagreement and criticism comes from those outside the US borders?
Imagine that!
-
Very scientific analysis there Rude :)
You might want to actually look to see that there is a large number of US Civies, politicians, Vets against Unilateral action as well.
Seeing as how Bush is saying its to protect World Peace, guess that means we are involved :)
For the Record, There are a number of Foreign Diplomats working on the NK and Iraqi issues.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
I don't really buy this (and I'm not saying you, personally, are the only one saying this
I posted that based on some stats from international polls I saw recently, I'll try and find some numbers.
[QUTOE][As far as unilateral - you need to be fair. If the U.S. was truly acting unilaterally, the pace of developing events in certain parts of the world would be far different. The inspection deadline is a deadline set by the U.N. Don't hammer the U.S. for 'being ready to go at the drop of a hat'. [/QUOTE]
True enough, the US could be more unilateral. That doesn't mean that the current level isn't already pissing people off.
Has anyone noticed that a large majority of the disagreement and criticism comes from those outside the US borders?
That is because we aren't (*raising fists up and down in front of himself*) automaton robots. :D
-
lol
-
Sung to If You're Happy And You Know It
by John Robbins
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.
To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's all the proof we need,
If they're not there, they must be there,
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.
If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
Tronsky
-
ROTFL!! :)
Beautiful piece, it's yours?
-
'
That one was great tronski :D