Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on February 14, 2003, 04:53:44 PM
-
Irak has said it has nothing that with range enough to hit Isreal, it has said it has no WMD.
If one scud or any other type of missile is launched at Isreal or if one drop of bio or chem weapons are used, the USA will be justified in our action (as if we're not already). At which point the French and Germans should be kicked out of NATO and Russia and France should be kicked off the security councel or the UN be sent packing to Paris.
I'm just sayin!
-
I agree 100% on the justifiable attack on Irak if they use a weapon they said didnt exist.
I disagree 100% on your comments about France. What good is UN if nations are not allowed to disagree on an issue?
Why not just be up front and claim sovereignship on all world matters and simply say "This is what we are gonna do, if you dont like it, you cant do nothing about it"
If the US and UK dont like others disagreeing, then disband United Nations and do what they want. No one has the power to stop them, Its better than playing false diplomacy, which will lead into disaster.
-
Originally posted by Animal
I agree 100% on the justifiable attack on Irak if they use a weapon they said didnt exist.
I disagree 100% on your comments about France. What good is UN if nations are not allowed to disagree on an issue?
Why not just be up front and claim sovereignship on all world matters and simply say "This is what we are gonna do, if you dont like it, you cant do nothing about it"
If the US and UK dont like others disagreeing, then disband United Nations and do what they want. No one has the power to stop them, Its better than playing false diplomacy, which will lead into disaster.
Of course my rational side agrees with you animal. But I believe that France and Germany and most likely Russia (you know china is) playing false diplomacy, which could definitely lead to disaster. That's why I say that, that's why I'm so pissed at them. Saddam hasn't changed the rules he's playing by, he's done the same BS for 12 years now. toejam man firing on one US/UK plane enforcing a UN mandate should be enough to take his regiem out. He gave his 1/2 inch this week. Too little too late. If we have to act without the UN on this they are just as Bush said, nothing more than a debating society. It's time to give the Iraqi people a chance to live with out this murderer. But what if we do find that France and Germany and Russia have been supplying him with UN banned weapons? Then what?
And don't get me wrong, I'm scared toejamless about this. There are lots of ways this thing could explode into ww3. I very worried about what would happen if he attacks Isreal with chemicals or Bio weapons.
I'd like the UN behind us kind of, but I haven't trusted that organization in about 8 or 9 years anyway so I can live with out it. In a case like this I have no problem saying that the USA definitely is the moral side to this and should empose it's will on a "soveriegn" :rolleyes: nation.
-
So three members, out of many more, disagree on a UN issue. This case, an attack on Iraq
Cool, they have a right to disagree. That doesnt stop an attack. The attack goes.
That doesnt mean they should be kicked out of UN because they disagreed. That doesnt mean they are suddenly the enemy. And that does NOT mean they are enemies because some speech Bush said, which means N-O-T-H-I-N-G. That "you are either with us or against us" crap is VERY dangerous. The world is not so black and white.
Its a scary trend nowdays that anyone who disagrees = enemy. We even see it at home with Reps and Dems. They are no longer differing ideologies.
They are enemies, and would like to see each other dead even if they will never admit it.
Thats really dangerous, and it has parallels in the early century that led to disaster. Though I disagree somewhat with France's stand on this issue, I am adamantly opposed to those who which to ostracise them because they used their right as a free nation to disagree.
IMO that is very much against what the US stands for.
-
Well said Animal.
And to the point. Intolerance is the main issue that leads to strife.. war, whatever.
-
Originally posted by Animal
So three members, out of many more, disagree on a UN issue. This case, an attack on Iraq
Cool, they have a right to disagree. That doesnt stop an attack. The attack goes.
That doesnt mean they should be kicked out of UN because they disagreed. That doesnt mean they are suddenly the enemy. And that does NOT mean they are enemies because some speech Bush said, which means N-O-T-H-I-N-G. That "you are either with us or against us" crap is VERY dangerous. The world is not so black and white.
Its a scary trend nowdays that anyone who disagrees = enemy. We even see it at home with Reps and Dems. They are no longer differing ideologies.
They are enemies, and would like to see each other dead even if they will never admit it.
Thats really dangerous, and it has parallels in the early century that led to disaster. Though I disagree somewhat with France's stand on this issue, I am adamantly opposed to those who which to ostracise them because they used their right as a free nation to disagree.
IMO that is very much against what the US stands for.
I don't think I made my point clear. I am of the belief that those 3 nations have been breaking the UN "Law" by supplying Iraq with banned weapon materials. That's why I think they should be kicked off the security council (not out of the UN) I think Germany and Belgium should be kicked out of NATO for not supporting turkey, which is their obligation to do. Why should they benefit from NATO if they are not willing to shoulder the responsibility?
gotta go home and to the doctor, talk to you later :)
-
Good point, but I gotta leave too. Will reply later.
Hope this discussion remains the way its going so far.
-
Agreed Animal.
Fact is, we (the US) can quite capably handle the job alone. UN is nothing more than a tool that may have outlived it's usefulness. Really could care less whether France and Germany stay in NATO either. Of course should they find themselves in need of our help somewhere down the road their demands may fall on deaf ears. A risk they seem willing to take.
-
What do you think about millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq being channelled discreetly through European and other companies, in a practice that has highlighted the double standards now dominating relations between Baghdad and Washington after a decade of crippling sanctions?
Don't look now but Unka Dick Cheney is guilty of it. (http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm)
The Bush henchmen are as guilty as the French and Germans are of collaborating with the enemy....but hey it's all good, after all the Bush and Walker families have a long history of it....going back to supporting the Nazis in WW II.
-
I don't think anything will happen this weekend or next week. I think the US readiness is mostly a show of force to keep the pressure on Saddam. Same for all of the diplomatic bluster and the "accidental leaks" of info about US special forces and nuclear posture. Bush showed in Afghanistan that he is willing to "pull the trigger" and he is using this memory to full effect to bluff Saddam into compliance. If you get in a bar fight with two uglies and you put a pool cue through the trachea of one of them, it's going to make the other ugly think twice about messing with you. Saddam is just about impossible to bluff though, so I think it will eventually come down to a vulgar brawl. But Chimpy is giving him every chance to back his way out of a fight.
-
Originally posted by weazel
What do you think about millions of dollars of US oil business with Iraq being channelled discreetly through European and other companies,
Dude you need to check your sources. The very reason the French and Germans are desperately trying to save Saddams bellybutton is because French and German companies are sitting on the oil contracts right now. toejam weazel, you should at least get your basic facts straight before trolling, otherwise it is too easy to shoot your arguments down.
Bottom line:
What nations have the fat oil contracts with Iraq?
France and Germany
Iraq owes billions of dollars for pre91 weapons delieveries to what nations?
Russia and China
oo ooo look at the security counsel, what nations are screaming loudest against any war that will remove Saddam (and any current contracts/debts) and loudest for any kind of solution that will settle the Iraq question without changing government?
-
I find at amusing how there is this assumption by some that European governments are less controlled by business interests than the US government. Or that European citizens are less affected by their government's propaganda than US citizens. The fact is that French and German politicians answer to their industrial masters just like the Republicrats. And those polticians manipulate Euro media just like the Republicrats do the US media.
-
I agree with funked, Bush administration has done a great job with the Talk loudly and carry a big stick method so far . They've said from the beggining that they planned on doing this with a gun to Saddams head. The fewer Nato service men put in harms way the better . But we can't leave the area with Saddam still there, we'll just have to come back again if we do . So in the end I think there will have to be a military operation, but it will be no where near the scale of what it was 12 years ago like the CNN junkies are hoping for .
-
Did you even read the link I posted?
-
Yeah...does that make it more true?
Fact is you are full of it this time. French and German economic interests benefit right now. If Saddam is removed, these contracts are killed, and there will be a huge scramble as all oil companies tries to get their share. oo ooo Oil companies own stock in each other...big diddlying surprise weazel.
-
LOL too bad he has got me on his ignore list...shame, would have been fun to pick his post apart again.
-
Its a scary trend nowdays that anyone who disagrees = enemy. We even see it at home with Reps and Dems. They are no longer differing ideologies.
If a republican diasagrees with a democrat, a libertairian is not encouraged to rape his neigbors wife.
When diplomatic strength and resolve is required, France and Germany suddenly get weak knees. Saddam is encouraged to continue playing cat and mouse.
This has the hideous potential of costing even more lives. Every extra day that murdering dictator gets means a stronger better prepared iraq will be waiting to greet us... and just as dangerous.. gives the iraq's even more opportunity to distribute materials to his new AQ pals.
10 years of dodging inspectors, violating and defying UN mandates.. and france wants to give saddam more time because NOW iraq is 'willing'?
In the court of world opinion, we've lost... the world seems to want the inspections to continue. The question now is, do we do what we said we were gonna do, or do we fold our hand and wait while saddams people play 3 card montie with WMD?
I keep asking myself two questions..
1. What's the REAL reason behind old europes staunch defense of an inspection program that has 10 years of failure behind it?
2. Whats the middle east going to look like the day after we go into Iraq, with or without a UN mandate?
-
I'm not sure what this thread is about (it was too long to read past the first two posts), but to resolve the issue I think we should carpet bomb Quebec.
SOB
-
(http://www.war-stories.com/images/b52-guam-04.jpg)
pictures instead of print?
-
Originally posted by SOB
I'm not sure what this thread is about (it was too long to read past the first two posts), but to resolve the issue I think we should carpet bomb Quebec.
SOB
Yes it's about time we got back to basics. Nuke All Frogs!
-
I got a better sceniaro for ya Udie..
A new U.N. resoultion to use force is vetoed by France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and China... Instead they op for 50K peacekeepers to be sent forthwith into Iraq.
The U.S military is heisent to fire on the blue helmets so they stand around for a couple of more months.. Of course the pull out won't be broadcast on the news. This whole Iraq business will drop faster than Colombia coverage.
The '04 campaign rolls around and perhaps a mention or two is made of Bush's forgien policy... As well as the 600 billion that gone missing.. 300 billion surpluss plus the 300 billion he ran up on his credit card..
Next time you guys vote for a Republican President, PLEASE make sure he isn't a drunken moron.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
I got a better sceniaro for ya Udie..
A new U.N. resoultion to use force is vetoed by France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and China... Instead they op for 50K peacekeepers to be sent forthwith into Iraq.
The U.S military is heisent to fire on the blue helmets so they stand around for a couple of more months.. Of course the pull out won't be broadcast on the news. This whole Iraq business will drop faster than Colombia coverage.
Oh man. This has got to be the most retarded attempt at world politics analysis I have ever seen.
Why would the US not veto the blue helmets? Can you give me one reason?
-
The US could veto blue helmets, Germany and Belgium cannot.
Did JFK ask for inspectors in 1962 Cuba?
-
It's already part of 1441 Snortland.. the inspectors can have as many security forces in there as they want.. There's nothing for the US to veto.
Lets see 2.4 billion to get the troops out there.. another 3. or so billion to bring them home.. What's that nearly 6 billion for this little excercise.
-
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
JFK inagural address
-
Quote:"Next time you guys vote for a Republican President, PLEASE make sure he isn't a drunken moron."
Conversly, if you vote Democratic, try not to elect a lecherous liar.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
JFK inagural address
I remember that address. It was so stirring at the time, so inspiring. It was going to be a new world of freedom for all.
Now, I look back on it as the first step on a road that led us to 9/11 and the WTC.
-
What 10Bears overlooks is that without US troops in the area poised to attack....... there'd be NO cooperation with the inspectors, no matter how large the "security detail".
Dance around that all you like, but it's simple fact borne out by extremely recent history. That some have already forgotten.
In fact, if/when we pull out of the area, I'll wager the inspectors get their walking papers out of Iraq within 30 days of us clearing the region.
-
I remember that address. It was so stirring at the time, so inspiring. It was going to be a new world of freedom for all.
It was.
It is.
It will be.
It is our destiny to do this.. we all swore on that day that these words would be the standard of purpose that all free nations should aspire to. That we would stand and serve, that we would come when called. We cannot have not come this far only to lose our way now.
Lets roll!
-
Hang, the primary lesson I took from VietNam was that no nation can make another nation "free". They have to want it for themselves.
Look how long this despot has ruled and ruined the lives of the Iraqi population. Yet apparently none, or at least not enough, of them want to be free badly enough to water the tree of Liberty.
And you can't water it for them. You can try but as soon as your gone your sacrifice will be wasted.
For those of you who find this an obscure reference, it's from Thomas Jefferson.
-
Oh you can have your little win there Toad,
I'll be dancing around a maypole butt nakid if it means we don't have to go to war..
Whatever spin you decide to use is fine by me
The reality of course is that the entire rest of the world had to think of something really fast to thwart an even bigger fool.
Conversly, if you vote Democratic, try not to elect a lecherous liar.
Oh.. if your talking about Clinton, I'd take that lecherous lier any day even tho he's the best Republican president we've ever had..
-
There's no win for anyone here.
At present, I'm not in favor of the US invading Iraq.
However, I'm not blind enough to overlook them as a threat to the US mainland either.
The reality, of course, is that it's the mainland US that will most likely suffer eventually. Isn't it? No wonder you're dancing 'round the maypole.
There isn't any spin there either. I doubt there's any sentient poster on this BBS that doesn't realize that without the looming threat of US military force the Inspectors would never have gotten back into Iraq. Further, Blix would not have gotten the incremental and minimal cooperation he's getting now without the US military build up in the region.
I personally hope we do leave the entire region if the Security Council doesn't authorize the use of force.
And I hope we never go back. I hope we never HAVE to go back. But I think that's a forlorn hope.
-
10B has a son going in there.. I'd be toejamtin my pants if my kid was OTW.
-
I remember seeing video footage of an iraqi execution of military officers involved in an assassination plot to kill saddam.
They lined about 10 of em up and gunned them down with AKs then a rabbid officer charged the crumpled mass firing a pistol into them. I imagine he was creaming long live Saddam.
Truth is the Irqai people have tried many times to kill saddam.
Surely thosuands have died trying.
-
Hang, that's my friend Bill's son Torry.. He's there now.. Age 19.. I've known him since he was two. They trained him to be a truck driver so he may not be in super harms way if the shooting starts.
My daughter is 18 and was thinking of joining up but she changed her mind. I might take some credit or blame for influencing her dicision.
-
Truth is the Irqai people have tried many times to kill saddam.
Surely thosuands have died trying.
This is true. There have been many Western sponsored coups and uprisings. Both in the military and among ethnic groups.
-
My point on quoting JFK's inagural address was to point out that we have a history of shouldering burdens, and 6 billion is a small burden to pay.
6 billion divided by appx 100 million taxpayers = 60 bucks to each of us: Not worth losing too much sleep over. If that is the cost of keeping WMD from proliferating into the hands of those who would use them without much hesitation, here's my 60 bucks.
The true cost of freedom is shown by names etched on a black granite wall, or names on crosses in quiet green fields.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Oh.. if your talking about Clinton, I'd take that lecherous lier any day even tho he's the best Republican president we've ever had..
That attitude is exactly what is creating such a rift between conservatives and liberals.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The true cost of freedom is shown by names etched on a black granite wall, or names on crosses in quiet green fields.
Exactly...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hang, the primary lesson I took from VietNam was that no nation can make another nation "free". They have to want it for themselves.
Look how long this despot has ruled and ruined the lives of the Iraqi population. Yet apparently none, or at least not enough, of them want to be free badly enough to water the tree of Liberty.
Toad...as you probably know, Im not Iraqi. I dont have any Iraqi relatives, nor do I know any Iraqis.
I do know however that the Sunni (or is it Shia?) moslem minority in Southern Iraq, as well as the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq has fought and died for a free nation. For along time, and alot. They are being horribly opressed by the Iraqi security forces...torture, murder, chemical warfare.
I find your words deeply insulting, and as I said, I'm not even remotely related to anything Iraqi. Who have been the targets of Iraqi Chemical attacks and why? Why were the no fly zones created? What happened to the Iraqis rising against Saddam in 91?
-
Obviously there were/are some. But not enough. Not nearly enough. Because if there WERE enough, they'd all rise up and bring the country to a decision point.
Patrick Henry
....There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!
An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Disguised as a Dutch schoolmaster, Nathan Hale set out on his mission on September 12. For a week he gathered information on the position of British troops, but was captured while returning to the American side. Because of incriminating papers Hale possessed, the British knew he was a spy. It is said that his cousin, a British sympathizer under Howe's command, betrayed him. Howe ordered young Hale to be hanged the following day. That's when Hale, who gave his life for his country, said those famous words.
"I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."
Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes.
Twelve signers had their homes completely burned.
Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.
And, finally, there is the New Jersey Signer, Abraham Clark.
He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship "Jersey," where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father.
One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each and one of us down through 200 years with the answer: "No."
The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
(Yeah, I don't think much of Limbaugh but this is one of the few things worthy of repeating.)
That's what it takes.
And you can't GIVE that to a nation or a people. They have to want it THAT badly.
That's what I'm saying. If you disagree, so be it.
-
For the counterpoint, look at Nicolae Ceausescu's end in Romania.
I can hear the "But that's DIFFERENT!" shouts already.
But it illustrates the point. When the people, as a whole, decide to be free...... it happens.
When the enlsaved answer Henry's question "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" with a resounding "NO!".... the doorway to the path of freedom is opened.
Not an easy path, to be sure. It never is. It never has been.
-
The American Revolution could not have succeded in the 21st century.
Think about it.
What constitues a succesful revolution against an entrenched and oppressive regime in Iraq?
The Iraq body count to date for dissenters numbers in the millions.
If I was a moderate Iraqi, I'd be praying for help and keeping my head down till a liberating army showed up.
-
The Romanians were successful in Romania's bloody revolution (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/574200.stm)
For his 24 years as communist party leader - 21 of them as Romania's president - Nicolae Ceausescu kept up a reign of fear, suppressing all opposition with the help of the brutal secret police, the Securitate, with the largest network of spies and informers in Eastern Europe.
At home he encouraged an extreme kind of personality cult among the population...
Any of this sound familar?
On 22 December 1989, Romania's communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was overthrown in a violent revolution and fled from the capital, Bucharest. Three days later, he and his wife Elena were executed by firing squad.
It can be done.
But they'll have to want it badly enough to do what the Romanians did.
IMO.
-
What I'd like to know is which one they hate more: Their regime and its leader or U.S and its allies?
IMHO it looks like western world has played its cards wrong with the sanctions and bombings and by doing so helped Hussein's propagandists to do their job.
-
Once it has started i run to next MacDonaldo and order as many BigMacs as i could to ruin your resources.
Blitz :D
-
Originally posted by Staga
What I'd like to know is which one they hate more: Their regime and its leader or U.S and its allies?
IMHO it looks like western world has played its cards wrong with the sanctions and bombings and by doing so helped Hussein's propagandists to do their job.
Do you think they totally missed the part about the UN putting the sanctions on them? IE: the "voice" of the whole world?
Do you think it escapes their notice that the Inspectors are all driving UN marked vehicles and wear UN armbands and such?
-
Do you think they make difference between U.N and U.S ?
-
Do you?
-
Originally posted by Animal
I agree 100% on the justifiable attack on Irak if they use a weapon they said didnt exist.
I disagree 100% on your comments about France. What good is UN if nations are not allowed to disagree on an issue?
Why not just be up front and claim sovereignship on all world matters and simply say "This is what we are gonna do, if you dont like it, you cant do nothing about it"
If the US and UK dont like others disagreeing, then disband United Nations and do what they want. No one has the power to stop them, Its better than playing false diplomacy, which will lead into disaster.
I agree 100% on everything you said :)
-
Hmm.... didn't they just discover some rockets that violate the maximum range imposed by UN mandates.
There's already one proof of violations of UN mandates I think they will find a couple more shortly,then again Saddam will herd them like Lambs to wherever he wishes them to go.
I don't think the US's mobilization to Kuwait is just for show of force. I have 2 freinds that are reservists in the Marines and one in the Army and both have been activated and will be probably shortly in the Middle East,they too know more like them that were activated and had to withdraw from all classes this semester.
-
it's not going to be soon , it will take 3 weeks for the 101st to get it;s chopers there and at least 1 week to get set up, so there is plenty of time for france to get saddam to surrender.