Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on February 21, 2003, 05:43:09 PM
-
I am still not sure about this Iraq thingy.
I mean, if Saddam is such a huge threat... what the hell are we waiting for? Why do we need another resolution or an even bigger coalition? If he directly threatens our safety then Bush should have attacked by now don't you think?
What do we do with 200k troops if Saddam complies with all requests? Is it even possible to back down now?
But mostly I feel bad. I feel bad about being the aggressor in a war. This is new territory for us and it just seems wrong to me. If we commit troops to battle, I just hope that we are just in our cause.
Really not sure yet, but I support every SOB (testing SOB's search engine) that is sent into harms way.
-
Did thomeone thay my name? Byeee...
SOB
-
I feel bad about being the aggressor in a war.
You wouldn't feel so bad if you paid attention to what is going on. Just because some UN countries don't approve doesn't make us the aggressor. This war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait, this is just round 2.
ra
-
White House advisors looking for a "way out" of war with Iraq (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1796.shtml)
By CHB Staff
Feb 20, 2003, 05:47
Some strategists within the Bush Administration are urging the President to look for an "exit strategy" on Iraq, warning the tough stance on war with the Arab country has left the country in a "no win" situation.
"At this point, the United States and Britain does not have the support for passage of a second UN resolution," admits a White House aide.
In addition, Republican leaders in both the House and Senate are telling the Presidently privately that he is losing support in Congress for a "go it alone war" against Iraq.
Like rats on a ship even the Republican leaders of the House and Senate are jumping off chimpys sinking ship.
Only 692 days left before America gives the pResident the boot.
:cool:
-
I like the idea of using the threat of military force to bluff Saddam into compliance. But I'm not sure Saddam responds to anything but bombs falling on his army.
I don't like the idea of invading Iraq without UN authorization. I'm sure the people in the White House and the Pentagon don't like it either, which is why US hasn't invaded or started air strikes yet.
I hope Saddam continues to move toward disarmament. He's not there yet but there has been more movement in the last few months than the previous 10 years. He needs to speed it up though. The problem is that the same uncertainty about war our leaders are using to motivate Saddam is also affecting our people psychologically, in a negative way.
-
Well get off the damn fence and come to the dark side! You know you want to.
-
I have to say I'm on the fence with this one too. I really wish we would have dealt with Saddam back during the gulf war. We ended that too hastily.
This whole thing reminds me of a guy I used to work with in the Air Force. He was a real dipshit. At one time, doing maintenance on a MAU-12 bomb-rack, he had a nuclear concent solenoid that he was holding in one hand with a pair of vice grips and torquing with a 7 level screwdriver in the other hand (a threaded eyelet is supposed to come out by hand). I asked him if he'd backed the set screw out before trying and he said he had. I checked the set screw and it was fully tight. He'd cleared out about 1/4 inch of threading on the eyelet. This meant that any movement would throw it out of adjustment and not allow a release. Once again, this was a plunger for the NUCLEAR CONCENT SWITCH.
I got the individual off of the floor and explained the situation to the shop cheif and OIC. I explained that this type of maintenance on this type of equipment was dangerous and should not be tollerated. They replied "we'll keep an eye on him".
2 months later, they tried to give him an article 15 for working without a T.O. open. He was knocking out pins that held pads onto a shaft. Its something we did every night about 100 times... usually saving them all up for someone to do since its such tedeous work. I'd never seen anyone us a Tech Order to do that maintenance.
Someone renders a nuclear concent switch inopperable via his sub-standard maintenance skills and nothing happens. He knocks pins out of a metal rod without a T.O. and they try to kick him out. They were actually loosing the court case when the kid went wacko and threatened his roomate with a samurai sword. He was kicked out for being mental.
Seems the president is trying to make alot out of not very much right now. Things they've been perfectly acceptable for the past 30 years are somehow not tollerable now. Something that more than a few other countries are also doing is only relevant when its Iraq. Saddam should have been dealt with long ago, when there were more than enough good reasons to do so.
MiniD
-
Originally posted by weazel
Only 692 days left before America gives the pResident the boot.
:cool:
In favor of.....????
-
Theres a division in the Bush admin. On one side Powell and crew that like to stick with the old approach, build coalitions, mass forces, get in, get out quick. They also prefer "containment" over direct action.
Then theres Rumsfeld and crew, they believe in preemptive action in order to maintain the security of the US. They believe in striking first and if need be unilaterally. To sustain this policy they want a military that stays several steps ahead of the rest of the world.
Bush and Cheney both have been swayed by this later arguement since 9/11. You see this is what is called the "Bush Doctrine". However Bush Sr. and in particular Powell have pushed for more restraint and it was Powell who got Bush Jr to go through the UN. Thats the reason for Scowcroft letter in the papers.
Thats why Powell was the one to make the arguement to the UN.
However its far more likely war will come. But we dont know. Bush could have decided on a middle ground and decided to use the show of force and rhetoric to push Suddam into compliance.
This is unlikely however. Theres been several "reports" that say Bush Jr has tortured over the idea of wmd being used on Americans. While the Rumsfeld crew have been advocates of a preemptive policy going back to Gulf War 1 (they wanted to take out Suddam totally, or at the very least support the Shi'ite and the Kurds) it was Powell who made the arguement to Bush Sr. that it was time to stop. Bush Sr. from his CIA days has always be an advocate of "containment". He also had relationships with many members of the "coalition" and felt he didnt want to fracture those relationships. The Rumsfeld group wanted to go after Suddam 1st in the War on terror. Powell advocated a different approach
Things are different now, those on Rumsfeld side used 9/11 to bring home their point. Cheney now fully support their view. They say that sitting around waiting for something happen before we respond is in effect shirking their responsibilities.
They are committed to a strike first policy against potential threats not only to pre-empt but to prevent action that threaten the security of the US. And they feel if necessary we should go alone.
They believe not only will they get rid of Suddam but the will send a message to the world that no matter who you are or where you should you threaten the security of the US there will be consequence. They believe this threast will be a deterrent much in the same way that "assured mutal destruction" was a deterrent during the cold war. The implications of the "Bush Doctrine" reach further then just Iraq.
I think Bush is more to the side of the Rumsfelds but respects Powell, Scowcroft and his daddy enough not to make a snap descision. He is willing to give the UN a chance to make up its mind. But it would appear no matter which way the UN goes the US will attack Iraq.
If for no other reason then to make an example out of him.
No matter which way you lean I think its much better that the US wait until they propose the next UN resolution.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
What do we do with 200k troops if Saddam complies with all requests? Is it even possible to back down now?
H*ll yes it's possible.
We bring 'em home, hoist some beers and rejoice that this was all settled without a war.
And I'll salute the Admin for getting it done by spending only money instead of blood.
-
Toads right, it aint use umm or loose umm 200k without a loss and the strategic goals are met thats a victory even if ya dont fire a shot. Actually thats the best kind.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Only 692 days left before America gives the pResident the boot.
:cool:
I bet he gets a second term .. u bet he won't?
-
Maybe he can lose another election and still win.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I bet he gets a second term .. u bet he won't?
Let's see...
Before Bush:
Nation Deficit wiped out
Strong Economy
Unemployment at Record low
After Bush:
National Deficit returns
Economy Faltering
Unemployment Rate Climbing like Bf109-f on WEP
Anyone remember ENRON??
Bush 2004 sounds like money in the bank to me!
BTW...How long before the Daughters are in Penthouse?
-
Let's see........ Before Bush, no 9/11.
No huge spending related to a multitude of uncountable aspects of 9/11.
And we won't even get into "missed opportunities with respect to Osama before Bush."
-
The Deficit was already skyrocketing before 9/11. Remember all those Tax Rebate checks in the mail? Less than a year into Office and he spent the Budget Surplus.
The Economy took a nose dive 6 months after Bush was sworn in and they tried to lay that off on Clinton. What did Osama Bin Ladin have to do with ENRON? GWB still has questions to answer about Harkin Energy, too.
GWB reminds me of that Eddie Haskel type kid in school who always screwed up but would say "It's not MY fault." Don't go thinking I'm a Democrat either, McCain is twice as qualified and 10 times the man. Arizona Republicans just make people nervous.
-
here we go again...
No matter what the thread, it always wears down to the same old cut and past posts (no matter how much roadkill they are).
MiniD
-
I mean, if Saddam is such a huge threat... what the hell are we waiting for? Why do we need another resolution or an even bigger coalition? If he directly threatens our safety then Bush should have attacked by now don't you think? -Midnight Target
Well, I certainly do not want to rush right in. It takes time to get all the troops and equipment over there and I'm sure takes time to formulate a strategy that limits loss of life on both sides. U-2 flights are occuring again and I'm certain there is a great increase in surveillance overall in order to pinpoint the correct targets and formulate a propert strategy.
France = murder and oppression for oil!
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Let's see...
Before Bush:
Nation Deficit wiped out
Strong Economy
Unemployment at Record low
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigt lol... sucker :)
Originally posted by rpm371
BTW...How long before the Daughters are in Penthouse?
Rofl... well at least it wasn't THIS President that set the high immoral standards for the Oval Office... nope nope.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Let's see...
Before Bush:
Nation Deficit wiped out
Strong Economy
Unemployment at Record low
After Bush:
National Deficit returns
Economy Faltering
Unemployment Rate Climbing like Bf109-f on WEP
Anyone remember ENRON??
Before Bush:
National deficeit wiped out? Where are you getting this information? There is a big difference between ending up with a surplus in any given fiscal year, and "fixing the deficit." Ask military personnel how happy they were about all the money that was "saved."
Strong economy, yes. Fortunately, we didnt have airplanes crashing into buildings that caused market panic.
Another thread that turns into a Bush-bashing fest. Thanks Weazel, your comments and the ensuing posts really add an intelligent viewpoint to the issue.
:rolleyes:
-
IIRC all the Enron crap went down on Bubba's watch.
-
I'm seriously starting to wonder...
President Bush yesterday said it was the will of "the Almighty" that America liberate the oppressed people of Iraq.
I seriously try to give the benefit of the doubt to the people who hold more information in their hands than I do. But statements like these really concern me.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6021120%255E401,00.html
-
Originally posted by Kanth
But statements like these really concern me.
Presidents have never used this type of rhetoric before...
“They know that victory for us means victory for religion.
And they could not tolerate that. The world is too small to provide adequate "living room" for both Hitler and God. In proof of that, the Nazis have now announced their plan for enforcing their new German, pagan religion throughout the world-the plan by which the Holy Bible and the Cross of Mercy would be displaced by MEIN KAMPF and the swastika and the naked sword.” -1942 State of the Union: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
In a previous speech, he also said something about "the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.” and later on in the same speech, "With confidence in our armed forces -with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God"
-
Holden it sounded to me like
"God told me that we must attack Iraq"
which is insane.
-
I have no problem with righteous or so help us god.
I have no problem with God willing, or we hope god will be on our side or whatever..
I have a problem with "God told me to do it."
"or last night in my conversation with god" type stuff.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Presidents have never used this type of rhetoric before...
In a previous speech, he also said something about "the American people in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.” and later on in the same speech, "With confidence in our armed forces -with the unbounding determination of our people - we will gain the inevitable triumph - so help us God"
-
Kanth,
My point is, it's just rhetoric... stop reading between the lines so intently and just listen to the jist of the message. Your blood pressure will go down and you'll sleep more soundly.
I didn't take Hillary's conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt seriously either.
-
"So help us God" is a far cry away from being on a communicating basis with the "Almighty"...
It may "just be rhetoric", but then Joan of Arc also claimed to be doing the work of the "Almighty" and also on a communicating basis with the "Almighty"... and she was branded a looney.
-SW
-
Well Holden, God told *me* that he's insane.
OR
He's willing to say anything to try to get support, in which case he's just yer common, average, sane, liar.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Kanth,
My point is, it's just rhetoric... stop reading between the lines so intently and just listen to the jist of the message. Your blood pressure will go down and you'll sleep more soundly.
I didn't take Hillary's conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt seriously either.
-
We don't believe freedom and liberty are America's gift to the world; we believe they are the Almighty's gift to mankind. And for the oppressed people of Iraq, people whose lives we care about, the day of freedom is drawing near.
GWB, Feb 20
In 20 minutes of searching, this is as close as I got to the "quote" is this the one? If so, seems fairly benign. {as far as war rhetoric can be.}
-
Did God tell him which day God is coming to free them? cause *drawing near* is pretty vague and I'd like to have a clean pair of underwear on for the occasion.
btw what took so long for God to notice these oppressed people? :p
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
We don't believe freedom and liberty are America's gift to the world; we believe they are the Almighty's gift to mankind. And for the oppressed people of Iraq, people whose lives we care about, the day of freedom is drawing near.
-
Okay one last time....
In my time limited search, I found a GWB quote that was as close as I could come to "God called me using 1 800 Collect last night, (He's a big Carrot Top fan) and I spoke to Him about Iraq. After I hung up I got an idea of another question I should ask, but when I star 69'ed him, I got His secretary..."
The quote I found was not very close. Is this the quote to which you referred? Do you have a link to a closer one?
To quote words penned in large part by Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Where and when did Jefferson have his conversation with God to get an idea like that? He didn't even have a phone....
It's just rhetoric... lighten up. Movements of the military say much more that GWB's rhetoric.
-
It's what leads up to the movements of the military that I want to keep an eye on.
By the time they are at war, it's late.
The quote to which I referred was linked to in my original post. If they misquoted him that is one thing, if he's walking around saying things like that it's another.
How will I know if they misquoted him, I won't, I can only watch for further quotes from different medias. But I definately will watch.
Jefferson mentions self-evidence for a reason.
His quote is more along the lines of "people are born this way" rather than, "God told me to make this new law for you guys".
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Okay one last time....
In my time limited search, I found a GWB quote that was as close as I could come to "God called me using 1 800 Collect last night, (He's a big Carrot Top fan) and I spoke to Him about Iraq. After I hung up I got an idea of another question I should ask, but when I star 69'ed him, I got His secretary..."
The quote I found was not very close. Is this the quote to which you referred? Do you have a link to a closer one?
To quote words penned in large part by Thomas Jefferson, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Where and when did Jefferson have his conversation with God to get an idea like that? He didn't even have a phone....
It's just rhetoric... lighten up. Movements of the military say much more that GWB's rhetoric.
-
Having 200,000 troops in the med will not go to waste.
If saddam folds and leaves, there's always France.
-
We can only hope :)
Originally posted by Hangtime
Having 200,000 troops in the med will not go to waste.
If saddam folds and leaves, there's always France.
-
Invade France? Oh, I had nothing more in mind than a freindly 'port call' for the U.S. forces prior to their victorious return stateside..
Of course, our sailors and troops should be encouraged to be 'goodwill ambasadors' while there on leave for 2-3 years.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Let's see...
Before Bush:
Nation Deficit wiped out
Strong Economy
Unemployment at Record low
After Bush:
National Deficit returns
Economy Faltering
Unemployment Rate Climbing like Bf109-f on WEP
Anyone remember ENRON??
Bush 2004 sounds like money in the bank to me!
BTW...How long before the Daughters are in Penthouse?
No.
-
Thats what I told him.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
No.
You are lame.
-
At least we put blindfolds on bastards before we shoot em.
-
O yea...bump old threads from two years ago that have nothing to do with any topic currently being discussed.
Well, two can play at that game, buster.