Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on February 26, 2003, 07:05:21 PM
-
It Could Cost $100 Billion (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=11N5T5VOVYYFGCRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=2294903)
That's something like $350 per person in the US. I pay more taxes than average so I figure my share is about $700. So that's the cost.
What is the benefit? IMHO it would be improved safety in that the likelihood of an NBC attack on the US by terrorists or Iraqi agents would be decreased slightly. Another benefit is that the Iraqi people would get freedom from a brutal dictator and a chance at a democratic government
Time for cost/benefit analysis:
Would I get $700 worth of safety from Saddam's demise?
I think I could get a lot more safety if we spent $100B on drug rehab, birth control and education. Or $100B to provide mandatory handguns for adult males with no criminal record and no history of mental disturbance. Or $100B to provide free taxis for drunk drivers. Etc. etc. etc.
Would I get $700 worth of satisfaction from knowing that Iraqis are free from a sadistic dictator? I'm not sure about that one. I would get some satisfaction, but I would probably get more satisfaction out of a PC upgrade or new wheels for my car, or airfare to visit my squaddies in Poland.
So IMHO they probably need to bring the price down a bit. The only way I see that happening is if we get the rest of the free world to do their share on this one.
-
Yes Funked but think of it as an investment...
-
I just paid $2.09 a gallon for 87... Invade now get it over with!!!!!
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I just paid $2.09 a gallon for 87... Invade now get it over with!!!!!
Invade Venezuela?
-
$100 billion is equivalent to two weeks of federal spending. Just shut down the government and hold the welfare checks for two weeks, and voila ... the war is paid for.
-
a cost/benefit analysis says World War Two was a waste of money and lives. bean counters , oh brother
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Invade Venezuela?
I heard this was a war for oil, and nelson mandela told me personally that iraq had some 76% of the worlds oil. Well dammit econ says you can lower prices by increasing supply so lets go get that 76% oil and get it over with!
And Sandman you fool you are so out of date, the cold war is over and the racist evil CIA is done with attacking swarthy brown mexican coutries - now they after swarty brown muslim countries. Get up with the times old man!
YES WAR FOR OIL! :D
-
I agree Funked...I don't give a rats bellybutton about the Iraqi people...if they don't like the government, they need to get rid of Saddam themselves and not expect others to shed blood to set them free. What is freedom really worth if some other country paid for it?
As far as security goes, I am no more scared of Saddam than I am of Kadhafi. He is a non entity. He does not have the weapons or delivery systems to harm the US.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I am afraid of North Korea. This is a country that has successfully tested ballistic missiles capable of hitting every major military instillation in the Pacific, including Hawaii and some west coast cities (our on Defense Department confirms this). And a country that fully admits that it has two facilities working feverishly on producing weapons grade nuclear material. Now let me ask you, which country would you consider more dangerous?
If Israel knew of a hostile country that had missiles capable of hitting their country and had a facility working on developing nukes, how long do you think it would be before that facility would be dust?
-
crow , your post is full of mis-statements and half-truths, and you are a WAR MONGER for wanting to "rush to war " with NK when diplomatic negotiations are still under way, the UN has to pass many resolutions before war can take place. (see iraq )
give peace a chance
cum ba yah m'lord ,cum ba yah
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I agree Funked...I don't give a rats bellybutton about the Iraqi people...if they don't like the government, they need to get rid of Saddam themselves and not expect others to shed blood to set them free. What is freedom really worth if some other country paid for it?
Agree 100%. If they really wanted to be free of him there'd be a "Tienanmen Square" incident in the entire country by the populace. But you won't see it.
Heck, what would you do in their shoes, knowing that sooner or later the Great Satan will come do all the dying for ya? To top it off, GS will then rebuild your country and feed you while they're doing it.
Why not chill out and have a coffee and a smoke?
Originally posted by crowMAW
As far as security goes, I am no more scared of Saddam than I am of Kadhafi. He is a non entity.
Agree.
Originally posted by crowMAW
ON THE OTHER HAND, I am afraid of North Korea.
Disagree.
Best thing we could do is withdraw from the Korean peninsula. Totally removes NK's argument about a threat from the US. Would probably focus South Korea's mind on just how bad it was having us around. Blue UN flag would still fly along the DMZ; French troops can replace ours on a 1 for 1 swapout as we leave. Japan and China would probably focus more on Korea too.
The NK nuke program has been evaluated by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. Speaking to the international press corps 12 February in Vienna, he underlined that "the key to resolution of issues is full and prompt compliance" and North Korea "must take the first step." The issue now is before the UN Security Council. We should abstain from any discussion on it. Let's play China's role for a while and let the others solve this problem.
So, THIS is supposedly what the UN is for, correct? This is what the world wants us to do with respect to Iraq. Let the Security Council handle NK as we withdraw.
Does NK threaten us? With us off the peninsula and with them having extremely limited capability, I don't see them as a real threat. NK knows that we are one of their largest sources of donated food. Further, they know that ALL donations will likely stop if they attack anyone. Beyond that, they KNOW we can still obliterate the place with overlapping circles of nuclear fireballs.
They'll continue to try to give us the old lunchroom bully's shakedown, but they won't attempt to kill the golden goose.
Just my .02.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I heard this was a war for oil, and nelson mandela told me personally that iraq had some 76% of the worlds oil. Well dammit econ says you can lower prices by increasing supply so lets go get that 76% oil and get it over with!
And Sandman you fool you are so out of date, the cold war is over and the racist evil CIA is done with attacking swarthy brown mexican coutries - now they after swarty brown muslim countries. Get up with the times old man!
YES WAR FOR OIL! :D
The reason the gas has increased in price today has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Venezuela.
Who's the fool?
-
annex canada and mexico.
-
Agree 100%. If they really wanted to be free of him there'd be a "Tienanmen Square" incident in the entire country by the populace. But you won't see it.
What about Basra in 91 when the Shi'ites rose up and overthrew the local Saddam-ites? That was brutally put down - we can see the mass graves from space.
What about the Kurdish uprising in 91? That was brutally put down and the people fled to the mountains.
They've tried - and failed - to overthrow Saddam over the years - and the results have been 10 times worse than Tienanmen Square in terms of body count.
Whip out google and do a search, mate. :D
-
Dowding - I agree with what you say above, but that's what leads me to disagree with you on something else. I say we should give two fingers to the UN (or one finger if you're American) because, IIRC, it was the UN that made Pop Bush stop the war in 1991 - prematurely as we now see. The result was as you said above - bad news for the Iraqis, and worse than Tienanmen Square. Given that the resulting bloodshed was caused (indirectly) by the UN, you see why I don't want to wait for another UN vote/resolution, or for further "last" chances to be given to Saddam.
The other good reason for not waiting also applied last time. That Gulf region is going to start heating up soon. The indigenous population might be able to cope with the heat, but imagine what it's going to be like for our guys, doing battle in the sort of heat they can expect there later on - especially if they have to wear those chemical warfare suits. My initial estimate for the beginning of overt hostilities was March 2. But I've had to revise that because of too much UN dilly-dallying.
BTW Dowding, are you following the SAS fitness selection programme on BBC2, 9pm Sundays? Flippin'eck!!! I can't even imagine doing what they have to do, now or at any other time in my life. :eek:
-
Funkedup, you need to add to the cost the cost of increased security measures due to increased terrorist threat. And the loss of life and property in the event of an attack.
An attack is extremely likely - Saddam has standng orders for it to happen if the US strikes. And there are lots of freelancing terrorists that'll get new recruits in the events of a war.
The cost also has other more qualitative sides. As witnessed in Afghanistan, it is hard to create a democracy. Iraq is as divided as the Balkans is culturally and there'll be an struggle for democracy to be put int place. This will cost too.
If the resentment grows enough in various populations, some Middle Eastern government might be overthrown. Oil prices go up.
A few bombs on planes or at tourist resorts will hit those sectors very hard. Add that as well.
Of course all that can happen without a war, but a war makes them much more likely to occur.
Many hidden costs, aside from the obvious expenditure on fuel, bombs, surveillance, logistics and the like.
Unlike some here, I care a great deal about the Iraqi people. I've met refugees here - they're quite well educated, extremely kind and very resilient. I seem them sort of like the Polacks during the Soviet occupation.
By far they're nicer than Somalis, Palestinians etc as a cultural group - and more western. Was invited to the home of an ex chopper pilot from Iraq who fought in the Iran-Iraq war and briefly in the Gulf (that is, he flew his chopper for a few miles, landed, exited, waited a few hours and saw it get blown up by an unseen bomber). Very friendly environment and they do everything for their guests - quite unlike Danes or westerners in general. The chap offered me his bed, opting to sleep on the floor. I declined of course, but the offer was genuine. I do think that Arab culture in this regard is superior to western one - if they had $10 left, they'd give you 7 and keep 3 if you were in need. At least the educated types I've met. I do not dismiss their hospitality - yes, I disagree with their views on women etc, but I also recognize good aspects of their culture, and bad about my own.
I think they deserve to claim their nation back. $700 I'd pay. Add a 0 and I'd pay that too.
Once you meet the people, your views change. If you sit and hang around your ethnic group with the same view all the time, it is much easier not to give a damn about other cultural and ethnic groups. Me, I cannot be that...low.
-
The UN is the nations that form it - not some arbitrary, faceless organisation. There was no UN madate to go to Baghdad last time, because the nation-states that make up the security council would not have supported it. A certain US general was against going to Baghdad, back then.
The UN was NEVER designed to involve itself in regime change. It was designed to provide humanitarian aid, allow nations to discuss issues in order to find a peaceful resolution, supply peace-keepers to unstable regions to allow humanitarian aid to get through or to prevent conflict. But if the members of the UN want to reshape it into a political tool for removing disliked world leaders, they could.
I saw the SAS program last year and it looked like it hurt. The feigned torture thing with the white noise and blind-folds would probably kill me, never mind the physical aspect. I think you'd have to be super-fit (capable of being a competitive athlete) to even think about applying to that program. I was very fit once, but I doubt I could do the things they've been doing.
I like it how the women often out perform the men on the training. ;)
-
it's only 350 a person if every person pays taxes
the majority of the freaks in the peace rallies do not fall into "pay taxes" category
-
ps
I say split up the cost, add 50% and invoice the surrounding countries - tired of carrying the world's burdens/expense on our backs - when we can't even take care of our own ...
-
the majority of the freaks in the peace rallies do not fall into "pay taxes" category
Most of the British protesters were ordinary people with a home, house, job etc.
But then the foundations of a black and white world are comfortable assumptions.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
If Israel knew of a hostile country that had missiles capable of hitting their country and had a facility working on developing nukes, how long do you think it would be before that facility would be dust?
Well they did it already like we all know so thats not a question anymore..
However Iraq has never had chinas or russians backing :D
(or a country full of fanatics... Iraq has it better with white flags than the french)
-
If shortly after his election, President Bush went before the American people and said he tought we should go to war with Afghanistan because he believed they were helping terrorist organizations we would have similar anti-war sentiments and demonstrations. Of course thousands of now dead people would still be alive and we would still have the World Trade Center, but I'm sure the protests and accusations of some more underlying reason for an attack would still circulate.
Well now we have Iraq. A country admittedly supportive of some terrorist organizations, blantently defiant of UN resulotions, and stone cold busted about lying about their weapons capability. And now everyone wants to reduce this to a war on oil? Thats like saying we helped all those Central American countries so we can get better prices on bannanas. Not sure about Somalia, maybe our countries sandboxes were getting a little low. Hmmm lets see, Bosnia, hmmmm, no, no not for the women, nope not a war for Eastern European cooking either. Boy this is a tough one. Wait I got it, maybe we acted there on behalf of the people involved.
-
It is a lot of money, you're right Funked. But as long as it pisses France off that's money well spent in my opinion. If you want me throwing my support against the war, then get France to endorse it and I'm there.
-
I'm aware of the Iraqi uprisings.
I still say you can't "give" a people their freedom.
No Revolution ever had bleaker prospects than the American Revolution. Your country was the "superpower" of the time and the 13 colonies were insignificant in comparison. The Revolutionaries lost battle after battle with horrendous (for that time and that source population) losses.
But they didn't give up.
Would the troops of Saddam Hussein shoot their own families if the families were all out in the street?
Against my personal beliefs and judgement, the US & Britain probably will "liberate" Iraq and depose Saddam.
I'll wager you right now that the US/British post war attempt to initiate a democracy in Iraq is going to cost more soldiers lives than the actual "war phase". You've already outlined the reasons why this is going to be extremely difficult in another post and I agree with your reasoning.
This is the wrong war at the wrong time, even though the reason behind it is basically correct. IMO.
JB, as for the Balkans, I believe you'll find the "anti" crowd pointing to Caspian oil, approximately five billion in mineral deposits and the second largest European deposit of lignite coal (17 billion tons) in Kosmet. To a cynic, there is no honorable intent.
-
Originally posted by Toad
To a cynic, there is no honorable intent.
The road to hell is paved.....
of honorable intents.
:(
-
That other road to hell is paved with the corpses of those killed by dictators.
Pick your road.
-
Eh, good point.
-
funked.... being pragmatic myself... I can't help but think that the "example factor" for future terrorist and despot nations is worth the expense... I look at it like "an ounce of prevention".
If we pulled out of korea the u.n. would beg to have us back there in no time. Would love to see someone else take care of it for a change.
lazs
-
Yeah,I'd say $100 billion is way too much...It would be much cheaper to re-invade Panama and Grenada...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
The reason the gas has increased in price today has nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Venezuela.
Who's the fool?
Dude invading socialist mexican countries is so cold war outdated - join the new times when the CIA is out to destroy islam!!
-
I'm aware of the Iraqi uprisings.
I still say you can't "give" a people their freedom.
I agree. I've never said otherwise.
No Revolution ever had bleaker prospects than the American Revolution. Your country was the "superpower" of the time and the 13 colonies were insignificant in comparison. The Revolutionaries lost battle after battle with horrendous (for that time and that source population) losses.
But they didn't give up.
Would the troops of Saddam Hussein shoot their own families if the families were all out in the street?
Iraq isn't a colonial war, and I think to compare a genocidal maniac to the British government is a huge stretch that simply doesn't work.
I hope the American public can accept US soldiers remaining in Iraq for the long haul and being sniped at by all sides, in their desperation to murder each other. Because I'm afraid that that is what it will all boil down to.
-
Umm Toad, you do know that the French helped the Americans during the revolution? Without their help and support I doubt the Revolution would have worked.
The issue I think is we are quick to forget that our country was attacked. We made immediate retribution in Afghanistan and sent a message to the rest of the world that these acts and support thereof will not be left to go on. Iraq, a known support of such acts, has been given the options and time to comply with the worlds (UN) demands. Yet it not only scoffs at these demands, but out right lies about them.
How many more civilian lives need to be lost before it becomes ok to act on Iraq? Does the Eiffel Tower need to be bombed? Does a dirty nuke need to be detonated in Berlin? Does Isreal need to be contaminated with chem/bio agents before its deemed a correct response. Does the USA have to attacked one more time? I say NO!
Iraq has been given every opportunity to save a conflict against them and they're just putting their nose up to us. Well America has takin enough blows to the chin, I say lets break that turned up nose of Iraq's.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I just paid $2.09 a gallon for 87...
Did you read my thread titled "who need oil"? Hydrogen fuel would be $.76 in peak times and $.38 during the Spring runoff. Also, the only residue from burned hydrogen is water vapor(which equals no pollution).
Quit whining and push for hydrogen.
:)
-
Dowding,
No, don't take it as a comparison of a "colonial war" to a civilian uprising to replace a perhaps unpopular government. I meant it as a comparison of an uprising with bleak prospects for success.
I hope the British public can accept British soldiers remaining in Iraq for the long haul and being sniped at by all sides, in their desperation to murder each other. I think we're both in the mess together now. Do you guys want the Kurds v Turks & Iraq in the North or do you want to handle Sunni v Shiite in the South?
As I said, wrong war at the wrong time but probably for the right reason. I think you basically agree. Am I wrong?
-
Yes, I think we do. Can't remember the last time that happened. :D
Blair and Bush have set out their stalls; I don't think there will be any going back without a major loss of face - and that will never happen.
I'm extremely concerned about our guys (US and UK) who are going to be on the ground, trying to keep a peace where there is no peace. It could be Bosnia all over again - inaction due to fear of reprisal and escalation.
I think 2003 has the potential to be a memorable year for entirely the wrong reasons.
-
Originally posted by JB42
Umm Toad, you do know that the French helped the Americans
I'm aware that D'Estaing, with a French fleet, arrived in the Delaware on the 8th of July, 1778.
I'm aware that these battles were fought and that horrible winter at Valley Forge was survived before the French arrived.
Battle of Lexington and Concord
Capture of Fort Ticonderoga
Battle of Bunker Hill
Olive Branch Petition
British Evacuation of Boston
Invasion of Quebec, Canada
Battle of Long Island
Battle of White Plains
Battle of Fort Washington
Washington crossing the Delaware River
Battle of Trenton
Battle of Princeton
Battle of Brandywine
Battle of Germantown
Battle of Oriskany
Battle of Bennington
Battle of Saratoga
Battle of Monmouth
I'm certainly not denigrating the contribution of the French. I said before in another thread that we wouldn't be here without them.
The point is that Iraqis, like colonial Americans, should have to take the first serious steps to remove an unpopular government. I never intimated that doing so would be easy or bloodless. But it seems clear to me that unless THEY are willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for freedom.... and do so in a clearly defined, extended, irrevocable effort..... then OUR sons shouldn't be asked to do it for them.
And, while I hate to sound like some of those folks reknowned for their inability to accept obvious fact, I have yet to see an incontrovertible linkage of Iraq to 9/11. If there were one, I would happily join in the rush to war, but I haven't seen one as yet.
Iraq's disregard for the UN is quite obvious. However, I personally don't find that a cause for an attack on a sovereign nation by the United States that could possibly be justified by "just war theory". Now, WITH a UN mandate to make Iraq comply, that would be different.
But without that, I can't support it. The US is about to become an "aggressor" nation in the same way Iraq did when Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. That's my opinion, and it sickens me to think that the US is going to become what we have fought against for so long.
What US civilian lives lost can you trace directly to Iraq? I'll step up and say we need a definitive "traceable" act against us in order to justify this war.
UNLESS the Security Council asks the US to make Iraq comply with the UN/SC resolutions. And that obviously isn't going to happen.
I'm sorry, much as I hate the idea of Hussein remaining in control and murdering and starving his own people..... I don't want to see the US become an agressor nation.
-
you people make much out of nothing, the only problem in iraq is somebody called saddam , when he is gone there will be peace.
-
Yes, I'll admit it.
I make VERY MUCH out of these United States going to war without a legitimate cause under "just war theory".
We're becoming what we fought against for so long.
-
Originally posted by TOAD
Battle of Lexington and Concord
All these battles you mentioned TOAD were over two hundred years ago and were beneficial to the French because they were at war with Britain and it served their interests. Much like their interests in Iraq.
Ever since then, the U.S. has been saving their tulips at places like WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, etc. The French never really "saved" our asses, only perfumed their own.
:rolleyes:
-
If you meant that seriously, you need to do more research.
Start here if you are truly interested:
The Revolutionary Road (http://www.ctssar.org/revroad/news24.htm)
In any event, your comment has nothing to do with my point that I'd prefer to see the Iraqis irrevocably pledge THEIR lives, fortunes and sacred honor towards their own freedom before asking OUR sons to do it for them.
-
" those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" JFK
-
I'm of the school that the same bug now infecting Iran's citizenship can be caught by the Iraqi citizenship(if it already hasn't) and that an open door with support for the freedom to live your life in a manner which affords opportunity and peace, is not that far fetched.
This is a bold and daunting concept.....sort of like our revolution or Germany and Japan after WW2.
It's time for the status quo to go.....no effort made or worse yet, complacency towards these nations is a formula for trouble.
Like was said earlier, these are interesting, exciting and dangerous times. I guess my point is this....life without risk is not really life....bold ideas and actions have brought about great reward and great trouble....let's hope for a reward in Iraq.
-
Iraq is an artificial nation, created by the British drawing lines on a map.
They don't like themselves, let alone anyone else.
The fair thing to do would be to create at least 3 nations from the mess. But I doubt the Turks would tolerate a Kurd nation.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Iraq is an artificial nation, created by the British drawing lines on a map.
They don't like themselves, let alone anyone else.
They didn't like the British when they used mustard gas on them to kill thousands during demonstrations.
-
Originally posted by Mr. Toad
I'm sorry, much as I hate the idea of Hussein remaining in control and murdering and starving his own people..... I don't want to see the US become an agressor nation.
Mr. Toad, I don't think that going to war with Iraq would make the US an aggressor nation. Saddam could have avoided the conflict, were he to have complied with UN resolutions and weapons inspectors. He has had 12 years to comply. He has chosen not to. Instead, he secretly pursues the development of WMD. Even since 911, when Dubya warned that the war on terror would not be confined to Taleban/Afghanistan, Saddam has had almost 18 months to co-operate. He has been warned of the penalty for non-cooperation. He has been given every chance.
As to no clear link between Iraq and 911, there doesn't need to be. Dubya made it quite clear that sponsors of terrorism would be sought, wherever they may be in the world. Far from being an aggressor, I believe Dubya/the US is being pre-emptive. Of course, he could wait for Iraq to drop a dirty nuke on Tel Aviv and then say "oh yeah, maybe there IS a link between Iraq and terror. Maybe we could be next, what with all the Jews we have in NY state. I'd better phone Tony, and see if we can't get some troops together to send out there"...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yes, I'll admit it.
I make VERY MUCH out of these United States going to war without a legitimate cause under "just war theory".
We're becoming what we fought against for so long.
:eek: :confused:
-
Originally posted by Toad
I make VERY MUCH out of these United States going to war without a legitimate cause under "just war theory".
Why?
I mean what is more important...
going to war for the right reasons (WWI, WWII, Kuweit, Iraq)
or going to war for the wrong (but legal) reasons (Vietnam)
or going to war for the right reasons even though it is illegal (Kosovo)
You should not be looking at any sort of legality aspect here. Simply because international law is not really a law at all.
Trust me on what I'm about to say next.
International law = Politics
You will never find any answers there. You will not find the answer to the question "what is right" or "what is wrong", you wont find any clear cut rules saying what is ok and what is not...and if you do, those rules can be, and are constantly, bent, twisted, broken or "overlooked".
I can argue either side of any conflict, and I can find good valid arguments for "my" side...arguments good enough to get idealists and hippies out in the streets demonstrating for my cause...But at the end of the day it doesnt really matter because international law is only about politics.
Want to break a UN resolution? Go right ahead if you are a powerful nation or if you have powerful friends (US, Russia, Israel)
Want to enforce a UN resolution? Go right ahead if you are a powerful nation or if you have powerful friends.
Want to break a UN resolution and you dont have any powerful friends but a couple of powerful enemies...well then your toejam outta luck (Iraq)
Want to have another nation follow a UN resolution but you dont have any powerful friends...shit outta luck again (Nicaragua, "Palestinians")
-
yes
TOAD..you are wrong on this...
TOAD says...What US civilian lives lost can you trace directly to Iraq? I'll step up and say we need a definitive "traceable" act against us in order to justify this war.
Is giving money to terroists/suicide bomers a link??
Yes it is..
Does IRAQ give 25$k to families of suicide bomers ?..
Yes they Do
Have Americans been targets and victims in Isreal?
Yes They have and are...
So Toad...Whats your response...Not enuff of a link to say Saddam supports Terror on countries he doesnt like??
Do you not beleive the News about hi up Al Queda guys being in and about IRaq?...I could believe it.
Yes I understand News is so Golly-gee hard to say its fact..but when things sound and look like a Duck..Ill say it is till other "facts" say different..It would be called a hypothisis..or..an Educauted Guess...
1 more..Do you Think Saddam should be free to have as much Bio-Chem-Nuc weapons as he wants? I say hell no...and Iraq admitted after we found so much of his WMD's.in 1991..and now..they say they dont have any..but dont have proof...Sounds good..
Fuk Speelling
Love
BiGB
xoxo
Please respond
-
The art of diplomacy is saying 'nice doggie' while yah look for a big rock.
War remains the most direct and fully understood form of international diplomacy.
Which explains the presence of General grade officers in every diplomatic mission.
-
They didn't like the British when they used mustard gas on them to kill thousands during demonstrations.
Mustard gas was only sanctioned against the Arab tribes in Iraq - it was never used due to a lack of delivery system.
-
Originally posted by 2stony
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Did you read my thread titled "who need oil"? Hydrogen fuel would be $.76 in peak times and $.38 during the Spring runoff. Also, the only residue from burned hydrogen is water vapor(which equals no pollution).
Quit whining and push for hydrogen.
:)
actually, hydrogen has very low density, which means it needs larger storage space. I don't think it's practical for automobiles.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Mr. Toad, I don't think that going to war with Iraq would make the US an aggressor nation.
Going into Iraq to enforce UN Security Council resolutions when a majority of the Security Council is against such action makes my country an agressor nation in my eyes.
I don't think much of the UN at all. However, we've worked within the framework of the UN and the Security Council for 12 years on Iraq. Now we decide that if the SC won't agree, we can ignore them?
The SC's failure to act may well make the UN irrelevant.
The US's determination to act without SC approval makes the US an agressor. IMO.
I don't say that lightly, either.
.......and Animal is the one with a rolleyes allergy.
-
Hortlund, with me it's not about any of those things you mentioned.
It's about being at peace with myself.
Going to war is a horrible thing. I think you have to have a damn good reason to do so. Far better minds than mind wrestled with this problem and came up with "Just War Theory". I read it and studied before I ever embarked upon my military career. It means something to me and I believe in it.
Show me where this upcoming military action against Iraq by the US acting without the sanction of the UN fits under "just war" and I'll reconsider.
What has Iraq done to the US that justifies pre-emptive war by the UN against Iraq?
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Does IRAQ give 25$k to families of suicide bomers ?..
They supposedly give money to Palestinian suicide bombers that strike Israel. You seen any proof that they have done so? Smiling family of Palestinian suicide bombers driving off in their new Mercedes? That would be Israel's problem anyway, wouldn't it? Or is our military now an extension of Israeli foreign policy?
Have they given any money to the families of suicide bombers that have struck the US?
None that I have heard about.
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Have Americans been targets and victims in Isreal?
I am not aware of any attacks that DIRECTLY targeted Americans in Israel. I'm willing to listen if you have proven examples.
Secondly, are you proposing that the US avenge any US citizen accidentally killed in a war zone (and Israel is a war zone)? Because I don't support that either. I expect US citizens to realize the risk they run when the enter a war zone.
Originally posted by BGBMAW
1. Not enuff of a link to say Saddam supports Terror on countries he doesnt like??
2. Do you not beleive the News about hi up Al Queda guys being in and about IRaq?...I could believe it.
3.Do you Think Saddam should be free to have as much Bio-Chem-Nuc weapons as he wants?
1. Nope, not enough of a link.
2. I believe there are probably A/Q operatives in Iraq. I believe there are some in Iran, France, Britain, Germanym, Saudi Arabia and even...... the United States. Until you DIRECTLY LINK them to the government of these countries and show that the government is offering them support you have nothing.
3. No. I'd like to see Iraq disarmed and Saddam removed. However, I'd like that to be the DECISION OF THE WORLD COMMUNITY, not a basically unilateral action by the US. (And stow the "40 other countries"; if WE weren't going, the other 40 sure as heck wouldn't have any interest in going at all.
I'm for it IF the US has a mandate from the world community to do so. Otherwise, we're just an aggressor, something we've fought hard against for so long.
-
(http://www.creativecyberspace.com/greetingcards/thumbs/peacesign.gif)
I think the war is needed to remove a madman. All for someone else doing it but no one else seems to have the guts.
using your argument, the US should never have declared war on Germany then ... what did Hitler do directly to us??
-
Hitler declared war on the US...
-
Very good post Toad.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I think the war is needed to remove a madman.
Are you talking about Hussein or Bush Jr. ?
-
Well, Eagler, for starters, Hitler declared war on us first. ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm for it IF the US has a mandate from the world community to do so. Otherwise, we're just an aggressor, something we've fought hard against for so long.
Very good post Toad, particularly the quoted part.
-
loving Good post Toad !
Originally posted by john9001
you people make much out of nothing, the only problem in iraq is somebody called saddam , when he is gone there will be peace.
You pretty much assume that Iraq is peupled by Iraqi ... it's plain wrong.
Ever heard of the Kurds for exemple ?
-
Originally posted by Mr.Toad
What has Iraq done to the US that justifies pre-emptive war by the UN against Iraq?
With the current situation in Iraq, it is difficult to establish direct links between a regime like Saddam's, and the case for a just war against it. In the old days (WW2 and earlier) we had tinpot dictators who tried to expand their territory (Napoleon, Hitler) and it was easy to put together a case for a just war. Then we had the nuclear age, the Cold War, with each side (Russia and the US) knowing that to start a nuclear war would be futile because of Mutually Assured Destruction.
In this post nuclear age, the situation is different again. At no time in world history before 911 did we ever see the level of destruction and murder that we saw on 911, caused by a small terrorist group. From this, it is clear that world conflicts have moved into yet another phase. Far more people died on 911 as a result of terrorist outrage than were killed in the 1991 Gulf War. In 1982, we had our own war with Argentina who, under the command of the late General Galtieri, had invaded the Falkland Islands. A clear cut case of taking action against a tinpot aggressor whose ideas of expansionism had gone too far. In that war, only about 252 British servicemen lost their lives, and I believe the total tally was still much less than the tally for the 911 atrocities.
The world has changed with regard to conflict, since 1982 - or even since 1991. There are different forces at work. We now live with the daily threat of terrorist atrocities which would have been unthinkable even five years ago. What we had on 911 was not a bellicose act by a tinpot expansionist, but an orchestrated hate crime by a group of fanatics going under the umbrella of Islam.
In 1939, the argument was over Nazi expansionism. A clear cut case. We did not want Germany marching into other countries, but when they continued to do so, war was declared.
Today, the war is against terror. The difficulty is that the enemy is largely unseen. We do not know where OBL is. We do not know what plans al qa'eda has, or where they plan to strike next. We do our best - with the CIA using spy satellites and scanning the radio waves/mobile telephone trasmissions. And because much of this gathered intelligence has to remain secret, it's difficult to put a case to the general public, except in general terms.
It is believed that the day may come when Saddam uses WMD (again) or sells WMD to a third party. For people to compare Dubya to a fascist dictator is a nonsense when we look to Iraq. Saddam is the real dictator. Saddam is the one that has gone to war with five of his neighbouring countries. Saddam is the one who has launched Scuds against Israel. And Saddam is the one who has tortured and murdered, and gassed his own people in Northern Iraq.
We were soft on Iraq during the Clinton years but now Dubya, quite correctly in my view, is taking a tough line against Iraq. And why not? They are in violation of UN resolutions enacted at the time of the Gulf War.
We can't show "proof" that Iraq has or will sell WMD to AQ or another terrorist group. We don't know the individuals that might be involved in such a transaction. But we do know that Saddam sponsors terrorism, and we do know that he is developing WMD. If he had nothing to hide, why else would he kick out the weapons inspectors? Why else would he forbid overflight of Iraq by U2 spy planes?
When the weather looks like turning to rain, we might wear a raincoat and carry an umbrella - much more sensible than waiting for the rain to start and then looking for an umbrella shop. By the same token, Dubya is right not to wait for another 911. It was the USA that was attacked on 911 - not the UN, not France, not Germany, not Belgium... and I don't see why America should have to go through some bureaucratic wrangle at the UN to safeguard its own interests.
I say again - Saddam has defied the UN. He has been given every chance to resolve the conflict peacefully. He has chosen not to. Saddam is the aggressor, not the US.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, Eagler, for starters, Hitler declared war on us first. ;)
thank goodness huh :)
-
Beetle, well written and nicely presented but.... I don't buy the "world has changed, just war theory doesn't apply any more".
The concerns you raise are valid but it's all "could be", "may be", "possibly" and "if". I think invading another sovereign nation on those precepts is too flimsy.
I'll acknowledge that some of those things MAY turn out to be true. But right now, there is no proof. If and when "proof" becomes available, it may be in the form of a WMD attack that is traceable to Iraq and it may cost many lives.
However, the US and its allies have obviously been unable to convince a majority of the Security Council that Iraq poses a threat of this magnitude. In the absence of an SC mandate.... a body that the US helped form to deal with exactly this sort of situation... it is the US that looks to most of the rest of the world like a rogue nation.
Now, I really don't care a fig how the rest of the world views us with one exception. This war on terrorism is going to go on for a long time and we will need the good will and trust of other nations to win it.
Believe me, I don't care a whit if Saddam catches a .308 in his teeth tomorrow. And I realize that leaving him in power is going to cost a lot of innocent people... particularly Iraqis... their lives.
However, the world stood by and watched the occupation of Austria, Kristallnacht and the occupation of Czechoslavakia before it reluctantly "stood to" after the invasion of Poland.
Clearly, the rest of the UN is going to have to have the scales fall from their eyes before action is taken and it will undoubtedly cost lives. It's another lesson the world is going to have to pay for in blood. So be it; upon their heads. Let us pray that the disaster falls upon those who presently obstruct this job that clearly needs doing. (I doubt that will be the case.)
Still, the US Congress has essentially abdicated its war making powers and the Executive branch has willing assumed them. I actually think W is a pretty moral man and he's almost undoubtedly right about Iraq. However, what of the precedent? What if the next President or the one after that ISN'T at all moral?
Look. Saddam desperately needs whacking. He clearly has WMD programs and he clearly ignores the needs of his own people. The outside world is feeding over 60% of the Iraqi population and he's still building statues of himself and WMD. Time for him to go.
But without the mandate of the UN... pitiful as it is.... the US cannot in anyway justify invading another sovereign nation.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
thank goodness huh :)
Actually, I wish he hadn't. Would have made the Pacific war extremely short. We'd have been all geared up to help if the Russians hadn't won in Europe by then. Assuming a legitimate causus belli occured that would pull us into that conflict.
So borscht is the national soup of France? So?
;)
-
I say Barszcz (but I'm half pole so it don't count :D)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Actually, I wish he hadn't. Would have made the Pacific war extremely short. We'd have been all geared up to help if the Russians hadn't won in Europe by then. Assuming a legitimate causus belli occured that would pull us into that conflict.
So borscht is the national soup of France? So?
;)
don't think it was about france, more about the over 11,000,000 Jewish ppl he exterminated
ad talk about a Super power had Russia been able to defeat Germany ....
I think it turned out as it was intended too....
-
Were did you got this 11 million ?
Not that I negate the Shoah but I've learned a number about 6 million not 11.
-
Mr. Toad - fair comment, but let me ask you this: Did you support the US liberation of Kuwait/Gulf War in 1991? Was that a just war? I think it got the thumbs up all round - even from the UN. Since then, Saddam has thumbed his nose at the UN, has broken many resolutions and regularly violates the northern and southern no-fly zones. Even without a 911, Saddam deserves to be taken to task over this. Justification to whack him exists on the basis of his noncompliance alone. That is why I don't think we need any proof of allegiance between AQ and Iraq, though that will likely emerge in the fullness of time.
I see the situation in much the same way as the scenario in which a petty criminal is convicted and receives a suspended sentence - often imposed for first time offenders. (Do they do that in the US?) The criminal is free to walk, but if he gets into any sort of trouble again, the Court does not have to convict him of any new offences - his original sentence can be invoked, and the guy is banged up on the strength of it. Well, Saddam got a "suspended sentence" in 1991. We let him stay in power. Now it's time to get rid of him - not on the basis of sponsorship of terror, not because of links with AQ (whether or not proof exists and can be presented), but because he is in violation of the original terms of his "sentence". We may not have the proof we need to convince everyone, although that will surely come to light. And don't forget - one of the main reasons why proof is not forthcoming is because of Saddam's obstructionism, and barring of weapons inspections since 1998.
-
Yes, Beetle, I did support the '91 Gulf War. That was a pretty clear case of one sovereign nation invading another sovereign nation without causus belli under Just WarTheory and without any sort of mandate from the UN.
See my point? ;)
As for your crime/sentence/court analogy, yes, it's clear that the "court" (SC) is aware that the "criminal" (SH) is not abiding by the terms of the "suspended sentence".
Unfortunately, the "court" is continuing to try to "rehabilitate" the "criminal" while leaving him at large for the present.
There simply is no decision here by the "court" to "re-arrest" the criminal.
Until there is, the cops need to stay out of it; Courts issue arrest warrants, not cops.
I'm not a big analogy guy, but..... hey, you started it. ;)
-
If you are talking about Stalin, Eagler, he didn't murder 11 million Jews. No where near that.
He was a genocidal maniac who firmly believed in equal opportunites, you see. Every ethnic group had an equal opportunity to face extermination if it was neccessary. He killed millions of ethnic minorites using starvation through relocation. He also killed plenty of government officials, high in the Soviet set-up.
At one point, government worker appartments were being built with a secret back door, in which the secret police would enter in the night and remove whoever had pissed off Stalin, and their families. Next day, a new family would move in. It must have been terrifying.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
He was a genocidal maniac who firmly believed in equal opportunites, you see. Every ethnic group had an equal opportunity to face extermination if it was neccessary.
Yes and no. Shortly before he died, Stalin had hatched a plan directly targetting Jews for extermination and/or relocation. Surely if he'd had his way, it would have made the Holocaust look like child's play. Thankfully the plan fell apart after his death, and none of the remaining leaders were insane enough to follow it through to fruition.
Here are some links to the "Doctor's Plot:"
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/plot.html
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/beyond-the-pale/english/62.html
http://members.tripod.com/~jockoconnell/books1e.html
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Henh.
one argument calls for waiting for world opinion, else we become 'agressors, something we've always abhorred'.
Europe, 1938.
The world waited.
We all paid for that.
Who's to say that if we 'wait for world opinion' we'll have waited too long?
I ain't got the answer. I agree with Toad's 'Just War' assesment... to a point. I just think it's up to us, the folks who will bear the brunt of the cost, do the majority of the fighting to decide if we should do this or not... and if we do, when to do it. I'm not at all convinced the 'world' can be trusted to make a reasonable decision based on material data regarding Irag and Saddams intent prior to it being too damn late...
-
Dowding, in a fashion similar to posting "Beetlejuice" in a thread, I fear you have summoned that defender of truth and justice from the dark side.
I expect Boroda here to entertain us at any moment. :D
-
so we do not get confused Gulf War One never ended , a cease fire was agreed on , conditions of the cease fire have not been followed by iraq, so this will not be gulf war #2 , this is still gulf war #1, iraq is still the agressor and the USA is still under the UN orders to enforce the UN mandate to disarm iraq.
-
Yeah, Hang, don't get me wrong. I see what you're saying and agree with it overall.
However, you know that line about those that can't remember history are doomed to repeat it. The "world", at least that part of it on the UN Security Council that remains unconvinced, seems to have blank spots in its memory. Some of them just can't seem to remember; funny that three of the key players were major participants and suffered enormously.
So, looks like it's time for another history lesson for the human race. Face it, Planet Earth is Short Attention Span Theater. The only thing that holds their attention, if only for a decade or two, is huge amounts of bloodshed. Not dribbles and drabs of blood, veritable oceans of the stuff.
It took an ocean of blood and about 5 years to wash away the "Chamberlain Effect" last time. Unfortunately, the lesson only lasted about 50 - 60 years. Until the guys that acutally had to bleed to fix the problem faded from the political scene.
Nonetheless, I'm unwilling to become a nation that does the same thing Iraq did to Kuwait and Germany did to Poland. I'm resigned to taking another "Pearl Harbor" in the hopes that the "Chamberlain Effect" will again be put away until we get this round of loonies nullified.
-
So, looks like it's time for another history lesson for the human race. Face it, Planet Earth is Short Attention Span Theater. The only thing that holds their attention, if only for a decade or two, is huge amounts of bloodshed. Not dribbles and drabs of blood, veritable oceans of the stuff.
I hope they get me in the first fireball. I don't think the world could stand the volume of my "I TOLD YOU SO!!".
;)
-
Cheer up. There's plenty of Algerians that have a hard on for Paris.
;)
-
TOAD... You are wrong...
Toad says..You seen any proof that they have done so?
Yes I have seen Pictures of Palestinains holding Checks from the National Iraqi Bank....
This has been documeted many times..no need for me to go farther...if you havent really seen this..go to http://www.stratfor.com
Toad says..I am not aware of any attacks that DIRECTLY targeted Americans in Israel.
Directly?? Do suicide bomers targte any1 directly other then Genralized citezens?? I would say no.
Yes the Jihad..as they say kills Israels and there dog brothers Americans..we give the Helicopters and jets that kill Palestinians..so of cousre they hate us...
Remember not to long ago a Suicide bomr goes into college Lunch room?? Ya..great tactics,..they should be hunted down..
but i understand there tactics..they cant beat the military so..they go after the "unarmed"
Im not going to try to persuade you to say that there is a link from saddam to terrorism...
Educate and decide yourself..cuase I feel its almost usless to try to educate soem people...
Wheres the smoking gun?? arghh nevermind..you "win"...
As far as getting the world to join us..Why? it would be nice but we dont need them....We have done more for the world then the rest of the countries....Do you beleive that? I do
have we made mistakes ..yes....
we have made sacrifices...Yes not as large as the Russians in ww2..hell or the japanese or Germans..(human deathtoll) we rebuilt Germany & japan..
I have not seen any thing here to say we shouldnt put a cap in saddams ass.....
I hope we do it and our soldiers dont get bio-chem attaked...
Salute
BiGB
xoxo
P.S. Toad i probably wont chek this post anymore..Im a bit burnt out on this stuff.. But Salute! see you in the air..
-
Funkedup, you need to add to the cost the cost of increased security measures due to increased terrorist threat. And the loss of life and property in the event of an attack
==============================================
So you think that the terrorist that are already in place are going to wait for us to invade Iraq? And what, if we don't they are going to get back on the boat and go home? You need to stop drinking decaf or better yet stop smoking dope. These attacks are going to happen no matter what we do, where we go or who we kill. There is only one way to stop it, kill them before they kill us. I wish I could live in your world, it seems like a nice place, I hope you stay safe in there. You fall into the same group that was just dumbfounded by 9-11. Don't get me wrong I hate the MF'ers for what they did, but suprised... no. I have seen the real world, it's not a nice place and no one there really gives a damn about what the UN thinks.
-
He has attacked the US directly, and he will continue his efforts to do so untill he is gone. We need to get that over with so we can get our occupation forces out of there that have been there for 12 years pissing off the Arabs and costing us money .
The only other choice we have is to keep the gun to his head while weapons inspections go on untill the day he dies.
-
Don't misunderstand. I have no problem with the US taking out Saddam WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL.
I DO have a problem with doing it premptively because we just decided to do so based on convincing ourselves.
Unfortunately for those that just want to go ahead without UN approval, that would CLEARLY put us in violation of Just War Theory (acting with UN approval is actually stretching it). We become the same type of nation that would invade its neighbor for no reason. Like Iraq took Kuwait.
Down the road, this unilateral action on our part will seriously harm our ability gather allies when we truly need them. In short, it's not worth the price we're going to pay, politically or economically.
Look, the "fighting season" over there is really over. Give the French and Russians credit; they delayed it long enough for the window of opportunity to pass.
Time for Powell to sit down with Blix and work out a list of arms/weapons that we want accounted for or destroyed in a sequential order with a "no later than" date for each item. Latest date would be 2 months before the next "fighting season" starts.
Let's leave the troops or bring 'em home, whichever is cheaper but have them back in place by a month prior to the next "fighting season".
If the stuff on the new list isn't resolved by two months prior, then we tell the SC to authorize force or we go anyway.
How bout that? (I figure we're going no matter what I'd say, but I think the above would look a hell of a lot better in the eyes of the rest of the world.)
-
Good points Toad!
:)
-
just war theory
so we do not get confused Gulf War One never ended , a cease fire was agreed on , conditions of the cease fire have not been followed by iraq, so this will not be gulf war #2 , this is still gulf war #1, iraq is still the agressor and the USA is still under the UN orders to enforce the UN mandate to disarm iraq.
-
Toad..we have been doing this since 91...WHy give them more time...
When can u say..ok thi sis it??
Im pissed they are asking for another resoltuion,,why??
Whats wrong with the first 1?? too ambiguos??
and unilateral? so out of 40 nations we are getting hamstrung by 3 or 4 who have political /financial connections with Iraq?
We have enuff support.
I wish we could of said..diddly you France,,,we want to sell gas and wepons to Germany so we dont give a diddly about your country...
Same thing they are doing now to us...
Sure seems like it
When people in France and Germany say Bush is like Hitler..They should beaten-tortured raped..then maybe killed...Hell lets do what they say we are...Show them what can really be made to look like" Hitler" It pisses me off ..to hear any such close remark about USA
BiGB
xoxo
-
We're past fighting season in Iraq.
The Turks are holding us up like Jesse James, making us pay bigtime for their helping save the world. It's good old extortion.
World opinion is overwhelmingly against this move at this time.
What's another six months when this "pass" is fubared? Just abort the pass and set up for another one...... and do that one right.
I think it's time to step back and face facts. This attempt is totally screwed. Time to pull back, reset and deal with it when we're all set for the next "fighting season".
You can also then assume the Turks aren't going to let you have a Northern Front unless they totally pick your pocket and plan around them. Go for a stronger Southern Front with an Air Mobile smaller Northern Front when the time comes.
I still don't want to see us go without UN approval, but if we're going without it, we might as well do THAT right.
-
read this Toad.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030228-22388785.htm
If true, waiting might be a bad idea.
-
What did I miss there?
If they're ready to surrender NOW, think how ready they'll be in six months. Because things are only going to get worse for them.
-
"Because things are only going to get worse for them"
The longer wait may start to calm their nerves, buck'em up. Not to mention time to repair their equipment. If that's even possible. That is if any of this stuff is true to begin with. Course my crystal balls just as fuzzy as everyones.
-
Open your eyes.
You don't want to be fighting in Iraq in April.
Turkey has pretty much precluded a Northern Front until nearly then with their foot dragging.
This is a botched pass. It's switchology. They didn't get everything ready before they rolled in.
Properly done, the deal with Turkey would have been signed long ago. They'd have lined up the SC vote long ago. This is last minute duct tape and baling wire stuff. It's stupid.
That's all aside from the fact that we're going in as an aggressor, which isn't going to be a good thing in the long run.
Just cut your losses and set up to do it again correctly next fighting season.
That's all fer me.
-
Time to pull back, reset and deal with it when we're all set for the next "fighting season".
damn.. i'd think we'd wanna do it when they can't.. thought we were the guys that had all-weather ass-kickin departments.
-
Originally posted by john9001
just war theory
so we do not get confused Gulf War One never ended , a cease fire was agreed on , conditions of the cease fire have not been followed by iraq, so this will not be gulf war #2 , this is still gulf war #1, iraq is still the agressor and the USA is still under the UN orders to enforce the UN mandate to disarm iraq.
John said it better than I did. We don't need a new authority. We have an existing UN mandate.
I read Gyro's link, and can well believe the low morale in the Iraqi army. This war could be over in a matter of days. All this UN prevarication is just wasting time and playing into Saddam's hands. Whose side are they on? :rolleyes:
Let's face it. The US is going into Iraq, whatever the UN says. We knew that last August. It really does not serve anyone's interests for the UN to delay things any further, least of all the interests of the UN itself. After all this is done, I see the UN continuing in a much reduced capacity - kind of like what happened to the British Monarchy. The more the UN resists this war, the more irrelevant it will become after the war.
Time to get on with it. No more last chances. No six-month wait which will give Saddam time to hide/sell/otherwise dispose of his illicit weaponry, time in which he can forge an alliance with AQ.
But Mr. Toad is right about one thing at least. We don't want to be fighting in the Gulf in April. It will be too hot in the daytime.
Baghdad Weather Forecast
-
Well, it's clearly decided now. There's going to be a war and shortly.
U.S. insists Saddam Hussein must go into exile
By DIEGO IBARGUEN and MARTIN MERZER
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The White House said Friday that Iraq could prevent war only by both disarming and sending President Saddam Hussein into exile.
I take this to mean that the administration has decided/realized that the destruction of the missiles (4 done so far) is going to hure their case in the SC, so they just added a condition that they KNOW Hussein will not accept.
There you go, folks. You've got your war.
I'll say again, this is porked. Oh, the military will do its part and probably quite well. The politicos, however, have stomped on their dicks wearing golf shoes throughout this affair.
Can you believe the diplomatic arm didn't have Turkey on board LONG before now? Kripes, if you know you're going to have a Northern Front, wouldn't you get that taken care of early on?
I'll shut up with this:
Long term, the way they did this is going to hurt the US significantly as we go forward in the "war against terrorism". We have now given true justification to those that call the US an "aggressor nation".
What a botched play this was. I'm pretty disgusted.
-
TOAd..you are wrong when u you say the "World opinion is overwhelmingly against this move at this time. "...
Thats what teh Anit -Bush/Anti America News and peopl say..pretty easy to see...Lord Knows Iraq wnats him out..they just get slaughtered when they try..
WHat you base this from..Anti war demonstrations?
They said they had 250, 000..in the March at San Francisco...WRONG!!!!!
Aerial survey said maybe 100,000K..So with this..the "millions" who were marching is WRONG
....
Go Go Go Special Forces!!!!!!!!
Love
BiGB
P.S. Toad I thing you are insulting all of us when you say.."There you go, folks. You've got your war. "..So you are saying we want to just kill people?
I dont want people dying..but when its go\ing to save alot more of us in the end....Do it...Hes a crazy bastard who will sell/give his WMD's away...
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
TOAd..you are wrong when u you say the "World opinion is overwhelmingly against this move at this time. "...
BiGB
P.S. Toad I thing you are insulting all of us when you say
1. Really, then why don't you do a short comparison for me? Make a list of all the nations that sent their troops to help in Gulf War I and then make a list of all those sending troops to Gulf War II.
After that, make a list of all those nations that promised (and did) to help pay for Gulf War I. Then make a list of those that have promised to help pay for Gulf War II.
Then there's that Security Council thing. It's not just France and Russia you know.
If you take that as an insult, it's in how you read it, not how I wrote it. It's just a statement of fact. There's going to be a war. Because we just keep raising the bar.