Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on March 07, 2003, 08:29:29 AM
-
I've been too busy at work to get involved in all the usual political infighting around here, but after catching President Bush on TV last night, I just had to post.
Bush didn't make a very strong impression on me last night as he explained why we need to go to war against Iraq. Incidentally, I agree with him that this is something that needs to be done, so I have no argument with his policy on this issue.
But his demeanor was so quiet and meek, that for a moment I thought I was listening to Michael Jackson give a speech. I almost expected to hear him say, "Tito, give me a tissue". What we need in these times is a strong leader, like Tony Blair. Bush is turning out to be a milquetoast, and that isn't good.
Does anyone seriously believe his speech last night was confidence inspiring or uplifting in any sense of the word?
I didn't think so. Bush Jr. is a far cry from the strong leader his father was. What an unfortunate choice for President at an important time like this in history.
-
-
I think the restrained and somber mood was deliberate.
The guy he was trying to convince doesn't live in the US.
He gave me the impression he was dead serious about disarming Iraq.
Perhaps the one guy he really needed to convice got the message.
We'll see.
-
Bomb the diddlyers already.
-
I think the US is making a mistake......in the long run
but again thats just an opinion....
like the Jews and muslims who've been fighting for so long....you are putting yourself in that position....
mark my words....there will be more 9/11's....hopefully not in my lifetime.....1 was enough.
-
I am humbled by the intelligence of the average dork.
As an example:
Life is the leading cause of death.
-
banana, my impression of Bush last night is the opposite of yours.
Bush appeared calm and deliberate to me, like the calm before the storm.
Bush has already layed out the rationale for the use of force over and over and over and over.
Bush has already shown more passion for the need to disarm Iraq than any leader I've seen.
As I watched Bush last night, I saw a man who has already made his case, and already said everything there is to be said about it.
The heavy weight of sending American troops into battle was reflected in his somber demeanor.
What Bush was saying is that.... its game time.
I think he got his message across. Did he leave any doubts in your mind?
-
SLO I think you are right that they will strike back.
The problem is they will strike at us if we go to war or not.
I would rather go in and take SH out BEFORE he can build WMD that can reach us.
-
Another example of dorkism:
"The more I find out, the less I want to know."
-
I think the US is making a mistake......in the long run
but again thats just an opinion....
like the Jews and muslims who've been fighting for so long....you are putting yourself in that position....
mark my words....there will be more 9/11's....hopefully not in my lifetime.....1 was enough.
- SLO
SLO, I'm sure you are well intentioned. What you don't realize is that the war has already started - way before 9/11.
Wake up - Muslim extremist enemies of America have declared Jihad long ago. They are absolutely committed to the destruction of America and democracy, which they believe is against Islam.
-
I agree Gunthr.
Bush wasn't trying to convince US to go to war but was letting everyone know we ARE going to war.
-
Turdboy - we're on the same page :)
-
Yeager, you seem to know alot about dorkism;)
Sorry, you gave me the ball, I just ran with it:D
-
gunthr if it started before 9/11 then why did the US wait till after 9/11....
I'm not tryin to argue the point that Saddam needs to leave....every1 pretty much agrees to that.
what others see is that you where there in '91(ya didn't finish the job)....you had 11 years to do it....but you waited till after 9/11.....they where a threat before 9/11....so stop usin 9/11 as an excuse please...Saddams always been a threat
I mostly agree with turdboy though....he's right....but the context for which this war came from leaves a bad taste in my mouth.....
Canada is already sendin what few ships an soldiers we have.....your friends are there....we might not agree on the PRESENTATION but we do agree that we never EVER leave friends standin alone....support is on the way :)
-
BTW, wimpy?, I think he got alota balls
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Another example of dorkism:
"The more I find out, the less I want to know."
My wife told me I am ignorant and apathetic. I replied "I don't know what that means, and I don't care".
-
Oh ya SLO.. there will be more 9/11s. Lots more. Once we start bombing the hell out of Iraq the body count here at home will start to rise. Prolly in Britian too, sad to say.
-
I really hope not hawk...cause that is not what I wish for....but ya know its gonna happen:(
-
I think the term 9/11 will lose some of its edge.. cause there will an equally devastating 4/15 and a 2/01 and so on and so on...I think we will then learn that we can not possibly win the 'war on terror' as as long as you have a person pissed off and willing to strap on a bomb and die we will be at 'war'.
-
gunthr if it started before 9/11 then why did the US wait till after 9/11.... -SLO
I just don't see how your question is relevent.
Prior to 9/11, most of us were comfortably unaware that there existed organizations dedicated to the destruction of America, with authorization from their God to kill innocents.
Most inhabitants of the North American Continent are still ignorant as to exactly what Muslim extemist Jihad is, how it is fueled, what its goals are, who they are and where they come from.
We were sleeping prior to 9/11. We awoke with the success of the 9/11 attack.
Since 9/11, Saddam has become a much larger threat due to the painful realization that there are those who hate America searching for WMD.
Saddam has them, and can distribute them.
-
I think the term 9/11 will lose some of its edge.. cause there will an equally devastating 4/15 and a 2/01 and so on and so on...I think we will then learn that we can not possibly win the 'war on terror' as as long as you have a person pissed off and willing to strap on a bomb and die we will be at 'war'. - Hawk220
Hawk, you are ignorant about Muslim extremist Jihad. Your willingness to bend over for terrorists won't save your life. In fact, you will be the easiest of meat.
Your existance is what offends the mujahadeen.
It doesn't matter what are policies were in the past, or what they are today, or what they will be in the future. You are targeted for destruction.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
I think the term 9/11 will lose some of its edge.. cause there will an equally devastating 4/15 and a 2/01 and so on and so on...I think we will then learn that we can not possibly win the 'war on terror' as as long as you have a person pissed off and willing to strap on a bomb and die we will be at 'war'.
this is true ..
the difference is a couple of pounds of explosives or bio/nuke packages around the nutbags waist...
tired of talk too, bomb the crap out of them already. then watch all the hand wringers jump on board for the loot
it'd get blix off my tele too, sick of his double talk spew as well...
-
Well, I'm a supporter of the War against Iraq..no question.
But honestly, I was watching that press conference last night and after about five minutes I actually said, "Oh my God STFU" at the TV. My wife gleefully changed the channel, because I had forbidden her to do so before Bush started to speak.
Bush is right IMHO...but frankly no wonder people don't trust him...he came off BADLY...and I mean REALLY BADLY..I just couldn't watch the ammunition he supplied to all of my liberal friends in our ongoing debates about the upcoming war.
It was a disaster of a press conference...someone needs to teach Bush how to present himself, and his country better then that.
-
I don't think I'm bending over Gunthr.. I'm all for letting the bombs rain. But I do think that we won't be exempt from reprisal.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Well, I'm a supporter of the War against Iraq..no question.
But honestly, I was watching that press conference last night and after about five minutes I actually said, "Oh my God STFU" at the TV. My wife gleefully changed the channel, because I had forbidden her to do so before Bush started to speak.
Bush is right IMHO...but frankly no wonder people don't trust him...he came off BADLY...and I mean REALLY BADLY..I just couldn't watch the ammunition he supplied to all of my liberal friends in our ongoing debates about the upcoming war.
It was a disaster of a press conference...someone needs to teach Bush how to present himself, and his country better then that.
Yeah he's hard to watch, at least for me. One thing that I realized last night though is this. We had Clinton for 8 years. That man could work a press conference like no other. A question would be asked and he could go on for 5 minutes and not say a damn thing, while using almost every word known to man. Bush can't do that, he can't pull words out of thin air. But what he does say has substance unlike Clinton. Amazing contrast if you ask me. Clinton=5 minute answer that says nothing, Bush=30 second answer that says much.
You have to be able to listen to the contents of what he is saying and not get stuck on his "nucular" speach....
-
roadkill gunthr.....you knew waaaaaaaaay before 9/11 that Saddam was a threat.....ya knew in 1991 he was a threat, thats why you went there to protect your INTEREST's:D , in 1991
cause some nutbags decided to plow into the buildings and you declare "terrorism" that it will change the facts that SADDAM is now a REAL threat....again roadkill....ya knew way before Saddam was a REAL threat.....again stop using 9/11....ya knew before it happened....
INTENT an DEED.....
ya knew he or others intended to hurt you......(loaded gun pointing at you)
but ya waited till the DEED was done.....(shots ya)
it won't excuse your WAITING.....ya had the chance to woop his ass(which ya did) but ya left em there....always said that was a huge mistake...just look at where we are today....:cool:
-
Bush is not a leader, policy or decision maker, he's a spokesperson for an organization.
When he talks, see it that way and everything is much clearer. Just because they agree with the stuff he says, some people (like Yeager for example. Damn its sad that this tard uses that name) will see him as some demi-god with a golden cock. Thats more or less why you have a President, so the masses can put a face to the actions and policies that the goverment makes.
I personally agree with most of the stuff he says, disagree with some, and plain laugh at others (mainly mispronounced stuff and absurd rethoric) which means that I agree with the US .gov not with Bush himself. Very rarely do you hear him saying something that he thought of himself.
That said, IMO the current administration has done a superb job so far. But Bush himself is a joke.
blah blah blah blah blah blah, blah blah blah. blah blah blah. And bomb iraq already.
-
errr SLO...it was the pressure from Arab countries..and tree huggers in places like Canada that prevented the US from dealing with Sadaam in 1991..not America.
Those same countries and people also have the blood of the Kurds and Shiites who were slaughtered by Sadaam on their hands....NOT the US.
-
Weird.
I was only able to listen on the radio, but I had just the opposite impression. Maybe not seeing him was a good thing.
I am not a fan of our appointed President, but I felt it was one of his best news confrences. Go figure.
I agree with one thing though.... WTH are we waiting for now? We know the UN's stance, and if Iraq is such a threat then dammit! Do something!
-
Bush is not a leader, policy or decision maker, he's a spokesperson for an organization.
====
Animal, you do come off as intelligent. Ill give you that much.
I suppose an intelligent person could reach the conclusion you have but I would say that an idiot could just as easily come to the same conclusion as you. Therefore I think, no....I am certain,
your an idiot.
-
actually, its 'YOU'RE'
-
Well, at least I wasn't the only one to think he came off badly last night. I didn't vote for Bush, but since he's our president, I was hoping to see someone of strength give that speech last night. To me, it wasn't a calm, resolute man at the podium. It was a meek, weak mouthpiece.
I didn't vote for Bush Sr, either, but he earned my respect for the leadership he showed in 1991 during the Gulf war.
Our current president is a far cry from the confidence inspiring leader that we really need right now.
And Toad, I too thought that it was an intentional gimmick to appear somber and morose. But IMO that was the wrong persona to use in the speech. I would think that he should've been more resolute and forceful, similar to his speech to congress after 9/11.
Regardless of who you voted for, it is time for all Americans to look to our president for strong leadership in this war against terrorism. I just wish our president was a more effective leader.
-
Originally posted by Curval
errr SLO...it was the pressure from Arab countries..and tree huggers in places like Canada that prevented the US from dealing with Sadaam in 1991..not America.
Those same countries and people also have the blood of the Kurds and Shiites who were slaughtered by Sadaam on their hands....NOT the US.
always blame some1 else right curval.....what!!! all of a sudden your the world police now.....you where there...so where we....you and every1 else TOOK the DECISION NOT TO INVADE IRAQ....it wasn't Canada's tree huggers who decided that
when they decide to send some1 with a bomb attached to em....it won't be Canada on the receivin end of it....maybe we tree huggers have done something right:D ......
I could visit ANY country in this world with a CANADIAN flag on my back and NOT worry about gettin shot.....can you say the same....I think not.:p
but again..your gonna say...'who cares what the world thinks':cool:
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Bush is not a leader, policy or decision maker, he's a spokesperson for an organization.
====
Animal, you do come off as intelligent. Ill give you that much.
I suppose an intelligent person could reach the conclusion you have but I would say that an idiot could just as easily come to the same conclusion as you. Therefore I think, no....I am certain,
your an idiot.
hahaha, nice one.
But if my conclusion can be reached by being either smart or dumb, does it make any diference?
Just as it makes no diference if bush says nuclear or nucular, someone is getting bombed either way :)
Oh and you like Bush because his team is doing such a great job, and it makes him look good.
Even Voss could be a great leader if he had Colin Powell/etc as his cronies.
-
Holy cow,
I really sorry to hear that Animal!!
I mean, if Yeager says it, it must be true ..... right?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Holy cow,
I really sorry to hear that Animal!!
I mean, if Yeager says it, it must be true ..... right?
Well, he is a great American hero after all! :eek:
does that mean i dumb?
thats unposible!
-
[what others see is that you where there in '91(ya didn't finish the job)....
The UN had something to say about that....remember?
Nations outside of the US had a fit dealing with the road of death...what makes you think if we had marched into Bagdad, the world would not have thrown a fit?
Bottom line....the folks against this are either scared of what Bush is doing, dislike him in the first place or both.
Any real death and destruction coming out of this effort will be born of Saddam and not the US military or Bush.
-
Originally posted by banana
Regardless of who you voted for, it is time for all Americans to look to our president for strong leadership in this war against terrorism. I just wish our president was a more effective leader.
Now that shoe is on the other foot, and now maybe you'll understand why I felt the same way you do when Clinton was giving nuclear technology to China while getting BJ's in the Oral office.
-
Originally posted by Animal
hahaha, nice one.
But if my conclusion can be reached by being either smart or dumb, does it make any diference?
Just as it makes no diference if bush says nuclear or nucular, someone is getting bombed either way :)
Oh and you like Bush because his team is doing such a great job, and it makes him look good.
Even Voss could be a great leader if he had Colin Powell/etc as his cronies.
Another blatant example of dislike for Bush.....
To do whats right doesn't always feel good, is popular, easy and most often requires sacrifice.
As to how the man pronounces the word nuclear, he's from Texas....if you had an ounce of understanding regarding that fact, you wouldn't have an issue with it. Of course, now you can tell me all about being born and raised in Texas becaused you visited once?
-
Originally posted by milnko
My wife told me I am ignorant and apathetic. I replied "I don't know what that means, and I don't care".
A sig line is born... :)
-
Bush is not a leader, policy or decision maker, he's a spokesperson for an organization.
That's such a bare assed ignorant statement I almost can't stand it. It's laughable.....just say you don't like the guy or his policies if that's how you feel...I can at least respect that.
I read what some of you say and can see that you would probably enjoy seeing us hurt again in a similar 9/11 type incident.
-
Originally posted by SLO
always blame some1 else right curval.....what!!! all of a sudden your the world police now.....you where there...so where we....you and every1 else TOOK the DECISION NOT TO INVADE IRAQ....it wasn't Canada's tree huggers who decided that
when they decide to send some1 with a bomb attached to em....it won't be Canada on the receivin end of it....maybe we tree huggers have done something right:D ......
I could visit ANY country in this world with a CANADIAN flag on my back and NOT worry about gettin shot.....can you say the same....I think not.:p
but again..your gonna say...'who cares what the world thinks':cool:
Actually I'm a Canadian citizen too, I have my card in my pocket to prove it..and I was in Canada in 1990 when the toejam hit the fan.
The UN, the Arab countries and the same protestors that are marching today all put MASSIVE political pressure on the US to NOT invade Iraq after they drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. So, it is not the US who didn't get the job done in 1991, it is the tree hugging liberal "lets talk some more about this" types who are to blame for the need to start the process all over again. It could have been done with ease in 1991...so don't blame the US for not finnishing what they started.
-
Originally posted by Rude
That's such a bare assed ignorant statement I almost can't stand it. It's laughable.....just say you don't like the guy or his policies if that's how you feel...I can at least respect that.
I read what some of you say and can see that you would probably enjoy seeing us hurt again in a similar 9/11 type incident.
Quite a leap there from..
I don't like Bush to
I hope there is another 9-11.
Silly Rude.
-
QUESTION: Mr. President, you have repeatedly said that we have shared with our allies all of the current, up-to-date intelligence information that proves the imminence of the threat we face from Saddam Hussein.
If all of these normal allies have access to the same intelligence information, why are they so reluctant?
BUSH: "We, of course, are consulting with our allies at the United Nations. Saddam has had 12 years to disarm. Saddam is a threat to our nation."
"My job is to protect the American people. So therefore I think the threat is real."
Did anyone see an answer there?
QUESTION: In the past several weeks your policy on Iraq has generated opposition from France, Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, the Arab League and many other countries, opened a rift at NATO and at the U.N. and drawn millions of ordinary citizens around the world into the streets into anti-war protests.
May I ask what went wrong?
BUSH: "France and Germany express their opinions. We disagree over how to deal with Saddam. Having said that, they're still our friends, and we'll deal with them as friends."
Did anyone see an answer there?
QUESTION:Can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam, as you once said, "Dead or alive?"
BUSH: "We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. The life of the Iraqi citizen's going to dramatically improve."
So far, he hasn't even come close to answering one question.
QUESTION: Is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam Hussein?
BUSH: "We will be changing the regime of Iraq for the good of the Iraqi people."
Did anyone see an answer there?
QUESTION: ...there are a lot of people in this country -- who who listen to you say that you have the evidence, but who feel they haven't seen it, and who still wonder why blood has to be shed if he hasn't attacked us.
BUSH: "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. He's used these weapons before. I mean, we're not speculating about the nature of the man. We know the nature of the man."
In my lifetime no president has ever had the press lay down for him like this never-elected thug.
QUESTION: ...the Security Council faces a vote next week on a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. Will you call for a vote on that resolution, even if you aren't sure you have the votes?
BUSH: "Yes, we'll call for a vote."
Idiot!
This was the one question he should've slipped. Now his hands are tied, or, tied as much as Powell's were when he promised to release the Al Qaeda evidence the Sunday after 9-11-01, then broke his promise.
There are two possibilities:
1. The fix is in and he knows the other big nations will vote with him.
2. The idiot just showed his cards and we're still raising each other at the poker table.
This is the fault of the White House-run press.
They ask him questions, he mumbles the same four lines he's memorized since December and the reporters say, "Thank you, Mr President," as though they got an answer.
Why didn't somebody ask, "If Saddam is such a monster, why did Cheney repair his oil fields?"
Why didn't somebody ask, "Mr. President, can you assure us here, tonight, that after Iraq is taken, you and your wealthy friends won't make hundreds of millions of dollars from this bloody campaign?"
When the subject was Clinton's sex life, it was our business.
With hundreds of thousands of lives bet on future profits for the B.F.E.E., it's none of our business and if you think otherwise, you probably need to be tortured by the religio-psychopath called Ashcroft.
(http://www.bartcop.com/ashcroft4[1].gif)
I wish America had a free press.
-
banana it was him or Al Gore.
-
Yeah no toejam....Al Gore comes off as a real tough guy. Hell he doesn't even wear the pants in his family. You think Ashcroft is a threat to freedom of speech? I'm sure Tipper wouldn't ever want to restrict our rights at all :rolleyes:
-
Weazel, it still isn't too late for you to give up your WMD (words of mangled deduction) and get on board with the winning team. :)
Few media events are as misunderstood and abused as the Presidential press conference. They are controlled by the people who call them. Their purpose is to get out information that they want to get out. They are always spin - to promote the hosts viewpoint.
Bush simply refused to answer some of those questions. I don't have any problem with that. All Presidents do that at most press conferences. Some of the questions you say were unanswered are questions of semantics, and others I believe were answered, but you have taken all of them out of context, so it isn't clear.
We already know Bush isn't the best orator, or the best at press conferences. I think he used the press conference to say what he wanted to say, i.e. the diplomacy is almost over. I know you got his message, even if you hate the guy.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Of course, now you can tell me all about being born and raised in Texas becaused you visited once?
Funniest crap posted this week.
Drop the crack pipe and get some fresh air.
-
Now that shoe is on the other foot, and now maybe you'll understand why I felt the same way you do when Clinton was giving nuclear technology to China while getting BJ's in the Oral office.
Rip, the issue is whether or not Bush is an effective leader. If you want to ignore current issues and live in the past, I'd be glad to sit down with you and a pitcher of our favorite beer at the con sometime. But for now, could you at least try to stay on topic?
Funked, Raub....you may have a point. But then again it's all speculation on your part when it comes to Gore. But we now have living proof about how ineffective Bush is right now as a president. We need a president that can get on the phone and get our allies and the United Nation members on board with us. He hasn't accomplished that, and instead has succeeded in getting us isolated within the United Nations.
We are in a big mess right now with the Iraq and North Korea situation. While I think Bush is correct in ignoring the North Korean's shenanigans for the moment, it is important that he accomplish the difficult task of uniting the United Nations on the Iraqi situation.
We of course could handle Iraq on our own, militarily speaking. That's not the issue. The important issue is, that we need to convince the rest of the UN that Saddam is a menace to the free world, and must go....one way or the other. And Bush is not getting the job done in that regard.
-
Originally posted by banana
We of course could handle Iraq on our own, militarily speaking. That's not the issue. The important issue is, that we need to convince the rest of the UN that Saddam is a menace to the free world, and must go....one way or the other. And Bush is not getting the job done in that regard.
Excuse me? 40 countries say YES< take him out...and 3 say no? I'd say that IS getting the job done, considering that the 3 nations that say no have vested (but dormant due to restricitions) contracts with Iraq. The lefties are correct about one thing, this war IS about oil (For France, Germany and Russia!)
-
Rip, the fact that the only three countries who vote no are major players in the UN make this a slightly more difficult issue than if they were, say....Lichtenstein, Ghana and Guatamala. Don't you think?
-
Not when its about having dormant contracts with Iraq for businesses once sanctions are lifted...nope, its about greed, for them!
Not unexpected, as I have stated many times, since the 60's the world has become more "ME, ME ME, I got mine, screw you!"
Incidently, here's a list of the other countries you failed to mention, and THEIR support, at least THEY can see the threat:
BTW, THIS WAR IS NOT UNILATERAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------
ALBANIA: Approved U.S. use of airspace, land and territorial waters.
___
AUSTRALIA: Ordered 2,000 troops to the Persian Gulf and hints it's ready to join a U.S.-led attack even without U.N. backing.
___
BAHRAIN: Sent a frigate and troops under Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.
___
BELGIUM: Allowed movement of troops and supplies from U.S. bases in Germany through Belgium en route to Gulf.
___
BRITAIN: 42,000 troops already in the Gulf, including a quarter of the army, a third of the air force and largest naval deployment since 1982 Falklands War.
___
BULGARIA: Approved U.S. use of military airport and 150-member Bulgarian non-combat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops, and use of airspace.
___
CANADA: Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships. Help also may include special forces.
___
CHINA: No promises.
___
CROATIA: Will allow refueling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
___
CZECH REPUBLIC: Sent unit specialized in dealing with aftermath of chemical, nuclear and biological attacks to Kuwait.
___
DENMARK: Offered 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers and the Saelen submarine if military action gets U.N. backing.
___
EGYPT: Promised to keep Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to Gulf.
___
GERMANY: Ruled out participating in any war but pledges unhindered use of its airspace and U.S. and British bases. About 60 German soldiers are currently in Kuwait as part of the U.N. border monitoring force, operating specialized vehicles for detecting chemical or germ warfare; parliament has barred them from entering Iraq. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS and Patriot anti-missile rockets.
___
GREECE: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. Sixth Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Any other assistance conditional on U.N. backing.
___
HUNGARY: The United States allowed to use a Hungarian air base to train Iraqi opposition figures for non-combat support roles and postwar administration. NATO (news - web sites) can use the country's roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey's defense. Willing to consider opening airspace to U.S. military flights. Has ruled out contributing troops.
___
INDIA: Ruled out joining any military action without U.N. backing. No facilities for U.S. forces.
___
ITALY: Offered use of bases, ports and airspace. No plans to send troops.
___
JORDAN: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.
___
KUWAIT: More than 70,000 U.S. troops training in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq.
___
LITHUANIA: Authorized use of airspace.
___
NETHERLANDS: 360 Dutch troops to operate three Patriot missile defense systems in Turkey; allowing movement of troops and supplies from U.S. bases in Germany through the Netherlands en route to Gulf.
___
NORWAY: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey.
___
OMAN: Sent one battalion under Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait.
___
POLAND: A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and a transport ship in Gulf area, already under U.S. command as part of Afghanistan (news - web sites) operation, could be enlisted.
___
PORTUGAL: Granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional mid-Atlantic refueling stop.
___
QATAR: U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al Udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, F15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars.
___
ROMANIA: 278 non-combat nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination specialists, military police troops and demining units. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases.
___
SAUDI ARABIA: Pentagon (news - web sites) says it has assurances the United States could launch air support missions from Saudi bases, though Saudi officials say decision not yet made. Won't participate in any direct military action.
___
SLOVAKIA: Deployed 69-member anti-chemical warfare unit to Kuwait. Has approved U.S. flyovers and offered use of its bases.
___
SPAIN: U.S. will be able to use the Rota naval base and Moron air base in southern Spain. Co-sponsoring new U.N. resolution with U.S. and Britain, but no military commitment yet.
___
TURKEY: Cabinet approved plans to allow 62,000 U.S. combat troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters to use Turkish bases for possible northern front against Iraq, in exchange for multibillion-dollar aid package. Needs parliamentary approval.
___
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: 4,000 troops backed by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war on Iraq.
-
:)
You know, I can't get over at how little the French learn over the years. You'd think that after Munich in 1938 they would've learned their lesson about appeasement.
At the risk of opening up a *HUGE* can of worms....remember it was the French who could've spared us WW2 if they had stomped all over Germany when Hilter re-armed the de-militarized rhineland in 1936.
I feel sorry for the French, actually. Being a serious student of WWI, I can understand how much they suffered and how that affected their national psyche. The French haven't been the same since the Prussians kicked their butt in 1870!
-
You answered your own question banana. The British and French people of the 30s remembered WW1 all too clearly. The death toll was about 4 million for hust the French and British I believe. I think after living through that, you'd be a little anti-war. Not to mention the fact that many people felt some guilt for the Treaty of Versailles - by breaking it, Hitler was seen to be 'making good' on a bad deal. Especially when it came to Hitler's claim of reuniting the German people. The Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia was primarily an ethnic German population.
With hindsight, they shouldn't have given Hitler an inch. But that's hindsight.
BTW, I think drawing parallels between Hitler and Saddam is really grasping at straws - completely different worlds, completely different circumstances.
-
comparing hitler to saddam is all propaganda crap. there are alot worse dictators out in the world funding terrorism, they just dont have oil or they are our buddys(the saudis')
-
You guys are all pretty cool. Even animal has some redeeming qualities.
-
"I'm not tryin to argue the point that Saddam needs to leave....every1 pretty much agrees to that."
Of course they do, but it takes the US to call him and any of these wackos onto "the carpet" and then the "friends" start to line up behind us. Why didn't Canada lead the charge on Saddam. You sound so well informed, you should have taken the lead yourselves.
Reminds me of the film that I saw where Charles DeGaulle so proudly paraded thru Paris the day after the US and Britain liberated it. Like he had something to do with it.
"what others see is that you where there in '91(ya didn't finish the job)....you had 11 years to do it....but you waited till after 9/11.....they where a threat before 9/11....so stop usin 9/11 as an excuse please...Saddams always been a threat"
I am sure that "Stormin' Norman" wanted to march straight in Bagdad, just like Patton wanted to march right into Moscow, but the bleeding heart, politically correct countries (wussy countries) said "Oh, that would be horrible. That just wouldn't look right". You have the balls to say "ya didn't finish the job". Where were all the big-balled Canandians so eager to march into Bagdad ? Maybe if YOU went first, then we might have backed YOU up ... yeah right.
"I mostly agree with turdboy though....he's right....but the context for which this war came from leaves a bad taste in my mouth....."
Who cares what the context is ... this madman has to go and go quickly. I could care less if the context was he spit on the sidewalk. Any excuse would suffice as far as I am conerned.
Oh, and thanks to your neighbor to the south, you probably will never have to taste mustard gas or any other biological/chemical agent that might replace that taste that you currently have in your mouth.
"Canada is already sendin what few ships an soldiers we have.....your friends are there....we might not agree on the PRESENTATION but we do agree that we never EVER leave friends standin alone....support is on the way :)"
How come you have so few ships and soldiers ?
If you are a true representation of the Canadian view on this issue, you can take your few ships and soldiers and send them back to Canada. We don't need you. I sleep easier at night knowing that our neighbor to the north will never leave us standin' alone. Laughable to say the least. I am sure that you sleep tight every night knowing that no one in the world dare attack Canada for fear of stirring up the US hornet nest. How convienent for you. Is that why you have so few ships and soldiers, cause Big Brother down south provides all the deterents and firepower needed to keep us both safe.
YOU say you are our "friends", yet YOUR words above send a very different message.
-
to those not from the USA ,do not forget that the former President is the one that screwed the pooch on Iraq, and for that matter with Osama Bin Laden, he was just a tad to busy trying ta find that dress. It always amazes me how many not from the USA critisize our systems and ways but try so hard to duplicate it, when it does go your countries way you shout out we want the USA to intervene, then when we have a need, yall turn your backs and say screw you, hmmm tells me a toejamload about your backstabbing characters, we want all our troops home now! screw Iraq my feelings, i'm personally tired of out troops being the UN's private police department.
-
Originally posted by banana
What we need in these times is a strong leader, like Tony Blair.
You mean the same Tony Blair who is pulling out on supporting the US in Iraq due to opposition pressure in Parliament?
:rolleyes:
-
Hey, quit knocking Canada. They're pouring 1.1% of their GDP into defense spending which is more than Trinidad & Tobago.. oh, wait, it's not. Well, more than Paraguay anyway..... oh, wait, it's not. Still more than Madagascar at least...... oh, wait, it's not.
Hmmmm. Wait a minute........ OK, that's more than Mozambique by .1%!
So ease off, already. Give 'em a break. They're doing what they can with what they have, which according to CBC is:
Canada's land forces are by far the most strapped, down 20 per cent from the number of troops required. The division's ceiling for regular forces was reduced from 35,800 to 20,900 and its reserve is down from 24,000 to 20,000. The Defence Department also cut the air force personnel nearly in half over the past decade, previously employing 23,000, now down to 13,500. As a result, troops have felt strained and have less opportunity for skills development, according to the recent report. Naval forces are also understaffed at 13,000
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hey, quit knocking Canada. They're pouring 1.1% of their GDP into defense spending which is more than Trinidad & Tobago.. oh, wait, it's not. Well, more than Paraguay anyway..... oh, wait, it's not. Still more than Madagascar at least...... oh, wait, it's not.
Hmmmm. Wait a minute........ OK, that's more than Mozambique by .1%!
So ease off, already. Give 'em a break. They're doing what they can with what they have, which according to CBC is:
they gotta pay for that high quality health care system they got up there somehow....
-
Originally posted by SLO
I could visit ANY country in this world with a CANADIAN flag on my back and NOT worry about gettin shot.....
Don't visit the USA any time soon SLO:p
-
Originally posted by SLO
I could visit ANY country in this world with a CANADIAN flag on my back and NOT worry about gettin shot.....can you say the same....I think not.:p
Yep, and I salute Canada for this.
They've managed to participate actions that earn the US the enmity of other nations without becoming the target that the US has become.
Masterful piece of statesmanship; showing their flag just enough so that we know they're "with" us but hiding it well enough that the troublemakers of the world apparently don't notice them.
It is an art.
-
You mean the same Tony Blair who is pulling out on supporting the US in Iraq due to opposition pressure in Parliament?
Funnily enough he's the Prime Minister of the UK, and answers to Parliament who have been elected by the POPULATION OF THE UK. He's not the poodle of the US and so is not obliged to follow Bush blindly to war. Fancy that!
Besides, he's actually trying to find a compromise, unlike Bush and his 'everyone and everything is irrelevant' approach to diplomacy.
I'm not a fan of Blair and never have been, BTW.
-
Damn Toad. Whats your consulting fee?
>unlike Bush and his 'everyone and everything is irrelevant' approach to diplomacy.
====
Thats so damned typical. Its like this: You have a threat and your required to get all your neighbors permission to defend yourself and they say NO then you find out the threat is actually allied in some business dealings with your friends. Now you need to get at that threat before he slips some poisen into your food or messes with the brakes on your family sedan but your friends still say NO. Well....screw the friends I say. Screw you if required.
-
Originally posted by Someone
Funnily enough he's the President of the US, and answers to Congress who have been elected by the POPULATION OF THE US. He's not the poodle of the UK and so is not obliged to follow Churchill blindly to war. Fancy that!
Besides, he's actually trying to find a compromise, unlike Churchill and his 'everyone and everything is irrelevant' approach to diplomacy.
I'm not a fan of Roosevelt and never have been, BTW.
Hmmmmmmmm... can we use this approach when the next "the US drug it's feet getting into WW2" post appears?
:D
-
Originally posted by Turdboy
SLO I think you are right that they will strike back.
The problem is they will strike at us if we go to war or not.
I would rather go in and take SH out BEFORE he can build WMD that can reach us.
yeah thats actually the problem with the whole terrorist infrastructure. We are an open society, and can do only limited things to harden it against terrorism without becoming a police state. So we will need to be proactive against those who mean to strike against it, since they don't have a return address to which retaliation might be directed, and thus are not deterrable as was the USSR. This means going after them in their refuges when we can, hopefully with the cooperation of other governments.
Some say that Bin Laden's actual goal is destabilization of every secular government in Arab countries, and he may have been be hoping to use the United States' enraged response to 9/11 to help in this end. I am so far impressed that we seem to be doing well rolling up the Al Qaida hierarchy and destroying their Afghan sanctuary while minimizing collateral damage to people and nations. We of course don't want to create more terrorists than we kill or capture, but I dont see Saddam being someone that substantial numbers of Arabs will venerate as a martyr, seeing how many Arab countries lined up against him in 90-91, and how many fellow Arabs and Muslims he has personally ordered killed. Those who hate America after we rid Iraq of him would have hated us anyway, and more people, especially Iraqis, will love us for showing leadership and resolution.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a different matter, and the US may have to make a real effort to appear more even handed there, lest we be effectively portrayed to be financially supporting annexation and oppression of helpless Palestinians.
-
There are so many holes in that version, Toad, I surprised 'someone' has 'something' to post. Even a cursory examination of the two situations shows there are no real similarities.
Those that say the 'Euros' were cowardly appeasers prior to WW2 are guilty of the same exploitative use of 20/20 hindsight as those that would say the US dragged their feet in entering the conflict. ;)
The UK doesn't have any obligation to folllow the US anywhere. I'm surprised that anyone should find that fact disturbing.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The UK doesn't have any obligation to folllow the US anywhere. I'm surprised that anyone should find that fact disturbing.
Then why do you feel that you have the obligation to stand in our way?
-
Oh, I can see lots of similarities.
-
Now Bush is a whimp? I thought you euros saw him as some sort of atilla the hun/hitler/stalin type... What gives?
-
OK, Toad, so Iraq has several hundred thousand heavily armed troops 40 miles from Washington, while the US forces have few heavy weapons or tanks? Are Iraqi planes bombing your cities while your heavily outnumbered air-force desperately tries to stop them? Or are you arguing that 9-11 was directly conceptualized, planned and implemented by the Iraqi government?
Any attack on Iraq is pre-emptive - your own government admits this. So how does that compare to a defensive war against Germany in 1940?
There are more glaring contradictions than similarities.
Then why do you feel that you have the obligation to stand in our way?
There's no obligation to stand in your way. There's a right to disagree and a right to do as a sovereign nation must do.
-
Dictators? Yep, both dictators.
Genocide? Definitely both into Genocide?
Conquest? Yep. both "reclaiming lands that rightfully belong to their people... even though the lands don't want to rejoin".
Treaty violations? Absolutely, both heavily into treaty violations.
These should suffice.
Now, in BOTH cases, all responsible nations should recognize the danger and immediately jump into the conflict right? In fact it would be better to act pre-emptively much earlier, perhaps even at the very first treaty violation, and prevent a World War, right?
:D
-
.
-
you reopened a two week dead thread for that :rolleyes:
can anyone say they, for better or worse, don't have their father in them .... don't think so...
-
Sorry Eagler...NO excuse for my actions in this thread...
-
I Really...
-
am sorry.