Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Cherlie on March 16, 2003, 05:06:30 AM
-
The world feeeling towards U.S is at a all time low.
We have seen cracks at the U.N
You have North Korea and Iran with Nukes or trying to get nukes.
Becoming enermies with Germany and France is not a good idea too.
I agree we need to take out Saddam but don't be too "we are the best" or it will come and bite you in the arse.
Same with my beloved England.
Maybe take out North Korea first?
comments
CB
-
Anti-American communist, with us or with them, homosexual, liberal, studmuffingot, traitor, saddam lover.
I'm just saving some people the bother to post. They'll probably mention how the Iraqi people need saving, like suddenly after 30 years it's a moral issue.
-
not interested in Iraqi people........
Get Saddam and that young kim whatever out!
then work on the English Crikcet team ot FINALLY beat those darn aussies:D
CB
-
The fact that Iraqis live in terror is and has never been the main reason the us is looking to depose Suddam.
Suddam, if you believe the arguement, is a real threat to the us. After what the us went through on 9/11 lotsa of Americans dont want their government sitting around waiting for something worse.
These people really believe that Suddam would give aid to terrorists if not checked.
But on top of that Suddam can be made an example of so that these other governments who have supported terrorists will think twice. It sends a clear message that if you diddly with us we will diddly you 10 times worse.
This is along the same lines as the cold wars "assured mutual destruction".
Now part of the propaganda / media war revolves around demonizing Suddam. Its fair game to point to his record towards his own people and toward his neighbors.
We arent going after Suddam because he is "mean" to his subjects but because he reprents a potential threat that the US is not willing to allow to blossom.
Now there are really respectful decent folks who dissagree with the idea of "preventative action". They point to containment and how it worked during the cold war. They also think that the "fear" and pressure we put on these types of regimes is enough to stop them from acting with these terrorists to deliver wmd against US citizens.
The only real way to enure this doesnt happen is to take out these guys out before they are in a position to do so.
It may sound "Israeli like" (and maybe why Bush has avoided the pal israel situation) but it has support in our government and from a good portion of Americans.
All the "war for oil" "Bush is wargmonger hypocrit who lets other innocents die and is lying about his concern for the Iraqi public" etc
are BS red herrings that have no reality on real life.
-
Why?
-
Maybe take out North Korea first?
Maybe let the US decide how to handle its own defense? France and Germany should take out NK while the US is handling Hussein.
-
Oh yeah... I'm sure NK feels threatened enough by France and Germany to lob a missile west.
-
Hi Cherlie
One thing that i noticed in your post is the idea that maybe we take care of north korea first. I think this is an intersting point you made and it illustrates someting that is very dangerous and stupid common to euro thinking. And that is delaying the immediate, real as in next two weeks, action. What you are trying to do here is delay useful action, by saying go to north korea you are just trying to postpone any decision point for months and months and months. The europeans have so single mindedly wound themselves up in this iraq thing thing that you wouldnt care how it ends even if the usa simply moves its "agression" somewhere else. And I think thats silly. You arent against the USA acting you are aginst it acting in iraq. Plus look what kinds of bussiness connections the French and german shave with north korea as opposed to their substantial fininacial stock in iraq.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Oh yeah... I'm sure NK feels threatened enough by France and Germany to lob a missile west.
Is that their strategy to prevent an islamic extremist nuke in paris or berlin too?
-
Originally posted by Batz
All the "war for oil" "Bush is wargmonger hypocrit who lets other innocents die and is lying about his concern for the Iraqi public" etc
are BS red herrings that have no reality on real life.
Which is okay, because all of the, "Saddam might sell weapons to terrorists" or "Saddam supports Al-Qaeda" or "Saddam might have a nuke" is also a bunch of red herring BS.
We're at risk. We will always be at risk. Removing Hussein isn't going to reduce that risk, IMHO.
But hell... removing Hussein is great news for Israel... and that is definitely not a BS red herring.
-
Why should US government listen to Europe? They listen not even to the pope or their own churches.
http://www.n-tv.de/3146645.html
Slowly i begin to think the Anti-Christ is here :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
You can make a decent arguement based on containment over the "Bush Doctrine". You can make a decent arguement over whether or not Saddam is stupid enough to provide terrorist with wmd (the first person we would hit would be him). But all the conspiracy left wing Euro trash roadkill is just that, roadkill.
Removing Saddam has little to do with Israel, more left wing tripe. Removing Saddam will benefit a lot of folks but we wont remove Saddam for Israel any more then we would to steal his oil.
Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.
We are at risk from standard terrorists and always will be. But the real WMD need the backing of a state to develope. A terrorist group cant put together a nuke in cave in afghanistan.
There is still the threat from chemicals and biologocial weapons but to get these weaponized to degree at which they threaten many thousands requires more the a cave as well.
This is about putting governments who would support terrorist on notice. The US is shifting from containment to the Bush Doctrine, what better way to demonstrate their resolve then going after Saddam?
I dont support the invasion of Iraq because I think he is well contained.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.
Really? How many Iraqi citizens were on the aircraft of 911?
If the U.S. wants to send a clear message... pull out of Saudi and hold Israel accountable as well for their breach of U.N. resolutions.
-
What does that have to do with anything? We arent going to war against the Iraqi people any more then we did against afghanis.
Where the terrorist come from is irrelevant. We have American terrorist right here.
The entire Saudi population wasnt on those planes either.
If the U.S. wants to send a clear message... pull out of Saudi and hold Israel accountable as well for their breach of U.N. resolutions.
Israel is not a threat to the US and good number of folks in the US could give a fek about the UN.
Pull out of Saudi? Are we an occupying force in Saudi?
more diversionary left wing bs ........
-
More dodging the question from the right...
Originally posted by Batz
Removing Saddam sends a clear msg to those states who would use terrorist groups and wmd against the US. After Saddam is bounced out the US can tell the rest of the world. "This is what will happen to you.
How? Saddam has not used terrorist groups or WMD against the U.S.
The message for the rest of the world is that if the U.S. gets smacked, we will strike the most convenient third world tyrant we can find and fabricate reasons to do so.
-
Originally posted by Cherlie
The world feeeling towards U.S is at a all time low.
We have seen cracks at the U.N
You have North Korea and Iran with Nukes or trying to get nukes.
Becoming enermies with Germany and France is not a good idea too.
I agree we need to take out Saddam but don't be too "we are the best" or it will come and bite you in the arse.
Same with my beloved England.
Maybe take out North Korea first?
comments
CB
Relations with countries overseas take a backseat to keeping our kids safe.
Its nice to have friends but not at the cost of your childrens future.
-
Originally posted by blitz
Slowly i begin to think the Anti-Christ is here :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
But wasnt this the Bush Crusade against Islam and intent on slaughtering and punishing all muslims?
Wow must be confusing for you being such a lunatic blitz...
-
Originally posted by Cherlie
The world feeeling towards U.S is at a all time low.
We have seen cracks at the U.N
You have North Korea and Iran with Nukes or trying to get nukes.
Becoming enermies with Germany and France is not a good idea too.
I agree we need to take out Saddam but don't be too "we are the best" or it will come and bite you in the arse.
Same with my beloved England.
Maybe take out North Korea first?
comments
CB
Geez, I wonder why there are 30+ bombers on Guam?
-
The message for the rest of the world is that if the U.S. gets smacked, we will strike the most convenient third world tyrant we can find and fabricate reasons to do so.
Well not any third world Nation just the ones our government identifies as pro terrorist. The whole Axis of evil thing. And yes it sends one Helluva msg. Along the same lines as "assured mutual destruction" during the cold war. Only the US will give more then it gets.
I am not "right wing btw", I am not Christian or Conservative or a even republican. Just because you are on the left doesnt mean any who disagrees with you is on the right.
Your question wasnt dodged I answered it, who cares what the UN thinks, Isreal is not a threat to the US and if they violate UN sanctions I dont care anything about that. Just I dont care about France's violating the UN in Afrika and the Russians in regards to the Chechens or China is regards to tibet etc.....
I am certainly not pro-Israel and you search for post under my old nic wotan. But I never used the bs UN arguement.
-
So providing you are Israel, you can violate all the UN sanctions you like?
And the Arabs say the West is biased towards Israel! How dare they!
It would be nice to have some even handedness.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Your question wasnt dodged I answered it, who cares what the UN thinks, Isreal is not a threat to the US and if they violate UN sanctions I dont care anything about that. Just I dont care about France's violating the UN in Afrika and the Russians in regards to the Chechens or China is regards to tibet etc.....
I am certainly not pro-Israel and you search for post under my old nic wotan. But I never used the bs UN arguement.
Batz... that wasn't my point. The point was that the U.S. is harping on 1441 has the reason to take down Hussein. Meanwhile there are plenty of resolutions also in a state of breach, but the violators are friends of the U.S. It's not about Israel per se... it's about selective enforcement of U.N. resolutions.
-
No read what I said. I dont care anything about the UN or its dealings with any Nation. I never use the UN to support anything I say.
It has nothing to do with Israel. As a matter fact I have advocated arming the palestinians to the same degree that we (the US) aided in arming Israel. Absent that I suggested that the us with draw all support for both sides.
-
Why should US government listen to Europe? They listen not even to the pope or their own churches
LOL we dont listen to the pope cause all the freekin priest are butt humpin out little boys.
maybe the catholic church needs to worry more about it own back yard before it starts handing out advice.
-
Well... if you don't care about the U.N. (1441 is irrelevant) and if we can agree that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 911...
Why are we attacking Iraq?
-
No its not, the US said early on that the UN was irrelevant to what actions they deemed necessary. It was the powell faction in the Bush government that convinced bush to go to the UN to get 1441. Lots of other folks feel this was a mistake to begin with.
Rumsfeld and Cheney thought this would end up just like it did. Months of delay and hand wringing.
Now once the US went the UN route and got 1441 ofcourse they will use that to support their position. But from early on Bush said the UN wouldnt have the final say.
It was clearly a mistake trying to push a second resolution through and Even Powell conseded so. This was done dor our allies.
fyi
why dont you put the full quote of Edith Cavell's last words in your sig?
-
Iraq has been interested in wmd for a long time. Iraq has given money to terrorist. The potential is there that he might give aid to terror groups in the future. The type that would use WMD against the US.
The idea behind the Bush Doctrine is prevention and pre-emption.
But Saddam is an easy target and can be used to send a resounding message that US has changed it policy. Dont under estimated the scale of that message.
Also in the long term Iraq is the one Nation in that region that has potential to be rebuilt as a democracy. They are secular, plural and have had a taste of democracy in the past.
On top of all that hes a really mean guy who kills his own people, gassed his neighbors etc... A perfect target to be made an example of.
Saddam is gone already its matter of a few weeks. What happens afterward will tell us whether the Bush Doctrine will work.
-
Originally posted by Batz
fyi
why dont you put the full quote of Edith Cavell's last words in your sig?
This part? "I expected my sentence and believe it was just. Standing, as I do, in the view of God and eternity..."
-
yup that would be it, after all those were her last words....
-
Originally posted by Batz
Iraq has been interested in wmd for a long time. Iraq has given money to terrorist. The potential is there that he might give aid to terror groups in the future. The type that would use WMD against the US.
The idea behind the Bush Doctrine is prevention and pre-emption.
But Saddam is an easy target and can be used to send a resounding message that US has changed it policy. Dont under estimated the scale of that message.
Also in the long term Iraq is the one Nation in that region that has potential to be rebuilt as a democracy. They are secular, plural and have had a taste of democracy in the past.
On top of all that hes a really mean guy who kills his own people, gassed his neighbors etc... A perfect target to be made an example of.
Saddam is gone already its matter of a few weeks. What happens afterward will tell us whether the Bush Doctrine will work.
I have a feeling that the Iranian government may also fall as their population (mostly under 30) desire freedom from their Islamic oppressors.
-
Look what this idiot (called Bush) has done to the U.S. Who the hell voted for this nut? Whoever you are out there, you deserve what he's going to do to your quality of life.
This president is absolutely the worst I've seen in my 46 years. It's still unbelieveable that he got elected but then Gore, and Nader weren't much of a challenge (vote-wise).
This war crap is all about Bush and not Saddam. Get a clue damnit!!
Barfo
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
But wasnt this the Bush Crusade against Islam and intent on slaughtering and punishing all muslims?
Wow must be confusing for you being such a lunatic blitz...
Anti-Christ is smart, ya know, uses all tricks :D
Regards Blitz
America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous
-
Gruns..........
Nk has nukes and they are poinitng at U.S and has shown that he will use them. He is also starving his own people as Saddam is.
Iraq doesn't have nukes yet......
Which one would you attack first?
If you would understand, I'm a brit, very proud and very old fashion, so I really couldn't give a toot about what France and Gemany say, old time rivals that I have no regard for.
CB
-
Originally posted by barfo
Look what this idiot (called Bush) has done to the U.S. Who the hell voted for this nut? Whoever you are out there, you deserve what he's going to do to your quality of life.
This president is absolutely the worst I've seen in my 46 years. It's still unbelieveable that he got elected but then Gore, and Nader weren't much of a challenge (vote-wise).
This war crap is all about Bush and not Saddam. Get a clue damnit!!
Barfo
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by rc51
Why should US government listen to Europe? They listen not even to the pope or their own churches
LOL we dont listen to the pope cause all the freekin priest are butt humpin out little boys.
maybe the catholic church needs to worry more about it own back yard before it starts handing out advice.
Communist Bastard ! :D
Regards Blitz
-
OZkansas:
There is a middle class in Iran that is growing more vocal. They are less Anti-American then the religious and aging political class. But make no mistake they have interest in the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and if in rebuilding Iraq we dont do a good job wee could marginalize the pro western elements in Iraq and in Iran.
The Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq and they may swing hard to fundamentalism and want retrobution against the Sunnis.
Then there is the situation with the Kurds. IMHO these folks pose the greatest danger to a democratic Iraq. Their population is spread out through various Nations and have been sold out by the west numerous times. Turkey being our Nato ally and in constant conflict with the Kurds may mean we are in for a rough time.
-
Dowding, since you seem to feel so strongly about the situation of Israel being in violation of the UN resolutions (its your stock response #4 when you run out of real arguements), feel free to persuade the French and German governments to go in and do something about it.
And yes I neglect the British government from that list, because they have more sense.
But my money is on the Israeli's, they have a much better trained and equipped military, not to mention extensive combat experience. I figure they would push a Franco-German Hegemony into the sea very quickly.
-
Originally posted by Batz
OZkansas:
There is a middle class in Iran that is growing more vocal. They are less Anti-American then the religious and aging political class. But make no mistake they have interest in the Shi'ites in Southern Iraq and if in rebuilding Iraq we dont do a good job wee could marginalize the pro western elements in Iraq and in Iran.
The Shi'ites are a majority in Iraq and they may swing hard to fundamentalism and want retrobution against the Sunnis.
Then there is the situation with the Kurds. IMHO these folks pose the greatest danger to a democratic Iraq. Their population is spread out through various Nations and have been sold out by the west numerous times. Turkey being our Nato ally and in constant conflict with the Kurds may mean we are in for a rough time.
I am fearful of the Turks taking advantage of the situation and moving on the Kurds in the north. Am sure the military has taken into account the potential trouble the Turks may cause in the north.
Appreciate your thoughtful post.
-
kurdistan in the north.. with a nato patrolled DMZ, a sh'iite state in the south, the sunni's in between, borders also patrolled by NATO. (i think the UN gets it's death certificate monday). i would hope they will all be allowed no warfighting material more significant than a jeep. these three new states will be the start of the 'balkanization' of the middle east...
if iran starts any toejam, it'll get whacked. then we'll carve it up too.
and saudi arabia will cease to exist before the end of this decade.
wouldn't that be nice.
-
Those who pose the question "why doesn't the US do anything about North Korea" have obviously never been to South Korea .
-
Are you prepared to see US soldiers in Iraq for decades to come?
What you propose is another Korea, with a strong US presence for many years. Afterall, you've said the UN is irrelevant so you cna hardly ask them to commit soldiers for the dirty work of actually keeping people from murdering each other.
There will be US casualties in any peace-keeping operation. Is the US public prepared for that?
-
Whatever Dowding
We still have troops in Germany and Japan since WW2, we still have umm in Cuba, Korea, Kosvo, Kuwait, Saudi, Baharain, Qatar.
Our troops are volunteers, they join blindly with no understanding of the risks. Troops die from training etc.....
Are we prepared? What do you think..........
The UN will impose itself into Iraq after the Saddams gone and the US wont stand in their way, but it will be the US and the Brits that run the show. Just like after the 1st gulf war.
But that doesnt mean the UN becomes "relevant" again. They will just be hangers on. The US wont "ask" them to be there.
-
It seems to me people are already wanting their troops home, and now the government enters a situation that requires more deployment.
The US wont "ask" them to be there.
That's where you're wrong. The US has already asked for the UN to draw up post-war plans.
-
Those people dont want their "troops home", they care nothing for them. They are just bunch of leftist who are in general opposition to war in general.
The US already has plans for post war Iraq regardless of what the UN does.
The US agenda for post-war Iraq includes a new government, food and health care to its population along with democratic reforms, but no firm timetable for the massive endeavour, a top White House official acknowledged today.
At the same time, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice denied it would rival in scope the post-World War II demilitarisation of Japan under the supervision of US General Douglas MacArthur.
"I don't think that the Douglas MacArthur model is really the appropriate analogy," she said.
These plans are completely independent of anything the UN comes up with.
Now your boy Blair has to go about it differently given his current position. Ofcourse he will claim the UN is needed to rebuild a post war Iraq
TONY BLAIR: Iraq's natural resources remain the property of the people of Iraq and that wealth should be used for the Iraqi people. It is theirs and will remain so, administered by the UN in the way we set out.
MATT PEACOCK: Another UN resolution to set-up the post-war regime might also provide political cover for Tony Blair against his party critics, people like Clare Short, as Gordon Brown acknowledged.
But we dont need to UN thier fore anything.
The US has always been in these thing for the long haul. And will be with out the UN. and sure wont go begging the for the UN helps. The UN, after the fighting is over will imopose itselfs back into the situation and the US will be all to happy to allow them. Thats not the same as "needing" or "asking" them for anything.
Dont kid yourself the US needs the UN for nothing.