War On Iraq: Yay or Nay??
- 03-12-2003, 09:26 PMBoard Sponsor
- 5'9" 200 lbs.
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Charlotte NC
- Rep Power
- 03-13-2003, 01:55 PM
- 5'7" 191 lbs.
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Rep Power
War is imminent, no doubt. Im behind it 100% also. What I think is we should let Britain take the spotlite for alittle while and not be so "hungry" just yet. Britain says 7-10 days for the deadline, we say by the 17th (i think)
We do need to be wary of the people who oppose us though. Russia and china to be the main concerns. China's not a country like Iraq, if we ever had to go to a war against them, thats not going to be a cake walk. Of course we will win, but many of us would die.
I just hope we aren't putting ALL of our focus on Iraq, while North Korea is just hanging out. We need to keep a watchful eye on them as well.
LG I agree with you also, I always say that we definitely have **** that people don't even know about (weapons etc.)
The ONLY reason we need other countries support on this is financially. Do you think GWB is trying to get support for fire power....hell no......we can not and will not be beaten. However when it comes time to REBUILD IRAQ, thats when we will need others help. Its going to cost a hell of a lot to fight the war......and even MORE to rebuild. Thats the ONLY reason I say lets wait just a little longer....granted we will find nothing..etc. BUt at least that will give us a chance to bring more countries behind us...
oh and all I know is....IRAQ watch out for the MOAB bomb.
- 03-02-2004, 12:45 AM
Yes, I have always said we need to be careful of the bigger countries like China and Russia. Who knows they could ally up one day. Watch the movie Red Dawn and it will portray that. I mean yeah Russia is in economic turmoil but when you add that with over 10,000 nuclear weapons, its not a good situation .
And the MOAB I don't believe got used in Iraq, I think they said it wasn't operational quite yet. They were testing it in Florida, though.Ultradrol Log: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle...pressured.html
03-17-2004, 09:35 PM
Damn LAKE! Kicking it old school bro.
03-28-2004, 02:39 AM
Wow this is an old thread. Well in the sense that it is better to arrive late then never, I feel that the war was fully justified. Are there weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are they in Iraq? Maybe not. The fact is, if Iraq didn't/doesn't have WMD, then every nation in the world with half an intelligence agency was wrong. Everyone said Iraq had WMD, whether or not they actually wanted to go to war. Hell even if there aren't WMD, I believe that the war was COMPLETELY justified due to how bad of guys that Saddam and his two sons were. I'll probably be going over there next year, so I'll just have to find the WMD myself.
03-28-2004, 04:38 PM
where do you get this stuff from? one of the reasons that most of the european countries didn't back the US-led invasion of iraq was b/c their intelligence agencies weren't sure whether the weapons were there or not. even in britain some of the M5 guys wrote objections to the 'sexed up dossier' at the time it was used to sell the war.Originally Posted by Fender85
03-29-2004, 09:05 PM
"Most" European countries didn't back the US led invasion? No, it was largely France and Germany who resisted. And btw, they both signed the UN resolutions backing the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance, so clearly the UN believed it as well.Originally Posted by Number 5
The US believed Hussein had WMD, that should be enough for people living here in the US. But clearly Israel's intelligence told them Iraq had WMD, as did Germany's.
At one point before the war, recall that weapons inspectors found a cache of missiles with empty warheads that were outfitted to deliver chemical and biological weapons.
Does anyone believe for one minute that THAT was all there was? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about purchasing at a deeply discounted bargain price my friend.
Understand that European countries, while allies, aren't going to act in our best interest. The US is THE global superpower. The U.N. and Europe want nothing more badly to level the playing field, to take our resources and our superiority away from us. France and Germany were doing business with Iraq in contravention of the embargo. The supposed "oil for food" program to partially lift sanctions against Iraq netted Hussein and family somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 million, and that's what's known.
France and Germany, were acting in their own best interest in working against the US because they stood the most to lose economically by a U.S. invasion, to say nothing of their aversion to seeing us flexing our military might elsewhere around the globe.
It had nothing to do with a lack of intelligence, nor quality nor interpretation of intelligence. We've heard possible accounts of weapons being sent to other countries, and even testimony that some were destroyed at the outset of the war.
Iraq had WMD. Iraq used WMD. Some were found prior to the war by the inspectors. And Hussein ACTED as if he had them. These were not the issues surrounding France and Germany's efforts to stop our invasion. It was their own economic and pollitical interests, and nothing more.
03-31-2004, 02:47 PM
personally i thought it was unethical for US to invade iraq even though iraq posed no danger to the states, but saddam certainly was an *******, so if you guys feel removing him was worth billions of your $ and 100's of your dead then that's okay with me.
i just don't think you should accuse europe, israel or other countries of having bad intelligence when in fact the intelligence agencies of EU countries never made such claims. most european countries supported continued inspections in iraq to get more information about the weapons.
03-31-2004, 05:07 PM
Of course the US knew he had WMD. We ****ing gave them to him in the 80s. This war was fueled by greedy and warped bastards in Bush's cabinet that had the opporturnity to profit largely off the destruction and then the rebuilding of Iraq.
France & Germany were against the war because they knew they would never see another dollar from Iraqi oil. If you think the US will ever leave Iraq you have another thing coming.
03-31-2004, 08:59 PM
What are you talking about?!Originally Posted by Number 5
No one is accusing Europe nor Israel of anything? There's a difference between not having accurate or complete information versus the intentional distortion of it. The U.S. had good reason for believing Saddam posed a "growing and gathering threat" to it's interests and to the interests of it's allies. The governments of both Israel and Germany had intelligence that also supported this view, we were not alone in that assessment. There's no arguing that point, whether or not every country within Europe had the balls to act on it.
I respect the opinion of anyone who feels the war is a mistake or was unwarranted, especially a friend or a family member of those enlisted in the armed services and are there in harm's way. God bless you, you are in my thoughts and prayers daily.
Irrespective of individual opinions, Saddam had the weapons, he used the weapons, he was in violation of U.N. sanctions. He is a mass murderer, rapist and a thug of the worst stripe. He provided training camps within Iraq for al Qaeda. Officials within his administration had contact with members of al Qaeda. He paid thousands of dollars to the family members of Hamas or al Aqsa martyrs brigade suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli men women and children.
You're thinking of this conflict in historical terms. This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Repeat again: This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Say it again: This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Got it now? One more time, this is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Our enemy is not contained within 1 pollitical border as in past wars. This is a war against militant radical Islamists who have distorted a religion with one goal in mind, to kill Americans and Jews. Iraq just happened to be a worthwhile place to wage the war, and Saddam's regime a worthwhile regime to topple in the process.
The leaders of our enemy are hiding in caves, sending others out to do their dirty work, having successfully convinced some of them that martyrdom and virgins awaits their self-sacrifice. They don't send their own family members, just the family members of others.
The U.S. btw, for those who have forgotten, are the GOOD guys in this. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, did the U.S. colonize the country after successfully completing the campaign? No. We are the first country in the history of humanity who have ever, repeat EVER successfully waged a military campaign in a country, and then handed it back over to it's original governing body. So this is NOT about oil. Get over that nonsense. If it was about oil, Kuwait would be the 51st state of the union. If it was about US Global domination, we wouldn't have vacated Europe after WWI and WWII. Get over that nonsense.
I applaud George Bush for his pre-emptive strike doctrine. I thank God he had the balls to adopt it. The middle east is a festering cesspool. And while my heart and daily prayers go out to the troops and their families who are over there in harms way every day, the truth is if the world will be a better and safer place when they're finished. And not the most vocal critic can argue with that.
None of this would have been possible btw, if these bastards didn't strike us on 9/11. NO NOT IRAQI's, militant, radical Islamists, from several middle eastern countries.
Appeasement is not the answer. Appeasement leads to one end, subserviance to the aggressor.
I'd rather not have the war either. I'd rather not be sending anyone into harm's way. It would be nice if we could send a team of diplomats to the caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan to negotiate a truce, establish diplomatic relations, host goodwill games, and on and on. But these bastards only want to see us dead. There is no negotiating with someone like that.
Disturbing as it remains today, Americans need to see reminders weekly, if not daily, of the Trade Tower attacks. This happened to every one of us. It's the reason we're there. And we need to stay there until the job is done, NOT against Iraqi's, but against radical militant islamists who would like to kill each and every one of us.
04-01-2004, 07:29 AM
PC1 I'll get back to you on this later when I have the time to reply to all of your points.
04-01-2004, 05:20 PM
I don't believe anyone will argue with you that Saddam was a complete piece of **** and deserved to be treated as such. When I first knew we were going to attack Iraq I was all for it. I felt great that there would be one less murdering, terrorizing dictator in the world. Then instead of just being spoon fed my information from the media I decided to do some of my own research and what I found was ugly.Originally Posted by PC1
Bush's administration has so many ties to Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, Halliburton, and the list goes on. Many members of PNAC are part of Bush's administration including Wolfowitz, Feith, Woolsey, Perle, Cheney and Rumsfield. There are documents from these meetings stating their agenda in Iraq. These agendas included Iraqi oil fields, sending a message to the rest of the middle east, and establishing bases to use as a catalyst in future attacks on middle eastern states. Rumsfeld's list of possible terrorists states include 50 countries. Don't you find this somewhat disturbing? When does the killing stop? I can assure you attacking other countries isn't going to make it happen any faster. How many WTC attacks will this country be able to deal with mentally?
I agree. We are fighting a new kind of enemy, but why are we killing thousands and thousands of innocent people in the process? Do we really need to destroy roads, bridges, and factories to accomplish this goal? All this does is fuel the fire for the rest of the world to hate us and to strike back. Can you imagine how many Iraqi civilians wish they could bomb the US right now? Isreal is another situation and off topic to this discussion but their history isn't exactly made up of innocence and non provoked attack. Just think for a minute how their country was established. Think of how Kuwait was established. I guarantee you if a country attacked the US and carved up our country we would fight back one day to try and take back what was ours.Originally Posted by PC1
If we are fighting a new kind of enemy that hides in caves then why are we spending billions on a nuclear missle defense system? Why are we continuing to break nuclear treaties and develop new nuclear devices? If this country is fueled by good will then why has the department of defense never ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? Why money period point blank!
Noone is doubting the US citizens mean well. I'm doubting the Bush administration. Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob. This president is guilty of invading a country, killing thousands of innocent people, and lying to the American people. Stop watching CNN and learn to look at the whole picture. The attack on 9/11 was the perfect catalyst for an attack on Iraq. Bin Laden and Al Qaede were responsible for the 9/11 attack, not Iraq, but the Bush Administration took advantage of America's vulnerability and fears, and went for Iraq when they knew America was ready to fight anyone that threatened our safety.Originally Posted by PC1
04-01-2004, 08:49 PM
I have no problem with this "agenda" whatsoever. I'm surprised that you would?Originally Posted by NPursuit
I have no shame in stating I'm a firm believer in "America First". Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the single greatest threat to the security and well being of America comes from fanatical militant Islamists. I've already indicated that Iraq was a convenient starting point in the military campaign against them because of Sadam's horrible track record in the area of human rights. Why should we fight this battle here in the U.S.? We shouldn't of course. That's why we're over there.
I find it disturbing that Rumsfeld has a list of 50 countries who sponsor terrorism against us, NOT because it's the fault of Rumsfeld! C'mon ! It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. One can argue all day about all the freedom of choice we have here in this country. By comparison, the inhabitants of most countries in the middle east are backwards and primitive. They hate us. And they want the resources that we have. Some of them are willing to blow themselves up just to kill 10, 15, or even just 2 of us. Is this because of Rumsfeld and Bush? Let's be serious here.
The killing will stop when either they smarten up and stop trying to kill us, or when we've killed all of them.
Once again, it would be great to send a diplomatic team over there and make a truce. We would be willing to do that. They would not. This is the fault of Rumsfeld or their religious and cultural perversion?
04-01-2004, 08:51 PM
i'll just reply to this, i'll read the rest tomorrow and maybe comment, but my original post was a reply toOriginally Posted by PC1
He implied, as have many other people on tv and radio, that the intelligence of all other nations indicated that Saddam had WMD's, which is just pure bull****.Originally Posted by Fender85
04-01-2004, 09:04 PM
bin Laden is many things but stupid is not among them. His father was an engineer, and in his preparations for this war he has been smart enough to apparently develop elaborate tunnels and escape routes in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.Originally Posted by NPursuit
The answer to this question is very simple. Our conventional weapons probably will not penetrate deep and well fortified cave complexes. If we knew where bin Laden was at a given moment and we had the option of sending in American troops to kill him and would risk even the life of only 1 American..... OR
We could launch 1 nuclear missile and take out the whole lot of them without sending in troops, which would you opt for?
I would hope you would opt for the second option, as it's really no choice whatsoever. These cretins aren't worth spilling the blood of any Americans.
And in terms of why we should have nukes in the first place, I personally don't care what it takes for us to maintain our superiority over the rest of the world. We are the superpower. We are the freedom loving constitutional republic who democratically elects leaders. We try to plant the same seeds in other countries, to give them a model that WORKS, so they can elect their own representatives. We don't colonize other countries. We are unique, freedom loving people. Most of the rest of the world is not. They want what we have, not vice versa. And yeah, I make no bones about the need for us to maintain military, pollitical and financial superiority over all other countries across the globe. NOT for the purpose of conquering other countries on a whim, but to maintain and preserve our way of life. We CANNOT be a nation that kow-tows to the U.N., or any other country or organization. We must always do what we believe to be right with respect to our interests and the interests of our allies, the U.N. and any other 3rd world pygmy country be damned.
04-01-2004, 09:23 PM
This is what I really have a problem with. I don't care if someone holds different viewpoints than my own, that's what this country is all about. What I do have a problem with is the NONSENSE that Bush has lied to the American people. Please.Originally Posted by NPursuit
There are several things Bush has done and not done that have bothered me about his presidency. I won't go into them here. But lying, scandal, coverups, all that crap, is nothing but democrat election year bull****.
Consider first, that he is a man of deep religious conviction. Who do you get your news from, Richard Clarke? Is it the Richard Clarke who during 2/02 indicated there was no specific plan handed down from the Clinton administration to deal with al Qaeda, and who indicated the Bush administration laid out a 7 point plan to deal with global terrorism, including a 5 fold increase in funding to the CIA? Or the Richard Clarke who just last week was running his mouth saying the Bush administration didn't make terrorism as high a priority as the Clinton administration? The Clarke who said only 2 days ago on Hardball that, in response to whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented, said the answer wasn't so "fascile" (french for "simple") or the Clarke who during the same 9/11 inquiry stated rather emphatically, "No" it couldn't have been prevented?
With respect to Haliburton and other companies that Bush and Cheney held substantial equity investments in: You need to remember that BOTH of them prior to taking office submitted personal financial statements to a senate oversight committee (the name escapes me right now) seeking advice on whether or not they should hold, sell, or sell a portion of their investments. THEY FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION. So please, don't be listening to democrat bull**** about how these guys are somehow lining their own pockets by executing pollitical policy favorable to this industry or that one. Because that's also a bunch of crap.
These guys already have wealth. They're not in pollitics for the money. Most polliticians are in it for the power. Different ego trip altogether.
04-01-2004, 09:26 PM
I apologize to you if my above posts seem overly harsh or critical of you. I don't mean anything personally directed at you.
You are a great bro here on this board. I admire and respect you.
But pollitically, I think many americans have been brainwashed by liberal left winged traitors who's every utterance in any global sense, includes the words U.N. People need to wake up and realize that the U.N. does NOT care about what's best for the U.S. It seeks to take from us, and level the playing field globally. Screw that I say.
04-02-2004, 07:51 AM
No offense taken bro. I respect you and until recently thought exactly like you. I will respond to your points later when I have time.Originally Posted by PC1
04-02-2004, 09:11 AM
And I feel that many have been brainwashed by FOX News and the right Republican party. Do you directly transcribe Rush Limbaugh fused with Hannity overtones?? (A simple rib, nothing personal)Originally Posted by PC1
In your earlier posts you seem to make the connection between Iraq and the entire Middle East terrorism/anti-American sentiment that apparantly the Bush administartion has failed to convince the public of. That's simply amazing that you seem to see the imaginary connection between 9/11, terrorism and Iraq.
I DO believe in patriotism and am thoroughly disgusted by your insinuations that liberals are "traitors" (thank you very much for that incredibly improper use of the word, Ann Coulter). Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy?
As for an alleged threat to the US: what about North Korea?? Are they simply not to be taken seriously? Have they not made threats with nuclear weapons? Well let's just forget about them because daddy didn't have any major issues with them, and they don't have oil and we can't as easily promise contracts in rebuilding the nation, right?
I realize that every point made regarding this war, and foreign policy in general now, always has many sides....but I prefer the truth. I see none of that in this administration. Here's two left-wing sites just for the enjoyment of all the Repubs on the board: http://www.misleader.org/daily_misle...f03242004.html and http://ww.howardstern.com
Every politician and administration lies, that is a given. Whether they lie about a blowjob or facts regarding a war and impacting thousands of lives however, is to me quite a different story.
As a whole I think if Bush would have dealt with THIS country more, and less with OTHERS, Ameericans would have been much better off. I supported the War on Terrorism and certain post 9/11 actions (sans the Patriot Act). But if anyone can truly think that the war in Iraq has much to do with the war on terror, they are full of ****.
04-02-2004, 11:47 AM
I'm not a big Buchanan fan, but he wrote an interesting article, which is a few months old but still a good read. I'm not sure if this is the full version of his original article or some sort of a abbreviation but take a look.
Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.
"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."
Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.
Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:
– In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.
– In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."
– On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the (Middle East) conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."
"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.
On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.
On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."
On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (9-11) attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.
And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.
Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.
Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to Al Qaeda. An American city could be incinerated.
Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.
The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?
Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.
Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.
Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."
But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?
To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.
But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?
04-02-2004, 12:10 PM
this is ridiculous. the average european guy just wants a steady job and a wife with big tits to ****. the average politician just wants to be reelected. i don't see who exactly in this system is hoping to take anything from the US?Originally Posted by PC1
on the contrary, if US economy does well it's good for Europe. If US suffers a recession it'll carry over to Europe. Thus it's in Europe's interest to have US as a strong trading partner. As for the militray power, I think the NATO countries are pretty damn happy US has it, they just don't like how Bush used it in Iraq for financial gain (oil) and personal reasons (vendetta against saddam b/c of bush senior) - and maybe some other bull**** reasons.
now did saddam have WMD? this is not obvious to me since the 80's bio stuff had expired long ago and most of the other stuff had either been used on the kurds or confiscated by the UN during the first years of inspections. basically he had WMD only if he had secretly been stockpiling them, but why would he do that? he had nothing to gain from it (clearly he was in no position to launch any attacks) and he had everything to lose? the guy was a sadistic bastard, but he wasn't cracy, so why would he stockpile. to boot, his planes and missles had been bombed to **** so he didn't even have anything to launch potential WMD's with.
terrorism? saddam was no friend of bin laden or other terrorists - this was fairly clear all along - and what could he possibly have gained by supporting terrorists? nothing, but he could have lost a lot (think of afganistan).
personally i think US should have rolled into iraq during the initial gulf war, split into 3 ethnic countries, placed some semi-democratic dictorships in power (the arabs were behind the US at that time too - they could have taken over), secured the good oil deals and then gotten the **** out of there.
04-02-2004, 12:31 PM
Israel may have had motive to encourage the US, but why Germany? even if their intelligence indicated that Saddam had WMD's why would they have made it available to the US given that they were against the war? if you have some evidence for this then i'd love to see it. also, if it was clear to everyone that Saddam had WMD's then why did Colin Powell need to embarrass himself with a laughable presentation to the UN.Originally Posted by PC1
as i understand most european countries did think it was likely that Saddam had WMD's, but there were dissenting voices within their intelligence agencies, which were not ignored, so most of the countries just weren't sure what saddam had or didn't have in the end. however, it was clear that saddam was in no position to threaten the US so Bush's stated reasons for going to war were perceived as phony in Europe.
now let's think logically for a second, the Bush administration is under fire for having lied to the American people about the WMD's, so if his prewar intelligence was so damn good, then why doesn't he just make it public so everyone could say "yeah, i can see why he thought Saddam had WMD's"?
04-03-2004, 07:43 AM
The first half of this statement is an admirable and worthwhile goal, although you skepped the part about wanting her to have a nice tight firm ass as well ........ the second half is just naive.Originally Posted by Number 5
With due respect bro, if you want to engage me in this discussion, respond to the substance of what I've already said. If you go back a page or so, I've already debunked that the conflict is about oil. If oil was the primary motivator, Kuwait would be the 51st State in our union. Iraq, in spite of the ongoing resistance, would be 52. American flags would be flying everywhere in both countries now, and we'd have 4x the number of troops on the ground in Iraq; and we sure as hell wouldn't publicly be making statements about how we're going to cede control back to them by July of this year.Originally Posted by Number 5
I'm not naive enough to think that oil isn't part of the equation. Oil alone is not the reason for the war, it's a tertiary consideration.
It was Janet Reno of the Clinton administration was publicly quoted as saying that since the fall of the Soviet Union, radical fundamentalist Islamists pose the greatest threat to America and it's interests. I don't have many good things to say about the Clinton administration but clearly Janet Reno hit the nail on the head on this one.
It's better to fight the war on terrorism THERE than here in the U.S. Assuming we end up with a military base or 3 in Iraq, it's infinitely superior to "asking permission" of our "good" friends the Saudis to either fly over their air space or launch operations from Riyadh.
Well, since we've been there, we've found fighter jets and other weapons burried under the sand in various places. Is it possible there's more that we haven't found? Is that probable or improbable?Originally Posted by Number 5
Personally, I don't care if in the final analysis Saddam had them or he didn't as of the time of the invasion. He'd already shown his true colors. It would only be a matter of time before he redeveloped them again and became even more of a menace. He might not have had a nuclear threat but he did have a development program. That inarguably was his goal. We have the guy who is in charge of the program?! C''mon! Would you prefer we WAITED until he had a few before going in?! Maybe some would prefer we continue the shell game with weapons inspectors. PC maybe, but bull**** in my mind.
Again, you're ignoring what I've already posted on this. Saddam paid money to the surviving family members of Hamas and the al Aqsa martyrs brigade, to the tune of, I believe, $12,500 per suicide, after their young sons strapped explosive belts unto themselves, walked into areas populated with civilian Jewish men, women, and children, and vaporized themselves and as many others in the vicinity as they could. What did Saddam "gain" from that? You tell me, because aside from perpetuating bitter hatred, it makes no sense. Still, the payments have been documented. And again, the ongoing investigation has shown that (1) Training camps for al Qaeda were established in Iraq, and (2) at least one official of Saddam's regime that I can recall from memory has been shown to have met with al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Which is not to say Iraq had a hand in 9/11, but is to say that some connection existed. [/quote]Originally Posted by Number 5
Well here we agree 100% bro. In hindsight, I don't think anyone can argue that's what we SHOULD have done. But if you'll recall at the time of Dessert Storm (the first operation), after we blew through Iraq pretty easily, there was a goundswell of public opinion at least here in the U.S., to NOT roll through Baghdad and take out Saddam.......yeah, big mistake. The stated goal at the outset, was to liberate Kuwait, and not change the regime. And we were too damned concerned with pollitical correctness and didn't want to be accused after the fact, of engineering a regime change in the guise of liberating Kuwait. What bull****.Originally Posted by Number 5
Which brings me to my final point on this exchange.........
Recent news accounts have indicated both Israel AND Germany had intelligence indicating Saddam likely had WMD. If you follow news accounts here in the US, our news media is fairly liberal and left leaning, and they really don't like Bush. So this tells me that the accounts are probably reasonably accurate.
Which is not to say said intelligence was true and accurate.
But it doesn't matter one way or another, at least not to me.
The U.S. has the right to go anywhere in the world to defend it's interests and those of our allies, period. I don't give a damn if the U.N. and every other country in the world think that we're wrong in our actions.
We have the best intelligence, and the greatest military in the history of the world. All one has to do is turn on their television to see just how damned insane life is in the middle east. France, and all the arab countries combined can be screaming and tearing their robes at the "audacity" and "arrogance" of the US/Bush about what we're doing over there........ tough **** I say.
I have great confidence in Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al. If Bill Clinton wasn't so bogged down in trying to defend himself from impeachment proceedings over his disgraceful conduct in office and perjury, we could have been addressing this situation when we should have: At the time of the embassy and Cole bombings.
I would greatly prefer to not have any man or woman from any country, EVER have to fight a war. I wish and pray that in this day and age, we could reach agreements with all nations and people to live peacefully and prosperously; and enjoy one another's cultural and religious differences. Unfortunately that's not how the world is. The world is full of Saddams, Khadaffy's, Milosovich's, Stalin's, Pol Pot's, etc.
If Spain, France and Europe generally are just going to lay down in appeasement, again, well don't get pissed off at us for going in to take care of business. The truth is, and everyone knows this already, the world will be a better place after the U.S. finishes kicking ass in the middle east. I pray we have the resolve to finish the God-forsaken job.
Freedom isn't free.
May God bless all the men and women who are in harm's way.
04-03-2004, 08:00 AM
Read what I've already posted bro........Originally Posted by jweave23
Better to establish positions in Iraq and fight the war THERE, than to be fighting it here.
04-03-2004, 09:25 AM
I'm a firm believer in America first as well. I have always stood up for this country but when the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of this war started because the neoconservatives manipulated and took advantage of an inexperienced president I have a problem with it.Originally Posted by PC1
Iraq does serve as a great strategic point in launching future military attacks. Killing 30000+ Iraqi civilians is not the way to go about it. The amount of munitions we dropped on that country were severly unnecessary. Now Lockheed and Ratheon have many restocking orders to fill and many dollars to be made by said companies above. Some of these same companies are contracted to rebuild Iraq. Sounds a little too convenient to me. There will always be people that hate the US. Should we nuke the rest of the world and send the world into a Nuclear holocaust to stop it, or should we deal with the actual people who are doing the killing?
One of those countries on Rumsfeld's list is as I'm sure you know is N. Korea. This little piss ant country doesn't even have the capability to launch a nuclear strike against us, nor have they shown any hostile actions toward us. I guarantee you that if our nuclear weapons research continues the way it is the informartion needed for them to be able to will become available to N. Korea and many other countries. The gov't is currently paying 5 universities to work on the nuclear weapons program. In this day and age of the computer world the information being given and exchanged to these universities will too easily fall into the wrong hands.
04-03-2004, 09:37 AM
This is a response I would expect to hear from someone that doesn't know or understand our current nuclear capabilities and future capabilities. We currently have over 7000 nuclear weapons. Half of those are ready to be launched within minutes. Roughly 100 nuclear weapons would be enough to send the planet into a nuclear winter. We have enough nuclear weapons to kill everyone on this planet 30 times over. We are currently doing underground testing, which breaks nuclear treaties. We are currently developing new facilities to perform nuclear tests and building supercomputers to take 3D video of nuclear explosions. These computers are costing hundreds of millions of dollars.Originally Posted by PC1
There is no need to develop more powerful weapons when we have the capability to destroy the whole planet. By breaking these nuclear treaties we will surely send the world into another nuclear arms race. I'm not even going to mention the tons of plutonium that are scattered across this country infecting our rivers and lakes. The gov't is killing us and you don't even see it.
You say our conventional weapons will probably not penetrate into these caves. This is true. So you suggest that we use a nuclear bunker buster to penetrate these caves. A bunker buster will penetrate roughly 15 feet before it triggers it's nuclear explosion. If our standard nuclear weapons exploded on the ground can make a 200 foot crater don't you think that will increase the chances of killing everyone? Why are we developing these multi million dollar weapons when we have the capabilities far beyond any other country has?
We spend half of our budget on defense. I'm all for having a superior military. I am far from being weak on defense, but when we are spending more than every other developed or developing country combined I have a problem with it.
04-03-2004, 09:42 AM
I get my news from the facts, not from the liberals not from the conservatives. I am far from a liberal, so labeling me as one to discredit my points is irrelevant. I don't comform to any particular party. Most politicians are in it for the power? Well what better way to show your power than blowing a country back to the stone age, invading it, and stealing their resources?Originally Posted by PC1
04-03-2004, 10:06 AM
04-03-2004, 11:33 AM
Blowing a country back to the stone age? The routed regime did more damage to Iraq (there is no need to list the atrocities here, they are well known) than the United States, and the difference is huge. There is no comparison in the history of warfare.Originally Posted by NPursuit
Yes we invaded it. And if any other nations want to remain in the state sponsorship of terrorism business, we will do well to end them as well.
Stealing their resources? Please. The United States hasn't stolen a damn thing. We are rebuilding that raped and neglected nation. If we wanted the goddamned oil we had the whole kit in place in 1991; end Iraq and then swallow Saudi Arabia .
04-03-2004, 11:59 AM
I really could care less about what happened in Iraq. Just because we can fly to Iraq doesn't mean we should be obligated to save it. There are too many problems in this country that need to be dealt with. Come back to me in 30 years when your social security is gone and you can't afford health care.Originally Posted by michaelton
Just because the resources aren't being stolen right out in the open doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is no point in trying to change your mind on these issues because you have already shown to have a closed mind, and it's unfortunate that people will believe the first things they hear and seek to find facts to back them up no matter how much evidence is against them. I understand though many people have been blinded.
04-03-2004, 12:57 PM
I agree with you that we are not obligated to save any nation. However, an unprovoked attack on our nation's political and cultural capitals that left 3,000 people dead was enough to change this country's approach to terrorism and the nations that sponsor and harbor them. To suggest that the Iraq war was waged because it was good for business or politically is absurd.
I agree that there are problems in this country. They are separate from the issues of terrorism and the intersection of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. What are we supposed to do? Wait until a mushroom cloud is rising form one of our cities?
Social Security is doomed already. I will never get a nickel from it, and anyone my age or younger who thinks they have a "Lock Box" waiting for them is a damned fool. The system was set up to take money from workers and transfer it to retirees. In 1940, the year the first social security check was cut, there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 to one, and by 2020 there will be 2.2 to one. According to Laurence J. Kotlikoff of Boston University, the present value of the gap between promised outlays and projected revenues is $51 trillion -- more than four times the nation's annual GDP. Again by way of comparison, the household wealth of Americans -- the value of their houses, 401(k)s, SUVs, porn stashes, everything-- is about $42 trillion.
How any young person can look at the deduction for social security on their paycheck and think they can't do better investing for their own retirement is beyond me.
Health care? We could discuss that too, but I doubt anyone wants to. I don't.
Closed mind? You don't know me. You could counter the points I made with facts or argument, but you chose not to. Instead you just wrote me off as closed minded. Of course, how else could anyone have a contrarian view? You objected to the liberal tag two posts ago, why is it now relevant to do the same thing?
I didn't post to try to change anyone's mind. I just disagree, and I also believe that these are the crucial issues of the age. All people should educate their damn selves, and those who would lead this nation should do more than bitch about how wrong the other side is. I also think those who would lead this nation should take A SIDE instead of trying to be on both sides of everything.
NPursuit, its all good bro. I appreciate your service as a mod as well as your thoughtful posts. I respect the difference in our viewpoints, and if history proves me to be in the wrong on this or any other issue, I'll admit it.
Last edited by michaelton; 04-03-2004 at 01:35 PM.
04-03-2004, 01:07 PM
I apologize if my post came off offensively. I just see things differently now and don't like what I see. It's all good though.Originally Posted by michaelton
04-03-2004, 01:11 PM
04-03-2004, 02:03 PM
Yo Weave!Originally Posted by jweave23
Truth is, I haven't listened to so much as 30 minutes of Rush Limbaugh cumulatively in my life. Ditto for Sean Hannity. I'm well aware of who they are though, and truth is I've listened to plenty of other conservatives. So who you or I listen to is irrelevant.
People who are liberal hear other liberals voice an opinion and that resonates within them. They hear conservatives voice their opinion and that produces dissonance. The converse is true for conservatives.
Sen. John Kerry recently made the statement that the US is polarized because the president (Bush) is polarizing it. Well that's just plain horse****. It has ALWAYS been this way since the beginning of politics.
Rarely will a conservative change the mind of a liberal, and vice versa. The battle then is for public opinion among the middle 1/3 and the residual "undecideds". Over time, the pendulum swings the liberal way, though never far enough for the far left, people get sick of that, the pendulum swings to the right but never far enough for the far right, and back and forth it goes.
Although the numbers change, as of last week anyway, Bush still enjoyed an approval rating of something like 58% in his handling of the war on terror. While this is down, probably temporarily from the conflicting Richard Clarke testimony, Clarke's own testimony has proven him to be telling 2 different tales over time. I suspect the dip is temporary. In any event, your assertion about Bush "failing to convince the public" doesn't hold much water bro.Originally Posted by jweave23
Insofar as the "connection" between Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, I've already spent a fair amount of time laying out the connections I'm aware of elsewhere in this thread. Rather than make broad-brushed assertions like this, you might want to try and tackle those specifically if you care to discuss it further.
You're right, and I should clarify my statement. During the beginning of the war some Republicans were calling anyone who spoke out against the war traitors. That was over the top. One could argue that liberals "shouldn't" be running at the mouth at such a time, but voicing opposition to a war is not an act of treason in my book.Originally Posted by jweave23
That said, it's difficult to have a conversation with a liberal insofar as taking any military option without them uttering "U.N. approval" somewhere in the discussion. Nowhere in our U.S. constitution does it address the need to seek U.N. approval when it comes to protecting our interests. You can look, but it's not there. So any political leader who would defer exercising military action only because the U.N. has not approved it has ceded authority to the U.N. That on it's face is very arguably an act of treason.
And btw, conservatives also ask the questions, "what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy?" But as you know, liberals and conservatives hold differing phillosophy so.........
Well I thought this thread was about Iraq. I wasn't going to get into North Korea and Mr. I use way too much styling Moose in My Hair. But now that you've opened that doorway, I'd be curious to know what you understand our present policy is with North Korea, and if you were President Bush, or held a high ranking cabinet position within the administration, what would you propose we be doing differently right now? [/quote]Originally Posted by jweave23
I saw an ad on tv the other night by moveon.org (so much for campaign finance reform) featuring part of Richard Clarke's recent Senate 9/11 committee testimony. "Part" is the key. The only interest I have in left wing propaganda is to hear it for the bull**** that it is, to be aware of what they're saying.Originally Posted by jweave23
Again, I have no problem with people who hold differing political views than mine. I enjoy the discussion and the exchange. It's a good thing.
I disagree in several respects. First off, a lot goes on that we'll never know about. I think the best we ever get is pieces of "the truth" through media accounts and even those are through their own prism of bias.Originally Posted by jweave23
This may or may not be a fair allegation to make, but I think it's very possible that had Bill Clinton NOT put himself in the position of having to waste the majority of his time defending himself against impeachment, he likely would have had more public backing to take stronger retaliatory measures for the embassy and USS Cole bombings. His administration was clearly aware of the growing threat from al Qaeda. And that may or may not have made enough of a difference to prevent the 9/11 attacks. Again, this is speculation, but it's also entirely plausible.
04-03-2004, 10:51 PM
Given that Hamas' stated goal, their ONLY goal is the death and destruction of Israel, and that al Qaeda seeks to expel the U.S. from the middle east, destabilize our economy, tell me: How do you propose we "deal" with those 2 groups? I'm all ears bro.Originally Posted by NPursuit
To this point our government, working in conjunction with others, has been able to control the manufacture and distribution of raw materials and other critical parts necessary and deter rogue nations from acquiring them. I don't know how much longer our good fortune will continue in this regard. And the most unfortunate aspect of the Clinton legacy was not that a blowjob has been renamed as a "lewinsky", but rather the amount of classified nuclear information that was allowed to fall into the hands of the Chinese.Originally Posted by NPursuit
I don't have the answers to the nuclear proliferation issue. For now, I'm glad we have them and most of our adversaries do not.
04-03-2004, 11:10 PM
C'mon, this is silly. Anyone who has followed this military campaign knows that the US has taken GREAT PAINS to avoid civillian casualties and to minimize destruction to Iraq's infrastructure. No other nation in the history of humanity has conducted a military operation the way we do.Originally Posted by NPursuit
And in case you haven't noticed bro, the middle east has been living in the STONE AGE long before we marched in. They're backwards, primitive and uneducated by our standards. Former Baathists and Al Qaeda are the guys RIGHT NOW who are the ones blowing up their own infrastructure and killing their own citizens in the hopes of fueling a civil war. That's not us, bro.
And stealing their resources?! You can do better than this. When we liberated Kuwait, did we take possession and "steal" their oil? Did we make it the 51st state of our union?
When we took possession of Iraq, did we go running up American flags everywhere? No. In fact, in one instance, some of our guys did run up an American flag and within 10 minutes it came right back down and up went the Iraqi flag.
You say you don't get your news from the liberals, but frankly, you're spouting off some of the same nonsense they do. Look at the facts, look at our record. We've had the opportunity to colonize Kuwait, we didn't. We have the same opportunity before us with Iraq and yet we're scheduled to turn control back to them during July of this year.
Yet again, instances UNPARALELLED in the history of humanity.
04-03-2004, 11:44 PM
I'm no expert in nuke-ular weapons bro, but I think you've missed the boat on this one. From what I understand, the current thinking is not to make nukes that are bigger and badder, but just the opposite....... smaller tactical nukes..... stronger than conventional, powerful enough, say to penetrate a mountain fortress and vaporize whoever and whatever is in it, but nowhere near the 50 megaton behemoths we've seen television footage of during detonation testing, nor even what was dropped in Japan.Originally Posted by NPursuit
And btw, I am what you could call a green conservative. I believe we should be good stewards of the environment as well.
I don't have the answers to nuclear radiation issues. I'm against nuclear power plants because I don't understand what happens to the spent fuel rods.
But because of their destructive power, I'm glad we have the nuclear missiles and that most of our adversaries don't have them. I may be wrong here but didn't Bush & Putin sign an agreement to cut the numbers of nuclear warheads in half within a few years or so?
04-03-2004, 11:58 PM
First of all, I have tremendous respect for Pat Buchanan. I think he would make an outstanding president.Originally Posted by Number 5
To put it very simply, it's like being diagnosed with having cancer and being given two options. One is to isolate it and contain it with radiation and chemo, and hope that it won't spread. The second is surgery, go in and cut it out and be done with it.
I'd opt for surgery. And that's what's being done in the middle east right now. Radical islamic fundamentalists are our cancer and they're being dealt with surgically. It's painful, difficult, but in the end I see it as being the best chance for success.
But I too, very much want to see it be finished up as quickly as possible.
04-04-2004, 11:35 AM
I didn't care for Clinton. He was a weak president, but he had nothing to do with our nuclear information falling into the hands of the chinese. If you can prove he did I'm all ears.Originally Posted by PC1
04-04-2004, 11:54 AM
Take a look at the tonage of weapons we dropped on Iraq. Look at the amount of dismembered civilians. Turn off CNN, Fox, & MSNBC and do some real research. You've discredited all of my points and your rebuttles have been straight from the news. Again no disrespect intended but my facts are straight. They are not made up and were not spoon fed to me by the media.Originally Posted by PC1
Like I said just because you don't see the oil being stolen right in front of your face doesn't mean it isn't being taken. Take a look at when we really started having a problem with Saddam. Come on now when you can refute some of the facts I have given you then we can move on with this discussion and I'll reply to the rest of your points.
Similar Forum Threads
- By StangBanger in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 07-25-2011, 09:05 AM
- By mark118 in forum E-Pharm NutritionReplies: 3Last Post: 02-14-2011, 02:37 PM
- By Y2Jversion1 in forum General ChatReplies: 103Last Post: 06-21-2006, 02:55 PM
- By Zen_69 in forum General ChatReplies: 0Last Post: 03-07-2003, 11:36 AM
- By ex_banana-eater in forum Weight LossReplies: 13Last Post: 02-03-2003, 09:02 PM