Iraq "agrees" to inspections.

[blakjeezis]

Kofi Annan(sp?) announced tonite that the Iraqis have once again agreed to submit to UN inspections of their weapons sights. Personally, I don't trust Hussein as far as I can throw him. This is simply a stalling tactic, a last ditch effort to forestall his annihilation. In his arrogance, he thinks he can hoodwink the world into seeing him as a compliant leader who really wants to strive for peace. He thinks this will sway world opinion in his favor and put an end to our plans of deposing him. Please, we should be inspecting his silos with our own missiles. He has proven time and again that he is nothing but a megalomaniacal dictator who wants nothing more than his own continued reign, no matter the cost in human life. He will try to hide any weapons he can, and continues to be a direct threat to a lasting peace and, if he gets the capability, a 'clear and present danger' to our way of life. We should be in there and destroy him.

<IMG SRC =http://blakjeezis.homestead.com/files/tchrist.jpg>
<marquee>White people are so scared of blakjeezis</marquee>

[Gvac]

Please, we should be inspecting his silos with our own missiles.
I love that! In fact, I love this entire post.

It's so clear, concise, and correct, I can't believe I didn't write it.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911.jpg>

Another Rooster Masterpiece

[hyperspace]

sure now that they have had plenty of time to hide every thing!! i bet they stop the inspectors the very first day.

"HEY, alright one tine djou gotta tell me thats it..one tine"

[DC Reed]

I Hate Hussien

<IMG SRC="http://www.fezwatley.4t.com/images/milk.jpg"

SINCE WHEN DID THE JAPANESE DRINK MILK!?

[sunndoggy8]

Do you honestly think that it will help for the US to now go in, ignoring the admission of UN inspectors (whether a legit allowance or not by Iraq tonight, i haven't seen the report yet), and starting a war? To you think that will sway world opinion in the favor of the US?

Or do you just not care about world opinion?

If yes, then how do you expect to ever win a war against terrorism alone?

What you do is send the inspectors in. This is Iraq's last chance. Inspectors not allowed unconditional inspections? Iraq pulls it's usual duck and cover crap and gets in the way(which they probably will). If they allow everything, everything is fantastic and we can get back to rebuilding Afganistan and fighting terrorists in other countries.

And if Iraq screws up(which of course they probably will)
send in the patriot missiles.

Then you won't have anyone saying that the US didn't give peace a chance. As much as everyone hates it, you have to at least show the effort to appease the world community.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

This message was edited by sunndoggy8 on 9-16-02 @ 10:07 PM

[Yerdaddy]

This isn't that big of an event, and it's far from over. The Bush administration isn't interested in inspections. It will call it a trick on Saddam's part, which it is, and that the "old" resolutions are not enough, that things are different now and there have to be new requirements. So it will push the Security Council to pass a resolution that has insane requirements like armed inspections and body cavity searches of Iraqi women. The Security Council will not pass it, of course, and Bush will keep clamoring for an invasion.

If Bush were to back the inspectors, they could get rid of Saddam's weapons of mass destruciton. But, like the Clinton administration, the issue of Iraq is about politics more than about security. Saddam's attempts to block inspectors and hide weapons were never successful when the inspections were backed by the Security Council and the threat of military attack. When the US no longer backed the inspections, they were pulled out before they could finish the job. So Saddam is not calling the shots, and he never was. If we want the weapons destroyed they will be, without sacraficing American troops.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[DarkHippie]

Didn't Saddam try this trick once on Satan and start breakdancing?

<IMG SRC=http://czmachine.50megs.com/images/dhsig1.gif>
<marquee>Who is DarkHippie? "You look like an Amish child molester"-- Jim Norton. "Watch out for this one. Someday he's gonna snap and kill you all."-- Rich Vos </marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Transcendental Blues: a journal</a>

[TheMojoPin]

"Hey buddy! Saddam say, 'Relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax...'"

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[FMJeff]

guaranteed he hid the shit before allowing the inspectors to come in...kind of like when you were smoking pot in your room and your mom knocks on the door and you had to hide the stash and get rid of the smell...

<center><img src="http://members.aol.com/sabanj666/ass.gif">
<br>
Stupid is as stupid does.</center>

[Zipgun]

guaranteed he hid the shit before allowing the inspectors to come in...kind of like when you were smoking pot in your room and your mom knocks on the door and you had to hide the stash and get rid of the smell...



Saddaaaaaam!?!?!

Are you enriching plutonium in there?!?!?!



<img src=http://atamichimpo.50megs.com/images/jetsfailuresig.jpg>

[DJEvelEd]

Wake up people...it's all a big scam. Hussein, Osama, are all on the CIA payroll and are making money for the powers that be. Saddam will never be killed by the USA. He may just disappear with a fistful of cash while Bush and his lackeys make money off the fluctuating oil prices. Wag the dog...

>>Big Bird is Ferrall's bitch<<

[A.J.]

Hussein, Osama, are all on the CIA payroll and are making money for the powers that be.


Right -- the CIA paid Osama to blow up our embassies in Africa, the USS Cole and the World Trade Center because there was a profit to be made in it.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/pentsig.jpg">

[DJEvelEd]

Right on...He was on our payroll in the 80's. Mujahedeen rebels received arms from CIA. If you don't believe me...check out the list of people who did NOT show up for work at the Trade Center. It includes royalty. Some people knew ahead of time. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past a government who kills it's own president.(or do you think Oswald was a lone gunman.)Keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel safe.

>>Big Bird is Ferrall's bitch<<

[A.J.]

Right on...He was on our payroll in the 80's. Mujahedeen rebels received arms from CIA. If you don't believe me...check out the list of people who did NOT show up for work at the Trade Center. It includes royalty. Some people knew ahead of time. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past a government who kills it's own president.(or do you think Oswald was a lone gunman.)Keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel safe.


Wow! You're right -- hardly any royalty showed up at the Pentagon on 11 September!



<IMG SRC="http://rfnetearth2ron.50megs.com/images/rfnetajindc.jpg">

This message was edited by AJinDC on 9-17-02 @ 12:30 PM

[DJEvelEd]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but a daughter of some regal nature was supposed to be at a meeting at the towers and cancelled at the last minute. FYI

>>Big Bird is Ferrall's bitch<<

[TheMojoPin]

What's the big secret? We openly funded Osama and the other Afghani rebels against the Soviets, as well as providing training and "advisors." Same with Saddam against Iran. It's not something new, DJEvelEd...but Saddam cut his ties when he invaded Kuwait, and once the Soviet Union fell, we had no reason to support the Afghanis...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but a daughter of some regal nature was supposed to be at a meeting at the towers and cancelled at the last minute. FYI

Bocci BALLS!!! Jackie Chan was supposed to be shooting on top of one of the twoers that day, AND HE CANCELLED THE SHOOT. AngelAmy, TAKE HIM DOWN!!!

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

The US funded the mujaheddin, convinced the Saudis to match it and enlisted the Pakistani intelligence to allocate the funds and organize and train them to fight against the USSR. The US allied with Saddam from 1982 through the invasion of Kuwait, gave him $5 billion in food credits to purchase US agricultural products, gave him intelligence like battlefield assessments and Iranian troop movements, and probably funnelled weapons to him through US allies like Egypt and the UAE. Does this translate into Saddam and Bin Laden being on the "CIA payroll" now? Of course not. You can't rely on conspiracy theorists and "alternative sources" for all your information. In fact, if you're willing to do the work and use your head, it's best to avoid them altogether. You end up sounding like a retard. And that's because you've bought into unsubstantiated speculation created by paranoid half-retards, and presented as fact. Rule of thumb: conspiracy theories and presidential speeches = factually worthless. Log off of www.whatreallyhappened.com and do your own research. Try <a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/">National Security Archives </a>, or <a href="www.fas.org"> Federation of American Scientists </a>, or <a href="www.globalsecurity.org"> globalsecurity.org </a>. You'll be much less irritating.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 9-17-02 @ 4:13 PM

[Contra]

so its www.whatreallyhappened.com? cool i'll be right back...

Kill the weak
Contra

[Yerdaddy]

doh!

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Iraq isn't stupid. By agreeing to allow weapons inspectors back in, they have fended off the attack for a few more weeks. Our State Department can't chant "Weapons Inspectors," then still rattle the saber when they agree. I'm as hawkish as the next guy, but they caved. The last thing we want is for Iraq to win over any sympathy in the Arab world, and this would win them a world of it.

If we are patient and wait for them to play head games with the UN, military action will become internationally popular. We MUST NOT attack yet. Let Iraq supremely fuck up (as they assuredly will within a week or two), then attack. The entire war on terror and its credibility ride on the way we carry ourselves in the next few days. Otherwise, taking the fight even to "Low hanging fruit" in Yemen and Somalia will be next to impossible.

PS, would the conspiracy theorists please cut the shit? It was a well-known fact that we funded bin Laden and Saddam. If you gave me the alternatives (Red Afghanistan, expanded Islamic Iran) I would gladly do it over again.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-18-02 @ 5:01 PM

[Gvac]

The inspections Hussein has agreed to allow us to search all of his military installations and nothing else.

If he is indeed creating chemical and biological weapons, they are most certainly being created in labratories and various other facilities, not necessarily military in nature.

To let him stall for time in such a fashion would be foolish, and I for one don't give a good God damn what the rest of the world thinks.

They didn't have nearly 3,000 innocent people slaughtered last year.



<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911.jpg>

Another Rooster Masterpiece


This message was edited by gvac on 9-18-02 @ 9:20 PM

[A.J.]

A list of Iraq's Security Council violations:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020917-8.html

<IMG SRC="http://nortonfan.com/shit/ajsig.jpg">



This message was edited by AJinDC on 9-18-02 @ 10:00 PM

[sunndoggy8]

To let him stall for time in such a fashion would be foolish, and I for one don't give a good God damn what the rest of the world thinks.

Not caring about what the rest of the world thinks would seem to be the most foolish thing to do. That mentality helps even more countries to hate us.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[TheMojoPin]

We didn't win WW2 and WW1 alone, not by a long shot. Last time we tried to take on a major conflict pretty much on our lonesome was Korea and Vietnam, and those ended as ambiguous messes that still haunt us to this day. Let's not make the same mistake for the third time.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-19-02 @ 12:18 AM

[Gvac]

We've got Britain on our side, and that's good enough for me. They've been our only worthwhile European ally through the years, and I can't see the importance of trying to convince the rest of the world when we know we're right.

To me, it's like walking down the street with a group of people when you spot a woman about to be raped. Instead of rushing to her aid, you plead your case to the rest of the people about why you should help, and they want to wait until she's actually violated.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911.jpg>

Another Rooster Masterpiece

[Col.Kurtz]

So far the inspection team that Iraq has agreed to let in only has one American on it. Its a joke, the weapons have already been hidden. The U.N. has let Iraq push them around for 11 years, and now we're going to have to handle it, and in the process look like the bad guys.

drop the bomb, exterminate them all.

[Michael Fury]

Dump a few hundred sewage tanks over Baghad. That'll learn 'em.








Hey, two million Budweisers can't be wrong .. .

[sunndoggy8]

We've got Britain on our side, and that's good enough for me. They've been our only worthwhile European ally through the years, and I can't see the importance of trying to convince the rest of the world when we know we're right.

It's important because we live in a global society. I know everyone would like to deny it, but yes, the rest of the world does matter, and you can't do whatever you want to do without getting them somewhat involved.

And you're never going to be able to rebuild Iraq(yes, you gotta rebuild it too) without much more help.

To me, it's like walking down the street with a group of people when you spot a woman about to be raped. Instead of rushing to her aid, you plead your case to the rest of the people about why you should help, and they want to wait until she's actually violated.


Well to me, it's more like when you finally find that duck you want, and then you find out that it's really a turtle that's sick. But then it gets better, but then you find out turtles are illegal in NJ.

WHAT?

That is the worst comparison you could ever possible make....it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It just is completely and utterly mind boggling that you find a connection between those two situations as you have just described. So people who want to wait to discuss the situation are advocates of letting women get raped by men and not stepping in until it's over?

It makes no sense.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[NewYorkDragons80]

We didn't win WW2 and WW1 alone, not by a long shot. Last time we tried to take on a major conflict pretty much on our lonesome was Korea and Vietnam, and those ended as ambiguous messes that still haunt us to this day. Let's not make the same mistake for the third time.
Korea, by even the most liberal accounts, was a stalemate. But if you ask me, if you look at where we started out and where we ended up, it was a win for us. If you call Korea a war we fought alone, you're wrong. The UN forced back the communist agressors. It just so happened that those forces were dominated by Americans. Unfortunately, our state department saw the miraculous rescue of the ROK and tried to apply it to Vietnam. (Minus the fact that we took the offensive in Korea ,and we went to Inchon full force and not trickles at a time, and those who fought the Korean War were there for more than 18 months.) Sorry folks, but Indochina is a real pressure point for me.

In any case, Iraq wimpers at our military might, but we should be concerned for the political situation there and our image abroad. Let the inspectors go in, but if there is so much as a spped bump on the way, it is our respnsibility to liberate Baghdad.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

[Pootertoot]

To be fair, Sunny is an advocate of letting women get raped by men and not stepping in until it's over.

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[sunndoggy8]

To be fair, Sunny is an advocate of letting women get raped by men and not stepping in until it's over.


Apparently I am...that is, if I lived in gvac's world, or as I like to call it, the planet USA.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[Pootertoot]

Apparently I am...that is, if I lived in gvac's world, or as I like to call it, the planet USA.


I honestly think that was the gayest attempt at a comeback in the history of attempts at comebacks.

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[sunndoggy8]

I honestly think that was the gayest attempt at a comeback in the history of attempts at comebacks.


I beg to differ. The gayest comeback in the history of attempts of comebacks was suggested...by you! So that makes you the true gay comebacker.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[Pootertoot]

To continue to be fair and insult both sides, Gvac comes home from work, puts on "Patton" and strokes it raw.

Are you happy now, Sunny?

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[sunndoggy8]

I think there's a Dragonball Z thread begging for your attention Louis. Run..hurry go!

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[Pootertoot]

Go watch Kimpossible, Lord Faggotton of Homolia.

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[sunndoggy8]

How dare you insult Kim Possible...a show that will feature a Magical Mystical Monkey Man villain(Lord Monkey Fist) with Ninja monkey henchmen?

And you're showing your true colors with your derogatory comments...shouldn't you be beating up a gay guy to prove your a man right now, you homophobe?

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[Pootertoot]

How dare you insult Kim Possible...a show that will feature a Magical Mystical Monkey Man villain(Lord Monkey Fist) with Ninja monkey henchmen?

And you're showing your true colors with your derogatory comments...shouldn't you be beating up a gay guy to prove your a man right now, you homophobe?


Did you read my comment about your inability to produce a non-gay comeback, or are you persevering in the face of adversity?

I'll see you in the next thread where someone dares to be patriotic.

<center><embed src="http://www.geocities.com/slfcallednowhere/mario2.swf" width=300 height=100><br>
Take a Chance, Take a Chance
</center>

[sunndoggy8]

I'll see you in the next thread where someone dares to be patriotic.


Why don't you just marry gvac already. Patriotic my ass.

<IMG SRC="http://home.att.net/~sunndoggy8/sunnysig1.jpg" width=300 height=80>

<i><b><font color="#0F00CD"> </font color="#0F00CD"></b></i>

[blakjeezis]

Try looking at it this way. What would have happened if we had stepped in and prevented Hitler from taking the Rhineland, or the Sudetenland, or Austria, much the same as Saddam tried to take Kuwait? What if we'd pushed him back to Germany's borders? What if instead of allowing him to rebuild the German military, we'd forced him to submit to inspections, limiting his power to do so? What if when he repeatedly flouted those demands and made a mockery of those trying to enforce them, we had gone into Berlin and removed him from power or killed him? Where would the world be now? How many millions of lives would have been spared?
I can already see the counter-arguments. 'Saddam Hussein is no Hitler', and 'Iraq is militarily insignificant.' To stifle the first one, Hussein has repeatedly shown the same genocidal tendencies as Hitler, the same demagoguery, the same thirst for more and more power, and the same ruthlessness in achieving that power. The big difference is, Hussein is months, that's months not years, away from having nuclear capabilities, has already shown his willingness to use poison gas in combat, and is not averse to using terrorist tactics to achieve his ends.
And as far as militarily insignificance goes, you can't get much more impotent than Germany right after WWI until Hitler took power. It's true there were no inspections or restrictions enforced upon Hitler, but even that is meaningless in Saddam's case. He doesn't need a huge military to attack us. They say 90-95% of his weapons are found by inspectors. Let's say that's true, I'm not sure I believe it, but for argument's sake let's say it is. What about the other 5-10%? So it's alright if a little bit of Anthrax is dropped on us? 5% of his stocks of Serin(sp?) gas is okay? At what point are we gonna wake up?
The man is a threat to our country and our lives. Eventually, we will have to face war with Saddam Hussein. Just like Hitler, he will not stop until he is dead. If we strike now, it will be easier and we will suffer a lot less casualties. If we wait for him to 'invade Poland' and drop a nuke on somebody, it will be a lot harder and a lot costlier in terms of human lives.

<IMG SRC =http://blakjeezis.homestead.com/files/arnoldsig.jpg>
"What was the middle one?" - Otto, A Fish Called Wnada
<marquee>White people are so scared of blakjeezis</marquee>

[Zipgun]

Why is it that I'm the only one turned on here? That's not supposed to happen. There's should be plenty of you turned on by now.

<img src=http://atamichimpo.50megs.com/images/jetsfailuresig.jpg>

[Gvac]

My analogy was about as dead on as possible, Sunny. Hussein is a terrorist, a despot, and a dangerous man. He MUST be disposed of, no question about it.

If the rest of the "global community" doesn't see it that way, it doesn't make it right for us to sit idly by when something so horribly wrong is happenning.

I wonder if President Bush had said last August that we had to start a military campaign in Afghanistan because they were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill 3,000 Americans, how many people would say "Where's the proof? Let's wait until something happens."

All too many, it seems.



<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911.jpg>

Another Rooster Masterpiece


This message was edited by gvac on 9-19-02 @ 7:53 PM

[NewYorkDragons80]

gvac, there's a huge difference between bin laden and Hussein. Hussein has few friends in the Arab world because he was a living sign of Arab weakness. bin Laden, however, is a unifying figure in the Arab world who has brought together Muslims of all kinds. Nothing brings Arabs together better than Americans fighting their own for reasons they do not agree with. It is for this reason that we must play the game and let Saddam screw up.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

[TheMojoPin]

Korea, by even the most liberal accounts, was a stalemate. But if you ask me, if you look at where we started out and where we ended up, it was a win for us.

No, no, I wasn't saying that we "lost" Korea or Vietnam...like I said, they both ended being very ambiguous situations, millitarily, politcally and diplomatically...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

Just like Hitler, he will not stop until he is dead.

It's not that he's not deserving of the invasion...it's more a question of where do we stop? Do we invade EVERY country that "might" be a threat to us some time down the line? Even if we wanted to, it would be impossible to do it alone, so then we're back to needing international support...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

Hussein is evil, despicable, greedy, cruel, and just a flat-out asshole. But he's not a terrorist. Don't give him that excuse. He's worse than a fanatic, because he doesn't even believe the shit he spews. He's just desperate to maintain his control. It's pathetic.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Yerdaddy]

My analogy was about as dead on as possible, Sunny. Hussein is a terrorist, a despot, and a dangerous man. He MUST be disposed of, no question about it.

If the rest of the "global community" doesn't see it that way, it doesn't make it right for us to sit idly by when something so horribly wrong is happenning.
It is an inherent fallacy to assume that we are right and the other 194 countries are wrong. Are they all pussies? or stupid? or are they all plotting to destroy America? And who is saying that we should sit idly by? I've said it many times before that this is a debate between getting Bush to back inspectors because inspections work. The argument that it is a choice between war and nothing is a distortion.
I wonder if President Bush had said last August that we had to start a military campaign in Afghanistan because they were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and kill 3,000 Americans, how many people would say "Where's the proof? Let's wait until something happens."

All too many, it seems.
Another bad analogy. Predicting a terrorist attack is a matter for the intelligence community, which had been largely absent from Afghanistan prior to 9-11. Iraq is crawling with CIA, surrounded by tens of thousands of US troops, is under constant surveillance by sattelites, spy planes, telephone and radio monitoring, and has been for 11 years. Iraq also does not have the history of attacks on America that al-Quaeda does. Saddam can be neutralized by backing inspections, rather than undermining them, and keeping them in Iraq into the forseeable future. 9-11 could have been prevented by adopting the airline security bills that were killed by the airline industry several times during the 1990s. Going to war as a solution risks turning Iraq into another Afghanistan, which would make the threat to our security even greater. Our solution of war and abandonment for the USSR/Afghanistan problem of the 1980s and its contribution to creating the Taliban and al-Quaeda should be evidence of the risks in Iraq now. Simplistic, schoolyard analogies overlook the real problems, solutions and risks to our future security.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
If I don't make you laugh, you don't know what felch means.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Fair enough, Mojo. Still, in each war we had a decent international coalition. What you won't often hear about Vietnam is that there were Australian, New Zealandish, Thai, and South Korean troops along with our boys. The Republic of China also pledged troops to liberate Vietnam, but their offer was refused in fear it may agitate the People's Republic of China.

While I agree with you that we need to display patience with Iraq and inspectors, the reason we had such "ambiguous" results in Korea and Indochina is because we were afraid to go full force. Read my sig quote from MacArthur. The impatience liberals had caused disastrous results for South Vietnam. It will be conservative impatience that invalidates our War on Terror.

Right now, we have an international image as a bllying aggressor. Going to war with Iraq immediately after they agree to our demands would do nothing but prop up that image further. Unless we make efforts to prove an Iraqi connection to the World Trade Center (and there was a connection between him and the 1993 bombing) we will have to wait a little while for a war with Iraq. It is Saddam's turn to piss off the world. Let's not do it for him.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

[Gvac]

Anybody read Benjamin Netanyahu's brilliant editorial in today's Wall Street Journal?

Ah, what would he know about terrorism? He's only a former Prime Minister of Israel.

Do yourselves a favor and get a hold of it just to see what he thinks of Iraq and Hussein, and the danger he represents.

I admire all of you who think the entire world is all peachy keen and peace loving. What a shame it just isn't so.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911.jpg>

Another Rooster Masterpiece

[TheMojoPin]

The impatience liberals had caused disastrous results for South Vietnam. It will be conservative impatience that invalidates our War on Terror.

This isn't a case of "liberal" or "conservative" meddling, this was just based on the fact we were going about the conlfict the wrong way. The VC were fighting a mainly guerilla war and we were trying to fight it like we tackled the Japanese in WW2 and Korea a decade earlier. It's like trying to take out a gnat with a Buick. The only force we could have used more of would have been nuclear strikes, and that would have contradicted all of our public reasonings for being there. And yes, we did have a small degree of international support, as we do today against Iraq, but obviously it wasn't enough now, and won't be today.

Look, I'm for an Iraq without Hussein, and I think we should act on taking him out by the end of next year, it just seems given what precipitated this "War on Terror", he should be like #4 on the list instead of #1...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[TheMojoPin]

Anybody read Benjamin Netanyahu's brilliant editorial in today's Wall Street Journal?

Ah, what would he know about terrorism? He's only a former Prime Minister of Israel.

Hm, right, the same PM whose heavyhanded tactics help undermine everything achieved between Israel and Palestine in the early 90's by his predecessor, a man who understood the give and take nature of the region.

I admire all of you who think the entire world is all peachy keen and peace loving. What a shame it just isn't so.

Not a single person in any of the threads pertaining to this topic has implied anything of the sort. We've simply pushed the idea of going at this patiently, smartly, supported by our ALLIES (Not the WORLD, but the people we supposedly WANT on our side), and not storming off blindly screaming "Charge!!!" just because there's an asshole with a moustache that's got a bug up this administration's ass.

I say go for terrorists first, since it's been made woefully clear on September 11th that those are the people who will hurt and kill us, NOT petty dictators half a world away. And if we're taking out those who "support terrorism", then for God's sake, do something about Saudi Arabia. I know you should keep your enemies close, but this is ridiculous.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-20-02 @ 7:21 PM

[NewYorkDragons80]

The VC was on the run after the Tet offensive. After the coup in Cambodia, if we had the public support to assist the Cambodian army in crushing the Ho Chi Min trail, we would have taken a real dent out of their supplies.

True, nuclear airstrikes would have brought them to their knees, but so would have an offensive. If we went with General Ky and General Loan's insistence on pushing through the 18th parallel, the VC would have been forced to take on an advancing army or flee for their lives. They could not have won a conventional war, especially against the US. We were ill-prepared for a non-conventional war, so we need to force them to play by our rules. I'm not even talking about crushing Hanoi, but if we showed the North we meant business, it could have forced them into peace talks (Real peace talks). And don't give me the China crap, because they had enough domestic problems of their own. They also lost a border war with Vietnam in the 1970's, so don't think they were so hot to trot about jumping in to fight alongside the Stalinists they hated so.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-20-02 @ 10:10 PM

[TheMojoPin]

crushing the Ho Chi Min trail

Nobody's bringing up China...they had far more pressing issues during both 'Nam and Korea. But the "trail" is such a myth...there was hardly an single route one could destroy to cut of the supply route. It was just people on foot on bike, whatever, moving supplies however they could...again, the only definitive way we could have slowed the supply trade or destroyed it was to level the jungle and everyone there. And even if we pressed full-on into the north, the VC had infiltrated so much of the south there would have been constant raids, guerilla strikes and terrorist-like attacks. Combine that with the tunnels, the climate, terrain and unorthodox style of fighting that the VC engaged in, we still could have won the war, but it would have gone on probably at least through the 70's, maybe even more than a decade...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[NewYorkDragons80]

The only reason I mentioned China is because most people think China would have been involved if we invaded the north. It's a debatable scenario, so it was a pre-emptive strike on my part.

Had we created a stronger anti-communist force in Cambodia, the Ho Chi Min trail would have been shut down. All we needed to shut it down was the cooperation of neighboring countries, which we had for a time with Lon Nol's Cambodia.

Had we taken the offensive, it would have boosted moral in both the ARVN and US forces. The VC had control of some villages, but don't believe everything you hear about how much of the South they controlled.

Mojo, you think the US would have won if we had been there another decade? Maybe, but that's where the patience kicks in. Our incursion into Cambodia was the right thing to do, but Congress neutered our presence there and we all know what happened when we left.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-21-02 @ 9:36 AM

[TheMojoPin]

Mojo, you think the US would have won if we had been there another decade? Maybe, but that's where the patience kicks in. Our incursion into Cambodia was the right thing to do, but Congress neutered our presence there and we all know what happened when we left.

And patience is exactly where I agree with you. Operations like the one in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and possible Iraq, are going to take years years if they're done right, and out government tries too often now to cater to people who think a single year is a waste of time and resources.

Cambodia was the right route, but Nixon muddled it up by ordering nothing but bombings.

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[Captain Rooster]

I think the F117 and the B2 are excellent platforms to conduct our inspections from.

<CENTER><img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/911Eagle.jpg></center>
<CENTER></center>

[TheMojoPin]

What about The B-52's? I've seen the way Saddam has looked at Fred Schneider, him having that big gay moustache and all...

<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/themojopin.jpg>
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."
-TMP

[A.J.]

I think the F117 and the B2 are excellent platforms to conduct our inspections from.


Roger that.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[NewYorkDragons80]

Nixon saw film Patton Apr. 25 - made decision next day to invade Cambodia

Cambodia invasion Apr. 30 - 32,000 U.S. troops attack the Fishhook and Parrot's Beak for 2 months - destroy NV supplies and set back NV plans for 2 years - a military success but political disaster

We were kicked out of Indochina by our own Cngress. In 1973 they banned us military action in Cambodia. As the South fell, and North Vietnam illegally crossed the 19th parallel, the clowns in Congress denied further military aid to rescue the South.

"In war there is no substitute for victory."
-General Douglas MacArthur

"If gold should rust, what will iron do?"
-Geoffrey Chaucer

"Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.
-Romans 12:1

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 9-22-02 @ 11:53 AM