war, glorious war. [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Hawiian shirt craig

10-10-2002, 04:43 PM

glorious it is NOT. as we
get ready to attack Iraq
again, i really dont like it, i
have a bad feeling about
this one. its just to far
escalated. everyone has
been postureing for years.
its like the guys in prison
jsut lifting weights. they're
too big, someones gonna
get hurt.

there are a lot of 18-21 year
old males on the board.
that means draft, if this
becomes WW3. if iraq
launches nukes or
chemical weapons.... thats
what we will see. iran will
be on it, and we have little
to know back up.

i have no doubts about
winning, and it more or less
needs to happen, but i just
dont like it. i also dont like
seeing people get excited
for war. maybe its b/c i'm
not really a violent person. i
have a bad feeling about it...
this is too nostradomus.

-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

San Diego Chargers 4-0

ADF

10-10-2002, 04:55 PM

there are a lot of 18-21 year
old males on the board.
that means draft, if this
becomes WW3.

Perhaps you don't know this is because you were about seven years old at the time, but the exact same thing was said during the Gulf War. How'd that turn out? Iraq's military capabilities have been dramatically reduced since then, and if they used any sort of chemical/biological weapons, they'd have the rest of the world on their ass in a hurry. Still, that won't be necessary as even if a conflict does arise, our military is more than capable of handling this third-world turd of a country by our lonesome. Relax a little on your prognostications of doom and gloom, we'll be fine.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/adf11.gif>
Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Xmas!

ChickenHawk

10-10-2002, 05:01 PM

someones gonna
get hurt.

...in a war? nnawwww!!!

<IMG SRC="http://hawkfact.50megs.com/chickenhawk.gif">

"I have to return some videotapes..." -Patrick Bateman

Contra

10-10-2002, 05:42 PM

i love the smell of war in the morning...

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/contra.gif>
Batosai The Manslayer

Abrasive Dean

10-10-2002, 06:00 PM

Trouble is the USA will not do it on their own. Whenever there is a conflict (as with the Gulf War) other countries need to help.

Would it surprise you to learn the AWACS used as an "eye in the sky" were the heavily modified British version.

I would be only too happy if the US went in first as the majority of the casualties the British took in the Gulf War was as a direct result of "friendly fire" from the US.

I do agree though that the time has come to literally "draw a line in the sand".

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/sig/sig.jpg">

TheMojoPin

10-10-2002, 06:49 PM

I read a lot of British music mags, and it's curious how much casual hatred exists for Bush, even in the pages of European entertainment periodicals. Bands left and right talking about how they'd take down Bush if they had a chance. Who the hell likes this guy? It's gonna be interesting to see where we stand on the international scale after all this.

<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 10-11-02 @ 12:46 AM

Hawiian shirt craig

10-10-2002, 07:13 PM

Perhaps you don't
know this is because you
were about seven years old
at the time, but the exact
same thing was said
during the Gulf War. How'd
that turn out? Iraq's military
capabilities have been
dramatically reduced since
then, and if they used any
sort of chemical/biological
weapons, they'd have the
rest of the world on their
ass in a hurry.

cute story. an injured
animal is 10 times more
dangerous. incase you
didn't notice, we're all
avoiding the elephant in the
living room: vehicle of
delivery. the big issue that
threatens america is how
iraq can deliver its
weapons. one ICBM, with 4
nukes... well thats a much
bigger problem than a scud
with a nuke. also
remember that we have a
HUGE number of troops
stationed in the area.
countries in iraq's known
range:
germany
afganistan
saudi arabia
isreal
parts of russia
the persian gulf
turkey

that would be a bitch.

ADF, i know the rest of the
world will rally, but if a
million troops get wiped out
were F-ed.

to sum up, iraq is more
likely to use chemical
weapons esp against us
NOW b/c they might have
no choice. saddam is not
exactly capt international
law. if hes about to get ass
raped by a platoon of delta
force, hes gonna push the
button. plus once hes out,
where do all those toys go?
its not a video game. more
mad men break up the
stock pile.

on a cheery note, i can't be
drafted b/c of medical stuff.

-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

San Diego Chargers 4-0

skurbs

10-10-2002, 07:54 PM

nukem. nuke the bastards. say we do lay off - hussein is getting old as it is - on his death bed, he very well may give the order to unleash hell. we cant take the risk. id rather 5 million iraqis die than one american (obviously i dont want them to die, but if it comes to that, ill sleep at night). 
GO BUSH GO!!!!!!!!!! 

<img src="http://www.anncoulter.org/images/sig02.gif">
 skurbs (tom from hoboken)

Captain Rooster

10-10-2002, 09:03 PM

I this is WWIII, we have a lot more to worry about than just a draft.

Dry your eyes...people willing to fight for America are already lined up to go.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/RoosterPissedSig11_Animation.gif></center>
<center>Valhalla I am coming</center>

Abrasive Dean

10-11-2002, 04:29 AM

people willing to fight for America are already lined up to go. 
There are already a lot of British and American troops very close to Iraq... 
Not to mention those special forces who are undoubtedly there already ;) 
Needless to say the US will not wait for an event like Dec 7th 1941 before taking action. 

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/sig/sig.jpg">

Cybersoldier

10-11-2002, 04:34 AM

The war with Iraq is going to be like war games,it going to end quickly, saddam is going to cry to his mom, or bin laden, and we're stuck babysitting the country. Gulf war reduced Iraq;s army,more than likely, if saddam was going to try to win this war he might take out his big gun, some of those biological weapons he say he doesn't have

<IMG SRC="http://cybersoldier.iwarp.com/images/homerb1.jpg">

Abrasive Dean

10-11-2002, 05:30 AM

The war with Iraq is going
to be like war games,it going to
end quickly, saddam is going to
cry to his mom, or bin laden, and
we're stuck babysitting the
country. 
I wish that it were true that it
would be over quickly. sadly this
will not be the case.
The US have already stated that
the cost of "occupation" of Iraq
post war would be too great for
them to bear.
Sufficient to say if the British
government get "behind" Bush
and go to war, then their
Intelligence services know
something which cannot be
ignored. Which they are afraid
enough about to risk good
relations with the friendly Arab
states.
I personally have no wish to
learn of friends and former
colleagues losing their lives in
another Gulf War.

<img src="http://
homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/
sig/sig.jpg">

This message was edited by Abrasive Dean on 10-11-02 @ 9:35 AM

A.J.

10-11-2002, 05:33 AM

Any war with Iraq will be over relatively quickly. It's the aftermath I'm concerned about -- are we going to have a "peacekeeping force" there like we've had in Bosnia for the last 7 years?

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

A Skidmark production.

ADF

10-11-2002, 06:02 AM

http://www.csis.org/burke/hd/reports/IraqMilCap.pdf

This website seemed to have some good information.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/adf11.gif>
Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Xmas!

Michael Fury

10-11-2002, 09:23 AM

"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." --- Blood Meridian: or, the Evening Redness in the West (1983) by Cormac McCarthy

See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time.

McNabbShouldDie

10-11-2002, 07:56 PM

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING SIR? Do you actually think this going to be WW3? people said Afghanistan was going to be another Vietnam, well, they were wrong. And about the draft, I would be honored to go to war for my country. It is a duty that we all owe our great nation.

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/mcnabb.gif>

TheMojoPin

10-11-2002, 08:31 PM

people said Afghanistan was going to be another Vietnam, well, they were wrong.

See? People talk like we're "finished" in Afghanistan. Scary.

<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

Heavy

10-11-2002, 09:25 PM

We're not finished, but it's certainly not another Vietnam.
We will drop thousands of bombs before we ever attempt to "occupy" anything. Once again we will loose more soldiers to friendly fire & accidents then we will due directly to the enemy. And once again we will loose more soldiers after the war to drunken car accidents then we will in the war. I think people in our gov't realize the threat of the nuke and will be ready for it. I'm sure theres a map somewhere with targets all over it to bomb within the first 12 hours. Please continue to underestimate the knowledge of all the senoir officials and military personall who have already done this once. Please talk about how dangerous thier "army" is and about how we're getting in over our heads. The nuke should be the one and only concern and if you don't think our leadership is expecting it and ready to handle it then go back and study for your home economics class and leave the war talk to the grown ups.

yea I'm worried about NBC warfare alot...it's damn fucking hard to get that shit on in time to save your life and even harder to adminiter first AID and even harder than that to carry someone on your back and get him out of a contaminated area and into safe zone. It probally aint gonna happen, sad to say.

And if they do decide to use gas against us, we need to bomb the everfuckinghell out of whatever makes sense to bomb. If theyre using civilian houses for cover and we've been nice and not attacked to avoid civilian casualties and they use gas on us........Take it out.....DO NOT USE GAS ON US OR WE WILL STAB YOU IN YOUR FUCKING HEART A MILLION TIMES...thats the message we need to send. If we have the balls to do it, we'll be fine.

<img src="http://sweet201.net/waddsig01.gif">
Props to Sweet201!! WWW.ONAArmy.cjb.net
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

McNabbShouldDie

10-11-2002, 09:58 PM

jwadd obviously knows what he is talking about. He is dead on right about what we should be doing. The only way to show these people that your either with us or against us is to set an example. We have the best military in the world with the best technology. I can't wait to see Saddam Eat a bullet. 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/mcnabb.gif>

keithy_19

10-12-2002, 08:23 AM

Everyone keeps on talking about war, and it is at this point inevtiable that we go and attack Iraq. Iraq is a threat to the U.S of A right now. They could easily give some of there weapons to terroists even though Saddam Hussein is also a terroist. Lets think about this, Saddam with a nuke. Now thats scary.

blakjeezis

10-12-2002, 09:01 AM

I can't wait to see Saddam Eat a bullet
.com. YOU WHOOOORE!!!

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

Tallguy 22

10-12-2002, 09:04 AM

...in a war? nnawwww!!!

That would only happen if we just had a huge pillow fight with saddam.

<IMG SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bossgigi/files/smallest.gif">
<marquee behavior=alternate>Mine Hoping Chamipon</marquee>

TheMojoPin

10-12-2002, 09:16 AM

even though Saddam Hussein is also a terroist.

When did this happen? Did I miss the memo?

<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

Gvac

10-12-2002, 09:18 AM

When did this happen? Did I miss the memo?

Using chemical weapons to wipe out thousands of people in your own country (including women and children) may not count as terrorism to you, MJP, but it does to some of us.

And as to the original point of this thread - war is never glorious. It is, however, a very necessary evil. The more naive may believe that everything can be solved with discussion and diplomacy, but it is not reality. You can not negotiate with a madman bent on destruction.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/animatedgvacsig.gif>

Thanks, PanterA!

Drudge Jr.

10-12-2002, 09:25 AM

the things no one is saying:
what are we going to do there when we're done killing everyone? we won't be accepted
to occupy the oldest caliphate in the world!

bush was allowed to search iraq but he ELECTED NOT TOO,
bush wants a war for a) economic imperialism b) revenge because they tried to kill his daddy

some of the captured terrorists have said that what caused their campaign against the United States was the invasion of iraq in 1991 and the stationing of troops in saudi arabia....great....now we'll have another generation of terrorists if we invade iraq this time

WHEN WILL WE WAKE UP... THIS WAR IS A BAD BAD IDEA!!

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.com/ronfezsig.GIF">

Heavy

10-12-2002, 10:03 AM

some of the captured terrorists have said that what caused their campaign against the United States was the invasion of iraq in 1991 and the stationing of troops in saudi arabia....great....now we'll have another generation of terrorists if we invade iraq this time

Exactly why we need to go back and finish the job. If we did it right last time, we might not have this problem today. Everyone alway says be nice. We are even nice during war.

Destroying the defense systems and the military capibiliies of a country is the easy part. Destroying thier spirit and thier desire to start the same shit at a later date is the hard part. We need to hit them HARD, enough with this nicey nice shit. After a month of constant bombing it should be relativly easy to drop entire brigades out in the middle of that sorry country.... hey Rooster can you say 101st ABN Div & 10th mountain Div?

I personally know theres a battalion of SF at FT Campbell, even though theyre seperate from the 101st technically, but they could easily move in beforehand (maybe they aready have?) and trust me an SF battalion can do an unbelieveable amount in a short period of time.

We here all the time on the show from Rooster in the past and now with this sniper thing about how well trained and hardcore Army Ragers are. I'll tell you I knew of 1 officer at FT Campbell that WASNT a Ranger and many senior NCO's (seargents for you none military) Were Rangers and / or Gulf war vets that refuse to leave the )101st so they can go back and finsh the job.
You cant walk into a store on base at lunch time with out seeing Airborne, Air assualt, Ranger, Special Forces tabs and combat patches all over the damn place.

Theyve done it before. They do desert training for 2 months a year at minimum among other things. They sit for hours at a time in 100 degree heat and bake with that NBC gear on while walking for 25 miles straight at times. Theyre ready for this.

<img src="http://sweet201.net/waddsig01.gif">
Props to Sweet201!! WWW.ONAArmy.cjb.net
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

keithy_19

10-12-2002, 10:20 AM

TheMojoPin

10-12-2002, 12:50 PM

Using chemical weapons to wipe out thousands of people in your own country (including women and children) may not count as terrorism to you, MJP, but it does to some of us.

It's not. That's genocide. And if that's the criteria for us invading another country these days, then Iraq should be about 16th on the list. Let's be consistent here. Are we going after him because he's a terroroist? Because he's genocidal? Because he has a bad moustache? Because he tried to have the first Bush killed? Because he's in the neighborhood? Because he may or may not have weapons of mass destruction which he may or may not use? Half of those options can be applied to at least a dozen other countries that we're on not-so-good on non-existent terms with. Why Iraq? They just sent another notice allowing weapons inspectors in. Oh, but because we don't like them, we can ignore it? Everyone says the weapons inspectors don't "work", but call me crazy, or did Iraq do NOTHING in the last 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

keithy_19

10-12-2002, 08:08 PM

Yes. Sddam is not a terroist, wink wink. COME ON! Ok, lets just call him a maniac and a madmen, would you trust a mad man with a assualt rifle in a shopping mall with a bunch of people walking around? Well, lets say saddam is the one with the rifle, whicch is actualy chemical wepons, and lets say the shopping mall is the middle east. The middle east is bad enough. If we can do anything to prevent one person from being killed, then lets go for it.

TheMojoPin

10-12-2002, 08:48 PM

Why didn't we go for him a year ago? Why didn't Bush run on this as part of his platform?

<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

10-12-2002, 11:07 PM

if they used any sort of chemical/biological weapons, they'd have the rest of the world on their ass in a hurry. Still, that won't be necessary as even if a conflict does arise, our military is more than capable of handling this third-world turd of a country by our lonesome. Relax a little on your prognostications of doom and gloom, we'll be fine.
I think what Shirt is concearned about is that if chemical/ biological weapons are used they are going to be used on our soldiers. And as for the basis of those concearns, the difference between the 1991 Gulf War and now is that Saddam Hussien did not use his chemical and biological weapons because he was informed that if he did he would be obliterated, but he did deploy them in a defensive posture to be used if the United States marched on Baghdad. The stated intent of the next invasion is to do just that. So without the benefit of hindsight there was plenty of reason to be concearned about the safety of our troops in the 1991 war, there's more reason noe.

And Craig, I'm glad to see you're not among the cheerleaders for war, and are thinking about the lives of the troops instead. We may disagree about war being the best course of action, but at least we agree that the lives of the soldiers should be considered before we get all happy about going war. How fucking hard is it to see that war isn't just shit blowing up on TV, but it's people puting their lives on the line and dying - for real. It should never be taken lightly, especially by those that won't be doing the fighting.

johneewadd :
Once again we will loose more soldiers to friendly fire & accidents then we will due directly to the enemy.
And friendly fire casualties are just as dead as those killed by the enemy. And again, the comparison to the 1991 Gulf War is limited by the fact that this one has the intent of taking out Saddam, which removes the element of deterrence which restrained Hussein the first time. Like the limits of that comparison, there is a difference between making a comparison and saying that a war in Afghanistan will be just like Vietnam. Making a comparison is seeing similarities and differences, not saying they are the same. I think it is you that is oversimplifying the comparison. It's not enough to say that one war will or will not be like another, and I don't remember anyone saying that Afghanistan will be just like Vietnam. Nevertheless, you seem to be criticizing "them" for making the Vietnam/Afghanistan comparison while using a Gulf War I/Gulf War II comparison to downplay the risks to our troops. Whether you want to know it or not, our troops are facing the risks of friendly fire, accidents from the massive movement of men and equipment, helocopter and airplane crashes, exposure to chemical and biological agents and depleted uranium in the areas of operation, not to mention the street-to-street fighting that military leaders predicted in congressional hearings will be necessary to take Baghdad, and the aforementioned increased risk of attack by biological and/or chemical weapons.

In short, I think you are taking far too lightly the risks that our troops are taking in order to carry out the wishes of the President.

The nuke should be the one and only concern and if you don't think our leadership is expecting it and ready to handle it then go back and study for your home economics class and leave the war talk to the grown ups.
When you're old enough to read, I suggest that you read any or all of the reports that the administration has cited that all say that Iraq does not have a nuke but does have stockpiles of chemical and possibly biological weapons.

GVAC:
The more naive may believe that everything can be solved with discussion and diplomacy, but it is not reality. You can not negotiate with a madman bent on destruction.
Nobody is suggesting that "discussion and diplomacy" is what will make Saddam cease to be a threat. There are, however, those like me who think that forcing Saddam to allow weapons inspectors

BigKing

10-12-2002, 11:17 PM

We could nuke iraq, but we'll never get 100% of them all. After Saddam, someone else will take his place in another country, and the cycle will begin again. The biggest problem over there is the lack of proper education for the citizens. All they know is the "anti-USA" propaganda that is "fed" to them by Saddam and other extremists. Its one thing to "hate" a country, but when you weave a religion into the mix, it becomes a damn bad situation. We are agry at Saddam. Saddam tells his people "The US is angry at All Muslims, and Allah." I think Saddam is playing the "religion" card to get support from his people.

You want to solve this, educate the citizens of the arab countries. Let them know what is really going on, and that we are not angry at "muslims" in general. They are being spoonfed lies.

Am I making any sence at all??

<IMG SRC="http://www.specialfoods.com/bigkingsig.gif">

"And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad...
that dreams in which i'm dying, are the best i've ever had."

AndyKoom

10-13-2002, 01:35 AM

Concerned Peaceniks, get a hold of yourselves. A lot of people said the same thing before the last Gulf War. Iraq's standing army is in shambles. There are numerous defections and their morale is low. Anything that's not flattened by air power will surrender. Even one "axis of evil," Iran is allowing us to use their air space. Trust me. I speak with officers and friends in the army and the marines regularly and they expect a Gulf War II, not WWIII. And it is insane to think Bush will reinstate the draft. That will be political suicide. Americans like to cheer but do not like to participate.

And the only target Saddam would use any NBC weapons would be on Israel. Even then, it'd probably give us the 'go' from our so called allies, ie: Germany, France...most of Europe to use ours in response.

monkey gram. haha ok.

Heavy

10-13-2002, 05:11 AM

Yea Andy, good job...and it seems people that know about these things are the people that think we'll be fine....and then theres people like this:

When you're old enough to read, I suggest that you read any or all of the reports that the administration has cited that all say that Iraq does not have a nuke but does have stockpiles of chemical and possibly biological weapons.

Yea and we know it's true cause shit like this never gets "lost" or covered up for various reasons. No matter what they put in writting..they know its possible and are ready for it.
I try to avoid arguements with people that don't know what they're talking about but still sound intelligent when commenting on the subject. You said a whole lotta nothing and its obvious you have no experience in this area, except to talk about it.

<img src="http://sweet201.net/waddsig01.gif">
Props to Sweet201!!
Join the ONA Army http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

Drudge Jr.

10-13-2002, 06:21 AM

Well...This war is not a bad idea. The bad idea is having a madman with a nuke in his arsenal. The reason people hate the U.S.A. is cause we're friends with Israel and most of the world is anit-semetic. People don't understand that Iaral is one of our biggest allies. They are also the only people you can trust in the region. But back onto the war, it is something we have to do. Unless you want another 9/11 involving chemical/biological/nuclear wepons. The destruction would be much much worse.

you're ignoring the fact that retribution for this attack has a very decent potential to be far worse than anything they would/could do now.

Concerned Peaceniks, get a hold of yourselves. A lot of people said the same thing before the last Gulf War. Iraq's standing army is in shambles. There are numerous defections and their morale is low. Anything that's not flattened by air power will surrender. Even one "axis of evil," Iran is allowing us to use their air space. Trust me. I speak with officers and friends in the army and the marines regularly and they expect a Gulf War II, not WWIII. And it is insane to think Bush will reinstate the draft. That will be political suicide. Americans like to cheer but do not like to participate.

And the only target Saddam would use any NBC weapons would be on Israel. Even then, it'd probably give us the 'go' from our so called allies, ie: Germany, France...most of Europe to use ours in response.

this is hardly about the draft, and agressive warlords really should try answering our concerns instead of making up new ones to answer.

whoever said we should just nuke iraq is ignoring the problem... we aren't fighting the people or iraq we are fighting to regime. but dont feel to bad, bush, clinton, and bush again have made the same mistake by putting on stupid (the opposite of smart) sanctions that put their country through poverty. if i lived in iraq and i couldn't eat because the richest country in the world doesn't want me to, i'm pretty sure i would hate them, and that's not even mentioning that we're constantly bombing them.

the war is against the regime not the people. unfortunatly bush doesn't realize this, so when he sets up his shadow government and the people or iraq don't want it, what will happen then?

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.com/ronfezsig.GIF">

Recyclerz

10-13-2002, 07:03 AM

Um, excuse me, but while everybody is getting a chubby preparing to bitch slap Saddam again, you might have missed a couple of things in the past week: terrorists have killed a Marine & shot up others in our ally Kuwait's back yard; blown up almost 200 infidels partying in Bali(Indonesia)and created a decent sized hole (& a couple of corpses)in an oil tanker off of Yemen. Now, what was that you were saying about Iraq not being a distraction from the War on Terrorism? 

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

Hawiian shirt craig

10-13-2002, 07:50 AM

holy long posts bat man. i
have a new revilation...

no president wasn't
reelected during a time of
war. even in vietnam. bush
is doing waht his father did.
ignore domestic policy, the
dow jones and nasdaq are
in the toilet. a lot of
economic factors i dont feel
like listing are not behaving.
he seems like he could
give a shit. its all about "he
tried to kill my dad"

i am starting to think this is
all just an election scheme.
i dunno.

i belive yer daddy writes the
longests posts ever, and
somehow keeps them
intelligent! do u write
papers yerdaddy>???

-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

San Diego Chargers 4-0

TheMojoPin

10-13-2002, 08:04 AM

So what's my problem with the war? Well, it just seems a little too easy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we spanked them so badly that every Iraqi had to wear a nametag that said "Hello. My name is Spankedy McSpankedyspank-Spanklestein" and walk around like that for a whole week. We also gave Kuwait t-shirts with "I'm with Spanked" written on them, and an arrow pointing to Iraq. It was classic. Iraq pissed us off because they tried to dip their fingers in our precious, delicious oil, and we kicked their asses.

After 9/11, we launched our war on terrorism, which we began by blasting Afghanistan into tiny, Afghanistan-shaped pieces. That sent a powerful message to the terrorists of the world: if you mess with us, we will turn your entire country that you sometimes use as a staging ground but aren't really from and don't really need into heathen rubble. That was a good start, but the war on terrorism couldn't end there.

We looked into some local, low-cost options, like bombing the hell out of Canada, but we came to the conclusion that we liked having Canada around, because we can take their stuff and ridicule them constantly, and they can't do anything about it. Canada - the Ned Flanders of the free world.

Still, we had to wipe some country off the map, so now we're about to go to war with Iraq again, which is all well and good, except that they haven't really done anything to piss us off lately. Sure, Saddam's a dick, but he's keeping the invasions to a minimum these days. He won't let U.N. inspectors into the country, but that's nothing new. It's like he's afraid they'll find the baggie of pot in his underwear drawer.

The U.N. says Iraq may have a nuclear device in development. We have enough nukes to blow up this planet, and any other pissant planet that gets in our way, and we're afraid that Iraq might just possibly have a device. If we fight this thing seriously, Iraq will have no choice but to pull a France and surrender in the first week. Then we'll have to find another country to supposedly "de-terrorist", and the whole thing will start all over again. Obviously, that's no good. This war has to drag out so that we can win just before the next election, thereby securing a second term for Bush, just like it did for his father. Oh, wait...whoops...

<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

keithy_19

10-13-2002, 05:54 PM

REALLY? ITS JUST TO WIN BUSH ANOTHER TERM IN OFFICE? You are so off base. The reason we are doing this war is because we need to rid the world of people who would fly planes into our buildings. I'm gonna just tell you why we need to go into iraq and remove Hussein. Saddam has chemical and biological wepons and is close to getting a nuke. He harbors terroists who plot evil against the U.S.A and our allies. He could easily give terroists these wepons. Therefor he poses a threat to the united states right now. It is that simple.

Heavy

10-13-2002, 06:10 PM

It's nice to see Keith making sense in here.

<img src="http://sweet201.net/waddsig01.gif">
Props to Sweet201!!
Join the ONA Army. http://www.onaarmy.cjb.net Please, help us save Black Earl.
Yes, he is hung like a horse. One female porn star describes having sex with Johneewadd as like giving birth.

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 06:40 PM

Saddam has chemical and biological wepons and is close to getting a nuke. He harbors terroists who plot evil against the U.S.A and our allies. He could easily give terroists these wepons. Therefor he poses a threat to the united states right now. It is that simple.
Saddam's WMD programs could be destroyed by inspections just as they were from 1991 to 1997. Saddam's support for terrorist organizations consists of groups acting against Iraqi dissident groups and Palestinian nationalist groups, (<a href="http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm">US State Dept. - Patterns of Global Terrorism -2001</a>). The alegations of links to al-Qaeda that have been repeated ad-nauseum by the administration have never gone beyond speculation and none have been confirmed by US intelligence agencies. Hussein has never given any indications that he would give WMD to terrorist groups, therefore acting on speculation that he will is irresponsible and carries all of the risks I've listed earlier in this post, but with little benefit to our ACTUAL security.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

keithy_19

10-13-2002, 06:50 PM

One question. Have you've seen the pictures of the little children saddam killed? HE MURDERED CHILDREN IN HIS OWN COUNTRY FOR GODS SAKE! Lets be honest with ourselves, would you feel better knowing that that a madman with wepons of mass destruction has been removed from power? I know i would. You saw the destruction of 9/11. Imagine double, possibly triple of it. Would you like to take the chance and see if it happens? I wouldn't.

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 06:50 PM

Yea and we know it's true cause shit like this never gets "lost" or covered up for various reasons. No matter what they put in writting..they know its possible and are ready for it.
I try to avoid arguements with people that don't know what they're talking about but still sound intelligent when commenting on the subject. You said a whole lotta nothing and its obvious you have no experience in this area, except to talk about it.
Is your point here that the reason the administration has presented no evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon is that the information was lost or covered up. Or is it that you don't want to read the reports? I hope it's the latter because the former would be sad.

HSC - I've written some stuff for congressional staffs and an NGO. Unfortunately most of my writing goes toward repeating myself here on the board.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 06:57 PM

I've met people who lived through the Halabja attack. I've also seen the US response to the genocide against the Kurds, and I'm ashamed of it. Our response was to continue to give aid to Saddam Hussein, including biological agents including anthrax. The first Bush administration pressured the House to kill a bill, that passed the Senate unanimously, that would have imposed sanctions against Saddam's regime. That the same people from the first Bush administration make the claim that this invasion has anything to do with protecting the Iraqis from Saddam is pure hypocracy.

Thousands, maybe tens of thousands of Iraqi civillians will be killed in this invasion. The fact is there are other viable options, but they are being undermined and ignored.

And this war has nothing to do with preventing another 9-11. Saddam has never attacked the United States, and has never given any indication that he ever would. This idea is simple fear-mongering.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-13-02 @ 11:07 PM

keithy_19

10-13-2002, 07:12 PM

Drudge Jr.

10-13-2002, 07:12 PM

ok brilliant republican mavens, answer these please:

what are we going to do there when we're done killing everyone? we won't be accepted
to occupy the oldest caliphate in the world...

bush was allowed to search iraq but he ELECTED NOT TOO,
bush wants a war for a) economic imperialism b) revenge because they tried to kill his daddy

some of the captured terrorists have said that what caused their campaign against the United States was the invasion of iraq in 1991 and the stationing of troops in saudi arabia....great....now we'll have another generation of terrorists if we invade iraq this time.
you can't kill all the terrorists, unless you decide to kill every single person. this war is idiocy.

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.com/ronfezsig.GIF">

keithy_19

10-13-2002, 07:23 PM

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 07:26 PM

Hey, do you like Bill Clinton? And what party are you. Is this just a political thing to bash the president? I agree that Bush senior messed up. He should have finished of Saddam while he had the chance. And now, we're gonna do it. One more thing, would you support Bush if we do indeed attack iraq? I know i would.
I would have impeached Clinton for his Iraq policies - for recruiting Richard Butler to UNSCOM chairman, planting two spies in the inspections teams, withdrawing support for the inspections in order to end them and launch Desert Fox.

As for finishing the job, bear in mind a few things: marching on Baghdad was not in the UN mandate, had no support of the international community, Saddam had chemical weapons deployed in position to retaliate against US troops, and even the US Congress only passed the "use of force" resolution for that war by a narrower margin than the one last week. I don't blame Bush Sr. for that.

I would only support Bush if the US intelligence agencies confirmed the allegations made to justify this war. Until then, this war is based on lies and I don't support it. Instead, I will continue to follow the events in order that our troops are not sent to their deaths unneccessarily in the future, and that they are not ignored when they come home without their immune systems like happened in 1991.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Recyclerz

10-13-2002, 07:32 PM

Keith, JohnnyWadd, et al., I wish this thing was as simple and clear as you guys see it but I don't think it is. Saddam Hussein is an evil scumbag but he is only one of many in this world and he may not be the most dangerous to us right now. Radical Islamists (Osama & posse) are the ones who flew the planes into NY & DC, the ones who blew a hole in the USS Cole, who blew up the US Embassies in Africa...basically the ones who are so ideologically opposed to what we stand for they are willing to do ANYTHING, including WMD and suicide missions to fuck with us. They should be the ones we're tracking down & killing. con't.

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

Recyclerz

10-13-2002, 07:34 PM

Con't. Are there any in Iraq? Maybe. But there are a lot more in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, PAKISTAN (Taliban supporters just won local elections there and they already have nukes), Indonesia, Phillipnes, etc. I'm a liberal but I'm not one of the Oliver Stone/Susan Sontag - blame America first - wussies. I want heads on stakes for what the Islamists did to us and I think killing a lot of these zealots will be a good thing for us and also for the Muslim world. If busting a cap in Saddam's ass were merely an entertaining diversion, I wouldn't mind all that much. But if you read this month's Atlantic Monthly cover story or tody's NY Times op-ed page you'll see why I think we will get bogged down (as well as getting a lot of our solidiers killed) on what should be a side issue but will become our main focus because of all the resources that it will require. And, (to use a cliche)if we do that, the terrorists win. 

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 10-13-02 @ 11:39 PM

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 08:41 PM

You know where all the terrorists are coming from? Saudi Arabia. fundamentalist muslims are brain washing the muslim people in meccha. We should be putting guys over there doing some reform stuff. I'm not saying use force in Meccha, I'm just saying we need to stop the guys at the head of all of this holy war garbage.
I totally agree with this. It is not enough anymore to simply be the biggest, baddest military power anymore. We, as a nation, are going to have to get smarter about dealing with the rest of the world. Our foreign poliy is dominated by the goals of furthering "American interests" and by our leaders' decisions to bring domestic political advantages to their parties. Everything has to change in the post 9-11 decision-making process. Terrorism is not new, and many people have been focused on it for a long time. Those are the people we need to be listening to. Military leaders, intelligence officials and agents, academics and members of congress have been trying to convince the rest of the government and the public that the underlying causes of terrorism have to make up the forefront of our decision-making or we will never defeat it. Islamic countries that are ruled by small groups of super-rich elites, (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Yemen, etc.), all depend on the oil money of the industrialized nations like us, and on massive weapons sales to protect them from their own publics. We have to use that dependency to press them to build up the civil societies of their countries, (fair courts, secular education, free press, political parties, hospitals, etc.). These are the institutions that are needed to offer alternatives to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. It is poverty and repression that breeds terrorism. We cannot support regimes that practice repression and hoard the wealth of their countries and not expect to be a part of the consequences. We have not, in the past, supported democracy in the rest of the world, but 9-11 should serve as notice that democracy in the world is the ultimate "American interest." Any polititian that does not understand that should not be considered qualified for national office in my opinion. The old ways don't work anymore.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

TheMojoPin

10-13-2002, 08:53 PM

Nobody is supporting Hussein's genocide. But acts like that have been happening far too often, and we just ignore them. Yugoslavia, Kososvo, Rwanda...where were we then? Fight this "war on terror", since THOSE are the people that hurt us and pose the immediate threat. We can start saving the world after that. Am I the ONLY one that heard about the the club that was destroyed by a bomb in the Phillipines, killing over 100 people? And then another across the street from the American consulate? That place is a hotbed of KNOWN Muslim extremists, including significant Al-Queda cells. Hussein loathes Muslim extremists because they want him out even worse than we do. Let's set our priorities right. I want to feel safe. THAT'S my right.

<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 10-14-02 @ 12:58 AM

Yerdaddy

10-13-2002, 09:43 PM

It was in Bali, Indonesia, and it is a prime example of the kind of misguided policy choices we are being offered by the administration. Indonesia was under the Suharto military dictatorship for thirty-two years and has only been out from under Suharto since 1998. Yet the military is still the strongest political institution in the country. It raises 80% of it's own budget, through ownership of large corporations, illegal logging and mining operations, drug trafficking, levying local taxes, and extorting protection money from large US corporations like the Exxon concession in Aceh and the largest gold min in the world in West Papua owned by American Freeport Corporation, down to the smalles satay stand in Jakarta. The result of this self-funding is that the military is under no obligation to submit to the authority of the civillian government. It commits human rights violations such as murder, torture, rape, and the 26 year long genocide on the East Timorese. The Indonesian military has supported Islamic fundamentalists as militias in Aceh, West Papua, Borneo, and as a full-scale insurgency in the Muluku Islands. Last month the Indonesian special forces, Kopassus, attacked a convoy of teachers going to the school for employees of the Freeport gold mine, killing two American teachers. This attack fits a familiar pattern of the military orchestrating attacks on foreign assets and blaming locals to justify their presence in the region and exacting a higher fee from the companies.

What is the administration's solution to the problems in Indonesia? To override a law imposed by congress that cut off weapons and training to the Indonesian military, and arm and train the Indonesian military. Somehow, just as the Clinton administration did, the justification is that by training the Indonesian military, (primarily the Kopassus special forces), they will somehow reform and stop killing and terrorizing civillians. Problem is, the US has been arming and training the Indonesian military since 1949, and they've never reformed. There's no incentive for them to reform - they have no authority to hold them accountable.

What indonesia needs is political, economic and military reform. They need to strengthen their civillian institutions that were destroyed by decades of military dictatorship. Yet, that's not what is being offered by the Bush administration. It is offering to train the military to fight even better. It is a short-sighted solution that is a continuation of past solutions, which were never solutions in the first place. Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world, (211 million people), and the largest Muslim country. It is, however a moderate Islamic country with a secular government and a long secular tradition. It will not, however, remain moderate if the poverty, corruption and repression continue.

As for al-Qaeda in Indonesia, it is a very small presence with weak links to the indigenous fundamentalist groups. if America is going to root them out, it needs to be done with Americans, because the Indonesian military cannot be trusted to support anything outside their own interests. They have betrayed us before, and will do so again. They are, in fact, Indonesia's biggest threat.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-14-02 @ 1:47 AM

TheMojoPin

10-13-2002, 10:48 PM

Thanks for clarifying, daddy. I knew the consulate was in Bali, but wasn't the club attack in the Phillipines?

<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

10-13-2002, 11:39 PM

The big one was the club in Bali,(almost 200 dead). The consulate was the Philippine consulate in Manado, Indonesia, and there was a bomb in a bar in the Philippines that killed one US marine.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/billyact.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Mr Self Destruct

10-14-2002, 04:06 AM

I don't care how someone spins it I will never feel sorry for a suicide bomber. Although I feel this is Bush's war and not anyone else's.

Captain Rooster

10-14-2002, 05:13 PM

It will be a sad day for the entire world when the bullets begin to fly.

War is not pretty. War is not glorious. War is the dream of children who have never seen a body burning on a nameless street.

I pray for alternative yet I prepare for the worst.

God save us all.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/RoosterPissedSig11_Animation.gif></center>
<center>Valhalla I am coming</center>

This message was edited by LTRooster on 10-14-02 @ 9:17 PM

keithy_19

10-14-2002, 05:43 PM

Your right. War isn't pretty. But it is something we have to do. I don't like it either. But I understand that it is something that is sometimes inevitable. 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

Recyclerz

10-14-2002, 07:40 PM

But I understand that it is something that is sometimes inevitable. Earthquakes are inevitable. Hurricanes are inevitable. Sometimes war is inevitable, (when you're attacked and you have the ability to defend yourself) but more often than not it is a choice. After careful and honest consideration, it can be the right choice, albeit a painful one because, as Rooster points out, people will suffer and die. It can also be a foolish choice or even a evil one, if the call to arms is done for the benefit of a madman or the selfish few who will benefit by success but not suffer much with failure or if it is done without being fully thought out. I never served in the military but I have to give props to those that do. Anybody who chooses a career where they have to run into danger and sometimes do ugly things to protect my ass and my freedoms(soldiers, cops, firemen, et al.) has my undying respect and thanks. So what are my responsibilities in this deal? Pretty simple as I see it. Pay my taxes without whining so the professionals can earn a living and have the resources they need to do their jobs right; and to speak up as a citizen so that they can be sure we civilians aren't asking them to risk everything on something that isn't worth it. 
In my humble opinion, the war against the Islamist terrorists is one where we can ask Rooster and his crew to fight for us. Everything is at stake. On Iraq, President Bush hasn't convinced me yet. 

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

keithy_19

10-15-2002, 11:33 AM

Let me just say, that I don't like war. In fact, I would much rather deal with these international affairs peacefully. And I understand that death and destruction do occur in times of war. And don't take me the wrong way when i say, isn't it better if some men die fighting for there country, for OUR freedom, then if thousands die in another cowardly attack? I don't want any americans to die. I think being killed is a waste of human life, but I do think that our soldiers understand the risk they take when they go into the service. Even if they do die, they will die fighting for our country. For our rights. They will not die in vain. 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

Bill From Yorktown

10-15-2002, 11:35 AM

anyone who wants to comment needs to read "The Cell" by John Miller to get an idea of the background on politics and terorism in the Mid east, before they post any kind of liberal hand holding sentiment (reviewing pics from 9/11 could help too). Ignoring this problem from 1992 - 2000 did not make it go away.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

Mr Self Destruct

10-15-2002, 11:39 AM

before they post any kind of liberal hand holding sentiment

Does anyone honestly believe you can change someones mind, without a gun, when they believe they're being commissioned by God?

Bill From Yorktown

10-15-2002, 11:43 AM

Does anyone honestly believe you can change someones mind, without a gun, when they believe they're being commissioned by God?

I must be slow today - I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

keithy_19

10-15-2002, 11:48 AM

Let me just say, I agree with you 100 percent. Everytime I look at a picture of 9/11 i think about the lives that were lost. And then I get angry. I think we should show the clips of the towers falling down every week. Even daily, to remind us why we are in this war against terror. 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

Yerdaddy

10-15-2002, 12:12 PM

SRFSTARVD

10-15-2002, 12:36 PM

At this rate, the ground troops will nto be sent in until we basically bomb the hell out of the area, same as in the persian gulf. There are weapons made that destroy chemical weapons. the govt knows this, then send them in first and burn them out. I dont like war either but our troops are very capable of handling this. As for the draft. I doubt it will happen. Our military is very very large and the numbers are only going up it seems. (atleast I friggin hope)

IM me SRFSTARVD
http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/surf2sig.jpg
thanks Aggie and silentspic

SRFSTARVD

10-15-2002, 01:13 PM

um...words...words...words....more words....

IM me SRFSTARVD
http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/surf2sig.jpg
thanks Aggie and silentspic

Bill From Yorktown

10-15-2002, 01:41 PM

And how will disqualifying liberals from discussing terrorism solve the problem? I'm looking for a substantial response here - not generic conservative rhetoric about every problem being caused by liberals. And read my posts before telling me what I think and say.

without a quote, I hope you're not talking directly to me. All I said is that there is a lot of information on things that were either misinterpreted or downright ignored for various reasons in the 90's that came back to bite us in the ass. Ignoring a rabid animal in your neighborhood that's already bitten a kid is not going to make it go away. I dont exactly liken this situation to that, but there are a lot of people out there who would rather hide their head's in the sand than face up to the realities of what's going on and face up to the fact that ignoring the Mid East is also not in our best interests either. It is a case of the lesser of 2 evils.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

Mr Self Destruct

10-15-2002, 02:03 PM

I was agreeing with you Bill. I like the rabid dog anaology. Let's say this dog was casuing mayhem for a few years and your only response was to pet it and feed it. People would call you stupid. Put the dog to sleep.

TheMojoPin

10-15-2002, 08:12 PM

before they post any kind of liberal hand holding sentiment (reviewing pics from 9/11 could help too). Ignoring this problem from 1992 - 2000 did not make it go away.

Normally I'd try to keep it semi-respectable, but seriously, that's about the worst thing someone could possibly say. Wrangling the horrible events of 9/11 as "proof" that we "need" to invade Iraq is disgusting. It's not personal, but that kind of sentiment is awful.

<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 10-16-02 @ 12:50 AM

TheMojoPin

10-15-2002, 08:15 PM

dont exactly liken this situation to that, but there are a lot of people out there who would rather hide their head's in the sand than face up to the realities of what's going on and face up to the fact that ignoring the Mid East is also not in our best interests either. It is a case of the lesser of 2 evils.

None of us so-called "liberals" here have tried to or claim that we should ignore Iraq, the Middle East, or the war on terror. All we've done is suggest possible options other than war in dealing with the situation. Perhaps it's not charging in, guns-blazing, but we've yet to just turn our back on the issue. In fact, the only "heads in the sand" around here are the people who only want to hear us spout what they think all "liberals" say.

<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

Bill From Yorktown

10-16-2002, 04:40 AM

On the contrary, in the 90's there were numerous incidents of investigators being told not to persue a lead as it would be a carear limiting move, or court cases that lead to the sentiment that conspiracy to commit a crime is not a punishable offence, but committing the crime is. This led FBI and police investigators to drop leads/cases/investigations - you would have thought the World Trade Center bombing would have been a wake up call.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

SRFSTARVD

10-16-2002, 10:12 AM

My daddy always said when hammering a nail into a board you dont do anything fancy you just wack that son of a bitch until it is done.

IM me SRFSTARVD
http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/sr4.gif
thanks Aggie and silentspic

keithy_19

10-16-2002, 11:14 AM

My god people. This isn't about politics. This is about mantaining the order of the world. It doesn't matter if your democrat, or republican, we should both be behind our president and his decisions either way. 


<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 12:20 PM

we should both be behind our president and his decisions either way.
You mean like they do in Iraq?

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

keithy_19

10-16-2002, 12:33 PM

Yea...Like they do in Iraq. WINK WINK. Theres a difference. We still have basic freedoms, and you can hold your own opinions and do what you like. But we should be behind our president. Because if we keep on arguing about this, it shows us as a weak country. Do you want them to think we're weak? 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

TheMojoPin

10-16-2002, 01:52 PM

It doesn't matter if your democrat, or republican, we should both be behind our president and his decisions either way.

It DOES matter, and if we're just going to blindly support our leader, why even have elections?

<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

10-16-2002, 02:01 PM

Do you want them to think we're weak?
I want them to think we respect our democratic principles. Goose-stepping behind the president isn't strength.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Bill From Yorktown

10-16-2002, 02:06 PM

but then again neither is bitching amongst ourselves while another power steps in - that's what they bitch that we've done to them

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

Mr Self Destruct

10-16-2002, 02:08 PM

I want them to think we respect our democratic principles. Goose-stepping behind the president isn't strength.

Anyone here trust Hussein enough to let him get his hands in a nuclear weapon? No? So let's stop him from doing that. Apparently your solution is to shake his hand some more. Or maybe have a meeting, wait a few years and have a building drop again. If that's your plan well then call me a goose-stepper.

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 02:16 PM

but then again neither is bitching amongst ourselves while another power steps in - that's what they bitch that we've done to them
what?

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 02:48 PM

Apparently your solution is to shake his hand some more. Or maybe have a meeting, wait a few years and have a building drop again.
Try reading my posts before telling me what I think, Goose-stepper.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

TheMojoPin

10-16-2002, 03:09 PM

Yes, "another building might drop". And odds are, Saddam will apparently have nothing to do with that one, either. But by then Jenna Bush will be in office, and she can dig up Saddam and punch him around on stage, yelling, "this is for MY daddy...and HIS daddy!"

And it's too bad we'll lose some more lives to terrorism, since this is much more important than finding guys like Bin Laden. And you're right, I don't trust Saddam with nuclear weapons. But I also don't trust Pakistan or Israel with them either, yet that's perfectly alright. Go figure.

<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

keithy_19

10-16-2002, 04:10 PM

Captain Rooster

10-16-2002, 04:17 PM

MJP, the "He's doing this fir his daddy" line is really getting old.

There may be arguments against going into Iraq, but that one is the weakest.

Please dont jump on that bandwagon.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/RoosterFlameSig.jpg></center>
<center>Valhalla I am coming</center>

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 04:18 PM

KeithBoBeefy - If you would read the rest of this thread you'll notice that it was a discussion based on the actual issues involved with Iraq and the war on terror: the effectiveness of weapons inspections, the evidence about Iraq's weapons programs, the evidence about links to terrorism, the costs and consequences of invading Iraq or not invading Iraq...

You want to reduce it to general (and poorly expressed) ideological gibberish. I suggest that that shit belongs in the "useless political backbiting" thread.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

keithy_19

10-16-2002, 04:41 PM

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 04:58 PM

the "He's doing this fir his daddy" line is really getting old.
I agree that it's not a major factor in the decisionmaking on Iraq, but the argument will never die because it fits into the realm of the debate that requires little understanding of Iraq, politics or foreign policy in general. (Not that Mojo fits into this category, but it's hard to say that the Bush foreign policy is driven by a small, ideologically driven, fervently pro-Israel group of thinktank veterans that came to power through a president with no foreign policy experience ["Do you have blacks in Brazil?"], without the general population pointing at you and screaming "BUUURRRRN THE WIIIIITCH!!! ) I wish the theory would die, but it wont.

I read an article last night in Foreign Affairs <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/hirsh0902.html">Bush and the World</a> that is a good general overview of Bush's foriegn policy so far and the infighting within the administration over control of policymaking. I encourage the "burn the liberals!" crowd to at least read it and attack me on the basis of something. Or not.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Yerdaddy

10-16-2002, 05:01 PM

Ok. First, I know I got a little off track. Ok, a lot. But, the fact does remain that Saddam poses a threat to the United States and our allies. There have been ties between terroist cells and Iraq. All I know is that these were the same people, a long with the palistians who were jumping in the streets on 9/11. I say we rid the world of the scum. By that, i mean lets remove Saddam. And personally, I feel UBL is dead. Just a hunch. He hasn't been in any tapes or anything. Hes dead.
Thanks for the substantive response. No harm - no foul.

As for the al-Qaeda/Saddam link, none of the claims have been substantiated by US intelligence agencies. I'll dig up some old threads and link to them for the background if you don't believe me, (and I imagine you dont). I'll do that in an hour or so when I get to the office. Or you can go to page 2 of this thread and have a look at my way-too-long posts, and tell me why you disagree. I've tried to be as objective about this issue as possible and I am not convinced that Saddam is any kind of threat to the US, or his neighbors, and that the consequences for this action are going to be long-lasting and possibly disasterous. I also think that the way the adminstration has conducted this drive toward Baghdad is a huge abuse of presidential authority and violation of the principles of our country.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

TheMojoPin

10-16-2002, 07:25 PM

Wow MJP. You know, I don't feel like going into politics, because I know whats right and whats not. Letting a madman like Saddam get a nuke is not right. But, the liberal left is gonna try to let that happen. I am a republican, and i'm proud of it, but i dont think I should spend my time bashing democrats. Your listening to people who don't want to fight terror with force. HOW DO YOU FIGHT IT THEN!? Your listening to people who try to cheat to win elections, ex:Bush vs. Gore, Forrester vs torricelli. Sheesh. Yea, we should agree with the liberals. 
First of all, if you're going to deem me a liberal, please don't call me a democrat in the same breath. It's insulting. 
And second of all, the opposition to the war is not solely a liberal or democrat issue...there's a number of republican elected officials who are just as opposed to the idea of the war and open to the suggestion of other ideas towards dealing with the Iraq issue as their

<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

10-16-2002, 09:19 PM

Great, over half my post was eaten. Rooster, I bring up Bush's daddy only because he did.

<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

Mr Self Destruct

10-17-2002, 05:22 AM

But I also don't trust Pakistan or Israel with them either, yet that's perfectly alright. Go figure

Exactly why would Isreal use a nuclear weapon on us?I don't think Isreal wants much more than Palestine. I don't want any more lives lost either but how can you defend Hussein? I think we can all agree he deserves a bullet in his head. He might not be responsible for 9/11 but he's still an evil man. I don't need Bush to know that.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/vicious675/myhomepage/0.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US" ALT="F all you Nazi Mods" >

Yerdaddy

10-17-2002, 06:45 AM

Does anyone hear that? Me either.

Here is a short overview of the extent and limit that oil may be playing in the decision to invade Iraq. <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/819220.asp?0dm=C1DQO">Michael Moran - Oil, war and the futre of Iraq</a> Before anyone reads the first paragraph and comes on here screaming conspiracy theories, read the whole thing. The author sets it up as a conspiracy theory and then discusses the degree that oil is and is not a factor. My opinion is that the most important part of the issue of oil is the role that Saudi Arabia plays in controlling global oil prices by having the largest reserves in the world and having an agreement with the United States to use its capacity to counter any embargo or overproduction by other producing countries. Two factors that aren't specifically mentioned in the article are: 1. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and 2. that since 9-11, the Saudi Arabian regime and its oilfields are seen as being particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011022fa_FACT1">Seymour Hersh</a> did a detailed piece on this last October.) This is especially true if the administration finally gets around to doing what it has to do, which is pressuring the Saudi regime to actully crack down on the al-Qaeda financing that comes out of that country. (A necessity that has been repeated to congress by adminstration officials, but an action that has not been taken by them. The problem is being spelled out today in a bi-partisan report released by the <a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5088.xml">Council on Foreign Relations</a>.

So I see Iraqi oil playing the following roles:

1.Strategically, the Iraqi oil fields would put the US in a position of controlling oil fields large enough to dictate prices should anything happen to Saudi Arabia's oil reserves or its monarchy.

2. They are the current bargaining chip to pursuade Russia, China, and France to go along with the invasion. The private negotiations currently taking place on the Security Council can be assumed to be focused on divying up the spoils, a la post-war Germany and Japan. (Permanent members of the Security Council = US, Britain, Russia, France and China)

These assumed benefits are, however, far from assured. The state of Iraq's oil infrastructure will put off its achieving sizable outputs for up to ten years, (meanwhile guaranteeing huge contracts for petrolium infrastructure companies like Dick Cheney's Haliburton). They will require the kind of stability in a post-Saddam Iraq that cannot be assured by invasion. If Iraq fragments because the Bush administration tries to install Achmed Chalabi, the head of the US-sponsored Iraqi dissident group, who has no constituency within Iraq, or relies too heavily on the current Sunni minority-dominated power structure, then Iraq's own olfields will be vulnerable to attacks from terrorists and internal dissident groups. The US could still consider abandoning Iraq if it feels that Saudi Arabia is sufficiently secure two or three years from now. The other consideration is that if Iraq is blessed to have a pseudo-democracy after Saddam, that government itself will be undermined by the massive flow of oil revenues flowing out of the country to pay for a war waged on it by the countries who are now benefiting from it. You can believe that this is a war to liberate Iraq if you want, but Iraqis do remember that the US and Europe supported their dictator all through his repression and wars and genocide campaign against the Kurds. Iraq was one of the most modern and literate countries in the Middle East prior to the Gulf War and sanctions regime. Saddam gets 100% of the vote when he's got a gun to thier heads, but when he's gone and the exiles return from America and Europe, they will be able to know when they are being ripped off. And if we carpet bomb Baghdad, with its 4 million people, prior to ground troops going in, there's that much more reason not to trust us.

Anyway, this is one element in th

Hawiian shirt craig

10-17-2002, 07:14 AM

hey yer daddy, i am glad i
made this thread, we can
compile everything you've
writen, send it to time/
newsweek etc.. and u'll be
rich!!!!!!

-Hawiian Shirt Craig
THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!

<img src="http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/HSC.gif">

San Diego Chargers 4-0

Recyclerz

10-17-2002, 07:24 AM

North Korea Admits Nuclear Program 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/822193.asp 
OK, so let me get this straight: The Beloved Leader Jr. in North Korea has enriched uranium suitable for bombs; Pakistan, where Taliban supporters recently won regional elections covering half the country, already has nukes on missles, is in a 60 year pissing match with India and has Muslim extremists in Kashmir trying to light the candle for Jihad East; al-Qaeda & Associates have in the past few weeks killed 200 Western infidels in Bali, shot (& killed) US Marines in Kuwait and blown up a French oil tanker off Yemen, but we should ignore all that & concentrate our efforts on Saddam. 
Why? Because W likes Paul (Wolfie) Wolfowitz, who is apparently telling him once we conquer Iraq all the other Muslim countries in the area will see the light and become pro-Western democracies.

OK. I get it now. carry on.

If you can't laugh at the misfortunes of others, what can you laugh at?

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 10-17-02 @ 11:31 AM

A.J.

10-17-2002, 07:47 AM

North Korea Admits Nuclear Program

I was shocked by this. I never saw it coming. I really thought that they would abide by that agreement they signed with us in 1994.

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

A Skidmark production.

Abrasive Dean

10-17-2002, 08:08 AM

You can not negotiate with a madman bent on destruction. 

Which one of your Presidents said

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/sig/sig.jpg">

TheMojoPin

10-17-2002, 09:50 AM

Exactly why would Isreal use a nuclear weapon on us?I don't think Isreal wants much more than Palestine. I don't want any more lives lost either but how can you defend Hussein?

I don't think Israel would ever use a nuke on us, but I see them having NO problem on using it one of their nuclear neighbors, who in turn start slinging nukes, and then EVERYBODY'S in trouble. And I'm NOT defending Hussein. There a plenty of ways to control him without killing him our bombing his country into oblivion. If we kill him, it'll create chaos in the country and a power vaccuum, and we could very easily end up with someone MUCH worse than Hussein. Simply put the screws to his thumbs and keep him in check until we can oust him through elections monitored by us and/or the UN.

<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 10-17-02 @ 1:57 PM

TheMojoPin

10-17-2002, 09:54 AM

You can believe that this is a war to liberate Iraq if you want, but Iraqis do remember that the US and Europe supported their dictator all through his repression and wars and genocide campaign against the Kurds.

Or that we promised our full support if the people rose up against Saddam during the Gulf War, but instead pulled back as soon as we sent the Iraqi army back over the border into Iraq, leaving the rebels twisting in the wind.

<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

10-17-2002, 12:29 PM

the big issue that
threatens america is how
iraq can deliver its
weapons. one ICBM, with 4
nukes... well thats a much
bigger problem than a scud
with a nuke. also
remember that we have a
HUGE number of troops
stationed in the area.
countries in iraq's known
range:
germany
afganistan
saudi arabia
isreal
parts of russia
the persian gulf
turkey
If Saddam has nuclear capability, why hasn't he used it yet? If I were him, I would have tested a nuclear weapon and showcased it for all my enemies so they know not to fuck with me. He has biological and chemical weapons, but I doubt he has nuclear weapons. If he did, they would have already been a big propaganda tool.

"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

NewYorkDragons80

10-17-2002, 01:29 PM

Mojo, we didn't promise support to the rebels, we simply incited them. I agree that this episode is a big blemish on our credibility, but we never told the opposition they would have our support. If I were Bush, I would have sent troops to help out, but liberals would have said the same thing they are saying now; "This is imperialism" "All we want is oil" "An excuse by a facist president to kill innocent women and children" and my ABSOLUTE favorite: "This is their war, not ours" (Remember that one, Vietnam vets?)

Quote:
Do you want them to think we're weak?

I want them to think we respect our democratic principles. Goose-stepping behind the president isn't strength.
Yes, but when they see waning American support, they exploit the cracks in the dyke. Americans are impatient and sometimes downright gullible people. In Vietnam, we would bomb a SAM site and Hanoi would claim we bombed a hospital. Munitions smuggling points on the Ho Chi Min trail became Buddhist temples and villages. If you don't take a good look at what type of monster we are fighting, you quickly find yourself getting roped in by the propaganda of Hanoi and Baghdad.

One of the most dangerous paths to take is looking at false reasons why the US is at war. In Indochina, our enemy was the expansion of a totalitarian system which threatened our strategic allies which could have stretched as far as India and Australia. Rather than look at that fact, some Americans looked to conspiracies and heresay. "This is why they killed Kennedy" "The US simply wants extreme capitalism with the afterthought of democracy in Asia"

When we invade Iraq, try to shut off the TV when the underdressed fat pig (AKA Michael Moore) begins spewing rhetoric similar to the above quotes. Radio Baghdad and people like him are the reason we ran away from Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq just to name a few.

"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

10-17-2002, 01:55 PM

If I were Bush, I would have sent troops to help out, but liberals would have said the same thing they are saying now: "This is imperialism" "All we want is oil"

Wow, the name game was cute for a while, but at this point it's just asinine. And if we had done it right, nobody at home would have known about our support for the rebels anyway. Besides, I'm a liberal, and I support helping the Iraqis liberate themselves. And yes, it is their war, not ours. Like Vietnam, we're choosing to MAKE it our war. Hence why we SUPPORT the Iraqis that wish to liberate their country, but not storm in there, guns-a-blazin', like it's OUR war.

<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

10-17-2002, 02:02 PM

Oswald killed Kennedy. Problem solved.

And while Dragon brings up a good point that not all claims of US millitary actions are warmongering, some are, and we're not right 100% of the time.

I for one don't think that a country like Vietnam could ever threaten India, but if he wants to believe that, it's his perogative and I won't dispute it.

I do agree that America is an impatient land, and that's why I fear an occupation of Iraq would be rushed and shortsighted. To avoid creating another Afghanistan or Iraq under Hussein, we'd have to spend the better part of a decade there at least, and I just don't see the public or politcal support for the necessary action lasting that long.

I also think it's this impatience that's pushing us into Iraq. We feel that we haven't "avenged" 9/11, and more blatant action needs to be taken, and so we move on into Iraq. But again, that's just my opinion.

<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

alexc

10-17-2002, 02:09 PM

Hi,
Just want to give my 2 cents. I have some very mixed feelings about this war/police action in Iraq. The question is whether i t is worth american blood and treasure.

Saddam is a dictator who has done many things justify removal. He has used chemical and biological weapons against kurds and Iran in the Mid to late 1980's. Upon Signing cease fire in 1991, he continually violated un cease fire by continually developing weapons of mass destruction. He also has violated no-fly zones. He is a man that is crazy enough to use NBC weapons on american soil. As he gets older, will he still be rational enough not to do it? Is this enough to go to war with him?

Saddam Hussein, though he is a sunni muslim, is not religious fanatic. This means his goals are very different as compared to Al-Queda. However, this doesn't mean they still can't work together. The adminstration has not provided enough of a link between the 2. Would this engagement in Iraq cause our forces be spread to thin? We already have troops in Former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Europe and South Korea. Iran has history of supporting groups similiar to Al-Queda. This country has the resources to help them. Why do we attack Iraq and not Iran?

With all these ideas in my head i can't figure out where to go.
On a side note
The reason why so many in this region hate U.S. is failure of the Arab governments. They have failed to create a democratic government. U.S. policy should have fostered democratic gov't in the region but we acted stupidly. We supported regimes that were dictatorships. United States should have advocated democratic and open governtments! Many of these people have no voice in their government. They now blame us for that.

damn i am long winded..

Yerdaddy

10-17-2002, 03:33 PM

NewYorkDragons80 - what does all that have to do with Iraq?

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

TheMojoPin

10-17-2002, 03:51 PM

damn i am long winded..

Not at all. That was probably the best post in this thread to sum up both sides of the argument. Very nice.

<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

10-17-2002, 04:30 PM

Mr Self Destruct

10-17-2002, 04:35 PM

However, this doesn't mean they still can't work together.

Exactly, we were able to team with Russia in WW2 the Hussein can team with the zealots.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/vicious675/myhomepage/0.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US" ALT="F all you Nazi Mods" >

NewYorkDragons80

10-17-2002, 04:44 PM

I for one don't think that a country like Vietnam could ever threaten India, but if he wants to believe that, it's his perogative and I won't dispute it.
Vietnam itself could not have theatened India (believe me, they were far too busy invading nations to their extreme west like Cambodia and Laos and using agents to infiltrate Thailand) but if we sat back as all of Southeast Asia fell without a fight, I think India would have found themselves in a heap of trouble. China already had its share of border disputes with India and they were none too pleased that the Tibetan Dalai Lama was a welcomed guest in India. So, you silly goose, Vietnam was not the threat to India(Though General Giap in a turban is an amusing mental picture,) Communism was. I know I may sound like Tail Gunner Joe, but the Communists were not nice people and they were interested in conquering land.

"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

10-17-2002, 06:11 PM

Yerdaddy, there has been a lie that has circulated in this counrty for over 3 decades. The lie is as follows: if you ever agree with US foreign policy, you are a right-wing Nazi that will stop at nothing until every corner of the earth is assimilated into our society and civil liberties are completely eradicated.

I'm curious as to why you're so quick to assume that everyone's assumptions fall into very clear cut, black and white distinctions, when the world rarely, if ever, works like that. I am, yes opposed to a full-out war with Iraq. I do, however feel that some kind of action needs to be taken and the Hussein should be removed from power in the very near future. So obviously, I fall into a very "grey" area in terms of my views on Iraq. We can't look at this as a singular situation. Most people seem to think, and a lot of them seem to be running the White House at the moment, "boom, we'll invade Iraq, and that's just what we'll deal with in the meantime, and then move onto the next problem." This invasion is being presented in such a shortsighted manner, I just cannot in any good faith support it. I'm all for the U.S. taking a much more agressive, pro-active stance in delaing with the Middle East, since if it's done right we can improve relations and lower he threat of actions like what took place on 9/11. IF we do it right.

And as for Vietnam...it's one of those "what if's" for the ages, or for Turtledove to tackle. I lived in the region for many years, and the people and region just aren't suitable for supporting invasions against a powerful country like India. The Vietnam War dragged because they were able to fight a defensive war for the most of it with guerilla tactics, something not especially applicable when trying to spill across the Indian border.

<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

10-17-2002, 06:18 PM

Exactly, we were able to team with Russia in WW2 the Hussein can team with the zealots.

"Can", "could be", "maybe", "might have"...these terms could be applied to, say, Pakistan, currently our ally, in terms of harboring Al Queda or other like-minded extremists. If we start invading countries based on assumptions, guesses and hypothetical situations, well, we'll be invading until Kingdom come.

<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

10-17-2002, 06:22 PM

I smell gunpowder. Sad but true.

<CENTER><img src=http://ltrooster.homestead.com/files/RoosterFlameSig.jpg></center>
<center>And he was talking 'fore I knew it and as he grew he'd say, "I'm gonna be like you, Dad. You know I'm gonna be like you!" </center>

Yerdaddy

10-17-2002, 09:10 PM

if you ever agree with US foreign policy, you are a right-wing Nazi that will stop at nothing until every corner of the earth is assimilated into our society and civil liberties are completely eradicated. The only thing that satisfies these authoriarians is the blood of their fellow man. Any voice that opposes these expansionists has every right to refer to his or herself as the savior of all mankind.

I merely tried to discredit that lie, as it reared its ugly head in this discussion.
I just can't buy the persecuted patriot/conservative theory. While there's always been an anti-war segment of our society, the majority of Americans support every war we've been involved in, especially once the boots hit the gound. The anti-Vietnam War demonstrations didn't get to be a mass movement until after the Gulf of Tonkien attack was exposed as staged, and the release of the Pentagon Papers. Regardless of the geopolitical strategy behind it, most Americans are not going to support a war that was presented to them through outright lies.

In general, though, Americans are largely indifferent to foreign policy. It is not seen as important as it is in other parts of the world because we have only two neighbors that have not been hostile towards us for a hundred years. World War two was fought in the other hemisphere, sparing American civillians the horrors of war that has left a lasting impression on Europeans, especially, as they lost whole cities of people, not just soldiers.

So among those who are engaged on international issues, there is no basis for saying they are all essentially anti-American ideologues. The views are as diverse as the views on domestic issues, and there's no way I can list any kind of sample here. All I can say is that you see things a certain way, but not everybody shares your views. But nobody has a consensus on foreign policy issues, it's not just you. You cannot claim that Americans line up against the country whenever a foreign policy decision is made.

Take Desert Fox, for example: It was launched and announced on the day that the House was to vote on Clinton's impeachment. Clinton held up an UNSCOM report and said "this was going to happen anyway, it had nothing to do with the impeachment." And the Congress grumbled a bit, but they postponed the vote and lined up behind the president. Considering that this was seven years after the Gulf War, nobody was paying attention to Iraq, and it looked very much like a "Wag the Dog" scenerio designed to distract attention from the impeachment long enough to get those one or two votes Clinton needed to save his ass. But the Congress and the public lined up behind him anyway! Whether Desert Fox was justified or not, when the president sent in the military, America lined up behind him. And this was "Clinton the military hater".

So I don't agree that American foreign policy is given a raw deal. You have to expect that presidents don't always get the benefit of the doubt, (after sponsoring coups, plotting assassinations, launching wars on the basis of lies, selling weapons to our enemies and channelling the money to rebel groups in direct violation of American laws, etc.), but for the most part, presidents get their way. So who cares if some people only see the bad stuff and some only the good? The alternative is that all Americans become actively engaged on foreign policy issues and assess them honestly and free of ideological biases. And if you think that's going to happen, I'd like to introduce you to Billy Staples' "agent".

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Yerdaddy

10-17-2002, 09:11 PM

I smell gunpowder.
Might as well start a pool.

Gimme November 5.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Yerdaddy

10-17-2002, 09:13 PM

HS Craig - is Newsweek hiring for "The Weekly Windbag Report"? I think I'm a shoe-in.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

TheMojoPin

10-17-2002, 09:27 PM

Might as well start a pool.

Gimme November 5.

20 bucks on Novemeber 12th.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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

10-17-2002, 09:28 PM

In general, though, Americans are largely indifferent to foreign policy. It is not seen as important as it is in other parts of the world because we have only two neighbors that have not been hostile towards us for a hundred years. World War two was fought in the other hemisphere, sparing American civillians the horrors of war that has left a lasting impression on Europeans, especially, as they lost whole cities of people, not just soldiers.

Wow, I've never thought of it that way, but that's an excellent point. We haven't had to deal with fullscale war on our mainland shores in almost 150 years, and that was the Civil War, so we haven't had a foreign force making war here since 1812, whereas Russia, Italy, France, England, Germany, Belgium and all the countries in between were practically pounded into oblivion less than 60 years ago. Interesting...

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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 10-18-02 @ 12:26 PM

Drudge Jr.

10-18-2002, 10:28 AM

i'm not sure if this was mentioned; but if saddam was assasignated a fundamental regime would come into power that would without a doubt be ever worse than saddam on several levels, so unfortunatly that's not the answer.

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.com/ronfezsig.GIF">

Yerdaddy

10-18-2002, 11:31 AM

if saddam was assasignated a fundamental regime would come into power
That's not necessarily true. While Saddam has supressed fundamentalism in Iraq for some time, and his overthrow will bring some of them out of the woodwark, there aren't any fundamentalists primed to take control of the country. You have to bear in mind that Saddam has built up a power structure that is made up of two small clans from the area around his home of Tikrit. That structure is not going to be dismantled when he's gone. Whether or not the next leader is going to come from that structure or not, they will have to deal with this segment, and fundamentalists will not be accepted.

We should have learned from our history with Iran, however, that concentration of power in an overwhelmingly pro-US regime fuels fundamentalism and empowers people like Ayatolah Khomeni and bin Laden. So down the road in Iraq it will be more of a problem.

While Iraq has a long history of secular nationalism, and once freed of Saddam's authority, Iraqis will be looking for avenues of expressing their needs, there's no reason to think that fundamentalism will dominate Iraq any time soon.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

Mr Self Destruct

10-18-2002, 01:17 PM

As much as i'd love to have Saddam killed, I realize now the smartest thing to do is just cut his balls off(not literally). Personally I wish we concentrated more on the Palestine situation.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/vicious675/myhomepage/0.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US" ALT="F all you Nazi Mods" >

A.J.

10-18-2002, 01:30 PM

, there's no reason to think that fundamentalism will dominate Iraq any time soon.

Perhaps not from within Iraq but my concern is about what will happen after the war. A postwar occupation/peacekeeping force in Iraq will give fundamentalists around the region a cause to rally around: "'Infidels' are occupying a Muslim state." Bin Laden used this argument about U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. Now if Americans are stationed in Iraq, it may cause further anti-American activity around the region and in the rest of the Muslim world.

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

A Skidmark production.

TheMojoPin

10-18-2002, 01:32 PM

What about North Korea? We KNOW they have nukes now...Bush happily included tham in his "Axis of Evil"...shouldn't they be the focus now?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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.

10-18-2002, 01:40 PM

What about North Korea? We KNOW they have nukes now...Bush happily included tham in his "Axis of Evil"...shouldn't they be the focus now?

True. Kim Jong Il is no angel either. He has starved his people and has actively pursued a nuclear program for the last decade and has the missiles to reach Alaska and Hawaii in addition to South Korea and Japan.

And since we're trying to rid the world of evil dictators what about our old friend from Havana, Fidel Castro?

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to be a dove here. I'm just concerned about the endgame in a postwar Iraq as well as the U.S. being consistent in our message about challenging countries that threaten us and our allies.

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

A Skidmark production.

This message was edited by AJinDC on 10-18-02 @ 5:49 PM

Yerdaddy

10-18-2002, 03:42 PM

Perhaps not from within Iraq but my concern is about what will happen after the war. A postwar occupation/peacekeeping force in Iraq will give fundamentalists around the region a cause to rally around: "'Infidels' are occupying a Muslim state." Bin Laden used this argument about U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. Now if Americans are stationed in Iraq, it may cause further anti-American activity around the region and in the rest of the Muslim world.
This is exactly right about the invasion of Iraq. It's what former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark told the senate would "supercharge" al-Qaeda recruiting efforts.

<img src="http://yerdaddy.homestead.com/files/pics/sigelvis.jpg" >
Yo bald-headed granny

keithy_19

10-18-2002, 04:48 PM

You know what gets me kind of confused. How we call Islam a peaceful religion, when in all honesty, its not. Muhammed was a warrior. He at one point chopped of the heads of his enemies. It also says to kill any infidel. Also, it says anyone who kills in the name of Alla gets 70 virgins in heaven. Peaceful religion, huh? 

<img src=http://members.aol.com/vikorynotvengnce/images/keithbobeefy.gif>

TheMojoPin

10-18-2002, 05:31 PM

Peaceful religion, huh?

So that means if you're walking down the street, peaceful as can be, but you see a couple assholes beating someone up, that means it's fair game for YOU to be a violent asshole?

But you're right. The many, MANY holy Crusades and Inquisitions were the epitomy of non-violence. Good thing we're mostly on THAT side.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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

Mr Self Destruct

10-18-2002, 05:42 PM

But you're right. The many, MANY holy Crusades and Inquisitions were the epitomy of non-violence. Good thing we're mostly on THAT side.

True all Religions have bred violence and death. But I never read Jesus going on a head-chopping spree. I'm not saying that as a stab at Islam or in defense of Christianity or religion. So please don't make this into a Islam vs. Christianity vs. Atheism debate.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/vicious675/myhomepage/0.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US" ALT="F all you Nazi Mods" >

TheMojoPin

10-18-2002, 07:47 PM

True all Religions have bred violence and death. But I never read Jesus going on a head-chopping spree. I'm not saying that as a stab at Islam or in defense of Christianity or religion. So please don't make this into a Islam vs. Christianity vs. Atheism debate.

Not trying to do that at all, just attempting to steer us away from the "well, the Koran is proof we should just bomb 'em all" issue. Islam has a boatload of questionable, confusing, and downright wrong theories and beliefs, but that doesn't mean that every Arab believes them word for word. Sure, it sounds hoary at this point, but all the Arab kids I've known have taken the Koran about as seriously as the average, on the street Christian takes the Bible. "Thou shalt not, blah-blah-blaaaaaaah"...

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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

10-19-2002, 10:44 AM

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Got this as part of my monthly Snopes mailing...normally, I'm not fond of quoting Nazis, but it is pretty topical, almost 60 years after it was said...

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/mojo.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