Thanks Dubya, the war is really over!

[Blackadar]

Another American critically hurt today. That adds up to 27 American and six British troops killed since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1.

Is anyone else thinking of Afganistan and the USSR? This is turning into a quagmire. Right now, given the slow and inadequate post-war plans of the Bush team, I really see three major scenarios:

1. We stay and have hundreds of troops killed in "terrorist" attacks and fuel even more anti-american resentment in the Middle East. Of course, they're really not terrorist attacks, but guerilla warfare tactics.

2. We pull out and a strong, most likely radical, Islamic party comes to power and further puts religious pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

3. We stay and pour huge amounts of money into their economy and secular political parties, hoping to create a majority secular party. Most likely, it ends up with Somalia-type warlords.

[Fritz]

Blackadar: eating lead paint since 1974

[Havok]

gggrrrr......

What did you think was gonna happen??? we were gonna take over the country and then it would all be over??? Then everyone would be friends??

We've lost what... like 170-180 troops so far??? Thats amazing considering we took over a country of 20+ million people.

Stop being such a doomsayer, you sound like the BBC or CNN.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Fritz
Blackadar: eating lead paint since 1974

Fritz: Sniffing glue since Jesus was young.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yeah!

We should be more like our fearless leader and tell 'em to "BRING IT ON!" Yeah. That's the message. Bring it on. Our boys are tough. We can handle it. Rocket-propelled gernades? Suicide bombers? Snipers? BRING 'EM ON!! Our troops are tough. They can handle it.

Bring it on.

What incredible f*cking bullsh*t.

How can this man say this sort of cowboy nonsense when our troops, our boys are getting picked off one day at a time.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Havok
gggrrrr......

What did you think was gonna happen??? we were gonna take over the country and then it would all be over??? Then everyone would be friends??

We've lost what... like 170-180 troops so far??? Thats amazing considering we took over a country of 20+ million people.

Stop being such a doomsayer, you sound like the BBC or CNN.

Actually, I'm pissed because of a noticable lack of an exit strategy. And becuase the reason for going to war - weapons of mass destruction - is bullshit.

So why do you support getting our troops killed?

[Havok]

So why do you support getting our troops killed?

with that logic, i guess we should never go to war with anyone ever no matter what they've done to us or anyone else. Because it would mean that some of our tropps would get killed.

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Havok
with that logic, i guess we should never go to war with anyone ever no matter what they've done to us or anyone else. Because it would mean that some of our tropps would get killed.

What exactly has Iraq done to us?

Fund terrorists? Not nearly to the same extent as our "allies", the Saudis.

Create weapons of mass destruction? We can't find them.

Try to kill George Bush Sr? We tried to do the same to him.

Violate UN policy? Yep, but then again, so do we.

Seriously, what did we go to war for?

[Havok]

Originally posted by Honolulu_Blue
Yeah!

We should be more like our fearless leader and tell 'em to "BRING IT ON!" Yeah. That's the message. Bring it on. Our boys are tough. We can handle it. Rocket-propelled gernades? Suicide bombers? Snipers? BRING 'EM ON!! Our troops are tough. They can handle it.

Bring it on.

What incredible f*cking bullsh*t.

How can this man say this sort of cowboy nonsense when our troops, our boys are getting picked off one day at a time.


What should he say??? "Please don't attack us"???? "Please leave us alone"???

paaaalease... ask anyone of our troops in Iraq and they'll say the same thing.

Bring it on.......

[Havok]

Originally posted by Blackadar
What exactly has Iraq done to us?

Fund terrorists? Not nearly to the same extent as our "allies", the Saudis.

Create weapons of mass destruction? We can't find them.

Try to kill George Bush Sr? We tried to do the same to him.

Violate UN policy? Yep, but then again, so do we.

Seriously, what did we go to war for?


ohhh mmyyy gooodd..........

[Havok]

why do i let myself get sucked into this arguement by Bush hating liberals???

Shame on me....... Shame on me!

[Blackadar]

Originally posted by Havok
why do i let myself get sucked into this arguement by Bush hating liberals???

Shame on me....... Shame on me!

Yep. I'm a Bush-hater, but I'm not a liberal.

Besides, you're right not to get sucked into this discussion. You can't win. :)

[MrBug708]

Eh, epople can bush hate all they want. It's the liberals fault

And no, I'm not wrong. I live in California, land where Gray Davis is Gov. Soon enough Arnold the Moderate will run this state. Hopefully he won't run it into the ground like Clinton's friend, Gray Davis

[pjstp20]

In November 2004 you'll see for yourself how tired people are of Bush's foreign policy and economic plans.

[Havok]

lol..... i seriously doubt that pjstp20

democrats have probally they're worst crop of canidates since 88'.

Democrats have become to liberal and all the moderate democrats have slowly been shifting to the republican party.

get used to being the minority in the house and senate democrats. it ain't gonna change anytime soon :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Havok
why do i let myself get sucked into this arguement by Bush hating liberals???

Shame on me....... Shame on me!

It's okay Havok, it happens to the best of us sometimes.

I've been able to increase my own resistance to the temptation by remembering what a waste of time & energy it is to cast pearls before swine.

It's occasionally productive to try logic & reason with the younger ones who haven't had their minds poisoned for so long or older ones who are actually smarter than their behavior makes them appear. But for the majority of them, sad to say, I really don't hold out much hope.
Far better to expend the time & energy it takes to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed on important things, like removing more of the left from Congress.

Jon

[Dutch]

What exactly has Iraq done to us?

They had shot anti-air guns at our planes almost everyday as we, GB, and Australian pilots patrolled the no-fly zones that protected the Kurds and Shiite's from further attack. And the UN Nuclear Agency used to say that Iraq was within 1 year of creating a nuclear bomb, if they hadn't already. And there was still the terms of the cease-fire of 1991 that Iraq had not complied with in anyway shape or form including the the refusal to destroy the UN inventoried stockpiles of NBC weapons which, as we know now, have since disappeared.

Fund terrorists? Not nearly to the same extent as our "allies", the Saudis.

Yes. Very much so, perhaps you saw some of the camps that were destroyed on TV, but perhaps not. But funding terrorism is probably a lesser of the problems than is fueling terrorism. The fact that US troops were in Saudi Arabia (land of the 2 holy cities) caused more hatred in the Middle East than the Israeli/Palestinian issue. It single-handedly created the Al Qaeda and over 12 years it turned into one of the biggest anti-american cash-cows in the world. Saddam Hussein knew all too well how to manipulate the other players and the people in the middle east. And even the world. He would play the role of victim after 1990 and it worked remarkably well. He knew he could play cat and mouse with the UN inspectors, the US Military, and in the end, he would get what he wanted. Public opinion to be in his favor. The only thing that would foil his plan was a US led invasion of Iraq. And under Bill Clinton, that would never be a problem.

But were these problems during Bill Clinton? They would seem to have been with Desert Fox, bombing multiple sites in Iraq, bombing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Africa (although both were misses.)

Create weapons of mass destruction? We can't find them.

It is indeed the UN inspectors who knew they were there and required their destruction but Iraq soon claimed they never had them. Colin Powell again brought forth some great evidence of the hiding maneuver's of the Iraqi regime.

Try to kill George Bush Sr? We tried to do the same to him.

This was never a factor in Bill Clinton's Desert Fox operation and if it were a reason now, it's so far down the list that it's pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Violate UN policy? Yep, but then again, so do we.

If you or anybody else wishing to complain about our UN violations, please do. But just because you and others are too cowardly to do anything about whatever violations we are making, doesn't mean everybody on this planet should get away with murder and destabilization and terrorism and creating and hiding NBC weapons.

Seriously, what did we go to war for?

The main idea was to show that you cannot be tolerated if your ideology is to be a terrorist or rogue state. Or if your agenda is to make a mockery out of the United Nations resolutions.

Everybody agreed with the butt-whuppin' Iraq got. But there are a lot of people out there at disagree with the ass-whuppin's coming from the United States.

Because for some, the thought of the USA dictating policy based on individual freedoms, private industry, and liberty for all is very disruptive to their agenda's as proven by the millions who turned out to socialist and leftist organized and advertised anti-war protests.

It's a dangerous world we live in where everything you do will be praised and protested in the same moment. So the question is. Do you do things to make somebody else happy or do you do things to make yourself happy?

I'm glad to say that the answer is we took care of our business. And for those that have the same agenda as us, it's your lucky day....and for those who disagree....your lucks run out.

[Havok]

Dutch and Jon are my kinda people :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Havok
What should he say??? "Please don't attack us"???? "Please leave us alone"???

paaaalease... ask anyone of our troops in Iraq and they'll say the same thing.

Bring it on.......

I don't think "Please don't attack us?" is the way to go, but it certainly would be a far cry better from "Bring 'em on!" What is that?

It shows tremendous insensitivity to the dangers our young fighting men and women are facing over there is what it is. It is one thing to show confidence in your troops, it's another to make a statement to the world that is tantamount to inciting and inviting an attack on our troops.

Another one of our boys was shot in the head at close range today. Yep, Bring 'em on. We've got plenty more...

[sabotai]

"Yes. Very much so, perhaps you saw some of the camps that were destroyed on TV, but perhaps not. "

I may be mistaken (as I was not glued 24/7 for the entire war), but the terrorist camps that they found were in northern Iraq, a portion of the country that Hussain didn't have control over. I found it funny that when they would talk about these camps, suddenly the news organisation quickly stopped talking about how Hussain didn't have control of that area (the Kurds did).

But like I said, I didn't see everything and they may have had camps elsewhere.

"The only thing that would foil his plan was a US led invasion of Iraq. And under Bill Clinton, that would never be a problem."

It's like the republicans keep saying, after 9/11 it's a different world. Without 9/11, I highly doubt Dubya would have invaded Iraq.

"Colin Powell again brought forth some great evidence of the hiding maneuver's of the Iraqi regime."

Yeah, and he would have had more if it weren't for some of the evidence being faked... ;)

"Dutch and Jon are my kinda people"

Because they can actually have a conversation and you can't?

[ISiddiqui]

That adds up to 27 American and six British troops killed since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1.

OMG, over 30 troops killed means the war is still on! Come on! :rolleyes: People are unfortunetly going to get killed in the mopping up... this in no way means a war is still ongoing. Unless you believe that Southerners sniping at Union soliders (in charge of the military occupation of the South) in 1866 meant the Civil War was still going on then.

[Dutch]

It's like the republicans keep saying, after 9/11 it's a different world. Without 9/11, I highly doubt Dubya would have invaded Iraq.

There is evidence in Woodworth's book "Bush at War" that would lead us to believe that Iraq and Palestine were the Bush administrations top concerns immediately after taking office and that these were issues the Democrats leaving office would support were top foreign affairs issues.

"Colin Powell again brought forth some great evidence of the hiding maneuver's of the Iraqi regime."

Yeah, and he would have had more if it weren't for some of the evidence being faked...

Well, plagarised is probably better put, but the guys removing "Nerve Agent" from their data files wasn't part of that and neither was the "cleaning trucks" that would hit sites prior to UN inspectors showing up.

And no, it wasn't a perfect, nicely wrapped package, but the point was there.

[Tekneek]

There are things about this that every single person in America, regardless of your political persuasion, should be bothered by :

(1) The realization settling in that the "weapons of mass destruction" were merely a ruse. Saddam moved them to other countries, even though Iraq was going to be invaded? He is still alive, but none of these are being used, and none of them have been recovered? What the hell was the point then? WMDs, if they existed, are far more dangerous to the world now that we have no idea where they are.

(2) There has not been a clear and concise exit strategy for the removal of all troops from Iraq presented yet, at least not one that would have them all back before my toddler is school-age.

Saddam, a "tin-horn dictator", is still at large. Osama, almost two years after we invaded Afghanistan, is still at large. We have troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, with more countries coming onto the list, such as Liberia. Surely these things are cause for some concern amongst any honest human being.

[Blackadar]

Sorry, Dutch, I just don't believe you. You keep rehashing the Gulf War as the reason for attacking Iraq THIS time. They're 10 years apart and the circumstances are vastly different.

You see, I actually have learned my history. In WWI, after Germany was defeated, the Allies rubbed Germany's face in it. So we had to have WWII, the most costly conflict in human history. After the Gulf War (which I support, as well as the Taliban conflict), the Allies rubbed Saddam's face in it. Well, guess what? We're back at it.

Let me repeat that: I supported the Gulf War and the Taliban conflict. Both were necessary. The Taliban, by its association with Al Quada, had de facto declared war on us. In the Gulf War, Iraq was the aggressor. So where we need to get involved, I support using force.

The post-WWII Marshall plan was designed to precisely prevent another war. I fail to see that either Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. have learned from the past. In fact, Dubya's latest crusade seems to be nothing more than a temper tantrum.

Let's start off, shall we?

We had weapons inspectors in Iraq for what, over 5 years? After that, I'd have kicked them out too. They found dick, especially the second time around. Even then, if you want to use them as a pretext for war, why did we give them almost no time before we attacked Iraq? Even the inspectors supported inspections and not war. So using them as an excuse is insulting.

We made no real progress or effort in getting Iraq back on its feet. All we did was continue to embarass Saddam and drive him into a position of resentment. Both Democrat and Republican Presidents are responsible for this - so while some would want to make this a liberal/conservative discussion, I refuse to get trapped by someone else's ideology. What has he done since the Gulf War to provoke an attack? Two things, according to you:

As far as the no-fly zone, we were/are technically invading their airspace. How long is Iraq supposed to not be a soverign country? 10 years? 20?

As far as the weapons of mass destruction, after 10 friggin' years, where are they? My guess is that most or all were destroyed, but privately so Saddam didn't lose public face. Might he still have some? Yep. But we have never found them, so that's a huge maybe at best.

Finally, no one has been able to prove that Iraq is a "terrorist" state. None of the 9/11 bombers were from there. None trained there, as far as we know. Little or no money is channeled to Al Quada from Iraq. Even Colin Powell's own words show there's no relationship between 9/11 and Iraq. I posted them before and I'm sure I could dig them up again.

A rogue state? Perhaps. But one that had little power and even less influence. I can name 10-15 countries that either have more powerful links to terrorism or are far more "rogue". Yet we chose a weak, powerless target in Iraq.

Furthermore, as my original post stated, we seem to have no exit strategy nor rebuilding strategy. None. We've done a shitty job, post-conflict, of making any brownie points with the folks who count - the Iraqi people. With no jobs, money, shelter, government or hope, they'll turn to the one source of comfort - religion. And a radical one at that.

[IMetTrentGreen]

even for a republican, bush and his regime is a joke. thats all i have to say about that

[EagleFan]

Rubbed their face in it. How? By attempting to make them obey international laws and not slaughter thousands of people. It must be awful to be humiliated like that.

What would you have them do after winning the Gulf War? Just leave and turn their backs and allow him to do whatever he wants.

Maybe we should rethink some of our own laws then. After a murderer gets convicted, just let him go since he lost the 'war', no sense in rubbing his face in it by making him serve jail time.

[EagleFan]

I should have kept reading. The inspectors found nothing? Keep armed guards on them and allow them to look only where you want them to. I wonder why they found 'nothing'.

It's liberals like this that make the country soft and open us up for attacks.

Wow, after 10 years we assume that WMD have been destroyed. Yeah, I wlways give the murderous tyrant the benefit of the doubt.

Just because the 9/11 situation doesn't fall on Iraq does not make them a terrorist state? I guess those terrorist camps, that were found all over the country and not just in the Kurdish regions, were just like our day camps here, just some place to send the kids for the summer.

No exit strategy. I can't say that but I can say it's not a good exit strategy. That's the only thing that you seem to actually have a grasp on.

[Havok]

Because they can actually have a conversation and you can't?

talk about uncalled for.

Thanx for proving what a dick you can be.

[sabotai]

"talk about uncalled for.

Thanx for proving what a dick you can be."

I call it like I see it. Dutch offered a point-by-point counter argument. All you offered was "paaaaalease" and "ooohhh myyy goooddd". Not what I would call constructive arguments.

[Cuckoo]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
I was just saying to myself today that this board needed to argue about the war more.

LOL!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by EagleFan
It's liberals like this that make the country soft and open us up for attacks.


Even if the Soviet Union isn't around anymore, Khrushchev may yet be proven right.

The U.S. definitely faces enemies both foreign and domestic.

[Blackadar]

"Liberals"

The Republicans Whine.

[Blackadar]

I just hope that anger keeps you warm at night when US kids are being brought home in body bags. Because beyond anything else, this is the one unassailable fact: Saddam had no power now, or in the near future, to hurt US citizens beyond terrorism. Until you actually find the WMDs, then you can't really debate this point because his miliary sure in hell couldn't have done it.

And if we're attacking him because of terrorism, then Bush is a bigger idiot than even I thought, because of all the major Middle-Eastern countries out there, Iraq contributed the least amount to terrorism.

So the only other reason for attacking him now is because he was a bully. Which was already taken care of back in 1991.

So what was the reason again? And why did we attack and now have no exit strategy (the original post, mind you was about exit strategy) and continue to get kids killed?

[Blackadar]

Oh, by the way, more on those WMDs. Which I fully expect to be found closer to the election.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A former U.S. diplomat said Sunday he told the Bush administration that Iraq had not tried to buy uranium from Niger in the late 1990s to develop nuclear weapons.

Former Ambassador to Gabon Joseph Wilson told NBC's "Meet the Press" he informed the CIA and the State Department that such information was false months before U.S. and British officials used it during the debate that led to war.

During his State of the Union address in January, two months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, President Bush accused Iraq of trying to buy "significant quantities of uranium" from an unnamed African country. He cited British intelligence, which had published a similar report in September 2002.

"If they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, ... that information was erroneous and ... they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the president's State of the Union address," Wilson said.

[Havok]

Originally posted by sabotai
"talk about uncalled for.

Thanx for proving what a dick you can be."

I call it like I see it. Dutch offered a point-by-point counter argument. All you offered was "paaaaalease" and "ooohhh myyy goooddd". Not what I would call constructive arguments.

Im pretty sure i said more then those 2 lines. The reason i didn't get into a long debate was for this very purpose. Someone like you comes along and starts insulting people.

All i said was Jon and Dutch are my kind of people and you had to insult me for it.


P.S. Use quotes. [ quote] [ /quote] ....its pretty easy

[sabotai]

"Im pretty sure i said more then those 2 lines. The reason i didn't get into a long debate was for this very purpose. Someone like you comes along and starts insulting people. "

Uh-huh....

"All i said was Jon and Dutch are my kind of people and you had to insult me for it. "

I insulted you because you're an idiot, not because you said Jon and Dutch were your kind of people.

"P.S. Use quotes. [ quote] [ /quote] ....its pretty easy"

My way's easier.

[BanBlackadar]

You should be banned Blackadar.... banned !

[BanBlackadar]

YOU SHOULD BE BANNED YOU BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL !!!!

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by BanBlackadar
YOU SHOULD BE BANNED YOU BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL !!!!

Happy29?

[tucker342]

Originally posted by Havok


Democrats have become to liberal and all the moderate democrats have slowly been shifting to the republican party.



Actually it's the opposite, the Democratic party has become too conservative.

[Havok]

Originally posted by tucker342
Actually it's the opposite, the Democratic party has become too conservative.


what planet are you living on :)

[BanBlackadar]

I dont even know who Happy29 is.

[BanBlackadar]

Blackadar- Terrorist loving jackass

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by BanBlackadar
I dont even know who Happy29 is. Yes you do. :rolleyes:

[EagleFan]

What's the reason again? Just wherre have you been the past 12 years. Ever hear of resolution 1441, which the coallition were the only ones with the balls to enforce.

I don't even know why I let myself get baited into this crap.

Let's just sit back and let any country do whatever they want while we all hold hands and sing kumbaya (sp?). Maybe if we hide our heads in the sand we can act like the entire worls is good and won't do us anymore harm.

Why does the term 'useful idiots' come to mind?

[Ben E Lou]

Maybe I should know better, but here goes....

1. The same people that say the UN inspectors needed more time after 12 years, are now complaining that our boys haven't found 'em yet???

2. The estimated totality of the WMD in Iraq could be hidden in a space as small as a hotel swimming pool. In other words, a good ol' boy with a backhoe could bury them all in a few hours. We're trying to find a swimming pool's worth of materials in a land space roughly the size of California.

3. Following up on #2, that scientist hid key nuke components BURIED UNDER A FREAKIN' ROSE BUSH! It is very unlikely that we'll find anything without guys like that telling us exactly where they are.

4. The good news is that even if we don't find a single shred of evidence, the onus isn't on us to find them, nor was it on the UN. It was up to Saddam to provide proof that he had destroyed them. He didn't.

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by JonInMiddleGA
It's okay Havok, it happens to the best of us sometimes.

I've been able to increase my own resistance to the temptation by remembering what a waste of time & energy it is to cast pearls before swine.

It's occasionally productive to try logic & reason with the younger ones who haven't had their minds poisoned for so long or older ones who are actually smarter than their behavior makes them appear. But for the majority of them, sad to say, I really don't hold out much hope.
Far better to expend the time & energy it takes to engage in a battle of wits with the unarmed on important things, like removing more of the left from Congress.

Jon
Funny, I was just getting ready to say the exact same thing. I guess there are things that enjoy bi-partisan support.

The only fact that warms my heart is that the faster than the right swings the pendulum their direction, the faster the pendulum will swing back.

[BanBlackadar3]

Yes, I am Happy29, I'm back, Me and JerseyShore were banned and Blackadar and GoldenEagle werent even though what they did does merit a suspension or harsher, guess it's favoritism.

Oh and what I said is true, I have returned more powerful than you can imagine. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!

[pjstp20]

I keep hearing in the news and the radio how soldiers are being shot in the head while waiting in lines to buy DVDs and sodas, I even heard a soldier himself say that he feels like a sitting duck in Iraq. But because Bush is so stubborn about this Iraq situation he won't allow them to come back to safety. He has to prove that he had a reason to go in there and the American public is safer because of that.This whole War was a joke, you wanna talk about weapons of mass destruction? How about North Korea, but are we gonna invade them? Hell no.

When I said Im sure Bush wouldn't get re-elected I never said a Democrat had to replace him, just anyone with enough sense to fix all the damage he's done. Unemployment is up to 6.4%. I'm sure that 6.4 is really enjoying your tax cuts Dubya.

[GoldenEagle]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Yes you do. :rolleyes:

Do I win some type of door prize?

[Axxon]

Originally posted by EagleFan
What's the reason again? Just wherre have you been the past 12 years. Ever hear of resolution 1441, which the coallition were the only ones with the balls to enforce.

I don't even know why I let myself get baited into this crap.

Let's just sit back and let any country do whatever they want while we all hold hands and sing kumbaya (sp?). Maybe if we hide our heads in the sand we can act like the entire worls is good and won't do us anymore harm.

Why does the term 'useful idiots' come to mind?

Balls don't come into it. What balls does it take to take on a country the size of Iraq?? Give me a freaking break. China, now that would take balls but we won't do it. They to have WoMD's and massacre their own citizens. I guess our nuts aren't as big as you think they are.

When we make an effort to indeed stop a country that can fight back your argument may gain credence. The US simply doesn't do that though. We didn't "do the right thing" in WWII, no we waited until we were attacked before we did a damned thing. After that, we've only fought small, basically helpless countries. Unfortunately in Korea, the Chinese, read not small or helpless, interfered and we quickly called a truce and we have the crap we have now in North Korea. When the Vietnamese proved not to be as weak and helpless as we hoped we pulled out there and watched the helpless south Vietnamese government get massacred. Sorry, we couldn't help them.

Russia openly said they would bury us, did we attack them? Don't answer. China was also our enemy for years, did we attack them?? You know the answer to that too. When weak and helpless Iraq supposedly has weapons that they won't even use as we're invading them I'm supposed to puff my chest and say how brave we are? Please.

I don't mind a lot of arguments about the war and our so called prowess but this moral BS is simply that. If Iraq truly could have put up a fight we simply would not have gone in there. It's not about WoMD's either. I'll buy that when Iraq uses one on us. As long as they're hiding them in rose bushes and swimming pools I'm not going to EVER be impressed that they intended to use them against us. If they did intend to they certainly would have. It's another bs smokescreen to mask the fact that we had selfish, nationalistic reasons to invade another country. I'd be less pissed if we'd just admit the truth; we're not a particularly good intentioned or moral country at all. We just understand that might makes right and the winners write the history.

That may piss people off but I don't know of any country that acts differently when it comes right down to it. If we're so good intentioned lets start with honesty and admit the truth, not hide behind the facade of chasing rose bushes and swimming pools.

And I think "useful idiots" refers to the general public, who will respond to sabre rattling and flag waving and ignore the lies that the politicians feed them and feel good about it. Those are the truly useful idiots and they come in all flavors and ideologies and have as long as there have been people. Just another reason to hate the species unless of course you're a politician.

[edited for some egregious spelling and one confusing sentence structure.]

[Fritz]

After that, we've only fought small, basically helpless countries.



someone is overreaching

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Fritz
someone is overreaching

Cite examples please or is Iraq a strong military behemoth?? Maybe Greneda was underestimated?? I don't know. If I'm overreaching I'll certainly admit it. Who have we fought who could give us a decent fight?You know a world power or at least a reasonably developed country with a reasonably developed army.

[Blackadar]

Man, I'm honored that someone would take that much time and effort to get me banned. Thank you, my adoring public. :)

[Blackadar]

Man, I'm honored that someone would take that much time and effort to get me banned. Thank you, my adoring public. :)

[Blackadar]

Man, I'm honored that someone would take that much time and effort to get me banned. Thank you, my adoring public. :)

[Axxon]

So, you're doubly honored then is it?? :)

[Blackadar]

Sorry for the threesome post. :)

Guess I had too many Starbucks today.

[EagleFan]

Someone is overreaching. The small and helpless country remark was made about WW2. This small and helpless country was on the verge of taking over Europe. Doesn't sound so small and helpless.

We did the wrong thing by waiting until attacked in WW2? But wait, now you say we did the wrong thing by not waiting to be attacked? I'm confused, do you just make these up as you go along?

China again has nothing to do with this. Where exactly are they mentioned in 1441?

There I go getting baited in again. Bad me! Bad! (strikes nose with newspaper)

[Axxon]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Someone is overreaching. The small and helpless country remark was made about WW2. This small and helpless country was on the verge of taking over Europe. Doesn't sound so small and helpless.

We did the wrong thing by waiting until attacked in WW2? But wait, now you say we did the wrong thing by not waiting to be attacked? I'm confused, do you just make these up as you go along?

China again has nothing to do with this. Where exactly are they mentioned in 1441?

There I go getting baited in again. Bad me! Bad! (strikes nose with newspaper)

Eagles, please at least read what is written before you comment on it. The sentence started with "After that." 'That' being WWII. After WWII, who have we attacked that actually wasn't small and helpless. You and Fritz have claimed I was overreaching and I'll admit it if I was but neither has offered one example to prove that I was.

I also didn't say one way or the other whether we should or shouldn't wait to be attacked before we take any actions. I DID say that if we're going to use the " we're big balled men who are the only ones who will do the right thing" argument then waiting meekly in the U.S. doing some lend lease while millions of Jews were being genocided off the planet makes no sense."

I said your argument was bullshit, not that we should or shouldn't have done what we did. I just don't think you're willing to take the thought where it needs to go to get to the bottom of it because you sincerely want to believe that the USA is good and that we wouldn't ever do anything that is basically evil. Nothing wrong with that but I called you on it.

I said we acted like every other nation on earth has ever acted or will. I don't recall saying it was wrong ( in this discussion or for this reason anyway ). I'm being more pragmatic. I just don't like my chain being yanked by the ruling powers and then expected to be the good marionette for them. Screw that.

In regards to the "do the right thing because we have balls and are good" argument, China is more than relevant as they have a far poorer human rights record than Iraq and have openly been an enemy. In the 'do what is best for your own interests' view, of course we can't attack China because we'd lose. That's why the argument is relevant.

If you honestly want to use a UN resolution as a reason for attack then we simply MUST attack Israel so that argument is crap too. Again, doing what is in our self interest is why we won't do that.

We are neither more nor less moral than any other country out there period. We do what is best in our interests and removing Saddam so we free up the oil and the region in general for our business ( read money ) interests is why we invaded. Everything else is merely bullshit to appease the masses.

That's all I'm saying. Not that it's right or wrong but it's bullshit. Before you call me a Bush hater, and I know somebody out there wants to, I have already stated on this board that I am against inquiries ( I call them witch hunts ) into the whole "did the president know there were no WoMD's" thing. I don't think it would be fair or help the country. Please factor that in before you ( and I mean whoever, I don't know that you would as I don't recall you using that argument but you may well have ) start to call me a Bush hating liberal communist or whatever.

[EagleFan]

Final Point: 1441, read it. We helped enforce it. The only right thing to do. If that is somehow flag waving, please explain. I hope I didn't hit a nerve when I mentioned having balls? You seem a little defensive there.


Axxon, why don't you go finish your pissing match with BM? I won't get suckered into this crap any more.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
Well, obviously the Viet Cong weren't helpless, since I don't recall us winning that one. The Koreans either, as they had specific help from a country you reference quite a bit in your posts. Iraq, sure. One out of three ain't bad to make your point though, right?

Jeezus why do I even bother posting if no one reads more than a line or two? I specifically mentioned Chinese intervention in Korea and that we cut bait as soon as they did. We attacked a small nation (Korea) then sued for peace when a true enemy ( China ) came on the scene.

As for Vietnam, no one in their right mind would claim we lost the war because they were a strong vibrant enemy. No one would claim Afghanistan held out against the USSR for the same reason. Both of those conflicts were lost by internal pressure not the enemy. We couldn't beat the will of our own people not the vietnamese. Once it became clear that the only way to "win" would be a full scale invasion and it was clear that the country wouldn't support that we again cut bait only this time we watched a nation that swore allegiance to us and counted on us for it's very survival be overrun as we turned tail and ran. Very noble and ballsy of us isn't it??

I'm afraid better examples would be needed to support the theory that we've attacked anything but small, weak nations since WWII.

[CamEdwards]

Did I see Blackie blame the Allies for WWII in this thread?

Brother, it's time to lay off the Cuervo.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Final Point: 1441, read it. We helped enforce it. The only right thing to do. If that is somehow flag waving, please explain. I hope I didn't hit a nerve when I mentioned having balls? You seem a little defensive there.


Axxon, why don't you go finish your pissing match with BM? I won't get suckered into this crap any more.

Again, when we invade Israel for the many resolutions they've ignored then I'll cede your point. Where was your right thing to do in those cases?

You have now reached the point where you simply WILL NOT entertain facts such as our spotty enforcement of UN mandates, but simply choose to fall back on an unsupported isolated technicalities, Iraq broke a rule, even though we actually had to defy the very party that made the rule because we're the good guys.

That's fine. I actually thought you wanted a discussion but you simply would rather believe yourself right than consider another view. Had I known this I would have ignored your post. I definately didn't mean to start a fight or hit a nerve. Have a discussion yes but you don't seem to want that.

Just like BM and his unilateral declaration that "he won I lost." Not much difference there, but I knew BM to be trolling. I don't think you are actually but your hostility to even discussing with someone who thinks differently than you is telling.

Sorry I tried to interact. I'll help you so you don't have to be associated with the real troll. You win, I lose. I don't know what I'm talking about. I shouldn't speak of the issue since I don't agree with you. I am clueless and a bad american. I should go back where I came from, wherever the hell that is, and hug a tree.

Hope this helps.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Ronnie Dobbs2
I know you wrote about that before, but I think we just don't agree on the history here. The Chinese came, we fought the Chinese and Koreans back past the 47th parallel, and MacArthur wanted to go all the way to Beijing. Truman disagreed, not because he feared the great and mighty Chinese Army and would rather pick on the Koreans, but rather he feared taking on the great and might Soviet Army that would have to respond to this act. We were using the containment doctrine then, and Truman wanted to stick to it.

[B]

Obviously you have a point here, but we were also surprised by the effectiveness on the Viet Cong guerrilla tactics. We thought they would be pushovers, like you have been characterizing them and all other US opponents as, and we were mistaken. OF COURSE WE COULD HAVE WON THE WAR. That doesn't mean by being there we were picking on a helpless enemy.


Fair enough point about the Korean war. I don't believe that we could have defeated China and taking Beijing would not have won the war any more than taking Moscow would have won the war for Germany. Neither Russia nor China were the surrendering types and we didn't have the logistics to stage a full scale war in the East, nor do we now. Russia getting involved would have been a probability though, I agree and it would have gotten ugly.

None of this really counts as attacking anything but a weak and small country because China intevened after we were already in Korea. :)

As for Vietnam, the fact that the small, weak country packs a powerful punch doesn't change what we were thinking and that's what drives actions is the thought. You even admit we "thought" they were small and weak. We should have taken note of the whole Russia/Finland fiasco just like the USSR should have taken heed of Vietnam when they attacked Afghanistan :)

[Axxon]

My whole point though is what you just said Ronnie. In the end, the strong make the rules and the rest of the world has to live with it. It's just insulting when the strong has to try and feign some sort of moral high ground to justify acting in their own best interest. That's all I'm saying. Hell, even Germany did that and if they'd won the war we'd all be saying how good and noble and wise the fuhrer was. That's history in a nutshell no pun intended. :)

I don't think we would win a war against Russia and China today though but I don't think they would either. What I mean is that the defender in any case would surely prevail.

None of these countries are in a position to carry an offensive halfway across the globe anymore and all three are too strong in their own hemisphere to be beaten back by anything less than everything the aggressor has to throw at it and to talk of a serious invasion that might win without mentioning nuclears is clearly fantasy.

Thank god all three of these countries are so far wise enough not to consider trying; I'm sure you'll agree with that.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Did I see Blackie blame the Allies for WWII in this thread?

Brother, it's time to lay off the Cuervo.

Well, at least the WWI allies. It's not that far from the truth actually.The Treaty of Versailles brought impossible to repay war debts to the German people as well as an unstable government and runaway inflation. When Germany failured to repay the debt the French invaded the Ruhr region of Germany thus causing even more financial ruin. Remember, the treaty also lost Germany half it's iron industry. The countries currency was meaningless and the people were starving.

Now, up steps a guy who promises to end all that and in fact, under Hitler the economy did recover and when he suggested rearmament it also created a hell of a lot of jobs. Germany was ripe for an economic boom and while they didn't necessarily share Hitlers warped views can one blame them for not wanting to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

In short, the allies certainly did help at the very least start WWII not by creating a Hitler but creating an environment in which a Hitler could even gain power in the first place.

It would be a stretch to blame them for WWII but no stretch at all to say they could have prevented it even before the appeasement of Chamberlain in my opinion by treating the germans as human beings. We did learn that lesson therefore we implemented the Marshall Plan after WWII and will rebuild Iraq once they stop killing our guys. That is part of the american way.

Hope this helps.

[mckerney]

Just out of curiousity, what was the American stance on the Treaty of Versailles?

[sabotai]

"Just out of curiousity, what was the American stance on the Treaty of Versailles?"

It's too late for me to have the energy to look it up, but it was probably one of "non involvement" since up until our breif showing in WWI, the US government mainly had isolationist philosophy. So it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't say anything about the treaty at all.

[mckerney]

Quick search:

In March 1920 the US Senate finally killed the treaty. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and we did not join the League of Nations.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by mckerney
Quick search:

In March 1920 the US Senate finally killed the treaty. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and we did not join the League of Nations.

Good for us then but didn't Woodrow Wilson first propose the League of Nations??? Funny we didn't join. I guess I never really thought about that before.

[sterlingice]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Eh, epople can bush hate all they want. It's the liberals fault

And no, I'm not wrong. I live in California, land where Gray Davis is Gov. Soon enough Arnold the Moderate will run this state. Hopefully he won't run it into the ground like Clinton's friend, Gray Davis

Did someone just (ok, a couple of days ago) say "Arnold the Moderate"? I always got the impression that he was quite conservative. I could be mistaken, tho.

Anyways: Axxon, Ronnie Dobbs2. Good stuff. As I've typed elsewhere: on this board (and in a lot of real life discussion) whenever the topic is broached, it takes on religious overtones and we see namecalling and people misquoting and not even attempting to argue but to belittle the other in an attempt at destroying credibility (not unlike the politicians each side defense). I'm glad you at least had some stuff of substance to offer and arguments like yours, which didn't digress into namecalling and the like, help form opinions and sway those of us who really are sitting on the fence.

SI

[Blackadar]

Thank you Axxon, for the reply on the causes of WWII - the "settlement" of WWI being the primary one. Saved me the trouble and you were more eloquent than I.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Blackadar
Thank you Axxon, for the reply on the causes of WWII - the "settlement" of WWI being the primary one. Saved me the trouble and you were more eloquent than I.

Perfectly glad to, but it's hard to feel eloquent when one unleashes the word "failured" into the wild. :)

[sabotai]

"In March 1920 the US Senate finally killed the treaty. The United States did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles and we did not join the League of Nations."

"Good for us then but didn't Woodrow Wilson first propose the League of Nations??? Funny we didn't join. I guess I never really thought about that before"

Woodrow Wilson said "It would be an irony of fate if my administration had to deal cheifly with foreign affairs" before he left Jersey for the White House. Funny considering most of his time was spent doing just that.

The nonratification of the treaty of Versailles was most likely just more partisanship as it was the republicans (Wilson was a democrat) that opposed it (and the republicans controlled the senate).

Going back in time a bit, the League of Nations was Wilson's idea. He wanted there to be some sort of organization to mediate international disputes. The formation fo the League of Nations was part of the Treaty of Versailles, so since we never ratified it, we never joined.

One reason the treaty may not have been ratified was because when Wilson went on the road to convince the public about it, he suffered a stroke and was unable to continue his "tour".

[sabotai]

dola,

A little bit of history relevant to this. In 1917 Congress passed the Espionage Act which made it illegal to oppose US involvement in WWI. Wouldn't the republicans have loved a similar law this time around? ;)

[sabotai]

Ronnie, well you know more of this than I do so I'll take your word that it wasn't partisanship. I didn't mean to imply that it was JUST partisanship, either. I do know that at the time, most of the nation were isolationists and just didn't want to bother with foreign affairs.