Chance
I don't know how you can compare our pres. to hitler. our pres. is not a genesidele maniac that wants to exterminate an entire race of people. He does not want to kill all the Iraqie people, just get that mad man out of power.
Featherduster
As far as Isreal i don't blame them for not signing any treaty. If they did they would be helpless to defend them selfs against the many aggressers they have. And i agree that N. Korea is a very real threat because they are still pissed about the last war. We need to take some action there. But it all comes back to the U.N. Allowing us to do something and i am sick and tiered of having to ask for permision to protect this country.
That is my President
-
BigCountry
- Veteran
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:57 pm
- Location: Cleveland
duster, you got some nerve man. i think one of the first signs of growing up is being able to respect other peoples opinions. i do my share of readin' the damn liberal newspapers and watchin' the same ole' liberal news channels that our airways are clustered with. I don't need someone on CNN Headline News telling me every fifteen minutes that Iraq is not in compliance or to read some headline tellin' me Bush is arrogant and oil driven. Nor do i need someone who doesn't know a damn thing about me, my education or my maturity level telling me what to do. This is America, and the last time I checked we have commander in chief. Be glad we live in a country where you can get on a computer and post your views man, be them liberal or conservative. I am damn glad Al Gore is not in office. No i don't think that every move Bush has made is right. I think that we should have been sure we got Bin Laden and then move on to the next issue. The fact is that Iraq is a threat and is likely to pass off their weapons to terrorist organizations. Israel has an armed service capable of fending off military attackers from every border. The biggest threat to Israel is the terror bombings that continue to take place. It is not likely that their weapons arsenal will be falling into the hands of terrorists. Man, what the hell do you think would happen if Iraq allowed the palestinian extremists to get their hands on bio/chemical weapons? No i don't think California is expendabe, my Grandmother lives in San Bernardino. I do think however that the U.S. is more capable of detecting and destroying a nuclear warhead coming our way than we are of stopping the next devestating terror attack in the U.S. N. Korea is not about to send a missile our way. They are still peeved about the war and are trying to scare their way out of sanctions, sanctions, and more sanctions. So tell me featherduster, with your plethora of knowledge, what should Bush do?
not go to war
First, I am not comparing Bush to Hitler. There are some comparisons to be made as to our jingoistic fervor and that mood in Germany prior to WWII.
Iraq is breaking sanctions placed on it by the United Nations, not the United States. Why are we then, so eager to be the policeman of the world? Most especially when the body that imposed the sanctions is excercising caution. If the United Nations is not ready to invoke military action against Iraq, then why are we?.
The Middle East countries neither want us or like us. World opnion is not on our side. How can we expect to "win" this battle? I am afraid that this proposed action would only widen the divide between us and the Middle East. How long do you think we would have to maintain a military presence in Iraq to keep the populace pacified? Only Kuwait is welcoming us. Wonder why?
Our President must wait. We desperately need world opinion on our side. Only a united world front will stop regimes such as those in Iraq and North Korea from being threats to world peace. We, the United States of America cannot set ourselves up to be judge, juror and executioner. We did it in Vietnam, America's war. Look what that cost us.
Iraq is breaking sanctions placed on it by the United Nations, not the United States. Why are we then, so eager to be the policeman of the world? Most especially when the body that imposed the sanctions is excercising caution. If the United Nations is not ready to invoke military action against Iraq, then why are we?.
The Middle East countries neither want us or like us. World opnion is not on our side. How can we expect to "win" this battle? I am afraid that this proposed action would only widen the divide between us and the Middle East. How long do you think we would have to maintain a military presence in Iraq to keep the populace pacified? Only Kuwait is welcoming us. Wonder why?
Our President must wait. We desperately need world opinion on our side. Only a united world front will stop regimes such as those in Iraq and North Korea from being threats to world peace. We, the United States of America cannot set ourselves up to be judge, juror and executioner. We did it in Vietnam, America's war. Look what that cost us.
-
goosebruce
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: here
Wow, this is actually a decent discussion. If folks will actually talk wihtout beating their chests and making tarzan yells, we all might learn something.
Hitler rose to power in a sitution of turmoil, and people being scared. One of the most intelligent cultures in the world's history let him rise to power because he had a better way. Turned out, he was a mad man... Every time you fill out an online poll on if its ok to torture suspected terrorists like was circulating last week, or think it's ok to give up civil rights and freedoms for national security, or let one man start a war the entire world is cautioning him about, you damn well better remember Germany in the 1920's and 30's. No german citizen knew the path they where heading down, and if Hitler wouldn't have been so deranged and did such stupid tactilcal things the capitol of Mississippi would most likely be named South Berlin. Hitler found a scapegoat in the jews. He got his countrymen to go along with everything based on that fact. Everything that seems horrible now, seemed ok to the german people that listened to a leader that showed them, it was the jews fault. And he didn't even have the benefit of tv addresses. If things are bad, its hard to make them better. if things are bad, its easy to get people to hate and blame someone else... never making things better, but making people feel better. Yes sadam is a scary man, but bush is almost as scary. With all the focus on sadam, and bin laden, nobody seems to notice bush's asault on the environment, and that the economy and stock market sucks. We don't have bin laden's address, but we sure can go over and kick sadam around for a while, it'll make the hurt go away.
There is no proof iraq has supplied any terrorists with anything. But it hasn't been 25 years since we supplied iraq, and thats proven. If iraq is guilty, so is iran. And jordon. And syria. And lebanon. So we just gonna clean house? Where do we stop? Whats gives us the right to fight a balls out war against any country that 'might' be terrorist friendly, but we constantly try to reign Iseral in on their struggle with the Palenstines. What gives us the right to liberate any country, but we backed the Isrealies since they have occupied Palenstine. Makes no sense does it? We can attack any country, despite what our allies say? What the UN says? Can anyone say that is going to make us more likely, or less likely, to be the target of terrorist attacks from middle easterners? I say being the agressor in a war in the middle of the world's hotbed of terrorist activies is going to increase the hatred against us, and make us much broader targets.
I'm not sticking up for iraq, but I honestly can't see what we have to gain or loose out of the iraq sitution. If we totally hammer their ass, we have to stay, or another neighbor will invade them. They've been fighting for 3000 years, we aren't going to stop that. I'm not up for anything that is going to require a us presence for 20 years unless it is mandentory. This isn't.
Americans never got their come uppence for 9/11. Kicking the $#!+ out of a 3rd world country would sure feel good, but it wouldn't make it right. The 2 things aren't strongly connected, but if we kicked the $#!+ outta iraq, folks would have something to cheer about. Thats not a good enough reason to go to war for me.
I think if the people in missle range of sadam won't proceed, we shouldn't worry bout it. If he lobs a scud with something nasty on it to his immedate left, the isralies will nuke his ass and the problem solved for the next 75 years or so till they stop glowing. If he "@#$%#" with any of his other neighbors, then you got something to go to war over. We're bulding up 200,000 troops on his boarder, who's the agressor here?
North Korea is some scary $#!+. They aren't going to listen, they are going to sale the excess to the highest bidders, and they have basically asked Bush how big a boy are you. Thats a real war there boys and girls, and make no misteak about it, thats the one that actually endagers america. They found a test fired missile of theirs in Alaska last week. They wont sit by and let America have 2 months to build up troops... they'll fling what they got, and send a million troops south and wipe out the south koreans, and 40,000 american troops that have been stationed there since the 50's. My real problem with the Bush war machine, is that the percived possible threat of iraq is overshadowing the real threat of North Korea. Iraq didn't send up any migs last week to escort our fighters away.... they havent sent a mig within flight range of any us aircraft since they lost 30% of their airforce in a day and half during desert storm. North Korea did. last week. Supposedly 150 miles offshore, they locked onto US planes. Who's the real threat, the folks with the balls to engauge us fighters, and the stuff to make a real war, thats who.
Sadamm scrambled mobile missile bases last week on the Kuwait boarder. He lost most of them, when we blew the $#!+ out of them. Why didn't he fire a single missile? He was moving missiles onto his boarder, because of an American act of agression, and he lost most of them, but he didn't fire a single missile. Is this the acts of an agreesive foe? Or is this the acts of a someone who has decided he can't win a war, but can win the war of worldwide opinion. He's doing a helluva job on it, and not a single weapon of mass destruction has been taken away from him.
If bush is truely going to go ahead, if he belives world support doesn't matter, and he thinks he has to do this... he needs to pull the trigger right now, and hard. World opinion is not going to get better, only worst. If this is the thing that we have to do, better to do it now, and to do it hard.
Somila wasn't because we didn't HAVE the stuff. We didn't have it there. It wasn't because of anyones budget cuts. The UN felt that armor would esculate the sitution. The real tragedy of Somila is that American soldiers are part of the best equipped armed force in history, and to put an American solider in harms way without that benefit is wrong! Never should we let our forces be left with their asses hanging out. Never. If our forces act as part of a UN force, then our leaders have the right to our soldiers, to make sure they have what they need. Feelings are one thing, lives are another. Never again should a us solider die needlessly because we let someone else make the call. If we're there to fight, we're there to win, or we don't play. Its not how we play the game, its if we come home alive. Those boys should have never been put in that sitution where we couldnt get them if something happened. The tanks they needed could have been there, but someone else made that call. Wrong.
God bless our fighting men and women, no matter where they may end up. travis
Hitler rose to power in a sitution of turmoil, and people being scared. One of the most intelligent cultures in the world's history let him rise to power because he had a better way. Turned out, he was a mad man... Every time you fill out an online poll on if its ok to torture suspected terrorists like was circulating last week, or think it's ok to give up civil rights and freedoms for national security, or let one man start a war the entire world is cautioning him about, you damn well better remember Germany in the 1920's and 30's. No german citizen knew the path they where heading down, and if Hitler wouldn't have been so deranged and did such stupid tactilcal things the capitol of Mississippi would most likely be named South Berlin. Hitler found a scapegoat in the jews. He got his countrymen to go along with everything based on that fact. Everything that seems horrible now, seemed ok to the german people that listened to a leader that showed them, it was the jews fault. And he didn't even have the benefit of tv addresses. If things are bad, its hard to make them better. if things are bad, its easy to get people to hate and blame someone else... never making things better, but making people feel better. Yes sadam is a scary man, but bush is almost as scary. With all the focus on sadam, and bin laden, nobody seems to notice bush's asault on the environment, and that the economy and stock market sucks. We don't have bin laden's address, but we sure can go over and kick sadam around for a while, it'll make the hurt go away.
There is no proof iraq has supplied any terrorists with anything. But it hasn't been 25 years since we supplied iraq, and thats proven. If iraq is guilty, so is iran. And jordon. And syria. And lebanon. So we just gonna clean house? Where do we stop? Whats gives us the right to fight a balls out war against any country that 'might' be terrorist friendly, but we constantly try to reign Iseral in on their struggle with the Palenstines. What gives us the right to liberate any country, but we backed the Isrealies since they have occupied Palenstine. Makes no sense does it? We can attack any country, despite what our allies say? What the UN says? Can anyone say that is going to make us more likely, or less likely, to be the target of terrorist attacks from middle easterners? I say being the agressor in a war in the middle of the world's hotbed of terrorist activies is going to increase the hatred against us, and make us much broader targets.
I'm not sticking up for iraq, but I honestly can't see what we have to gain or loose out of the iraq sitution. If we totally hammer their ass, we have to stay, or another neighbor will invade them. They've been fighting for 3000 years, we aren't going to stop that. I'm not up for anything that is going to require a us presence for 20 years unless it is mandentory. This isn't.
Americans never got their come uppence for 9/11. Kicking the $#!+ out of a 3rd world country would sure feel good, but it wouldn't make it right. The 2 things aren't strongly connected, but if we kicked the $#!+ outta iraq, folks would have something to cheer about. Thats not a good enough reason to go to war for me.
I think if the people in missle range of sadam won't proceed, we shouldn't worry bout it. If he lobs a scud with something nasty on it to his immedate left, the isralies will nuke his ass and the problem solved for the next 75 years or so till they stop glowing. If he "@#$%#" with any of his other neighbors, then you got something to go to war over. We're bulding up 200,000 troops on his boarder, who's the agressor here?
North Korea is some scary $#!+. They aren't going to listen, they are going to sale the excess to the highest bidders, and they have basically asked Bush how big a boy are you. Thats a real war there boys and girls, and make no misteak about it, thats the one that actually endagers america. They found a test fired missile of theirs in Alaska last week. They wont sit by and let America have 2 months to build up troops... they'll fling what they got, and send a million troops south and wipe out the south koreans, and 40,000 american troops that have been stationed there since the 50's. My real problem with the Bush war machine, is that the percived possible threat of iraq is overshadowing the real threat of North Korea. Iraq didn't send up any migs last week to escort our fighters away.... they havent sent a mig within flight range of any us aircraft since they lost 30% of their airforce in a day and half during desert storm. North Korea did. last week. Supposedly 150 miles offshore, they locked onto US planes. Who's the real threat, the folks with the balls to engauge us fighters, and the stuff to make a real war, thats who.
Sadamm scrambled mobile missile bases last week on the Kuwait boarder. He lost most of them, when we blew the $#!+ out of them. Why didn't he fire a single missile? He was moving missiles onto his boarder, because of an American act of agression, and he lost most of them, but he didn't fire a single missile. Is this the acts of an agreesive foe? Or is this the acts of a someone who has decided he can't win a war, but can win the war of worldwide opinion. He's doing a helluva job on it, and not a single weapon of mass destruction has been taken away from him.
If bush is truely going to go ahead, if he belives world support doesn't matter, and he thinks he has to do this... he needs to pull the trigger right now, and hard. World opinion is not going to get better, only worst. If this is the thing that we have to do, better to do it now, and to do it hard.
Somila wasn't because we didn't HAVE the stuff. We didn't have it there. It wasn't because of anyones budget cuts. The UN felt that armor would esculate the sitution. The real tragedy of Somila is that American soldiers are part of the best equipped armed force in history, and to put an American solider in harms way without that benefit is wrong! Never should we let our forces be left with their asses hanging out. Never. If our forces act as part of a UN force, then our leaders have the right to our soldiers, to make sure they have what they need. Feelings are one thing, lives are another. Never again should a us solider die needlessly because we let someone else make the call. If we're there to fight, we're there to win, or we don't play. Its not how we play the game, its if we come home alive. Those boys should have never been put in that sitution where we couldnt get them if something happened. The tanks they needed could have been there, but someone else made that call. Wrong.
God bless our fighting men and women, no matter where they may end up. travis
Ok, sure I might get some bashing for this one but just need some clarification. Why is it that we say who can and can't have weapons of mass destruction. I understand that some people(Saddam) might blow a fuse and use them in an inappropriate way. However, are they not allowed to protect themselves in case of war? Just wondering. On the Saddam issue, we shoulda taken care of this the first time around. Yes I know we didn't have the Power of Assassination then but so what, "He looked like a soldier to me" would have worked. My dad has come up with a great solution to both Afghanistan and Iraq, just take one of those suitcase bombs in there detonate it and then say, well, they shouldn't have been messing with that stuff in the first place! As for the UN......hell, I don't even know about those people anymore. We help them when they need it and now that we need support, they say no! SCREW EM!!!
-
goosebruce
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: here
Because he is in violation of a UN treaty.... seems the UN ought to be the ones to pull the trigger, don't it? How can we over-rule the UN on backing up a treay signed with them?
The stage is set for the next round... cause no there are alll these reports suddenly about irans advanced nucular fuel program. We really ought to be scared of that, cause we know they got better missles... cause they got them from us! travis
The stage is set for the next round... cause no there are alll these reports suddenly about irans advanced nucular fuel program. We really ought to be scared of that, cause we know they got better missles... cause they got them from us! travis
-
Delta Duck
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: The Delta
- Contact:
I don't want to send my son or any son's and daughter's to war. But I do believe in order for my children and some day my Grand children to be able to grow up in these United States the way it was pre September 11th we must not allow a man or country to produce weapons of mass destruction that will be sold to terriorst and brought into this country. It was bad enough worrying about the car jackers.
I do believe the mass majority of the worlds population is with us. I find it hard to believe that people do not want to have basic freedoms we take for granted. I do believe if we move into Iraq, the people of Iraq will welcome our troops.
Saddam used gas on some of his own people, women and babies, I have no use for him or anybody that would gas 100's or 1000's of men, women and children. I have no use for people or Countries that would make excuses for Saddam or any Leader or person that would kill their own people for religous or political believe. The world will be a better place with out him and his kind.
Even if the United States had to go in alone it would be okay with me.
If you kick the bad guys ass the rest will sit down and shut up.
Have we heard anything from Libyia since Reagan shut them up?
I would send my son to do the moral and righteous thing!
God Bless the United States!
I do believe the mass majority of the worlds population is with us. I find it hard to believe that people do not want to have basic freedoms we take for granted. I do believe if we move into Iraq, the people of Iraq will welcome our troops.
Saddam used gas on some of his own people, women and babies, I have no use for him or anybody that would gas 100's or 1000's of men, women and children. I have no use for people or Countries that would make excuses for Saddam or any Leader or person that would kill their own people for religous or political believe. The world will be a better place with out him and his kind.
Even if the United States had to go in alone it would be okay with me.
If you kick the bad guys ass the rest will sit down and shut up.
Have we heard anything from Libyia since Reagan shut them up?
I would send my son to do the moral and righteous thing!
God Bless the United States!
"Ducks on the Brain"
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
-
featherduster
- Veteran
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Prentiss, MS
I ain't no damn liberal but I am surely democratic. If we don't get UN approval, do you realize how dependent we are on other countries nowadays. What if sanctions were applied to us? How much can you afford to pay for gas? With unemployment the worst its been in 10 years, (BUSH SR.) who can buy gas anyway? How the Hell is Saddam a threat to the US anyway. We know more about his business than he does. Like Goose said, what ya gonna do go get all of them??
Harrell Coulter
-
Delta Duck
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: The Delta
- Contact:
It does not matter if the United States stands alone, So long as we are right.
We are not alone!
We are right!
We need to do what ever it takes!
We are not alone!
We are right!
We need to do what ever it takes!
"Ducks on the Brain"
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
-
gadwall2
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1295
- Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Houston, MS
- Contact:
Alright GB I'll go at it with you.
The insinuation you made about Bush being like Hitler is ridiculous and borderline offensive. Who is really like Hitler here? Saddam, who kills people who are not like him and do not believe what he believes, or Bush who is willing to protect them.
As far as torturing detainees in Gitmo, I don't agree with it. But, I also ask myself if one of my children was burned alive or crushed in the falling debris of the WTC, would I feel compassionate towards someone who was part of that or applauded that horrific catastrophe. Like I heard em say on a western one time--"you ride with em, you die with em"
I think your thought that Bush just wants to make someone pay is a reach. You been listening to Kennedy to long.
How much hard evidence do we need to prove Saddam is making WOMD. They have found cruise missiles equipped for delivering chem-bio weapons, long range drone aircraft, and we have defectors that are saying that Saddam built them for that reason. Trying to plant the thought that Bush wants to whip a 3rd world country for the hell of it sounds like political tactics to me. We and the rest of the world know what the outcome of this war will be, but Saddam still refuses to cooperate as he should.
I guess we should let Iraq lob a scub with chem-bio weapons at Israel and in turn watch them nuke Iraq. Now thats really being concerned about the loss of innocent lives. Not only those countries, but also their neighbors and our's. I thought you were concerned about the environment. Wait, thats not our environment, I got it.
Do you really think we are the aggressor? We didn't make those weapons. We didn't invade Kuwait. We didn't try to take Saddam out when we had the chance. (Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.) We didn't burn oil fields. We did not ignore UN resolutions for 10 years. If he is worried about the defense of his country, he should have stayed home in the first place.
Now the UN. Big problem there is that now that its time to take a stand, very few actually want to. Unanimous vote to make Saddam to disarm isn't worth the paper it is written on if it will not be enforced. Saddam has spit on that paper. Now, who is going to defend the UN. The US was going to defend it until we realized that the security council is made up of a lot of members with no sack. Bush has pretty much said that if won't abide by the UN vote, neither will we. You said that the UN ought to be making the calls. They already have and Saddam didn't adhere to them. If the security council will not enforce its rulings, they ought to disband it. If some of these countries had 3000 of their innocent people killed for no reason, I bet their vote would probably change.
Bottom line: Should a man who gases his own people, kills any political opposition, makes WOMD, and ignores UN resolutions be allowed to run a country?
I'll fight so that my children will not have to!
The insinuation you made about Bush being like Hitler is ridiculous and borderline offensive. Who is really like Hitler here? Saddam, who kills people who are not like him and do not believe what he believes, or Bush who is willing to protect them.
As far as torturing detainees in Gitmo, I don't agree with it. But, I also ask myself if one of my children was burned alive or crushed in the falling debris of the WTC, would I feel compassionate towards someone who was part of that or applauded that horrific catastrophe. Like I heard em say on a western one time--"you ride with em, you die with em"
I think your thought that Bush just wants to make someone pay is a reach. You been listening to Kennedy to long.
How much hard evidence do we need to prove Saddam is making WOMD. They have found cruise missiles equipped for delivering chem-bio weapons, long range drone aircraft, and we have defectors that are saying that Saddam built them for that reason. Trying to plant the thought that Bush wants to whip a 3rd world country for the hell of it sounds like political tactics to me. We and the rest of the world know what the outcome of this war will be, but Saddam still refuses to cooperate as he should.
I guess we should let Iraq lob a scub with chem-bio weapons at Israel and in turn watch them nuke Iraq. Now thats really being concerned about the loss of innocent lives. Not only those countries, but also their neighbors and our's. I thought you were concerned about the environment. Wait, thats not our environment, I got it.
Do you really think we are the aggressor? We didn't make those weapons. We didn't invade Kuwait. We didn't try to take Saddam out when we had the chance. (Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me.) We didn't burn oil fields. We did not ignore UN resolutions for 10 years. If he is worried about the defense of his country, he should have stayed home in the first place.
Now the UN. Big problem there is that now that its time to take a stand, very few actually want to. Unanimous vote to make Saddam to disarm isn't worth the paper it is written on if it will not be enforced. Saddam has spit on that paper. Now, who is going to defend the UN. The US was going to defend it until we realized that the security council is made up of a lot of members with no sack. Bush has pretty much said that if won't abide by the UN vote, neither will we. You said that the UN ought to be making the calls. They already have and Saddam didn't adhere to them. If the security council will not enforce its rulings, they ought to disband it. If some of these countries had 3000 of their innocent people killed for no reason, I bet their vote would probably change.
Bottom line: Should a man who gases his own people, kills any political opposition, makes WOMD, and ignores UN resolutions be allowed to run a country?
I'll fight so that my children will not have to!
-
Delta Duck
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: The Delta
- Contact:
Screw the UN, The Consitution of the United States was attacked, We don't need the UN approval to defend ourselves. Thank God we have a leader that does what he sworn and oath to do. Defend the citizens of this country.
How many US embassey's have been blown up, what about the USS Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, the field in Penn. Those people declared war on the US years ago. We were just asleep at the wheel. It was okay as long as it happened in another country right. Yall are wrong. Do you really care what France or Germany think? They are a big part of the problem!
China, yea yall go protest over there. I think the last time people protested in China they got ran over by tanks.
I really believe when the war in Irag is over and we free the people of Irag. Things will be alot better.
If takes dealing with Iran, Jordon, or any country that wishes to do the United States and it's citizens harm than the heck with them also. The heck with kissing ass over our freedoms.
How many US embassey's have been blown up, what about the USS Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon, the field in Penn. Those people declared war on the US years ago. We were just asleep at the wheel. It was okay as long as it happened in another country right. Yall are wrong. Do you really care what France or Germany think? They are a big part of the problem!
China, yea yall go protest over there. I think the last time people protested in China they got ran over by tanks.
I really believe when the war in Irag is over and we free the people of Irag. Things will be alot better.
If takes dealing with Iran, Jordon, or any country that wishes to do the United States and it's citizens harm than the heck with them also. The heck with kissing ass over our freedoms.
"Ducks on the Brain"
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
It's always better with a good dog and good friends, Ducks and no Terrorist!
http://www.DeltaDucks.com
well i have read enough, i respect everyones opinions on here and that is there God given right to do so. That is what we fight for plain and simple. goverments of these countries hate us because we allow freedom and that looks bad on them, they want their people to believe they have the best form of gov., It has already been proven that husein has ties with bin ladin, It has already been proven that he has WOMD, it has already been proven that he isnt afraid of using them, it has already been proven that bin ladin will attack the US. lets put 2 and 2 together here and well u do the math. it doesnt take a genius to figure that one out. This future war is to prevent total destruction of the rights of the American people.
as fas as the UN goes, they are protecting him for some reason i dont know, example, i read on CNN where the UN weapons dude Hans Blix, willfully left out key points in his speech to the UN and Bush is wanting an explanation for that and that is one of the reasons this deadline has been set. has been stated before by Bush, we dont need permission and we dont have to have it, we are just trying to make the UN secruity council work, and for it to be effective in world issues. that is the only reason we are going through them.
now, i dont remember who brought up vietnam, i may be wrong but it was stated, look at vietnam and what we lost there. well my father served in vietnam in 68, shot in the back and put in a wheelchair at the age of 19, lived for 33 years in a wheelchair and NOT ONCE, NOT A SINGLE TIME DID HE EVER SAY WHY ME!!!!!!! HE NEVER HATED HIS COUNTRY FOR IT, HE LOVED THIS COUNTRY AND ALWAYS SAID THAT HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN NO MATTER WHAT THE END RESULTS ARE. to me that is a true american who loved what the red white and blue stood for. well thats my 2cents worth.
as fas as the UN goes, they are protecting him for some reason i dont know, example, i read on CNN where the UN weapons dude Hans Blix, willfully left out key points in his speech to the UN and Bush is wanting an explanation for that and that is one of the reasons this deadline has been set. has been stated before by Bush, we dont need permission and we dont have to have it, we are just trying to make the UN secruity council work, and for it to be effective in world issues. that is the only reason we are going through them.
now, i dont remember who brought up vietnam, i may be wrong but it was stated, look at vietnam and what we lost there. well my father served in vietnam in 68, shot in the back and put in a wheelchair at the age of 19, lived for 33 years in a wheelchair and NOT ONCE, NOT A SINGLE TIME DID HE EVER SAY WHY ME!!!!!!! HE NEVER HATED HIS COUNTRY FOR IT, HE LOVED THIS COUNTRY AND ALWAYS SAID THAT HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN NO MATTER WHAT THE END RESULTS ARE. to me that is a true american who loved what the red white and blue stood for. well thats my 2cents worth.
IF IT FLIES IT DIES!!!!!!!!
Well stated GW2. Thank you for relieving me of having to "hunt'n peck" to respond on this thread. I will add that the day that Hollywood politicians, the French, Germans, Russians or the Chinese dictate international policy over MY elected President will be a cold day in hell if I have anything to say about it.
Does Iraq have WMD? yes
Has the UN been able to eliminate them in the last 12 years? no
Has the US/UN been reasonable with a timeframe to comply? yes
Have the Iraqis made an honest effort to disarm? no
After 12 years of practice, could Iraq have hidden weapons so well that it would take months or years to find? hell yes
Do the Iraqis (and many other Muslim controled nations) hate the US enough to be a terror factor in the future? you answer
Would the World be a better place if Saddam was pushin up petunias? no brainer
Bottom line is that OUR GOVERNMENT and OUR PRESIDENT, with one hell of alot more understanding of the true threat posed by Iraq and other hostile groups than we the average people have, has determined that this is the correct way to insure the safety of the people of the United States.
Not everything that Bush has done has been perfect, but I for one feel that it is my duty to support him in his efforts on behalf of our great Nation. the INJUN
Does Iraq have WMD? yes
Has the UN been able to eliminate them in the last 12 years? no
Has the US/UN been reasonable with a timeframe to comply? yes
Have the Iraqis made an honest effort to disarm? no
After 12 years of practice, could Iraq have hidden weapons so well that it would take months or years to find? hell yes
Do the Iraqis (and many other Muslim controled nations) hate the US enough to be a terror factor in the future? you answer
Would the World be a better place if Saddam was pushin up petunias? no brainer
Bottom line is that OUR GOVERNMENT and OUR PRESIDENT, with one hell of alot more understanding of the true threat posed by Iraq and other hostile groups than we the average people have, has determined that this is the correct way to insure the safety of the people of the United States.
Not everything that Bush has done has been perfect, but I for one feel that it is my duty to support him in his efforts on behalf of our great Nation. the INJUN
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/70396.htm
Best recent article on this subject that I have read. the INJUN
Best recent article on this subject that I have read. the INJUN
-
goosebruce
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: here
Gadwall2, bro, i think you read some stuff into my post that wasn't there.
Certainly the people of Iraq would welcome us to liberate them from a dictator. But that's not the reason for this war, never has been, never will be. Don't confuse a byproduct of something with the reason.
Me planting ideals for poltical reasons? I aint no politican brother. Where you planning on voting for me?
Is saddam or bush more like hitler wasn't even the train of thought. The train of thought was that the german people didn't know what they bought into until it was too late. Nobody spoke up, because they where driven by fear, anger, and looking for an answer. You let an american president do away with peoples rights, and you start a dangerous precendent. Throughout history, the baddest sumbitches on the pike always came along in times of turmoil. An american president should be held to a much higher standard of whats right and wrong than a 3rd world dictator... comes with the territory of being the leader of the worlds strongest country, and being a Christian.
I understand how you or I would feel if we had a loved one in 9/11. And that doesn't mean that I wouldn't personally beat the sumbitch they arrested last week to death. But their is a difference in me taking it into my hands, and giving up the right that people have as humans in this great country. I think you can understand the difference, you alluded to it yourself. Once you start saying 'some people' can be tourted legally, you gonna have problems down the road.
I never said i wanted anyone to be nuked. I was simply pointing out a scenario. Thats what happens when people discuss things. I wasn't trying to convince anyone with that statement. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Yes, I really think we are the agressor. You lump past and present actions together. We liberated kuwait under a UN coolation. We did what we set out to do. The results didn't pan out like we expected (that his own people would take him out), but we did what was right. Assainting a leader of another country is not comething civilized countires do. If we have proof hes supplying anything, why haven't we already attacked? Maybe hes got it, Im sure he does. But having it and using it or selling it is 2 different things. If he wanted a war, he wouldnt be sitting there letting us build up troops on his boarder.
Your bottom line makes no sense... it feels good, sounds good, but doesn't make sense... you wrote... Should a man who gases his own people, kills any political opposition, makes WOMD, and ignores UN resolutions be allowed to run a country? That is NOT what this war is about. We arent going to save iraq citizens. Or make him pay for gassing them. Or his politcal kills. Its about him having weapons, the UN says he can't have, and the UN not willing to back him down. If we ignore the UN vote, then we are almost as wrong as him. Because its a war about one thing, does he have the goods. Nobody ever lifted a finger to save his people when he gassed them. Nobody. Thats making excuses for what we want to do. thats a byproduct, not a reason.
Would we have went into Kuwait if they weren't an oil producing country? Did we liberate Kuwait for our intrests or theirs? Like most wars, it was about the money. Only wars that are bloodier, are about religion. We didn't smack sadamm when he gassed his own people. Hell, we sold him weapons when he fought iran, then sold them weapons.
If it was about human rights, we would have fought in afganistan when they had a 10 year occupiation by the russians. We'd done something in timiniman square in China. Wars are about poltics as often as not, and this one seems very political to me.
If we start deciding who can and can't run a country, then we make a commitment to be there. Thats exactly the thing i don't want more than anything. A war is one thing, but 30 years of occupation is something else. Understand, this region has always fought, and always will. If we totally disarm sadamm, one of his neighbors will invade his ass, and be just as dangerous, and we're back over there. if we put someone in, then either we can't leave, or we just captured a country and started an empire. Neither one sounds very good to me. We have no right to determine the leadership of a soverign country, no more than they would have a right to do here. We have a right to bomb the $#!+ out of anything that threatens us, but not to take it over.
Like i said before... if bush is convinced this is right... if he is convinced of the iraq/ al cadia connection, he should have already pulled the trigger. When he said its war with terrorists, I took it when we found out, we'd open the floodgates. But that isn't the case... we set a date, a complience date... Wait a minute, if its payback for 9/11, what kind of complience can make up for that? None. Its a loosely connected series of dots. If its about 9/11, it should already be a big sandbox that is still smoldering from 25,000 sorites a week.
If we gotta bomb sadam for what he might do with his goods, then we gotta bomb North Korea. I don't see any troop build ups there. Whuts the deal gadwall? They are just as guilty of crimes against their own people, selling weapons, and they are fixing to have nukes. Might as well hit iran too, cause they have flourished since their neighbors can't sell oil.. they are close to nukes too, and they have a history with us longer than iraq.
Wars and peace should not come down to who has a 'sack'. Surely you can think of a better reason to go to war, or not, than a pissing contest.
DD, I understand your sentiments about pre 9/11. We'll never go back to that. We can't. That has been taken away from us, forever. We went generations without blood on our own soil. I have no problem with anything bush does to make those people acountable. Unfortuanly, we haven't been able to do that yet. I certainly hope that doesn't fall to the wayside when the rockets start hitting bagdad. travis
Certainly the people of Iraq would welcome us to liberate them from a dictator. But that's not the reason for this war, never has been, never will be. Don't confuse a byproduct of something with the reason.
Me planting ideals for poltical reasons? I aint no politican brother. Where you planning on voting for me?
Is saddam or bush more like hitler wasn't even the train of thought. The train of thought was that the german people didn't know what they bought into until it was too late. Nobody spoke up, because they where driven by fear, anger, and looking for an answer. You let an american president do away with peoples rights, and you start a dangerous precendent. Throughout history, the baddest sumbitches on the pike always came along in times of turmoil. An american president should be held to a much higher standard of whats right and wrong than a 3rd world dictator... comes with the territory of being the leader of the worlds strongest country, and being a Christian.
I understand how you or I would feel if we had a loved one in 9/11. And that doesn't mean that I wouldn't personally beat the sumbitch they arrested last week to death. But their is a difference in me taking it into my hands, and giving up the right that people have as humans in this great country. I think you can understand the difference, you alluded to it yourself. Once you start saying 'some people' can be tourted legally, you gonna have problems down the road.
I never said i wanted anyone to be nuked. I was simply pointing out a scenario. Thats what happens when people discuss things. I wasn't trying to convince anyone with that statement. Quit putting words in my mouth.
Yes, I really think we are the agressor. You lump past and present actions together. We liberated kuwait under a UN coolation. We did what we set out to do. The results didn't pan out like we expected (that his own people would take him out), but we did what was right. Assainting a leader of another country is not comething civilized countires do. If we have proof hes supplying anything, why haven't we already attacked? Maybe hes got it, Im sure he does. But having it and using it or selling it is 2 different things. If he wanted a war, he wouldnt be sitting there letting us build up troops on his boarder.
Your bottom line makes no sense... it feels good, sounds good, but doesn't make sense... you wrote... Should a man who gases his own people, kills any political opposition, makes WOMD, and ignores UN resolutions be allowed to run a country? That is NOT what this war is about. We arent going to save iraq citizens. Or make him pay for gassing them. Or his politcal kills. Its about him having weapons, the UN says he can't have, and the UN not willing to back him down. If we ignore the UN vote, then we are almost as wrong as him. Because its a war about one thing, does he have the goods. Nobody ever lifted a finger to save his people when he gassed them. Nobody. Thats making excuses for what we want to do. thats a byproduct, not a reason.
Would we have went into Kuwait if they weren't an oil producing country? Did we liberate Kuwait for our intrests or theirs? Like most wars, it was about the money. Only wars that are bloodier, are about religion. We didn't smack sadamm when he gassed his own people. Hell, we sold him weapons when he fought iran, then sold them weapons.
If it was about human rights, we would have fought in afganistan when they had a 10 year occupiation by the russians. We'd done something in timiniman square in China. Wars are about poltics as often as not, and this one seems very political to me.
If we start deciding who can and can't run a country, then we make a commitment to be there. Thats exactly the thing i don't want more than anything. A war is one thing, but 30 years of occupation is something else. Understand, this region has always fought, and always will. If we totally disarm sadamm, one of his neighbors will invade his ass, and be just as dangerous, and we're back over there. if we put someone in, then either we can't leave, or we just captured a country and started an empire. Neither one sounds very good to me. We have no right to determine the leadership of a soverign country, no more than they would have a right to do here. We have a right to bomb the $#!+ out of anything that threatens us, but not to take it over.
Like i said before... if bush is convinced this is right... if he is convinced of the iraq/ al cadia connection, he should have already pulled the trigger. When he said its war with terrorists, I took it when we found out, we'd open the floodgates. But that isn't the case... we set a date, a complience date... Wait a minute, if its payback for 9/11, what kind of complience can make up for that? None. Its a loosely connected series of dots. If its about 9/11, it should already be a big sandbox that is still smoldering from 25,000 sorites a week.
If we gotta bomb sadam for what he might do with his goods, then we gotta bomb North Korea. I don't see any troop build ups there. Whuts the deal gadwall? They are just as guilty of crimes against their own people, selling weapons, and they are fixing to have nukes. Might as well hit iran too, cause they have flourished since their neighbors can't sell oil.. they are close to nukes too, and they have a history with us longer than iraq.
Wars and peace should not come down to who has a 'sack'. Surely you can think of a better reason to go to war, or not, than a pissing contest.
DD, I understand your sentiments about pre 9/11. We'll never go back to that. We can't. That has been taken away from us, forever. We went generations without blood on our own soil. I have no problem with anything bush does to make those people acountable. Unfortuanly, we haven't been able to do that yet. I certainly hope that doesn't fall to the wayside when the rockets start hitting bagdad. travis
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot] and 0 guests