Muenkel 0 #26 September 4, 2002 QuoteTequila and really bad tacos...... And don't forget the water! _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #27 September 4, 2002 QuoteQuotewith what could they respond? Tequila and really bad tacos......*** LMAO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #28 September 5, 2002 QuoteWe didn't get Hussein then; what makes you think we'll get him now? It was not an objective of the Gulf War to "get" Hussein. QuoteWars kill thousands of innocent people; inspections do not. Sounds reasonable, but only if you ignore the fact that inspections were attempted for about seven years. Again, it has been tried already and didn't work. I have posted this before and no one responded to it, but the fact is that no new UN resolutions need be passed to justify military action in Iraq. They are in violation of the terms of cease-fire. If the rest of the world wants to sit on their collective asses and ignore this fact, so be it. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #29 September 5, 2002 >It was not an objective of the Gulf War to "get" Hussein. Just like it has recently been announced that the objective of the war in Afghanistan was not to "get" Bin Laden? As I recall, the objective recently changed from eliminating Bin Laden and Al Quaeda to 'liberating' Afghanistan. While it is certainly true that you can always change the objective of a war retroactively to what you actually accomplished, that's not always the best approach. I suspect that, if we do attack Iraq, that the objective will be summarily changed to "liberate Iraq" shortly after we fail to kill Hussein again. >Sounds reasonable, but only if you ignore the fact that inspections > were attempted for about seven years. Agreed. During that time Iraq did not gas anyone, attack anyone with nuclear weapons, or deploy biological weapons. And no one died. During the war thousands died. I prefer the former result to the latter, even if we have to put up with an evil dictator who we really don't like. Annoying leaders will always be with us; we eventually have to learn to deal with them without trying to blow their entire country to bits. >but the fact is that no new UN resolutions need be passed to justify > military action in Iraq. They are in violation of the terms of cease- >fire. Not if they allow inspectors back in, and they have indicated they are willing to do this. >If the rest of the world wants to sit on their collective asses and > ignore this fact, so be it. If peace means "sitting on your ass", then I'm all for taking a seat. I do not look forward to my country once again being the reason that thousands of innocent people die a horrible death in the name of preventing an attack with weapons that don't exist yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #30 September 5, 2002 >Bill you're talking about a group that includes governments that >starve, kill, and mutilate their own people, confiscate their property > etc. So why do we support them militarily when they gas their own people, but attack them when they do not? What kind of message does that send to, say, Saudi Arabia? >I am not willing to let them decide my future. So don't. Get rid of that gas guzzler and buy a Honda Insight. Nothing will do more to release us from our ties to the Middle East. >When I confront a person known to do violence, I hope for reason > and diplomacy, but I am armed and prepared for violence if it is > brought to me. This is a good attitude - go to a fight prepared to negotiate, but bring a gun. But once you have that gun, it is incumbent on you to not use it unless your life is directly threatened. If you use it thus, you are using it wisely. If you use it kill people you just don't like, people who are not threatening you but might, perhaps, threaten in the future, then you are the terrorist. >I'm glad you can thoughtfully, truthfully believe the UN has our best > interests at heart. They don't; they have their members interests at heart. We are just one member. And yes, someday it may be that the entire world is against _us_. I know, that's hard to believe - we are all taught that the US wears the white hat, is the world's policeman. But the day will someday come when we are not strong enough to take on the whole world. When we get to that day, pray that the UN is strong enough that the ensuing argument is diplomatic and not military. > Truth is, if most of the world were invited into > your home they would kill you, take your treasure, rape the women, > and eat your dog. You need to get out and see more of the world. People are in general pretty decent; it is their governments that cause the problems. >The "steady state" of human nature is chaos and anarchy. We are > fortunate to live in the most prosperous, peaceful stretch of human > history. US aside, I'd agree with you. We average a war every 4-5 years, and we generally kill thousands (if not tens of thousands) with each one. >Leave well enough alone. If those folks keep their terrorist cult within > their borders, fine. But they want to convert infidels like you and > me, the world over, at the end of the barrel of a gun. I agree - I think. They can do whatever they want in their little patch of ground. If they want to teach jihad and dog-eating and militarism, well, that's their choice, no matter how smart or dumb we think it is. But if they attack us, then bomb them back to the stone age. Until they do, though, diplomacy is a much better weapon than the smartest smart bomb. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #31 September 5, 2002 QuoteNot if they allow inspectors back in, and they have indicated they are willing to do this. Would you like to buy some swampland, Bill!? FallRate I was going to post something utilizing the words "gullible" and "naive", but then I remembered "no personal attacks". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #32 September 5, 2002 QuoteI agree completely. I think Powell knows firsthand that a decisive victory over Iraq would involve armed conflict with a host of nations other than Iraq. I would not call the gulf war a victory, as 10 years later its almost as if it never happened. This is an interesting observation involving Powell's view of war and an assessment of the Gulf War. Powell has claimed in the past that we won the war, clearly. This is interesting considering that the ground offensive ceased after Powell advised President Bush that to go on would appear to be overtly brutal and cruel, and advised the President to call it off. This showed that Powell had a politicians appreciation of public sentiment when overseeing the Gulf War. But as you hint at, if we must once again wage war with Iraq, what exactly was accomplished and how could we possibly have "won" the war? Perhaps Powell is worried that the need for military action now would show that he was quite wrong in proposing a halt to the advance on Baghdad in '91. Or as I have already suggested, perhaps Powell is once again showing a keen appreciation for the power of public support by providing us with a diplomatic gesture which will demonstrate (to those individuals that have had there heads in the sand for the past decade) that Baghdad has no intention of cooperating with the UN resolutions. Just a thought. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #33 September 5, 2002 QuoteNo need to respond to this, as I am off the political threads. You are obviously a wise and well-adjusted individual...we'll have none of that here!!! FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #34 September 5, 2002 QuoteSo instead we should have another fruitless war? Remember, we tried that too. We didn't get Hussein then; what makes you think we'll get him now? Think he is any worse at hiding than Bin Laden? This must have been a different war than the one I remember. We attacked Iraq with the clear objective of pushing Iraq out of Kuwait. We actually stopped the ground invasion after pushing them out of Iraq and making their military completely ineffective against us. There was no objective to stop terrorism, capture Bin Laden, or get Hussein as you put it. Wars with different objectives are fought differently. The military completed every objective placed on them during the Gulf War. There is not one all inclusive type of war that solves every problem. I agree that weapons inspections should be tried first. I also believe that the main reason for all of the saber rattling by the Bush administration is to force Hussein to get off his butt and abide by the UN resolutions he has been ignoring since the mid 90s. Hussein is pulling the same crap that Hitler did after WWI. The Allies placed all types of restrictions on his ability to field a military, then we felt sorry for him and ignored his abuses. Eventually, WWII. We can't let Hussein continue to ignore the UN resolutions. BTW, the UN is useless. It's nice to have them on our side for PR but they haven't done anything for us lately. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #35 September 5, 2002 QuoteIt's nice to have them on our side for PR but they haven't done anything for us lately. Unfortunately, in the current state of affairs, PR is at the VERY TOP of the list of objectives that must be met. Fighting terrorists is a tricky business and it certainly can't be done with JUST military action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #36 September 5, 2002 QuoteJust like it has recently been announced that the objective of the war in Afghanistan was not to "get" Bin Laden? Come on! You know as well as anyone that the objective before the Gulf War was to ONLY push Iraq out of Kuwait. It was one of the agreements that Bush reached with the Arab nations in order to get them to support the war. It is well documented. Go check it. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 September 5, 2002 QuoteI also believe that the main reason for all of the saber rattling by the Bush administration is to force Hussein to get off his butt and abide by the UN resolutions he has been ignoring since the mid 90s. Well then what good does it do to tell him that even if he lets UN inspectors back in, our objective will still be a regime change? What incentive does that give him to let the inspectors back? That statement and policy decision by Bush basically says, don't bother letting the inspectors back in because either way we're coming after you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #38 September 5, 2002 QuoteSo don't. Get rid of that gas guzzler and buy a Honda Insight. Nothing will do more to release us from our ties to the Middle East. I could not have taken my wife and children to Perris to skydive, with all of my equipment in a Honda Insight.(Skydiving related answer) QuoteYou need to get out and see more of the world. People are in general pretty decent; it is their governments that cause the problems. I've been to every continent. I speak a second language. I've held people's hands as they have died, I've performed life-saving CPR, I have seen human beings at their most base and their most noble. By trying to put me in a convenient box, you lose the possibility of knowing me. (Response to presumption) OUT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #39 September 5, 2002 QuoteWell then what good does it do to tell him that even if he lets UN inspectors back in, our objective will still be a regime change? Actually it does a lot of good. The threat of invasion has brought Hussein to the table. He knows that he can't win a conventional war with us. If we can get weapons inspectors back in it will drastically reduce his ability to develop WMDs in the short term. An invasion by US forces is not the optimal solution but the other solutions will take a large amount of time. Keeping inspectors in Iraq will give us the time to pursue these other options ie internal coups, destabilization efforts. We're not going to get the support we need from the UN because of the Arab states. They will support Iraq, even though they are scared to death of him, just because he is an Arab state. Too many other countries, Russia and France, are economically tight with Iraq and will also fight any attempt to destabilize the country. They will do this despite the security risks that Iraq poses to the US and other Western nations. It basically comes down to our interests are different from theirs. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #40 September 5, 2002 Bill, I greatly respect your point of view. Lets only hope that the 'good news' are real. Governments and politics are VERY complicated, I never seem to be able to ascertain what is really behind their public actions or words for that matter. Enrique Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #41 September 5, 2002 Right...but by telling him that even if he lets inspectors back in, we're still going to invade...what's his incentive to let the inspectors back in? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #42 September 5, 2002 As I was always taught....if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all. So this is Muenkel practicing great restraint.... _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #43 September 5, 2002 >I could not have taken my wife and children to Perris to skydive, with > all of my equipment in a Honda Insight.(Skydiving related answer) So get a Honda Civic hybrid. It has successfully taken me and two other people to Perris with all their gear. If you have a big family, and a minivan or SUV, then that's fine - as long as you always drive with five people in the car, your average MPG is probably higher than mine. The reason we use so much oil (well, one reason) are all the single-passenger SUV's on the roads. Avoid that and you will have made a difference. >I've been to every continent. I speak a second language. I've held > people's hands as they have died, I've performed life-saving CPR, I > have seen human beings at their most base and their most noble. In that case, since you have seen people all over the world at their best and their worst, and since you claim that most people will try to kill you and eat your dog - how many times have the people you've met tried to kill you? And how many have eaten your dog? I think I've been to every continent, unless Australia and Antarctica are continents. And everywhere I go, people are never what I expect. I did not find Islam-spouting Arabs in Bahrain; I did not find miserable poor toothless people in sub-saharan Africa. I have never met anyone who wanted to kill me and eat my dog. Even when a friend of mine was targeted by Bin Laden, the arabs around her did their level best to protect her, even going so far as to have a military liasion lie to his superiors to protect her. In general, people are decent. It is their government (and ours) who do the mass killing, in general. In fact, come to think of it, the only time I've ever been physically assaulted by a stranger was in the US. So as far as I can tell, we are the ones who want to kill other people (and, in our case, eat their cow.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #44 September 5, 2002 >We can't let Hussein continue to ignore the UN resolutions. I agree. >BTW, the UN is useless. Since you just stated we must enforce UN resolutions to protect us against Hussein's WMD, I think there is some use to it. We are the strongest member of the UN. If we support them, they will be strong. If we do not, they will be weak. We should support them. > It's nice to have them on our side for PR but they haven't done > anything for us lately. You cannot abandon a government because you personally see no value coming from it recently. It works as long as you support it. If you abandon it, and there is a sudden need for a worldwide diplomatic network, it's too late. In this case the UN may just allow us to avoid a war. Avoiding another war that will kill dozens of US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis is, I think, useful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #45 September 5, 2002 Here's another point to ponder... Bush has already said that he will force Iraq into a leadership change. What would happen if he does'nt follow through for some reason and only manages to get inspections, or worse... nothing at all. How weak would that make Bush and therefore the US appear? Also can you imagine the fuel that democrats would have at the next election?Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #46 September 6, 2002 unless Australia and Antarctica are continents*** They are. By the way, have you read the statements made by the German Chancellor? Interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=68&ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20020905/ts_nyt/german_leader_s_warning__war_plan_is_a_huge_mistake Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #47 September 6, 2002 >Powell has claimed in the past that we won the war, clearly. This is interesting considering that the ground offensive ceased after Powell advised President Bush that to go on would appear to be overtly brutal and cruel, and advised the President to call it off. Interesting, it was my understanding (as told by the CO) that both Powell and Schwatrzkof (sorry for spelling on that one) were quite open about their desire to continue on. I could be way off here - maybe it was just a rah rah speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #48 September 6, 2002 QuoteInteresting, it was my understanding (as told by the CO) that both Powell and Schwatrzkof (sorry for spelling on that one) were quite open about their desire to continue on. I could be way off here - maybe it was just a rah rah speech. Yep, you're way off. This was something Powell himself related in a documentary on the Gulf War. I don't really know what Schwarzkopf's feelings were on the subject of halting the drive, but I do know that he was very much desirous of crushing the Republican Guard. But this is not to say that he wanted, or had any intention, to go all the way to Baghdad...he was quite angry with one of his Generals when the General stalled on attacking and allowed a large part of the Republican Guard to withdraw to "safety". The only reason they were really safe was because it was quite clear that an assault on Baghdad (and the toppling of Hussein) was not an aim of the war. (This is not to say that if we got lucky and killed Hussein by way of a bomb, we would have felt we overstepped the true intent of the military actiion.) FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #49 September 6, 2002 >Bush has already said that he will force Iraq into a leadership > change. We say a lot of things we don't follow through on. The ABM treaty. Support to the Kurds, support to Iraq, support to the mujahideen - we gave it to them for a while, promised them more, then cut them off suddenly. No one is going to be suprised if we break our promises yet again. We have a long history of doing just that. >How weak would that make Bush and therefore the US appear? No one doubts the US's ability to blow things up. We do that with great regularity. What other countries _do_ wonder is if we know a damn thing about the rest of the world. Most US citizens don't know much; this administration (with one or two exceptions) seems to know less than most. If we are to work on one thing it should be our ability to make peace - we know how to make war. >Also can you imagine the fuel that democrats would have at the next > election? I've given up on the democrats. They can't decide whether to defy a leader they strongly disagree with or go along with him to get on the "Let's blow up Iraq!" bandwagon for the popular support. If they continue along this path I don't think they'll get even 25% of the vote. He has said he wouldn't run, but the one person that I could actually get excited about during the next presidential election is Powell. Imagine electing a decorated former military leader who the rest of the world actually respects for his wisdom. Unfortunately I think he's too smart to even enter the ring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #50 September 6, 2002 QuoteMost US citizens don't know much That is not nearly so sad as those who have ample information yet can't seem to formulate one single coherent opinion. Thankfully Bill, you remind us all of this greater tragedy on a regular basis. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)