PDA

View Full Version : One war is the seed for another war.



MDFINFAN
08-16-2004, 05:39 PM
This is what I was talking about when it comes to invading countries without concrete proof of anything, I don't want to hear what we thought they had, show the proof of what they had and we haven't, so it looks like we just invaded. So now the bar is set for others to do the same, and we knew this country has been looking for ways and excuses to do this. Now what moral high ground do we take to oppose this? Oh yea, taiwan wasn't threat to them, and they'll say Iraq wasn't a threat to you either. Show us the proof they were? And we'll say the German, the Dems, and everyone else said they had WMD's. And they'll say the tai's have potential WMD's too, and we can't let that happen. We'll say show the proof, and they'll say, it's the same as yours.

By Alice Hung


TAIPEI (Reuters) -

China has been practicing an attack on
Taiwan's capital, Taipei, aimed at killing or capturing the
island's leaders in a "decapitation" action, Taiwan Premier Yu
Shyi-kun said Sunday.




The strategy appeared to have been inspired by the U.S.
action in Iraq (news - web sites) to capture Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), said a senior
military official.



Tensions have been running high in the Taiwan Strait as
China prepares for a possible military showdown, convinced
Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian will push for formal statehood
during his second term, which began in May.



Both sides are holding annual war games. China, which views
the island as a renegade province, has been staging mock
invasion drills while Taiwan's military has pretended to fend
off such an attack.



Yu said Beijing began to simulate an attack targeting
Taiwan leaders after the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam
Hussein.



"After the Iraq war, China has targeted Taiwan leaders,
Taiwan's capital, and the presidential office in its so-called
decapitation action," Yu said aboard a plane to Central America
after a stopover in Los Angeles, where he met some U.S.
congressmen.



"Their internal discussions and recent drills indicated
they have been preparing for such a move," Yu said in comments
broadcast on Taiwan cable news network TVBS.



CAPTURE OR KILL



Military spokesman Huang Suey-sheng said China's
decapitation tactic could include capturing or killing the
island's president and firing missiles at the presidential
office in central Taipei.



"The moves by the United States, including the capture of
Hussein, during the second Gulf War (news - web sites) likely have inspired
Communist China," Huang said



"Communist China has never given up attacking Taiwan and
its current strategy is aimed at winning the war at the first
strike," Huang said.



"'Decapitation' is definitely an option for its future
military actions against Taiwan," Huang said.



Taiwan could withstand an attack from Beijing for two
weeks, the China Times quoted military sources as saying last
week, in comments seen aimed at assuaging fears raised by a
computer simulation showing Taipei could be captured in six
days.



The assumption is the United States, Taiwan's biggest arms
supplier, would meet its treaty obligations and come to the
island's defense by exerting diplomatic pressure on China,
intelligence aid or actual combat assistance.



Military experts say China is accelerating its arms
build-up in preparation for war, but its 2.5-million-strong
People's Liberation Army (PLA) still lacks sophisticated
amphibious vessels to turn it into a credible invasion force.



Yu said an $18 billion U.S. arms deal was vital to the
island's defense in the face of China's growing military threat
and confirmed that Taiwan may be able to cut the cost by about
$3 billion. He did not elaborate.



The three-year-old arms deal, which includes eight
diesel-engine submarines, six Patriot Advanced Capability-3
anti-missile systems and 12 P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft,
would be the biggest weapons sale to Taiwan in a decade. But
Taiwan lawmakers have complained about the price tag.

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 07:56 PM
Last time I checked, this has been going on since the Revolution. Hardly anything new here. And since we have invaded other countries since then, hardly an idea they can pin on us. Whoever wrote this article must have skipped all his history classes.

Section126
08-16-2004, 11:27 PM
Last time I checked, this has been going on since the Revolution. Hardly anything new here. And since we have invaded other countries since then, hardly an idea they can pin on us. Whoever wrote this article must have skipped all his history classes.


Forget the revolution....try...3000 BC

PhinPhan1227
08-16-2004, 11:32 PM
Forget the revolution....try...3000 BC

Well...I was just going by these two political bodies. What is it now, 50+ years? Who knew GW had so much influence at age 3?

Section126
08-16-2004, 11:41 PM
Well...I was just going by these two political bodies. What is it now, 50+ years? Who knew GW had so much influence at age 3?

War is a human condition...if we never made War on one another we wouldn't be human......

Think of it like this........Have you ever gotten so pissed at somebody that you asked to fight them? Well.........It's basically the same thing but in a grander scale.

MDFINFAN
08-17-2004, 12:56 PM
War is a human condition...if we never made War on one another we wouldn't be human......

Think of it like this........Have you ever gotten so pissed at somebody that you asked to fight them? Well.........It's basically the same thing but in a grander scale.


:roflmao: :roflmao: So that's why you like Bush, he plays to your human instincts. You're of the "Make War not peace society"....now I get it. But that's how I veiw a lot of Republicians...not saying you're a repub, that I don't know. But it fits with the mentalitiy of that party. As a ex-member of the armed forces, Opps, (questionable ex-member according to PP1227 -- :lol: ), I do think that peace is the best course of action. War is ugly, unless of course you're not harm's way. I might add, and I think PP1227 can back me up on this, since he took some Field Artillery courses that allowed him to adjust fire on the ranges of Fort Sill, that if you ever see live Field Artillery HE rounds or WP rounds hit the battle field, it's a scale you can't imagine in terms of comparing it to a grander scale in fighting. It's like night and day. At least your fighting partner has a chance, he gets hit with HE, compared to your fist, hehe, there's no comparison. Your analysis is too simply and really doesn't capture the big picture of War. But anyway I hear you and PP1227. I choose Peace when given a choice, if possible. War should be the very last, and I mean very last option. I think Collin Powells would agree with me on that. Peace out. :D

PhinPhan1227
08-17-2004, 01:06 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: So that's why you like Bush, he plays to your human instincts. You're of the "Make War not peace society"....now I get it. But that's how I veiw a lot of Republicians...not saying you're a repub, that I don't know. But it fits with the mentalitiy of that party. As a ex-member of the armed forces, Opps, (questionable ex-member according to PP1227 -- :lol: ), I do think that peace is the best course of action. War is ugly, unless of course you're not harm's way. I might add, and I think PP1227 can back me up on this, since he took some Field Artillery courses that allowed him to adjust fire on the ranges of Fort Sill, that if you ever see live Field Artillery HE rounds or WP rounds hit the battle field, it's a scale you can't imagine in terms of comparing it to a grander scale in fighting. It's like night and day. At least your fighting partner has a chance, he gets hit with HE, compared to your fist, hehe, there's no comparison. Your analysis is too simply and really doesn't capture the big picture of War. But anyway I hear you and PP1227. I choose Peace when given a choice, if possible. War should be the very last, and I mean very last option. I think Collin Powells would agree with me on that. Peace out. :D

I think you're misrepresenting 126, and I KNOW you are misrepresenting ME! I was in the infantry MD. War would have been up close and personal for me if I had been unlucky enough to have been thrown into a conflict. NOBODY values peace more than a man in a foxhole. But what some people who have either never exerienced the military, or who failed utterly to learn from the experience, may not understand is that peace is orders of magnitude more difficult than war. War takes exactly ONE person to innitiate. The other guy can either choose to join in, or can be slaughtered. Peace on the other hand requires the efforts and agreement of ALL parties involved. We did NOT initiate war on Iraq. We are attempting to CONCLUDE a war on Iraq that was started BY Iraq almost 13 years ago. I think the bottom line error you are making is the misapprehention that war is an "option". War is only an "option" if you are the initiator. When war is brought to you, the only option is to fight or die.

Section126
08-17-2004, 01:34 PM
I just love how my words get twisted to fit your ideology......

"War is a continuation of politics by other means."

That's the popular quote...

Here is the one I subscribe too:

"Long for peace, prepare for war." (Notice I said PREPARE..so don't twist this also.)

The fact of life is that UTOPIA does not exist.....if it weren't for the despots and dictators of this world, there would never be a WAR.....

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.....that triggered this war....The only other option was to let Iraq take Kuwait.....of which then they would have taken Saudi Arabia, then Jordan.....then they would have had a economic base to build a Real Nuclear deterent with the US and Israel......then we would be squaring off with a maniac that could have realistic designs on conquering Turkey, most of Africa, and possibly some of the old soviet republics......

Get real........War is what has shaped the world...it always will as long as there are these scumbags in the world.

Saying that you "choose" peace is as stupid as saying that "War is not the answer."

PhinPhan1227
08-17-2004, 01:37 PM
Lol...

Person 1: "I choose PEACE"

Person 2: "Ok...BANG...I win"

;)

MDFINFAN
08-17-2004, 05:21 PM
I just love how my words get twisted to fit your ideology......

"War is a continuation of politics by other means."

That's the popular quote...

Here is the one I subscribe too:

"Long for peace, prepare for war." (Notice I said PREPARE..so don't twist this also.)

The fact of life is that UTOPIA does not exist.....if it weren't for the despots and dictators of this world, there would never be a WAR.....

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.....that triggered this war....The only other option was to let Iraq take Kuwait.....of which then they would have taken Saudi Arabia, then Jordan.....then they would have had a economic base to build a Real Nuclear deterent with the US and Israel......then we would be squaring off with a maniac that could have realistic designs on conquering Turkey, most of Africa, and possibly some of the old soviet republics......

Get real........War is what has shaped the world...it always will as long as there are these scumbags in the world.

Saying that you "choose" peace is as stupid as saying that "War is not the answer."

I didn't twist your words Section; I was only speaking to the simplicity of your analysis. I understood what you were saying, but just didn't like the analysis, because it made War sound too clean, and I wanted people to know that real war is a lot uglier than a grander scale fight. As PP1227 pointed out, it's something a military guy least want to see, especially when they train and do live fires and can see first hand how this thing can really be if started. I wasn't trying to say you love war or anything like that. But you must admit, and you guys kind of put it out there, there is a segment of our society that kind of gets off on a Person who talks strong and will use our Military almost as a 3rd option instead of a last option. I was speaking more to that segment. That segment I see, at least is voiced in the Republican Party more so, than the independents and demo's. It's almost like a Mucho type thing. (Your analysis was the history of human nature). The Repub's don't corner the market in terms of law and order with the military, police or justice dept. type matters. But you would think they do base on the rhetoric. I disagree, and I know we won't come to an agreement on this, about how this war got started, so I won't spend a lot of time on it, been there, done that. This war didn't have to take place, we insisted on it, and now we have it. That is the plain cold hearted truth. (As I see it, IMHO). As a nation, we're watched by the world; our every step is evaluated and recorded in the minds of every non American. When we do things it set precedence for other nations. There are countries that won't make a move without consulting us sometimes, i.e., Saddam checked with us before invading Kuwait. We gave the sign we didn't care. Well, we changed our minds, who'd have thought it. Now I'm simply pointing out another country is using our moves to justify something they've wanted to do for some time, but was worried about us. We've kind of open the door for them. We took our moral authority out of the equation. That meant something for a lot of countries who looked up to us. I think we've just place some bad thoughts in their minds. There are consequences to everything we do. We must learn to look at the bigger picture and just not the immediate short term impact. There's no proof that Iraq will make the region safer after what's been done, we only hope and pray it does. I do hope and pray it does exactly that. But just like I didn't see evidence of a large quantity of WMD's before the war, I don't see the evidence that we've brought peace and stability to the region, and I'm not just talking short term.

PhinPhan1227
08-17-2004, 07:22 PM
This war didn't have to take place, we insisted on it, and now we have it. That is the plain cold hearted truth. .

Are you even aware of the fact that a state of war existed between Iraq and the UN/US from the time Saddam invaded Kuwait? There was a cease fire, but the conflict was still ongoing. As such, your statement is in conflict with the facts.

MDFINFAN
08-18-2004, 12:07 AM
Are you even aware of the fact that a state of war existed between Iraq and the UN/US from the time Saddam invaded Kuwait? There was a cease fire, but the conflict was still ongoing. As such, your statement is in conflict with the facts.

PP1227, your so called war with the UN\US, was no more than lip service in the true sense of war. We responded to his antics with force and he'd shut up for a couple of months. He was a trapped dog barking from his cage. When the UN had a chance to go to actual war, they voted no. Why, because they knew Iraq was no real threat. I know, I know, everyone and their mother said he had WMD, key word, HAD. Obviously the inspectors destroyed them and if they're hidden, Saddam can't find them either. He let his whole country get over run and didn't use one weapon. Do you think we would do that? His army was just awesome. You were in the military, you know we do an indepth intel study before we go to war with anyone. You know we knew their strength, troops and weapons wise. I've said this before and I'm sticking to it. Rumsfeld was willing to send a smaller force because he knew the threat. THAT SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING. We knew that Iraq was no threat. With our flyers doing a no fly zone, the inspectors inspecting, the UN monitoring them, the us intel keeping tabs on them, there's no way we let Iraq rearm to become a threat to us. You can't get me to believe that, that would imply we are stupid. No way. We were wrong about WMD and this war has bared that out. I know, it's after the fact, but the final fact is: We were wrong, even Bill O'Reily admitted that in his famous argument with Moore. Again it was after the fact, But it is the final fact. This should tell you that we showed no creditable proof of WMD prior to the war. When Kennedy did his Cuba thing, he showed pictures to prove his point. When Bush does it, he shows words, and because no one can say one way or the other -- they didn't know, so assume that could be. We go and then look stupid, when there isn't anything. Those are the facts as they stand today. All that grand standing prior to the war only proved that that punk Saddam was correct when he said he had no WMD. I hate it, looking like a fool by him. He's actually getting some simpathy from people around the world. He doesn't deserve it based on what he's done in his country and we help create an small out for him in the minds of others.

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 02:27 AM
A threat today? No. But your simplistic argument ignores the fact that the status quo was UNSUPPORTABLE. We couldn't keep the sanctions in place ad infinitum. You have NEVER addressed that fact. It's so much easier for you to take the approach that "we are at peace today and that's all that matters". It shows ZERO understanding of what tomorrow would bring. Think of it this way, Bush could have passed the buck on to the next guy and guarranteed reelection. Instead he made the tough decision and removed tomorrows threat TODAY.

MDFINFAN
08-18-2004, 03:14 PM
A threat today? No. But your simplistic argument ignores the fact that the status quo was UNSUPPORTABLE. We couldn't keep the sanctions in place ad infinitum. You have NEVER addressed that fact. It's so much easier for you to take the approach that "we are at peace today and that's all that matters". It shows ZERO understanding of what tomorrow would bring. Think of it this way, Bush could have passed the buck on to the next guy and guarranteed reelection. Instead he made the tough decision and removed tomorrows threat TODAY.

We didn't need to keep the sanction in place forever, We just needed to continue to spy on him like we do all enemies, and the first time we see him try to get weapons we deem not suitable, bomb him, destroy the weapons and keep moving, less costly and a lot more stable. ZERO understanding is not knowing the status of the US in the world today, ZERO understanding is not acknowledging that we help recruit more Al Quida's by our action. ZERO understanding is not acknowledging there's no WMD. ZERO understanding is after all we've done and have found nothing and found no links to Al Quida, not acknowledging that Saddam was no threat. ZERO understanding is being pig headed when all the facts have been laid in front of you and you still sing the same song. ZERO understanding is that the Bin Laden headed porton of Al Quida is the one who attacked us, and is still out there. ZERO understanding is not knowing that you haven't prove that Iraq was going to be tomorrows threat. :shakeno: Zero Understanding is that after all this, is the US any safer? NO. (Well I can say no, because I understand :D ), And finally ZERO understanding is not acknowledging a mistake, even OReilly did that, I haven't seen you do it yet, and that's very sad. But I guess you are who you are.

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 04:06 PM
How? How are you going to ID and bomb Chem/Bio plants when you can hide them in legit buildings? Or are you just regularly going to bomb asperin plants? And what about conventional weapons? We've alreadyseen that Russia and France would sell him weapons WHILE under sanction. Are we going to go in and bomb his tank yards regularly? You're suggesting an unenforcable option which leads us to conflict down the road. Again, you're parraleling the mistakes made right after WWI. You think you can control evil by "monitoring it". Guess how well THAT worked last time?

MDFINFAN
08-18-2004, 09:49 PM
How? How are you going to ID and bomb Chem/Bio plants when you can hide them in legit buildings? Or are you just regularly going to bomb asperin plants? And what about conventional weapons? We've alreadyseen that Russia and France would sell him weapons WHILE under sanction. Are we going to go in and bomb his tank yards regularly? You're suggesting an unenforcable option which leads us to conflict down the road. Again, you're parraleling the mistakes made right after WWI. You think you can control evil by "monitoring it". Guess how well THAT worked last time?

Yes, monitoring works, we never tried to stop Iraq from getting weapons before. This is only been a condition since the gulf war. So it's never been something THAT worked before. He should be able to get conventional weapons, a country has the right to defend itself. It's the chem and nuc's that I would be concerned about. We can under the peace agreement inspect any facility he builds or check out any suspected buildings. It's an ongoing inspection to ensure he doesn't rearm with WMD's ever again. There's no time table on that. While we're so interest in him, India and Pakinstan and others are now developing weapons. I think they are a greater thread, tomorrow, as you put it, will probably include them and korea. They are the issues I see today. IMHO, Iraq didn't rank at their level. You and I will disagree on this forever, but I've enjoyed the debate, this will be my last post on this, you can have the last work. It's football season and that's really why I come here. But as I said, since I've read you guys posts, I'll check in from time to time.

PhinPhan1227
08-18-2004, 09:56 PM
Yes, monitoring works, we never tried to stop Iraq from getting weapons before. This is only been a condition since the gulf war. So it's never been something THAT worked before. He should be able to get conventional weapons, a country has the right to defend itself. It's the chem and nuc's that I would be concerned about. We can under the peace agreement inspect any facility he builds or check out any suspected buildings. It's an ongoing inspection to ensure he doesn't rearm with WMD's ever again. There's no time table on that. While we're so interest in him, India and Pakinstan and others are now developing weapons. I think they are a greater thread, tomorrow, as you put it, will probably include them and korea. They are the issues I see today. IMHO, Iraq didn't rank at their level. You and I will disagree on this forever, but I've enjoyed the debate, this will be my last post on this, you can have the last work. It's football season and that's really why I come here. But as I said, since I've read you guys posts, I'll check in from time to time.


#1-When you fight and lose a war, the other guy gets to determine what weapons you can have.

#2-He didn't need WMD's to take over the Saudi Peninsula.

#3-Unless those other countries have been invading their neighbors, they aren't the same threat as a country that has. Iraq also has more money to spend than India or the PAkistani's. Iraq is also sitting in a region which could strangle theworld if damaged...India and PAkistan are not.

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:01 AM
How? How are you going to ID and bomb Chem/Bio plants when you can hide them in legit buildings? Or are you just regularly going to bomb asperin plants? And what about conventional weapons? We've alreadyseen that Russia and France would sell him weapons WHILE under sanction. Are we going to go in and bomb his tank yards regularly? You're suggesting an unenforcable option which leads us to conflict down the road. Again, you're parraleling the mistakes made right after WWI. You think you can control evil by "monitoring it". Guess how well THAT worked last time?
the facts are that saddam never attacked america and had NO connections with Al-Qaeda. Saddam was a pretty secular for a muslim dictator and didnt buy into Osama's fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam. Even if Hussein had chemical weapons the chances of him using them to attack america would be slim because any attack that had his fingerprints in it would have meant the end of his regime. controling "evil" worked pretty well last time when we did it was called the cold war.

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:05 AM
I just love how my words get twisted to fit your ideology......

"War is a continuation of politics by other means."

That's the popular quote...

Here is the one I subscribe too:

"Long for peace, prepare for war." (Notice I said PREPARE..so don't twist this also.)

The fact of life is that UTOPIA does not exist.....if it weren't for the despots and dictators of this world, there would never be a WAR.....

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.....that triggered this war....The only other option was to let Iraq take Kuwait.....of which then they would have taken Saudi Arabia, then Jordan.....then they would have had a economic base to build a Real Nuclear deterent with the US and Israel......then we would be squaring off with a maniac that could have realistic designs on conquering Turkey, most of Africa, and possibly some of the old soviet republics......

Get real........War is what has shaped the world...it always will as long as there are these scumbags in the world.

Saying that you "choose" peace is as stupid as saying that "War is not the answer."
Saddam didnt trigger this war. George HW Bush did. Countries have invaded other countries many times and we have done nothing. We got involved because it was in our self-interest.

ohall
08-20-2004, 03:11 AM
Saddam didnt trigger this war. George HW Bush did. Countries have invaded other countries many times and we have done nothing. We got involved because it was in our self-interest.

I would say when terrorism hit home on 9/11/01 is what triggered the final invasion of Iraq. I'd also like to add that was the correct thing to do, and I doubt if a a DEM President would have not invaded Iraq after 9/11 took place. The American public was basically calling for that to take place. However I doubt certain DEM leaders would have what it takes to stick it out and continue to do the right thing in Iraq like Bush #43 is doing right now.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 05:40 AM
the facts are that saddam never attacked america and had NO connections with Al-Qaeda. Saddam was a pretty secular for a muslim dictator and didnt buy into Osama's fundamentalist Wahhabi Islam. Even if Hussein had chemical weapons the chances of him using them to attack america would be slim because any attack that had his fingerprints in it would have meant the end of his regime. controling "evil" worked pretty well last time when we did it was called the cold war.


Saddam didn't have to attack America. All he had to do was carry out his threat to control the Arabian Penninsula. Guess what happens to our economy if the three top oil producing nations in the world come under one dictator? Even if you kick him off afterwards, the world is still thrust into a depression.

VJ1252
08-20-2004, 03:36 PM
I would say when terrorism hit home on 9/11/01 is what triggered the final invasion of Iraq. I'd also like to add that was the correct thing to do, and I doubt if a a DEM President would have not invaded Iraq after 9/11 took place. The American public was basically calling for that to take place. However I doubt certain DEM leaders would have what it takes to stick it out and continue to do the right thing in Iraq like Bush #43 is doing right now.

Oliver...
the american public wasnt calling for an invasion of iraq after 9/11. only when bush started selling the idea of invading iraq did americans start to support it.

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 03:50 PM
I would say when terrorism hit home on 9/11/01 is what triggered the final invasion of Iraq. I'd also like to add that was the correct thing to do, and I doubt if a a DEM President would have not invaded Iraq after 9/11 took place. The American public was basically calling for that to take place. However I doubt certain DEM leaders would have what it takes to stick it out and continue to do the right thing in Iraq like Bush #43 is doing right now.

Oliver...

What facts do you have to show it was the correct thing to do? All this no dem would have attacked is the only bases you won't vote for a dem is short sighted. There's more to the presidency than going to war. Grow up on that one, too many people measure their manhood on the fact that someone will send troops to war, even if they wouldn't go themselves. Oh yea, that's who I would vote for. Pleassse. Never mind the man can't talk, he doesn't show the capacity to think on his feet, he's never run a successful anything, to include Governorship of Texas, they were always in the lower half of the country in terms of growth and economics. Plus, he didn't do budgets in Tx. thank God, they may have been worst off. The guy was on vacation, mind you, the 1st 6 months of his presidency. He's not even allowed to talk to a committee by himself; he needed his VP by his side. Wake up guys. Get out of the political realms and see for yourselves.
Bush is not running this country, he can't, he doesn't have what it takes, and he’s not a top gun. Even now as president, you can't say this has been a successful run, in terms of our country. Regan's great question. Are we better off now than 4 years ago? You have to agree, no we're not. Why would you want to keep going down the same path? You dont' want to do it with Fielder, why should you want to do it with an even more important figure in our country? :D

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 04:17 PM
the american public wasnt calling for an invasion of iraq after 9/11. only when bush started selling the idea of invading iraq did americans start to support it.


And? The job of the President is to protect America. It's not his job to just "ride the wave", although I think that's EXACTLY what Kerry would do. The President percieved that Iraq either had to be dealt with now, or later, and he chose not to pass the buck. He also percieved a long term solution to terrorism. You need to bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East in order to stop terrorism. What long term solutions has anyone else com up with?

ohall
08-20-2004, 04:25 PM
What facts do you have to show it was the correct thing to do? All this no dem would have attacked is the only bases you won't vote for a dem is short sighted. There's more to the presidency than going to war. Grow up on that one, too many people measure their manhood on the fact that someone will send troops to war, even if they wouldn't go themselves. Oh yea, that's who I would vote for. Pleassse. Never mind the man can't talk, he doesn't show the capacity to think on his feet, he's never run a successful anything, to include Governorship of Texas, they were always in the lower half of the country in terms of growth and economics. Plus, he didn't do budgets in Tx. thank God, they may have been worst off. The guy was on vacation, mind you, the 1st 6 months of his presidency. He's not even allowed to talk to a committee by himself; he needed his VP by his side. Wake up guys. Get out of the political realms and see for yourselves.
Bush is not running this country, he can't, he doesn't have what it takes, and he’s not a top gun. Even now as president, you can't say this has been a successful run, in terms of our country. Regan's great question. Are we better off now than 4 years ago? You have to agree, no we're not. Why would you want to keep going down the same path? You dont' want to do it with Fielder, why should you want to do it with an even more important figure in our country? :D

25 million ppl who were under a madman's rule are now free. If you don't get why that was the right thing to do you are more lost than I thought.

If it was up to ppl like you these ppl would still be under Saddam's thumb.

Oliver...

ohall
08-20-2004, 04:26 PM
the american public wasnt calling for an invasion of iraq after 9/11. only when bush started selling the idea of invading iraq did americans start to support it.

The American ppl know Iraq was a part of the war on terror. Only DEM's think the American ppl are stupid.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-20-2004, 05:22 PM
25 million ppl who were under a madman's rule are now free. If you don't get why that was the right thing to do you are more lost than I thought.

If it was up to ppl like you these ppl would still be under Saddam's thumb.

Oliver...

Then why don't we free every country of dictators like Saddam, he wasn't the only one. We went because of WMD and ties to Al Quida, and iminent threat, all those things proved to be false. That's the truth and you guys need to open your eyes and see reality and stop covering for a mistake, by forgotting. That's how you repeat mistakes, by forgetting.

PhinPhan1227
08-20-2004, 06:23 PM
Then why don't we free every country of dictators like Saddam, he wasn't the only one. We went because of WMD and ties to Al Quida, and iminent threat, all those things proved to be false. That's the truth and you guys need to open your eyes and see reality and stop covering for a mistake, by forgotting. That's how you repeat mistakes, by forgetting.


#1-They didn't invade their neighbors

#2-They don't threaten the world soil supply

#3-Because we can't go after then all, we shouldn't go after any? I think that will be the theme of KErry's Presidency if he wins. "I couldn't do it all, so I didn't do anything".

ohall
08-20-2004, 07:23 PM
Then why don't we free every country of dictators like Saddam, he wasn't the only one. We went because of WMD and ties to Al Quida, and iminent threat, all those things proved to be false. That's the truth and you guys need to open your eyes and see reality and stop covering for a mistake, by forgotting. That's how you repeat mistakes, by forgetting.

Round and round we go again. Because I and many other ppl have tried to explain to you that Iraq was a unique situation, and that is why we were able to act so quickly against them. There was a 13-year history that made all this possible and very legal. Any President would have to be a fool to not take out Iraq if there was an opportunity to do so. That includes any DEM President.

WMD was one of the reasons. Just like when we went into WW2 one of the lessor reasons we went to help Britain was to stop the mass killing Hitler was executing in Germany on the Jews. Rarely does a country leave a war with the same reasons as they entered that war. I keep telling you this, but you continue to ignore this reality.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 12:32 AM
Round and round we go again. Because I and many other ppl have tried to explain to you that Iraq was a unique situation, and that is why we were able to act so quickly against them. There was a 13-year history that made all this possible and very legal. Any President would have to be a fool to not take out Iraq if there was an opportunity to do so. That includes any DEM President.

WMD was one of the reasons. Just like when we went into WW2 one of the lessor reasons we went to help Britain was to stop the mass killing Hitler was executing in Germany on the Jews. Rarely does a country leave a war with the same reasons as they entered that war. I keep telling you this, but you continue to ignore this reality.

Oliver...

Ohal, there are many more countries with a history, way more threatening than Iraq. Hell when Regan was in Office Iraq was our friend, and most of bush 1 time as well. That all turned when they invaded Kuwait, even after they asked how we felt about it. When we gave no indication that it mattered, they went, this is well documented. We turned them into monsters to do what we did. Saddam is no saint, and I would never try to insult any of you by defending him. But our policies in the region caused this. If we'd said that Kuwait was off limits in the 1st place, Gulf War 1 wouldn't have happened. You have to include our actions in this as well. Kuwait really wasn't in our national interest, but Saudi is. Their fear of what Saddam would do next is why we intervened in Kuwait. It's no secret of the relationship between Bush and the royal family. You've got to understand politics in a broad way. While you and I are kept in the dark, there's a lot of wheeling and dealing going on. You as a citizen have to dig deeper to find out why, and stop just repeating what our administration tells you. You are considered unimportant by politicians, only time we're revelant is election time. The rest of the time you're manipulated and if you bite like we have, then you're no problem. I can see by you guys responses that you're led and follow without question. This was not meant by our founding fathers. We should be an open society with a common goal of life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. What we have today is meetings behind closed doors, reduced freedoms, publicly harassed if you question your gov't. The news organizations are now politicized based on ownership. You don't get all the facts. Why is Cheney's dealings in Halebroon (sp) while CEO and the investigation that's revealing corruption not getting more air time. Our congress spent over 50 million on whitewater. It's like you guys are glazing into a crystal ball and being put to sleep and not realizing it. Iraq is no unique situation, Iraq is a money deal like any other buyer of politicians. When we become a suburb of Saudi, (not in the physical sense),then you guys may see. This may be too deep for you guys, so I'll stop here, but I say this, open your eyes. That's why I'm not a dem or repub, it's easy to get suck into that stuff because you only focus only a few issues and not what's really happening. Remember these guys have a army of consultants and focus groups to get you to do just that focus only on what they want you to focus on and ignore the other things they're really doing. Politics is a profession and one that's does it's job very well. Peace to all my friends on this board. Remember man is corrupt and even though we want to see the good in them, if something's a bit strange, question it. Please.

ohall
08-21-2004, 12:36 AM
Ohal, there are many more countries with a history, way more threatening than Iraq. Hell when Regan was in Office Iraq was our friend, and most of bush 1 time as well. That all turned when they invaded Kuwait, even after they asked how we felt about it. When we gave no indication that it mattered, they went, this is well documented. We turned them into monsters to do what we did. Saddam is no saint, and I would never try to insult any of you by defending him. But our policies in the region caused this. If we'd said that Kuwait was off limits in the 1st place, Gulf War 1 wouldn't have happened. You have to include our actions in this as well. Kuwait really wasn't in our national interest, but Saudi is. Their fear of what Saddam would do next is why we intervened in Kuwait. It's no secret of the relationship between Bush and the royal family. You've got to understand politics in a broad way. While you and I are kept in the dark, there's a lot of wheeling and dealing going on. You as a citizen have to dig deeper to find out why, and stop just repeating what our administration tells you. You are considered unimportant by politicians, only time we're revelant is election time. The rest of the time you're manipulated and if you bite like we have, then you're no problem. I can see by you guys responses that you're led and follow without question. This was not meant by our founding fathers. We should be an open society with a common goal of life, liberty and the pursue of happiness. What we have today is meetings behind closed doors, reduced freedoms, publicly harassed if you question your gov't. The news organizations are now politicized based on ownership. You don't get all the facts. Why is Cheney's dealings in Halebroon (sp) while CEO and the investigation that's revealing corruption not getting more air time. Our congress spent over 50 million on whitewater. It's like you guys are glazing into a crystal ball and being put to sleep and not realizing it. Iraq is no unique situation, Iraq is a money deal like any other buyer of politicians. When we become a suburb of Saudi, (not in the physical sense),then you guys may see. This may be too deep for you guys, so I'll stop here, but I say this, open your eyes. That's why I'm not a dem or repub, it's easy to get suck into that stuff because you only focus only a few issues and not what's really happening. Remember these guys have a army of consultants and focus groups to get you to do just that focus only on what they want you to focus on and ignore the other things they're really doing. Politics is a profession and one that's does it's job very well. Peace to all my friends on this board. Remember man is corrupt and even though we want to see the good in them, if something's a bit strange, question it. Please.

Nope sorry none like Iraq. Maybe you can make a case for Iran, and if they don't calm down they are next. Even Kerry would be forced to go into Iran if they keep their crap up.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 12:40 AM
Nope sorry none like Iraq. Maybe you can make a case for Iran, and if they don't calm down they are next. Even Kerry would be forced to go into Iran if they keep their crap up.

Oliver...

Yea, just like Korea, China, Pakistan, oh yea we have the biggest Army in the world, we can handle them all. Will you sign up?

PhinPhan1227
08-21-2004, 12:43 AM
Yea, just like Korea, China, Pakistan, oh yea we have the biggest Army in the world, we can handle them all. Will you sign up?


I did sign up. We invaded Iraq because it was ripe for change, and it made sense. I doubt Iran will be an option because there is a burgeoning western/secular movement that would be harmed. Stability in Iraq would aid that movement greatly.

ohall
08-21-2004, 12:47 AM
Yea, just like Korea, China, Pakistan, oh yea we have the biggest Army in the world, we can handle them all. Will you sign up?

N. Korea is nothing like Iraq, nor is China or Pakistan. Honestly wtf are you talking about?!

Everyone of those countries you listed are all working with the US in a positive way. Maybe not as positive as it should be, but nonetheless they aren't thumbing their nose at the world like Iraq was when Saddam was running that country.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 12:52 AM
I did sign up. We invaded Iraq because it was ripe for change, and it made sense. I doubt Iran will be an option because there is a burgeoning western/secular movement that would be harmed. Stability in Iraq would aid that movement greatly.

:roflmao: I should have known you come in here somehow. :D They were ripe because they had nothing to stop us and we knew it. You know I don't buy into the who say what about WMD, we couldn't prove it before the war, i.e., no proof to show the UN, and we definetly haven't proven it after the war, a mistake, that's the nice way of putting it. Iraq is not the problem now, and it wasn't the problem before. Iraq has never been known as a mecca for terrorist, but Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan has a long history. Afganistan was rightly knocked out of the equation. They housed the guy who went after us.

PhinPhan1227
08-21-2004, 12:59 AM
:roflmao: I should have known you come in here somehow. :D They were ripe because they had nothing to stop us and we knew it. You know I don't buy into the who say what about WMD, we couldn't prove it before the war, i.e., no proof to show the UN, and we definetly haven't proven it after the war, a mistake, that's the nice way of putting it. Iraq is not the problem now, and it wasn't the problem before. Iraq has never been known as a mecca for terrorist, but Iran, Afganistan and Pakistan has a long history. Afganistan was rightly knocked out of the equation. They housed the guy who went after us.

Nothing to do with WMD's.

#1-Attacked their neighbors providing legal justification for invasion/regime change.

#2-Oil revinue provides a basis for a stable economy.

#3-Existing regime oppressing 80% of the country.

#4-Existance of a well educated middle class also provides basis for a stable economy.

#5-More secular than most other ME nations.

That's why Iraq was ripe for a regime change. None of the other nations you named fits these criteria.

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 01:12 AM
Nothing to do with WMD's.

#1-Attacked their neighbors providing legal justification for invasion/regime change. (We supported them while fighting Iran)

#2-Oil revinue provides a basis for a stable economy.
(Saudi provides for us and now we have kuwait also) Added Iraq was good measure. I wonder who will benefit the most for doing business with Iraq. mmm

#3-Existing regime oppressing 80% of the country.

#4-Existance of a well educated middle class also provides basis for a stable economy.
(that's the muslim world period, but they're others doing the exact same thing)

#5-More secular than most other ME nations.
(that's why Al Quida didn't like them, and therefore had no connection, even though we said they did) No threat of terrorism. Mmmmm, you're making my points.

That's why Iraq was ripe for a regime change. None of the other nations you named fits these criteria. ( Nope they were ripe because they weren't a threat to hurt our military as we hook them out, they tried to kill GB1 and the Saudis wanted Saddam gone.)

ohall
08-21-2004, 01:15 AM
( Nope they were ripe because they weren't a threat to hurt our military as we hook them out, they tried to kill GB1 and the Saudis wanted Saddam gone.)

I don't know why I'm surprised. There are ppl who think the world is flat and that the USA never went to the moon.

Oliver...

MDFINFAN
08-21-2004, 01:22 AM
I don't know why I'm surprised. There are ppl who think the world is flat and that the USA never went to the moon.

Oliver...

Because some of you are blind, maybe that's why.. :cooldude:

Just because some of us think outside the box the party lines wants us to, doesn't make us ignorant, sometimes you find that those who think outside the box generally comes closes to the truth.

ohall
08-21-2004, 01:38 AM
Because some of you are blind, maybe that's why.. :cooldude:

Just because some of us think outside the box the party lines wants us to, doesn't make us ignorant, sometimes you find that those who think outside the box generally comes closes to the truth.

Dude no one is saying it is not possible, most are just saying it's not reality. Some proof would be nice to backup these claims you always make. At best what you post as proof is nothing more ramblings from left wing news sources.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
08-21-2004, 03:43 AM
( Nope they were ripe because they weren't a threat to hurt our military as we hook them out, they tried to kill GB1 and the Saudis wanted Saddam gone.)


You failed to address a single issue I raised. As for your "issue", as an ex soidlier I appreciate a leader who sends the troops in when they have the overwhleming advantage. And the Saudi's wanted him gone because they were afraid of him...for the same reasons WE should have been afraid of him.