 |
| |
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
People like Whaleboy view this entire conflict as a means of securing popularity, increasing governmental power (Caesar, Goering) and the chances of re-election, while increasing economic and political influence, while terrorism escalates. What exactly does Iraq have to do with Al Qaeda, except at most a new recruiting ground thanks to the botched occupation. Political opportunists? I've been saying this all along. |
What does this have to do with anything? Caesar was a dictator. Goering wasn't even in charge of Nazi Germany and wasn't having an election (rather Hitler was in charge as a dictator, and most say Himmler would of been the next one in line). It has nothing to do with increasing governmental power (as the US federal government always had the power to send large amounts of troops since WWI). And it certainly does not have anything to do with expanding economic and political influence, because we didn't take over oil fields. We let Iraq have its own government too. You people are political bullshit artists. That simple. Opportunist is too light of a word. A botched occupation? It wasn't botched, nor is it an occupation (as Iraq has its own government).
quote:
You wont understand my argument, because you are bounded by the constraining, emotive bullshit profundity called "morality" that is used in all nationalistic or hawkish arguments to justify war with absolutely no critical basis. In truth, advocates of the war are just as sappy as the victims of that conflict, except those that choose to fight were so stupid they would actually pick up a gun and kill for their leaders. |
Your argument has no merit and is completely messed up by emotional conjectures that are not based on any reasoning what-so-ever. It is based on, yet again, complacency and the "I won't ever get hit by terrorists because I can talk about peace and all that dovey nonsense" attitude. That only gets people killed. You are ridiculous in slandering US troops over there (I find that attitude disgusting). Using your narrow-sighted logic, I could say... in reality, you anti-war fanatics are for Hussein.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
"Honest question: Did you support U.S./NATO military action in the Balkans in order to put Milosevic in his place? After all, that, too, was a "huge chance" to improve things. It's certainly better in that part of the world now than in the mid-1990s (and Iraq will be lucky to be like that in five years), but I distinctly remember a lot of conservatives and right-wingers going on and on about how we had no business being there."
My pov on this was it wasn't our business because it is part of europe. Europe has powers up the ass that hung back hoping we would pay the price to straighten out a matter in their own house. The mission was good, but we were not the ones to do it.
""mission accomplished" banner has been hoisted."
If you had been in the military you would understand that the mission of defeating Saddams forces and eliminating organized military opposition in the country had been accomplished. Our troops did a damn good job. Now we fight terrorists in our new mission of building a free Iraq.
"Saddam's a bastard. But so too are a lot of other folks in the world, some of which (North Korea and Iran come to mind) are a lot closer to being able to give us a real black eye than Iraq ever was post Gulf War I."
North Korea is in China's sphere. Interesting to find that the left is ready to take them on...or is it that you don't grasp what would be involved?
Iran certainly is a threat. A democratic Iraq whose citizens have benefitted from freedom and democracy and who live good would help an already active anti-moslem extremist movement in Iran by showing them what can be achieved under freedom. Why do you think Iran and other such governments are feeding terrorists into Iraq? To get guys like you to oppose the effort and bring about its defeat on the home front. Why? Because they can't defeat our brave troops in the field...
Last edited by Lancer on 08-09-2004 at 06:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
"Honest question: Did you support U.S./NATO military action in the Balkans in order to put Milosevic in his place? After all, that, too, was a "huge chance" to improve things. It's certainly better in that part of the world now than in the mid-1990s (and Iraq will be lucky to be like that in five years), but I distinctly remember a lot of conservatives and right-wingers going on and on about how we had no business being there."
My pov on this was it wasn't our business because it is part of europe. Europe has powers up the ass that hung back hoping we would pay the price to straighten out a matter in their own house. The mission was good, but we were not the ones to do it. |
A number of European nations are part of NATO, correct? So in a sense they did take part, as did the United Nations. Of course, U.S. airpower undergirded the entire thing, but the Euros and the U.N. did do their part. Eventually.
quote:
...""mission accomplished" banner has been hoisted."
If you had been in the military you would understand that the mission of defeating Saddams forces and eliminating organized military opposition in the country had been accomplished. Our troops did a damn good job. Now we fight terrorists in our new mission of building a free Iraq. |
According to military sources, there are roughly 5,000 or more fully trained enemy personnel (soldiers *** guerrillas) resisting U.S. endeavors in Iraq, and around 11,000 other "less-trained" personnel also doing their part to wreak havoc. That's roughly 16,000 altogether (and those are just estimates ... it's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry insurgent is going to come in for a census).
Furthermore, I'm not questioning the men and women on the ground. Sorry, but I wasn't around in the 1960s for lessons on how to spit in their faces and call 'em "baby killers." I am questioning their political and military superiors, though. The ones with black stars on their shoulder boards and those who work in the White House.
quote:
"Saddam's a bastard. But so too are a lot of other folks in the world, some of which (North Korea and Iran come to mind) are a lot closer to being able to give us a real black eye than Iraq ever was post Gulf War I."
North Korea is in China's sphere. Interesting to find that the left is ready to take them on...or is it that you don't grasp what would be involved? |
I am in the political center, thankyouverymuch. I am among the 5 percent of the non-polarized electorate in this country who will decide the next president in November, so don't unduly anger folks like me (this goes for the big Kerry supporters, too). 
That said, I fully know just what's involved in regard to North Korea — it starts with the letter "n" and has the capability to wipe out entire cities with a single, devastating strike.
quote:
Iran certainly is a threat. A democratic Iraq whose citizens have benefitted from freedom and democracy and who live good would help an already active anti-moslem extremist movement by showing them what can be achieved under freedom. |
Hmm. The one active anti-ayatollah group in Iran is currently on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
And should the fabled democracy and freedom of Iraq ever inspire change in Iran, what are the odds the United States would avoid the mistakes of the past and, say, not support some new Shah-type leader? After all, there's no Soviet Union anymore ...
quote:
Why do you think Iran and other such governments are feeding terrorists into Iraq? To get guys like you to oppose the effort and bring about its defeat on the home front. Why? Because they can't defeat our brave troops in the field... |
There's certainly foreign fighters in Iraq. But, c'mon, even you know the foreigners aren't the single cause of all our woes in Iraq. If it isn't the Sunnis, its the Shiites; if it isn't them, it's the remnants of the Baathists; and if it isn't any of those three, its foreign fighters. Hell, maybe even criminals. My point is, there seems to be quite a few groups native to Iraq that don't like us or our goals.
In a situation like that, I'd prefer to have our good men and women in a situation where they're at least welcomed by a majority of the populace, rather than burned to a crisp, spat on, dragged through the streets and so on. For a seemingly small number of people, the insurgents in Iraq are good at causing major headaches.
In the end, I believe America should have never attacked another nation without provocation. Now we have one less thing to make us distinct from the rest of the world, IMO.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Some on the left predicted 10,000 dead during the invasion. Whereas a single life lost is a trajedy, what might be accomplished could change the world. A secular democracy in the heart of the arab world, the Iraqis living good and enjoying their freedom and rights, could spread to other nations now suffering under extremist moslem goverments. That might prevent horrors like 9-11 or the massacre of children at that Russian school.
It's a gamble and I like the fact that Bush is willing to take a huge chance to improve things. You don't find that kind of will in politics very often. |
Your right- only men like Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Lenin, Mao.... Give me a break. Will is not a virtue. It is a vehicle for change, but not virtue. Becaue that will has to be backed by a plan for good. Bush may in his mind has dreams of doing good- but he has no clue about a plan to achieve. That last year and a half of missed opportunieis and outrigth screwups is more than enough proof. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
But Lancers ode to dreamland shows exactly why Bush deserves to be kicked out of office fast.
For all the re-writing of history going on by war supporters, I say we dig up all those threads and look at how many people were arguing for this war primarily, or even just partially, on the grounds of nation building or freedom? I remmeber about 3 such people. Lancer not included. IN fact, noe of the people now belittling this number included.
Most (great majority) of war supporters were selling this is a war of necessity, NOT CHOICE- a war that had to happen at that very minute, not a second later. I said this before the war at length. I will repeat it: if Bush had gone out from day one (june of 2002) to sell this as a war of nationa building and gone to our allies (if not the UN) and spoken about it in such terms- without the whole hysteria about WMD's, tyhen we copuld have gotten a real stable, long term coolition and real international backing for this war- been ready with more resources on hand for the day after Saddam fell, and things would not be perfect, but much better now. None of these things occured.
This admin. screwed up this war from day one. They need to go if we are to win in Iraq. That simple.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
"A number of European nations are part of NATO, correct? So in a sense they did take part, as did the United Nations. Of course, U.S. airpower undergirded the entire thing, but the Euros and the U.N. did do their part. Eventually. "
Whatever. My point is we shouldn't have been there, they could have and should have handled it. It was just cheaper to get their good buddie Clinton and the US taxpayers to pull most of the weight.
"According to military sources, there are roughly 5,000 or more fully trained enemy personnel (soldiers *** guerrillas) resisting U.S. endeavors in Iraq, and around 11,000 other "less-trained" personnel also doing their part to wreak havoc. That's roughly 16,000 altogether (and those are just estimates ... it's not like every Tom, Dick and Harry insurgent is going to come in for a census)."
Read my reply again. Nothing here changes it. New mission.
"I am questioning their political and military superiors, though. The ones with black stars on their shoulder boards and those who work in the White House."
Sorry, this is not enough to make me distrust the nation's military professionals. The same ones who led us to such a bloodless victory over the Iraqi regulars. We are now in a different sort of fight...and a different mission. Those boys on the carrier had done their job.
"I am in the political center, thankyouverymuch. I am among the 5 percent of the non-polarized electorate in this country who will decide the next president in November, so don't unduly anger folks like me "
You can kiss my ass because I'm not going to kiss yours. 
"And should the fabled democracy and freedom of Iraq ever inspire change in Iran, what are the odds the United States would avoid the mistakes of the past and, say, not support some new Shah-type leader? After all, there's no Soviet Union anymore ..."
Right. There is no Soviet Union anymore so why would the US support a Shah?
"There's certainly foreign fighters in Iraq. But, c'mon, even you know the foreigners aren't the single cause of all our woes in Iraq. If it isn't the Sunnis, its the Shiites; if it isn't them, it's the remnants of the Baathists; and if it isn't any of those three, its foreign fighters. Hell, maybe even criminals. My point is, there seems to be quite a few groups native to Iraq that don't like us or our goals."
Granted. There are also 10 millions of Iraqis who registered to vote.
"In a situation like that, I'd prefer to have our good men and women in a situation where they're at least welcomed by a majority of the populace, "
They are welcomed by a majority of the population.
"rather than burned to a crisp, spat on, dragged through the streets and so on."
There are places where our troops are treated badly, but we're sticking it to them too. The majority of the country is going about its lawful business, and as that becomes more prosperous it will spread.
"In the end, I believe America should have never attacked another nation without provocation. Now we have one less thing to make us distinct from the rest of the world, IMO."
How many UN resolutions? How many violations of the no fly zone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
"For all the re-writing of history going on by war supporters, I say we dig up all those threads and look at how many people were arguing for this war primarily, or even just partially, on the grounds of nation building or freedom?"
That was then, this is now. everyone, includeing Kerry, believed that Saddam had WMD. When they couldn't be found the left claimed that the Bush administration would fabricate such a find, remember that? Of course they didn't, but it just shows the culture of distrust that simply hates those who are leading the US in this great effort. So, everyone was wrong. The guy that gassed his own people had given up the WMD, and not showed the world. He brought this on himself, and it's done. Now it's time to build a nation so lets do it and quit *****ing about it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 06:05
Some people fail to understand the concept of sarcasm.
TRAITORS! 
|