Going forward

[Ken King]

Smcdem,

I take it that you, with all of your vast knowledge and experience, believe this shear BS. If this was in fact true, why did Bush (the elder) stop after we kicked their invading butts out of Kuwait? After all, aren’t they both cut from that same demon cloth? Why have we maintained the external pressure for over ten years without just going in and taking it? Did we believe that by waiting it would become easier?

The facts are that Hussein and his thugs have explicitly threatened to either bring about the end of the USA or assist anyone with like minded goals. Iraq has had no qualms about using WMD against their neighbors and their own people. Their recent desire is to become nuclear capable. The UN and our Congress has on numerous occasions demanded that this stop and that they de-arm. They have refused and it is now time for them to pay the piper.

Your single focus is such that you will never see any truth to the matter until you gain a little more knowledge and a hell of a lot more life experience. You have nothing to base your opinion on other than what your mentors have brainwashed into that pea-sized brain of yours.

Jet,

He won't read it. That way he can continue to live in his nice little sheltered and pampered world believing what he is told. BTW, you were 100% correct, annoying little bugger isn’t he.

 

[MGKrebs]

I've got a lot to respond to...

so bear with me. I'll be right back.

 

[Penn]

America, home of the free

Originally posted by kelley
Oh, whoops. My bad, you guys know what I meant. I'm just a blonde college coed who had WAY too much fun last night.

Alright, whaddaya going to do for an encore tomorrow night?:bandit:

penn

PS: I have to go to DiGiovanni's tomorrow night, so I'm sorry I will not be at the SOMD shindig. My friend's Mom is getting hitched, I've been designated "Best Man", solo artist (if needed), and Designated Driver - at least until the Honeymoon.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by Frank
It's because oil stability is linked to the *production* of oil, and Iraq's is pitifully small. It doesn't matter how much is in the ground. And it would take a LONG time for anyone to boost it substantially.

If oil companies were willing to try and build a pipeline through Afghanistan with all the instability there, I have no doubt they would be interested in getting their hands on Iraqi oil.

Sure, it may take a while, but it's going to happen a lot faster with their "friends" in the White House than it would otherwise. Chevron shows interest, Bush/Cheney do the dirty work, Halliburton does the drilling. bonuses for everybody!

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by kelley
To Krebs, as Democrats we are supporters of international intervention when a nation acts wrongly, wouldn't you agree? We supported Kosovo, Somalia, and a score of other conflicts that had nothing to do with our nation. As the most powerful nation in the world, we have the responsibility to curb the oppressive societies of {sic} America and to ensure that ours is free from foreign nuclear attacks. I feel that true Democrats and true Americans would support the war because now we are fighting an enemy akin to Hitler and Hiroitho or whatever his name was.

First, yes we liberals support intervention under certain circumstances. Intervention does NOT equal war. War is bad. War is to be avoided if possible. We did intervene when Iraq invaded Kuwait. What are we intervening for now? And is war the correct response?

Kosovo- that was not a US unilateral deal. it was world community/UN all the way. It was genocide.

Somalia- I guess I am going to have to look this up. I can't remember for sure. I thought there were warloads fighting, we went in to get one of them, got into a mess, and pulled back out. I'll check into it.

"Score of other nations"- just because we intervened doesn't make it right. That may be why some hate us.

I'm tired of the Hitler references.Let me remind: Europe was fighting that war for TWO YEARS before we got in. Hitler had attacked Poland, France, several other countries, and was in the process of attacking England. And we STILL didn't get in until Japan bombed us. We were way too late. I don't know why, but the point is, this is NOTHING like that. Saddam attacked Kuwait, he got smacked, given another chance. We (the USA) have chosen to occupy (aerial) 2/3 of the country to protect a group that is trying to overthrow the recognized government. This war will not solve terrorism, it may even make it worse. If it's WMD's you are worried about, you should be less worried than Egypt, Israel, Saudi, and several others. When they want help, they can ask.

 

[Penn]

Oh, what webs we weave . . .

Originally posted by MGKrebs
If oil companies were willing to try and build a pipeline through Afghanistan with all the instability there, I have no doubt they would be interested in getting their hands on Iraqi oil.

Sure, it may take a while, but it's going to happen a lot faster with their "friends" in the White House than it would otherwise. Chevron shows interest, Bush/Cheney do the dirty work, Halliburton does the drilling. bonuses for everybody!

Geez, Maynard, I thought you had put aside daydreaming for a while! Interesting scenarios, but I think you are starting to go back to your third-grade elementary musings. It sounds like wishful thinking on somebody's part.
Tell you what, put up a link alluding to what you've just said, on the board here, and we'll toss it around some more, ok?

penn

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: No War

Originally posted by smcdem
We don't need to be creating situations that don't need to be created... If we attack we put America more in danger than if we do not attack... Iraq has shown no real threat to America and there has been no legit. connection to bin laden...We need to be focusing on the war on terroism not a war to bulster Bush's ego about his daddy and his poll numbers... the war woulld cost an estimated 2.9 trillion dollars...yeah down the drain while we have a 300 billion dollar debt on our hand...France and even South Africa have nukes and we do not ask them to disarm...they like Iraq have no intention to use them on us. Give me clear evidence that Iraq will nuke america..give me it. U DONT HAVE ANY!!! its just a political plot for bush to look amazing...O i can't wait till 04...o I can't wait...

You can try to be funny all you want Larry, but he's right. No connection to Al Quaida, more danger in fighting, no real threat, lot's of money.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by Ken King
Smcdem,
If this was in fact true, why did Bush (the elder) stop after we kicked their invading butts out of Kuwait? After all, aren’t they both cut from that same demon cloth? Why have we maintained the external pressure for over ten years without just going in and taking it? Did we believe that by waiting it would become easier?

I guess I'm not following you Ken. Kuwait was UN (world opinion), NOT just us. the goal was to get him out of Kuwait. That is exactly what we did. I think the external pressure was deemed sufficient to contain the threat. By waiting, we chose the possibility of peace versus the certainty of war. It may or may not have worked. We shall see, but I don't think we are any worse off for having 10 years of peace behind us. We can still fight if we choose.

The facts are that Hussein and his thugs have explicitly threatened to either bring about the end of the USA or assist anyone with like minded goals. Iraq has had no qualms about using WMD against their neighbors and their own people. Their recent desire is to become nuclear capable. The UN and our Congress has on numerous occasions demanded that this stop and that they de-arm. They have refused and it is now time for them to pay the piper.

Lot's of loudmouths spout off all the time (ahem). That doesn't mean we have to kill them all.
We HELPED them use those WMD's against their neighbors! We sold them to them! Knowing they were going to use them against the Iranians!
"Their own people" you refer to I assumeare the Kurds. Now I've got no problem with the Kurds, but they ARE trying to overthrow the government, and WE are helping them.
I think the jury is still out on their disarmament. And in any event, why aren't we threatening Pakistan or or China or Libya or Syria, or any of a dozen other countries who may be trying to go nuclear (or already are)? No, there's something else going on here besides WMD's.

Your single focus is such that you will never see any truth to the matter until you gain a little more knowledge and a hell of a lot more life experience. You have nothing to base your opinion on other than what your mentors have brainwashed into that pea-sized brain of yours.

...and if he doesn't agree with you, then he is a target for insults. Talk about brainwashing!!

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: Oh, what webs we weave . . .

Originally posted by penncam
Tell you what, put up a link alluding to what you've just said, on the board here, and we'll toss it around some more, ok?

penn [/QUOTE]

Just a quick search for "Afghanistan pipeline" gives us this from the BBC.

PLEASE read it. You guys always just automatically dismiss the source. Do your own search for cryin' out loud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

 

[MGKrebs]

OK. Bottom line.

Here's my current thinking.

Some believe that kicking Saddam's ### will make things better. I suppose the thinking is that it will remove that particular problem, and show any more like him that we are not to be messed with, thereby reducing future problems. But if and when those problems do arise, we will kick their asses too.

I think this line of reasoning assumes that all of the roots of the problem are external to the US. That nothing Iraq, or Muslims in general, have to say is worth listening to. Iraq is showing us up, therefore they must be killed. Nothing that Russia or Germany or Canada say can or should change our mind.

Others (me included) think that if we can wangle another 10 years of peace out of this without increasing our risk, then we should go for it. Sooner or later, Saddam, like Fidel, will die of terminal *******ness, and we can be in a position to influence those who have the biggest stake in making the right choice.

Also, in the short term, we (or at least me) believe that escalating this confrontation does more harm than good in the short term. Just because other Middle Easterners don't like Saddam does NOT mean that they want us to deal with it for them. Especially if Citgo and Halliburton and McDonalds come as part of the deal. We will make 10 times more enemies than we destroy.

Saddam is contained. He is no significant threat. We are watching him constantly. If there is ANY sign that he is preparing to be obnoxious, I am confident we will know, and can react. We can take out any suspicious facility, vehicle, activity, or person, at any time. What more could we want?

 

[Ken King]

I guess I'm not following you Ken. Kuwait was UN (world opinion), NOT just us. the goal was to get him out of Kuwait. That is exactly what we did. I think the external pressure was deemed sufficient to contain the threat. By waiting, we chose the possibility of peace versus the certainty of war. It may or may not have worked. We shall see, but I don't think we are any worse off for having 10 years of peace behind us. We can still fight if we choose.

Of course you’re not following me. You and many like you think this is about oil. It isn’t that at all. If we wanted the oil we could have used the events of 1990 to obtain it by annihilating the Iraqis and taking it. We had opportunity, the people and equipment in place and the ability to do it. It was not and is not our goal. I realize you won’t believe this because you are stuck with knowing you are right and there is nothing that will change your point of view.

Lot's of loudmouths spout off all the time (ahem). That doesn't mean we have to kill them all.
We HELPED them use those WMD's against their neighbors! We sold them to them! Knowing they were going to use them against the Iranians!
"Their own people" you refer to I assumeare the Kurds. Now I've got no problem with the Kurds, but they ARE trying to overthrow the government, and WE are helping them.
I think the jury is still out on their disarmament. And in any event, why aren't we threatening Pakistan or or China or Libya or Syria, or any of a dozen other countries who may be trying to go nuclear (or already are)? No, there's something else going on here besides WMD's.

Okay, I see how this is going, I can’t insult someone but you can (re: “loudmouths”). This is showing your true colors, Bubba. Another trait you have dsiplayed so well. Insult me if you want, I'll fire back. My point to the very junior member of this discussion is that he has no understanding of the situation and is mentally flawed in his reasoning as to why we are willing to take on Iraq.

If you had any understanding of what the UN has said Iraq can and cannot do you might be swayed otherwise but I feel you are a little too dense to undertake such an endeavor as it might bring about enlightenment on this situation. I will freely admit it took that for me to come to a better understanding of the facts and for me to change my mind.

I also note the bait and switch tactic that you and many of your ilk utilize in order to divert attention from the real issue. The fact that we previously assisted Iraq in a conflict with one of their enemies does not justify what they have done against others since that time, including their own.

What you have failed to grasp is that if we do not take strong action against Iraq and Hussein he will grow to become another Hitler. You chastise us for not getting involved against Hitler until well after he had decimated most of Europe. Now you can’t see the parallel with what is going on. Which is it? Should we just lay back and wait until they are capable of delivering a WMD to our homeland and do it before you find your guts and say enough is enough.

 

[Kain99]

Jesus H Christ Krebs!

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Saddam is contained. He is no significant threat.

If you don't stop NOW, we are going to have to call HAZMAT to get your head out of your ### Krebs!

CRAP! How disconnected can you be? I guess with a bung holio like you, we should all wait until your inhaling a lung full of anthrax or sucking in a chest full of Radiation.......

BTW I noticed your reluctance to reply directly to my previous post...... wonder why?

 

[Ken King]

Re: OK. Bottom line.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Here's my current thinking.

Some believe that kicking Saddam's ### will make things better. I suppose the thinking is that it will remove that particular problem, and show any more like him that we are not to be messed with, thereby reducing future problems. But if and when those problems do arise, we will kick their asses too.

I think this line of reasoning assumes that all of the roots of the problem are external to the US. That nothing Iraq, or Muslims in general, have to say is worth listening to. Iraq is showing us up, therefore they must be killed. Nothing that Russia or Germany or Canada say can or should change our mind.

Others (me included) think that if we can wangle another 10 years of peace out of this without increasing our risk, then we should go for it. Sooner or later, Saddam, like Fidel, will die of terminal *******ness, and we can be in a position to influence those who have the biggest stake in making the right choice.

Also, in the short term, we (or at least me) believe that escalating this confrontation does more harm than good in the short term. Just because other Middle Easterners don't like Saddam does NOT mean that they want us to deal with it for them. Especially if Citgo and Halliburton and McDonalds come as part of the deal. We will make 10 times more enemies than we destroy.

Saddam is contained. He is no significant threat. We are watching him constantly. If there is ANY sign that he is preparing to be obnoxious, I am confident we will know, and can react. We can take out any suspicious facility, vehicle, activity, or person, at any time. What more could we want?

Maynard,

Your naivete is showing if you believe that leaving Hussein alone will come to any good. Your reference to Castro is an obvious indication of that. How long have we been waiting for him to die? Better than 40 years now, if I am not mistaken. And if left alone can’t you foresee that another just like him will replace him, so what good is that old wise and all-knowing one? The harm of leaving it alone was felt on September 11, 2001. We had been seen by certain elements as lacking in our resolve and we paid for it. I guess some of you are ready to slip back into that mode of operation.

You say Hussein is contained. I disagree. I take it that you can’t envision someone smuggling a “frog” out of a country like Iraq and bringing it to our shores or a nice small biological device? It doesn’t take a very big nuclear package to create major devastation nor would it take very much biological material to make a big impact. This is something that a madman would consider and do. By pressuring him with military force to come to full compliance with all outstanding UN resolutions we can make the world safer. The ball is in his court. All he has to do is validate that he has come into compliance. Isn’t that what a sane person would do?

I’m glad you are so confident of our ability to stop a madman bent on destruction. However, recent history tells us that where there is a will there is a way.

 

[Kain99]

Re: Re: Oh, what webs we weave . . .

[/QUOTE]
PLEASE read it. You guys always just automatically dismiss the source. Do your own search for cryin' out loud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm [/B][/QUOTE]

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

Did ya, read the article? ..... or simply scan for key words?????

 

[Penn]

You may want to sit back and wait. . . . . .

Maynard, we've been kicking this thread around for the better part of two days now, and you have to admit it's been following the line of a lot of other threads just like it: Bottom line is that you and (I like that Ken) "other junior members" of your ilk in this discussion seem to want to stick your collective heads in the sand, and watch(hopefully) that Saddam will do nothing. If you cannot see, if you cannot feel this building of pressure, tension, whatever label you want to put on it, you never will .
This heightened awareness, of the Iraqi ties to Al-Qaida have not just recently come to light. There have been rumors of it for months, if not years. An Al-Qaida agent made a trip to Iraq last year, intelligence souces say, and it wasn't even our folks either. Do you really think it was merely a social visit?
The second bottom line is: this guy is that dangerous, that crazy, power hungry, control mad, and people who are in a position to know, are just not willing to take the same chance as you are. The man has got to go , along with whatever WMDs the inspectors find.
You also seem to have difficulty believing the other Arab States would like to see him depart as well. Hogwash. The atmosphere would become a lot easier over in the Middle East if he were not in power, believe it.

penn

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: Jesus H Christ Krebs!

Originally posted by Kain99
If you don't stop NOW, we are going to have to call HAZMAT to get your head out of your ### Krebs!

CRAP! How disconnected can you be? I guess with a bung holio like you, we should all wait until your inhaling a lung full of anthrax or sucking in a chest full of Radiation.......

BTW I noticed your reluctance to reply directly to my previous post...... wonder why?

Well, since we are calling names now, I'll just tell ya', I don't know to which post you are referring, but frankly, most of your posts aren't worth responding to.

 

[Kyle]

Re: Re: OK. Bottom line.

Originally posted by Ken King
... However, recent history tells us that where there is a will there is a way.

Reminds me of a statement I heard a few years back...

Something to the effect of... "We have to be lucky enough to find and stop them every time! They only need be lucky once!"

 

[MGKrebs]

Re: Re: Re: Oh, what webs we weave . . .

DID YA' READ THIS PART KAIN??

The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.

The project was abandoned after the US launched missile attacks on Afghanistan in 1999.

I'll make a deal with you, I won't waste my time responding to your posts if you don't waste yours responding to mine.

 

[Kain99]

Cranky today Krebs?

 

[MGKrebs]

I don't like all the name calling. Not that I'm sensitive or anything, It's just not entertaining or informative or worthwhile in any way.