Going forward
- Thread starter MGKrebs
- Start date
red
New Member
Re: Happy new year, red.
don't think i've heard of that one. i've only seen the previews for 'gangs of new york'.
you should post a review in entertainment.
Originally posted by MGKrebs
I'm just catching up. Just got back from seeing Catch Me If You Can. I think Leonardo diCaprio is going to be a good actor. Glad to see he's not just a flash in the pan.
don't think i've heard of that one. i've only seen the previews for 'gangs of new york'.
you should post a review in entertainment.
H
Heretic
Guest
First off It wasnt Bush that caused the situation it was Saddam. Secondly I only seems to have been brought to a head because nothing was being done before, which was definatly the wrong thing.
Saddam is the one who broke over 16 UN resolutions that he agreed on.
Saddam is the one who keeps on poking a sleeping dog.
Saddam is the one being difficult when it comes to weapons inspectors.
Saddam is the one ordering that our planes patroling the no fly zones (that he also agreed on) to be fired on at every chance.
Saddam is the one handing our rifles to the general population right now.
Saddam can completely change what is going on, by coming clean, living up to his word, and respecting the UNs decisions.
Saddam was the one that said "hey if you stop kicking my ### Ill agree to all this 11 years ago".
Its not really about security in my eyes, thats just how it has to be sold to the American people, remember this is also a propaganda war. It is about keeping things from worsening, keeping something like this from happening again (somewhere else?). If one country can get away with what Iraq has (Ignoring UN resolutions it agreed to), surely more will follow. In my eyes we are trying to avoid what Europe did pre-WWII with Germany.
Saddam is the one who broke over 16 UN resolutions that he agreed on.
Saddam is the one who keeps on poking a sleeping dog.
Saddam is the one being difficult when it comes to weapons inspectors.
Saddam is the one ordering that our planes patroling the no fly zones (that he also agreed on) to be fired on at every chance.
Saddam is the one handing our rifles to the general population right now.
Saddam can completely change what is going on, by coming clean, living up to his word, and respecting the UNs decisions.
Saddam was the one that said "hey if you stop kicking my ### Ill agree to all this 11 years ago".
Its not really about security in my eyes, thats just how it has to be sold to the American people, remember this is also a propaganda war. It is about keeping things from worsening, keeping something like this from happening again (somewhere else?). If one country can get away with what Iraq has (Ignoring UN resolutions it agreed to), surely more will follow. In my eyes we are trying to avoid what Europe did pre-WWII with Germany.
K
Kain99
Guest
NONE.. Of this B.S. would be going on if women were running the show!
We've got a bunch of short dingus butt heads in charge, all trying to prove they are best!
This world will brought to it's knees by men!
Sorry...stupid post! I just hate Biscuit right now!
We've got a bunch of short dingus butt heads in charge, all trying to prove they are best!
This world will brought to it's knees by men!
Sorry...stupid post! I just hate Biscuit right now!
You claim that he can’t shoot missiles at us. Prove it. Put up or shut up. I contend he can shoot at us, or deliver various WMD by a multitude of means. We already have people within his range that he could target. For me shooting at them is shooting at us. Iraq still has access to ships that a scud could be carried on and when in range fired upon many of our coastal cities. Iraq still has air carriers flying in and out of their country that could have WMD placed aboard and delivered from our skies. Terrorists can be given WMD for use against us. I have only scratched the surface of the many scenarios that could come to be. Pull your head out of your @ss and you might even see these and several other more imaginative possibilities.
Not their jurisdiction? You are an idiot. One of the primary functions of our government is “to provide for the common defense”. This current government, as well as a previous one has determined that Iraq is a threat. The UN Security Council has determined that Iraq is a threat. The General Assembly has on numerous occasions condemned Iraq and Hussein. Everyone in the world, but poor little Maynard, sees the threat.
I bet you still haven’t checked exactly what the UN has determined concerning Iraq. Until you do your opinions are baseless and you might as well keep your mouth shut until you read them. Your dribble is boring me boy.
You get it through your think head you ignorant twit, when will you learn that the only thing Saddam listens to is force. The pussyfooting that our previous administration showed has resulted in what? Continued violation of UN resolutions, continued possession of WMD, attempted obtainment of nuclear weapons, atrocities against his people with WMD, and economical depravation to his people because sanctions are in place until they do come into compliance.
For 11 years diplomacy and no significant consequences suffered have resulted in nothing at all. The people of Iraq suffer and the region is still threatened by the capabilities that Iraq possesses. Control, contain, and watch isn’t working on removing the threat or coming into compliance with what has been either agreed to or demanded by the world.
And where is this “rest of the world” that is in agreement with you? All your keyboard shouting doesn’t make it so. Also let me know when your convictions are such that you hop on that bus to come up to DC to protest our actions in Iraq. Maybe all the people and I that think this is the right thing to do can get together with you and your following and work this out.
Oh yeah, Happy Freaking New Year Lil' Buddy.
Last edited:
We just disagree. After "vetting" and refining my position here, I am satisfied that it is consistent and appropriate, and I am comfortable with it.
Responses:
Missiles- Anything other than a missile attack or a military assault looks like a terrorist attack to me. Our defense against terrorism is different than making war with Iraq. Any of those things you mentioned are not changed one bit by bombing Baghdad. Israel doesn't even think he has the capabilty to deliver WMD's to them. I am not in the CIA, I am relying on the statements of other countries' representatives, which I posted earlier.
As I have said over and over- Saddam may be some sort of threat, but almost nobody believes he is such a threat that it requires war. We've been through this before, and if I remember correctly, the Congress urges the President to take action necessary to enforce the UN regulations. They didn't declare war, they didn't say ignore the UN will, they didn't appropriate any money, they didn't define conditions, they just passed a resolution.
"Continued violation of UN resolutions, continued possession of WMD, attempted obtainment of nuclear weapons, atrocities against his people with WMD, and economical depravation to his people because sanctions are in place until they do come into compliance."
Violation of UN regs means the UN gets to decide the appropriate response.
Possession of WMD's- say's who? And even if they do, see above.
Atrocities- this kind of stuff is dealt with throughout the world all the time, by means other than war.
Deprivation- many times other members of the UN, security council included, have tried to refine the sanctions to fix this. The US blocks all attempts. I don't know who's wrong or right, but it's not a justification for war when we are the one's preventing possible relief.
"For 11 years diplomacy and no significant consequences suffered have resulted in nothing at all."
"Nothing at all" seems like a good thing to me. Sounds like it's working.
I am not an anti-war protester because I am not against war under any circumstances. Protesters have to simplify their message so much that no distinctions can be made- it's all or nothing. This is too complicated for that.
Responses:
Missiles- Anything other than a missile attack or a military assault looks like a terrorist attack to me. Our defense against terrorism is different than making war with Iraq. Any of those things you mentioned are not changed one bit by bombing Baghdad. Israel doesn't even think he has the capabilty to deliver WMD's to them. I am not in the CIA, I am relying on the statements of other countries' representatives, which I posted earlier.
As I have said over and over- Saddam may be some sort of threat, but almost nobody believes he is such a threat that it requires war. We've been through this before, and if I remember correctly, the Congress urges the President to take action necessary to enforce the UN regulations. They didn't declare war, they didn't say ignore the UN will, they didn't appropriate any money, they didn't define conditions, they just passed a resolution.
"Continued violation of UN resolutions, continued possession of WMD, attempted obtainment of nuclear weapons, atrocities against his people with WMD, and economical depravation to his people because sanctions are in place until they do come into compliance."
Violation of UN regs means the UN gets to decide the appropriate response.
Possession of WMD's- say's who? And even if they do, see above.
Atrocities- this kind of stuff is dealt with throughout the world all the time, by means other than war.
Deprivation- many times other members of the UN, security council included, have tried to refine the sanctions to fix this. The US blocks all attempts. I don't know who's wrong or right, but it's not a justification for war when we are the one's preventing possible relief.
"For 11 years diplomacy and no significant consequences suffered have resulted in nothing at all."
"Nothing at all" seems like a good thing to me. Sounds like it's working.
I am not an anti-war protester because I am not against war under any circumstances. Protesters have to simplify their message so much that no distinctions can be made- it's all or nothing. This is too complicated for that.
Rebuttal:
Yeah, not anti-war, just a “do nothing” type of guy. Real insightful tidbit there Lil’ Buddy.
Iraq has missiles, ever hear of the SS-1. They have the ability to get it within range of our coastal cities. What don’t you understand about that? Yeah, I know you aren’t in the CIA, they have a minimum requirement for intelligence. Though you might find that you are qualified to be first mate on the SS Minnow.
You are wrong, Lil’ Buddy. Saddam is a threat, no “maybe” to it, and everyone sees it but you. And wrong again “Gilligan” as Congress authorized the President to take any and all actions necessary against Iraq to include military force. (Read PL 107-243)
These are resolutions and not regulations, come on get it right for once. Hell you’ve even posted information about this, remember typing “The United Nations' top refugee official has warned that war with Iraq would create a human catastrophe, especially if biological or chemical weapons are used.” Again all of this is contained in the UN Resolutions. Have you read them yet? Quit shooting from the hip and at least read them so you know what the hell you are talking about. Do you need a link to them? If you read them you might understand what Iraq is in violation of and what actions the UN has stated that member nations will do to bring Iraq into compliance.
Well you are about the only one who sees non-compliance as a success, oh wait Clinton and Gore felt the same way, didn’t they? They gave Hussein 8 unfettered years to improve his capability and you want to give him even more. You, in the words of Bugs Bunny, are a maroon.
Yeah, not anti-war, just a “do nothing” type of guy. Real insightful tidbit there Lil’ Buddy.
Last edited:
H
Heretic
Guest
At one point none of Europe thought Hitler was a thread either. Tell me how that one worked out?
H
Heretic
Guest
Just found this
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, providing the logic for a possible reversal in his strong anti-war stance, said that force was sometimes needed against dictators.
"We Germans know from our own experience that sometimes only violence can stop dictators," Schroeder said in his New Year's televised address to the nation. "But we also know what bombs, destruction and losses at home mean for people."
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, providing the logic for a possible reversal in his strong anti-war stance, said that force was sometimes needed against dictators.
"We Germans know from our own experience that sometimes only violence can stop dictators," Schroeder said in his New Year's televised address to the nation. "But we also know what bombs, destruction and losses at home mean for people."
I do not understand foreign policy and why people see things the way that they do. The GOP and the early conservative thought was that intervention in foreign wars was a big no-no. They opposed Serbia and other foreign conflicts as well as a score of UN actions. Yet now, this Republican president has decided to listen to the UN and get involved in a foreign conflict. I am glad to see it but it is also opposite to the Republican belief on foreign affairs.
The same for liberals. They should support this war because of their defense of human rights and opposition to oppressive dictatorships. I recall Krebs saying that this is different from Kosovo because there is no genocide in Iraq. While it cannot be labeled genocide, there is still significant murder in Iraq that has to be stopped.
Yet here the conservatives support the war (I am assuming that they support it because their beloved president does) and the liberals oppose the war (I am assuming they oppose it because Bush supports it.) I am baffled.
The same for liberals. They should support this war because of their defense of human rights and opposition to oppressive dictatorships. I recall Krebs saying that this is different from Kosovo because there is no genocide in Iraq. While it cannot be labeled genocide, there is still significant murder in Iraq that has to be stopped.
Yet here the conservatives support the war (I am assuming that they support it because their beloved president does) and the liberals oppose the war (I am assuming they oppose it because Bush supports it.) I am baffled.
H
Heretic
Guest
While I supported us helping out in Kosovo I opposed it because the rest of Europe just stood by and expected us to fix it....hello they are your neighbors. I also think the decision to intervene was marred and actually caused by the whole Monica situation. Not to mention the way we did it, dropped bombs from 10000 ft and didn't exactly do anything else. I think the whole Somalia situation made Clinton very wary of getting involved. It practically said "Ok we will intervene until we have to make saccrifices then your SOL." People like Bin Laden still make reference to such policies.
As far as genocide in Iraq what is attacking the Kurds with mustard gas? I guess if its not a minority that people care about its not worth intervening.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, being of no fixed party (though registered as a Democrat) I see what the difference is regarding Serbia/Kosovo. There you had a fight for independence as Yugoslavia broke apart. It was a civil war. A matter of self-determination. What finally got us in there (reluctantly) was the reported genocide and UN demands for intervention. And honestly I think that for the most part the unrest in that region wasn’t very significant to our national interest and there was definitely no threat to us. In other words, why bother.
With Iraq the threat is real. They have a lot of weapons. Check out this site, it shows what they still have. http://198.65.138.161/military/world/iraq/index.html I see a lot of ways to deliver WMD.
Heretic, I agree with a lot of what you say, but reread this post. You basically opposed these wars because well Clinton. It was a partisan thing, nothing else. Same thing can go for Krebs. You sound like Krebs when you question Clinton's motives. Make up your own mind and don't just make decisions based on if you like the president or not.
H
Heretic
Guest
It was more the way we did it that bothered me.
PS I voted for Clinton
PS I voted for Clinton
H
Heretic
Guest
Its mostly the reason Im so critical of him, he didn't turn out anything like I expected.