deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 27, 2004 02:57 PM
Jeez Vincent. I'm SO suprised you haven't changed your mind yet. Has Kerry detailed his "plan" for Iraq to you yet? ROFL. I'm a consultant - I LOVE it when I hear him say "I have a plan. We will gather international unity". ROFL. Thats like saying "I have a plan. I'm going to get rich." AHAHAHA!! Thats NOT a plan at all!
  
|
MadMike
Moderator
FEAR THE BLACK FLAG!!!!!!!!
Posts: 6579
|
posted October 27, 2004 03:52 PM
I usually do not like to get involved in these discussions. But I would like to say that In IOWA, our unemployment is about 2.5%. and almost anyone that wants a job has one. 3 years ago, I placed an add for a production worker and had 88 people apply!! from every level. now I am lucky to get 10! and half of those are referals. so if anyone is looking for a job, start looking in Iowa. we have had our share of plant cut backs, but honestly who's fault is it? it is our fault. what kind of TV do you have, Washer and Dryer? how about your clothes,? toasters,? how many of you shop at Wal-Mart, buying everything at a discount (I am to blame also here) and made in a different country?
The more Tax's they take the more pissed I get! they do not need more! they need to manage what they have and QUIT GIVING IT AWAY!!! to other country's. here is an interesting note, we as a country use 10 million barrels of oil a day, and we produce 500k of them. ok out of 10 million barrels that is approx, 42 gallons of gas. per barrel. which is 420million gallons a day we use, at about .30 per gallon federal Tax, that is 127.5 million $$ a day the goverment gets just from fuel. that is 46Billion,537.5 million $$ a year just in FUEL TAX? anyone that wants to raise taxes, I mean anyone's tax rate is crazy. which one of the candidates want to lower Taxes for business?
and just a short note on the Job thing, If I am not working I am looking! I dont care what it takes, if I have to work at McDonalds, and Wal-Mart! if I cant find work I am going to move somewhere where I can find work and support my family. now this is all my personal opinion and I hope I did not offend anyone, by my thoughts.
____________
200-MPH CLUB MEMBER!
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted October 27, 2004 06:28 PM
Now we have a person I would Vote For Mike Harris! I do not care about what party, I am voting for the MAN!!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 27, 2004 06:30 PM
LOL - vote for Bush - you know its the right thing to do Vincent. Hell, I think you just like messing with us  .
|
Hells Dark Lord
Needs a life
living life, and loving it.
Posts: 7981
|
posted October 28, 2004 03:12 AM
FLUSH THE JOHNS.........
____________
When in doubt, lean farther and go faster....
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted October 28, 2004 06:30 AM
 Edited By: ridgeracer on 28 Oct 2004 07:33
You guys are going to be in for a big shock come nov 3rd.
I was reading an interesting report the other day that basically says that a majority of Bush supporters suffer from 'cognative disonance'.
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
To put it another way the more you pay for a painting, the less likely you are willing to believe its a forgery. They found that Bush supporters believe things about Bush's policies that simply are not true.
quote:
Bush supporters have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assumed that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues—the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%); 51% incorrectly assumed he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty--the principal international accord on global warming. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he opposed it increased from 24% to 38% among Bush supporters, but a majority of supporters (53%) continued to believe that he favors it. Only 13% of supporters are aware that he opposes labor and environmental standards in trade agreements - 74% incorrectly believe that he favors including labor and environmental standards in agreements on trade. In all these cases, there is a recurring theme: majorities of Bush supporters favor these positions, and they infer that Bush favors them as well. For example, in PIPA's September 8 - 12 poll 54% of Bush supporters favored participation in Kyoto, 66% favored participation in the land mines treaty, and 68% favored a treaty prohibiting testing nuclear weapons (CTBT). Apparently in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Bush supporters assume Bush feels as they do.
75% of Kerry supporters on the other hand can accurately state his positions.
A majority of Bush supporters also believe, incorrectly, that the majority of the worlds countries support the war in Iraq and Bush's re-election. One place where bush and kerry supporters agree however is that if Iraq did not have WMDs or substantial links to Terrorsists then we should not have invaded just to oust Saddam.
Why then do they still support the war? Because many not only believe that we have found WMDs in Iraq but that Iraq used chemical weapons against our troops.
The author puts forth the theory that 9/11 scared the crap out of many americans and Bush made them feel safe in the early months. Now however they are so emotionally invested in Bush keeping them safe that they refuse to believe he can do any wrong despite evidence to the contrary. They are like a spouse, who despite mounting evidence that their mate is having an affair continue to delude themselves because if its true it means the end of their home, their family, their universe.
If the Kerry is right then Bush doesn't know what he is doing and has actually made us less safe than more safe. The Truth? They can't handle the truth.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 07:17 AM
I can handle the truth. It is simple. we ARE safer now than ever before. In fact, there is evidence to support this claim. The evidence is simple. WE have not had a significant terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Prior to 9/11 we had about an attack per year. KEep spinning ridge racer, eventually you will pass out .
Kerry does NOTHING but gripe and moan. His possitions are usually "I could have done better". This strikes a chord with all of the wing nut left wingers who are still bitter about the last election. I think it is YOU who will be suprised come November 3rd.
BTW - the war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with WMD's. Again that is a "spin" possition from KErry's camp. I'll break it down simply. The FASLE arguement usually goes something like this "Iraq didn't attack us, Al Queda did. Al Queda was based in Afganistan BLA BLA BLA". Let me pulll a historical context for you. Here is the deal.
1. We were not fighting to eliminate WMD's. We ARE fighting to destroy an idiology - similar to our fight in WWII. In WWII we were fighting fascism. Now we are fighting radical terrorism.
2. (here is the historical context). The entry point into WWII for America was the bombing of Pearl HArbour. To that point, most Americans did not want to go to war (and a significant portion of Americans didn't want to go to war AFTER Pearl - sound familiar?). OK. Now listen CAREFULLY. Who bombed us at Pearl? The Germans? The Italians? NO. The Japanese bombed us. Who did we go to WAR with now? Thats RIGHT. The Germans, the ITalians AND the Japanese. Interesting SIDE note, we concentrated on Europe (Germany and Itally - some fighting in FRance) FIRST. Why? for many reasonse, but primarily (and this is the key point). WE WERE FIGHTING AN IDIOLOGY. Idiology's don't reside in one country. They aren't tied to one person. WMD's were a smokescreen created by the left to take our eyes off of the ball (defeating RADICAL TERRORISM). Please, stop focusing on WMD's - its silly. BTW - KErry's possition on the "large cache of explosives" actually PROVES the point. Iraq WAS in apossition to supply radical terrorists with arms and support.
3. Kerry is an armchair QB. He picks away at "Wedge" issues that strike chords in the uninformed. This is NO WAY TO LEAD. All it does is devide the nation and cause general confusion. If he becomes president - expect more.
4. Kerry sux. .
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted October 28, 2004 09:30 AM
You need to think about this. We got Bombed on Bush's Watch and he is running on this? That is like Rosevelt Running on the Platform "I was President when the Japs Bombed Pearl Harbor!
I was just at lunch with a freind that is Catholic today. What was said really bothered me. The Church is handing out Flyers that they "Cannot" Vote for Kerry and if they do, that they must go to Confession! This really crosses the Line of Church and State!
Last, it looks like a lot of Clinton's Protractors are now finding themselves being tarred with the same brush for what and how they are dealing with "Women" that they are not married to! First was Newt, and now we have Mr. Fox News! The Bible does say, that he who is without Sin, Throw the First Stone!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 09:53 AM
You are blaming BUSH for getting bombed? Vincent - 9/11 happened within the first SIX MONTHS of Bush's presidency. It was a plan that was put in action LONG before Bush was Pres. The world was a different place and we were suffering from YEARS of lax abuse to our military (Clinton). Come on. Get Real.
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted October 28, 2004 10:03 AM
quote:
WMD's were a smokescreen created by the left to take our eyes off of the ball (defeating RADICAL TERRORISM)
Your kidding right? Your just yanking my chain to get a reaction out of me right? No? Let me respond as if your serious, if I can quit laughing long enough.
You guys on the right are just now figuring out the war had nothing to do with WMDs? I, and the 10 million people who stood in the streets protesting the war around the world before it started all knew it had nothing to do with WMDs.
I've never thought that was why we invaded. But that is what the administration was selling the american people to justify it at the time. They knew the people who have to fight the war and pay for it wouldn't support an ideological war. We do supposedly live in some kind of system of, by, for the people. The reason Kerry is bringing it up is to point out that Bush lied to everyone about the reasons.
As for your totally absurd notion of WMDs being a left smokescreen. Lets analyze this little bit of nonsense.
How? How did the 'left' get all those administration officials like Condi, Rummy, and Powell to talk up WMDs? Why did we even send in inspectors? Why did Powell give that WMD presentation at the UN? Where are the transcripts of Whitehouse press sec saying its not about WMDs is about terrorism BEFORE the invasion. You must have been out riding your bike a lot back then to have missed it. How did the left get Bush to put all that stuff in his state of the union speach about mushroom clouds and 100s of tons of chemical weapons?
What your saying is some how the left manipulated the administration to make their agenda his agenda? Think about the ramifications of what your saying? Follow it through. The president is a leftist dupe?
I mean if you really believe that you can be the Cognative Disonance Poster Boy. George Orwell Lives!!!! Peace is War.
quote:
The evidence is simple. WE have not had a significant terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Prior to 9/11 we had about an attack per year.
An attack per year on American Soil? Really? Name them. Name eight attacks during the Clinton administration. On american soil. You can't count the Cole. You can't count the african embassy bombings. You can't count the Saudi Barracks. None were on American Soil. Now we could count them but then to be fair we have to compare ALL attacks on americans since Bush.
According to the state department, attacks on americans overseas have doubled since 9/11, and that does not include iraq. More americans have died under Bush from terrorism than any other president. And why is it bush gets a pass on 9/11?
quote:
Now listen CAREFULLY. Who bombed us at Pearl? The Germans? The Italians? NO. The Japanese bombed us. Who did we go to WAR with now? Thats RIGHT. The Germans, the ITalians AND the Japanese. Interesting SIDE note, we concentrated on Europe (Germany and Itally - some fighting in FRance) FIRST. Why? for many reasonse, but primarily (and this is the key point). WE WERE FIGHTING AN IDIOLOGY.
Wrong again. We went to euorpe first because the continent was overrun and England was about to fall. If we lost england we would of had no forward base from which to mount an invasion. We would of had to bomb the germans from across the atlantic instead of across the english channel. The move was dictated by military necessity, not ideology.
Those were the days. When things were done for military reasons, not political ones.
And to put things in "Historical Perspective" many of this countries biggest industrial leaders like Henry Ford and George W's grandfather thought Facism was a pretty cool idea. Facism now is a dirty word that means diabolical Jew killers, Nazi ect. It actually is a form of government based on business leaders running a country. Ford, Prescott Bush, and others hoped to do business with hitler after the war and fought FDR over getting involved to defend the democratic nations of europe. After pearl harbour though there was no stopping FDR. It actually took an act of congress, the Trading with the Enemy Act, to get these guys to give up their business ties to Germany.
In their defense I'm sure they had no idea what hitler intended for the Jews. I'm sure they just viewed his anti-semitism as political rheotoric designed to motivate his base.....you know the way Bush does with the Gays and the christian right.
quote:
We ARE fighting to destroy an idiology
You can't destroy an idea with bombs and guns. Unless your on a crusade to kill all 1.2 billion muslims in this world. Hearts and Minds as they used to say. For every Iragi insurgent and innocent civilian we kill we convice 2 more to join up.
This was true in vietnam, it was true in Afganistan for the russians, it is true for us in iraq.
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted October 28, 2004 11:07 AM
quote:
You are blaming BUSH for getting bombed? Vincent - 9/11 happened within the first SIX MONTHS of Bush's presidency. It was a plan that was put in action LONG before Bush was Pres. The world was a different place and we were suffering from YEARS of lax abuse to our military (Clinton). Come on. Get Real.
The Captain of the "Ship" (of state) takes the Blame. "The Buck Stops here" is true. Of course when you are perfect and just cannot think of even 1 thing you have ever done wrong 
He was too busy looking at Star wars and AirCraft Carriers. Clint's People tried to warn them and even one person had everyone on Alert in Late August but Bush removed the alret
For the person that stated The "Plan" by Kerry for Iraq?
His Plan is to
#1, Get a real report from the commanders in the Field and send in some of his own people just to verify what they say. Then send in "MORE" troops to secure everything (Taking away from Germany, France and any other place we are not at war and then rotate the Reserves and National Guard to the places where we are not at war so that the National Guard and Reserves on not Front Line troops.
#2, Go back to the nations that Bush Shunned and offer them a chance to help and get the Jobs, Oil and other things Bush refused. FOr France and Germany, they can help train the Iraqies so that we have more people in the field.
Once this is in place and we have "Secured" the country, Hand it over a little at a time back to the Iraqies until just the areas around Bagdad are left and we "Maintain" a presence there until we are invited to leave!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:07 PM
Edited By: deathpulse on 28 Oct 2004 14:29
Here we go...
quote:
quote:
WMD's were a smokescreen created by the left to take our eyes off of the ball (defeating RADICAL TERRORISM)
Your kidding right? Your just yanking my chain to get a reaction out of me right? No? Let me respond as if your serious, if I can quit laughing long enough.
You guys on the right are just now figuring out the war had nothing to do with WMDs? I, and the 10 million people who stood in the streets protesting the war around the world before it started all knew it had nothing to do with WMDs.
I've never thought that was why we invaded. But that is what the administration was selling the american people to justify it at the time. They knew the people who have to fight the war and pay for it wouldn't support an ideological war. We do supposedly live in some kind of system of, by, for the people. The reason Kerry is bringing it up is to point out that Bush lied to everyone about the reasons.
I guess you miss-understood the reason to go to war. Iraq was continuing to push the boundries of the UN sanctions - and was suspected of having ties to terrorists and terrorist activities. On the subject of pushing the boundries of UN sanctions - does THIS sound familiar to you? How about what was happening in Germany in the years building up to WWII? The difference here is that the US did something aobut the issue before it got to a point that Iraq could do REAL damage (ie. the German Blitz). Now, WMD's were a component of the arguement. BUT THEY WERE NOT "THE REASON" TO GO TO WAR. I still fail to see why you can't understand this. Given our current understanding, if things were left unchecked, Iraq's plan was to continue to push the UN and play political games until sanctions were lifted, then to build up its was machine and become a much larger problem - all the while providing a nice safe haven for terrorists. This has been illustrated in various reports that have come out recently.
quote:
As for your totally absurd notion of WMDs being a left smokescreen. Lets analyze this little bit of nonsense.
How? How did the 'left' get all those administration officials like Condi, Rummy, and Powell to talk up WMDs? Why did we even send in inspectors? Why did Powell give that WMD presentation at the UN? Where are the transcripts of Whitehouse press sec saying its not about WMDs is about terrorism BEFORE the invasion. You must have been out riding your bike a lot back then to have missed it. How did the left get Bush to put all that stuff in his state of the union speach about mushroom clouds and 100s of tons of chemical weapons?
What your saying is some how the left manipulated the administration to make their agenda his agenda? Think about the ramifications of what your saying? Follow it through. The president is a leftist dupe?
I mean if you really believe that you can be the Cognative Disonance Poster Boy. George Orwell Lives!!!! Peace is War.
Once again - it was ONE component that was sited. The LARGER issue that this component was a part of was the continued diminsishment of the UN sanctions - recently cited. This is why I call it a "smoke screen". It is ONE SMALL COMPONENT.
quote:
quote:
The evidence is simple. WE have not had a significant terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Prior to 9/11 we had about an attack per year.
An attack per year on American Soil? Really? Name them. Name eight attacks during the Clinton administration. On american soil. You can't count the Cole. You can't count the african embassy bombings. You can't count the Saudi Barracks. None were on American Soil. Now we could count them but then to be fair we have to compare ALL attacks on americans since Bush.
According to the state department, attacks on americans overseas have doubled since 9/11, and that does not include iraq. More americans have died under Bush from terrorism than any other president. And why is it bush gets a pass on 9/11?
FYI - The Cole, Embassys and US Army facilities ARE US SOIL. Guess you didn't know that?
quote:
quote:
Now listen CAREFULLY. Who bombed us at Pearl? The Germans? The Italians? NO. The Japanese bombed us. Who did we go to WAR with now? Thats RIGHT. The Germans, the ITalians AND the Japanese. Interesting SIDE note, we concentrated on Europe (Germany and Itally - some fighting in FRance) FIRST. Why? for many reasonse, but primarily (and this is the key point). WE WERE FIGHTING AN IDIOLOGY.
Wrong again. We went to euorpe first because the continent was overrun and England was about to fall. If we lost england we would of had no forward base from which to mount an invasion. We would of had to bomb the germans from across the atlantic instead of across the english channel. The move was dictated by military necessity, not ideology.
Those were the days. When things were done for military reasons, not political ones.
Using your logic - why did we go to war with Germany or Itally at all? THEY didn't bomb us at Pearl - THEY weren't the agressors. What was the reason? I'm curious as to your answer.
quote:
And to put things in "Historical Perspective" many of this countries biggest industrial leaders like Henry Ford and George W's grandfather thought Facism was a pretty cool idea. Facism now is a dirty word that means diabolical Jew killers, Nazi ect. It actually is a form of government based on business leaders running a country. Ford, Prescott Bush, and others hoped to do business with hitler after the war and fought FDR over getting involved to defend the democratic nations of europe. After pearl harbour though there was no stopping FDR. It actually took an act of congress, the Trading with the Enemy Act, to get these guys to give up their business ties to Germany.
In their defense I'm sure they had no idea what hitler intended for the Jews. I'm sure they just viewed his anti-semitism as political rheotoric designed to motivate his base.....you know the way Bush does with the Gays and the christian right.
Um... facism is now a dirty war because we successfully diminished the idiololgy - and we finally saw the logical conclusion of its ideals - things that were NOT considered by the individuals you mentioned above.
quote:
quote:
We ARE fighting to destroy an idiology
You can't destroy an idea with bombs and guns. Unless your on a crusade to kill all 1.2 billion muslims in this world. Hearts and Minds as they used to say. For every Iragi insurgent and innocent civilian we kill we convice 2 more to join up.
This was true in vietnam, it was true in Afganistan for the russians, it is true for us in iraq.
Actually, you ARE CORRECT!! You defeat idiology through FREEDOM. Thats what GWB has been advocating! Now - a component of freedom is sometimes war - as is the case in Iraq and WAS the case in WWI Germany, Italy AND Japan - all countries that were liberated to freedom through battle. Now - you will NEVER EVER totally defeat an idiology - there are still idiots out there goose stepping and running around praising hilter. There will be crazed terrorists forever. But you CAN diminish an evil, oppressive idiology to the point that it is no longer a world threat through freedom and exposure.
Interesting you bring up Vietnam. A part of the reason for falure in Vietnam (for us) and Afghanistan (for the USSR) was that these two countries were the idiological "puppets" of larger world super-powers. Vietnam was backed by the Soviet Union and Afghanistan was backed by the US. Iraq has no such backing. Another part of the reason that we failed in Vietnam is due to Kerry himself. When you are fighting a war of this type - it is essential to continue your resolve and not to let up. Idiots like Kerry helped to errode our resolve, bolster the enemies idiological and psychological battle and thus destroy the potential for victory. And you want this mess to command our troops?
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:17 PM
Edited By: deathpulse on 28 Oct 2004 14:19
And more -
quote:
quote:
quote:
You are blaming BUSH for getting bombed? Vincent - 9/11 happened within the first SIX MONTHS of Bush's presidency. It was a plan that was put in action LONG before Bush was Pres. The world was a different place and we were suffering from YEARS of lax abuse to our military (Clinton). Come on. Get Real.
The Captain of the "Ship" (of state) takes the Blame. "The Buck Stops here" is true. Of course when you are perfect and just cannot think of even 1 thing you have ever done wrong
Well I can agree with you about "the buck stopping" with the commander in chief - but that buck spreads FAR beyond any 1 administration (our chiefs change often). I don't think its realistic to place the entire sum of blame on a leader that was only placed in charge months prior to the attack. That is silly.
BTW - on the question that was asked in debate #2 (name three mistakes that you have made in your career). Kerry didn't answer this question with HIS three mistakes either - I guess Kerry never makes mistakes??
quote:
He was too busy looking at Star wars and AirCraft Carriers. Clint's People tried to warn them and even one person had everyone on Alert in Late August but Bush removed the alret
I simply don't believe that Clinton had any kind of "better view" of world events. If he had a better view, why didn't Clinton put in better controls against terrorism?
quote:
For the person that stated The "Plan" by Kerry for Iraq?
His Plan is to
#1, Get a real report from the commanders in the Field and send in some of his own people just to verify what they say. Then send in "MORE" troops to secure everything (Taking away from Germany, France and any other place we are not at war and then rotate the Reserves and National Guard to the places where we are not at war so that the National Guard and Reserves on not Front Line troops.
1. It sounds like your assumption here is that Bush isn't getting "real reports" from the battle commanders??? Absurd.
2. I think we have the right number of troops on the ground, based on conversations with people I know in the field. True - you can ALWAYS use more, but there are costs assocaited with this.
quote:
#2, Go back to the nations that Bush Shunned and offer them a chance to help and get the Jobs, Oil and other things Bush refused. FOr France and Germany, they can help train the Iraqies so that we have more people in the field.
You do realize that France and Germany were part of the problem in arming Iraq, correct? In additon, you do realize that France and Germany were a large component of why the UN sanctions were continually being erroded in Iraq, Right? YOu trust them to help now?
quote:
Once this is in place and we have "Secured" the country, Hand it over a little at a time back to the Iraqies until just the areas around Bagdad are left and we "Maintain" a presence there until we are invited to leave!
This is interesting, at first Kerry was advocating "turing the coutnry back over to Iraq ASAP", then it was "build a better coalition". Is this the "latest" possition?
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:36 PM
1. It sounds like your assumption here is that Bush isn't getting "real reports" from the battle commanders??? Absurd.
2. I think we have the right number of troops on the ground, based on conversations with people I know in the field. True - you can ALWAYS use more, but there are costs assocaited with this.
I think like the last General that all of a sudden Retired (Forced is more like it) They were told what the Parameters were and that they had to live within them. Bremmer even saud as much. Why take less troops when even Congress voted for more (Yes even My hero John McCain) Bush tried to fight the war on the Cheap thinking that he would be welcomed as a Hero Liberator! It did not Happen. He got caught with his pants OFF (Not down!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:41 PM
Every war, like anything in life has parameters to live within. Resources for battle are never unlimited, and sometimes you have to make hard choices. I think Bush and his team made some hard choices, but I also believe that we are winning the war and WILL win the war if we keep focused and strong.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:43 PM
BTW - throughout history, generals and other battle field commanders have been removed from command etc etc etc. IT is a natural order of things.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:44 PM
BTW #2 - you guys make me want to drink . I'm going out for a beer!!
|
Canadamaxxer
Pro
Posts: 1090
|
posted October 28, 2004 01:56 PM
Here's a question for anyone to answer: If the weapons of mass destruction were not the reason (or were only a part of the reasons) for the invasion of Iraq AND the major reason was the UN sanctions that were being ignored or flaunted, then why didn't the UN spearhead the "coalition" or have the soldiers go into Iraq sporting the blue helmets and the full support of the UN? From what I remember at the time, the UN condemned the US for the invasion, and the UN's statements were a large reason why many countries did not decide to join the coalition.
I have to admit that I was for the invasion initially and thought that Canada made a huge mistake in not getting involved....after all I actually saw with my own eyes, a section of one of the Iraqi "super guns" in England on display. For those who forget, the idea was to shoot monsterous gas shells into Israel. That sounded like a weapon of mass destruction to me. The thing is that these guns were "apparently" never used and were dismantled after the first gulf war. I figured if the Iraqis could do it once it could be done again.
I actually bought the intelligence reports at the beginning of the 2nd war. As the war progressed (this is all based on what is seen in the media in Canada), Bush had to admit that there were no WMD's to be found. He then switched his story and called it freedom for the Iraqis and the beginning of democracy. That to me was lame.
Isn't it the UN's Job to mediate conflicts and disagreements between countries? When the UN condemns the actions of a country shouldn't that mean something? If someone is going to say that the reason the US entered Iraq was because of the Iraqi flaunting of UN law, AND the US was condemned by the UN for even thinking about invading Iraq.....who is the bad one here? It sounds like one is as bad as the other.
|
deathpulse
Pro
Posts: 1688
|
posted October 28, 2004 02:05 PM
quote:
Here's a question for anyone to answer: If the weapons of mass destruction were not the reason (or were only a part of the reasons) for the invasion of Iraq AND the major reason was the UN sanctions that were being ignored or flaunted, then why didn't the UN spearhead the "coalition" or have the soldiers go into Iraq sporting the blue helmets and the full support of the UN? From what I remember at the time, the UN condemned the US for the invasion, and the UN's statements were a large reason why many countries did not decide to join the coalition.
I have to admit that I was for the invasion initially and thought that Canada made a huge mistake in not getting involved....after all I actually saw with my own eyes, a section of one of the Iraqi "super guns" in England on display. For those who forget, the idea was to shoot monsterous gas shells into Israel. That sounded like a weapon of mass destruction to me. The thing is that these guns were "apparently" never used and were dismantled after the first gulf war. I figured if the Iraqis could do it once it could be done again.
I actually bought the intelligence reports at the beginning of the 2nd war. As the war progressed (this is all based on what is seen in the media in Canada), Bush had to admit that there were no WMD's to be found. He then switched his story and called it freedom for the Iraqis and the beginning of democracy. That to me was lame.
Isn't it the UN's Job to mediate conflicts and disagreements between countries? When the UN condemns the actions of a country shouldn't that mean something? If someone is going to say that the reason the US entered Iraq was because of the Iraqi flaunting of UN law, AND the US was condemned by the UN for even thinking about invading Iraq.....who is the bad one here? It sounds like one is as bad as the other.
OK Canada - one more answer before I drink!
Good question!! This is a VERY similar reason for why the treaties set up after WWI failed to stop Germany from becoming a problem and initiating the Blitz that started WWII. The problem with organizations like the UN - and in WWI the League of Nations - is that they tend to become corrupt over time. This has happened time and time again throughout history and every time it happens, we seem not to learn from the past. For Iraq, UN members that had a vested interest in the riches of Iraq (oil, weapons sales etc) became strong advocates of relaxing the conditions of the sanctions of the UN. These advocates (France, Russia etc) were able to drive enough wedges in the sanctions to dissolve them over time. In WWII this type of complacency and colusion allowed Germany to re-build its ability to make war and to become a REAL world threat. In today's world, Iraq was on a similar course. If the US and its current allies had done nothing - history would have repeated itself YET AGAIN and Iraq would have pursued a course of power through military might as soon as the erroding sanctions were lifted.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted October 28, 2004 02:23 PM
Vincent: why exactly do we need more troops?
Will John Kerry send more troops?
What is John Kerry's actual PLAN to make iraq NOT a mess?
we already know his "stronger international coalition" is a ghost. Even his own campaign admits that Germany and France will NEVER join the USA regardless of who is elected (Contrary to his claims to the opposite)
We already know that his claims to "train Iraqi police forces" are moot since he brings nothing new to the table with that. We already ARE training iraqi police forces.
We already know his "turn over iraq to the iraqis as son as possible" is moot, since we already HAVE plans to do so.
Basically everything Kerry has most recently said as examples of how his great plan will perfect America in the world are moot, since we already have in place everything he claims he will be inventing....
I want to know what claims Kerry has made with regards to Iraq that make you believe he is TRULY in posession of a true PLAN that is better than what we have already.
I want to know these things, because OBVIOUSLY Kerry offers many people *something* that is a plan. and i cannot fathom what special things he is going to do to fix the "mess" (as HE alone puts it) in iraq.
Unfortunately one cannot argue with circular logic, and that is why i want real PLAN and not just "I have a plan" and "We are not willing to divulge the plan, but if we did it would be truly compelling"
As far as WMDs go and such, i have to disagree slightly with DP.
the problem is that many people are thinking that WMDs are a huge stockpile of weapons, biological agents, explosives, nuclear weapons etc.
We did not go to destroy physical weapons. That was what the UN was supposed to be doing for the last decade. Granted, actual physical weapons have been found, and many have been destroyed, or put to use in the rebuilding efforts.
THE MAIN THRUST of the WMD argument centered more around the capability to PRODUCE AND DEVELOP those weapons. Including nuclear.
Who cares if there is only a gallon of anthrax found, or only a few litres of Sarin found. what IS IMPORTANT is the technology to produce them. the knowledge and the equipment. THOSE ITEMS, if al queda were to acquire them, would provide a VERY GRAVE danger to all non-muslims, and any muslims that speak out against al queda. we're talking most of the world here having ahuge bulls-eye on their backs. on their children's backs. (See Russia.....)
As someone who was on the "front line" for a period of time, we were ALL at risk from those sorts of attacks. One good shot of bio agent in our ship would have killed every living thing on board. this goes for ANY Naval vessel....of which there are plenty in that region, and, in fact, all over the world.
Anyone on ground-based installations (Bahrain for example) were even less protected. ANY of the myriad of workers at the bases could have the potential to provide access to al queda operatives. If they show up with a small bottle of your favorite bio-toxin, and contaminate the water supply....
We went to Iraq to ensure that NONE of these scenarios could occur. Failure to find huge stockpiles of weapons is a GOOD thing. that means we got to it before they developed the technology. So far all that i have read about were leftovers from stocks that (as best as i can determine from the news accounts) WE had provided in the 80s.
We found MIG fighters buried in sand, what else might be buried.
From one of the Army guys who first arrived at the weapons cache that Kerry is screaming about missing explosives (380 tonnes or so), those containers were already unsealed....empty...and that was day 2 of the invasion. Where did the explosives go? The UN had just inventoried them..and sealed them.
But we also found his nuclear development people intact, and their information. Thankfully, nothing of their research had bourne fruit....
All of these things seem minor and paltry compared to 1100 American lives lost inthis endeavor. And, in somepoints of view, they ARE.
However in a long-term world view, EVERY PERSON has less to worry about concerning Iraq and their leader providing the technology to those who WILL use it against them.
And of course, the next followup is this: why haven't we gone in to North Korea yet?
2 simple reasons
1. NK already HAS the nuclear weapons technology, and the devices. And has shown a willingness to use them. Now, whether they truly WOULD launch is another question, but that is something that cannot be ignored. If we go in, other cuontries can be made to suffer, like Japan.....All in effort to defuse support for whomever is trying to take action.
2. What is the possibility of NK providing Islamic Terrorists with nuclear weapons? Especially since the terrorists don't care WHO they attack as long as they are not Muslim extremists? Granted there is still a chance, but i feel that Al Queda is barking up the wrong tree if they think NK wil provide them with devices that likely would be turned against them...NK does NOT want to be part of a muslim world order such as al queda plans...they want to be king of their own affairs...
There are probably many other reasons not to deal in NK now, but since i no longer deal with military and with information that is classified, i have no real data other than basic common sense....
Vincent: It is interesting that people that get canned always have the best stories to tell about the ones who canned them ;P
Have you read any of the reports from iraq that the lady from arkansas is sendingback? Interesting reading. Never a mention of needing more troops...or having too few to do the job...and i bet that would come up if it were TRULY an issue....
quote:
"tried to fight the war on the CHEAP
i wonder if you have any idea what it would mean to committ the entire forces at once....
i wonder if you have any clue how much support it truly takes to support a million men in the field, the supplies, the waste removal, ESPECIALLY in an area with no real facilities....
it's interesting that people with no military experience are soooo adept at saying how a military excercise *should* have been conducted.
You know, for 6 month deployment we loaded the boat with EASILY 2-4 tons of food... (somewhere around 15 pallets one day.....talk about tired....about 1000 pounds of flour alone.....that came in 70 pound cans.....vertical hatch, 20 ft.....hand over hand...can over bloody can....endless stream of the things....)
for 130 people.....
multiply that out...... for 10000 people...100000 people....1000000 people....
onthe cheap is also of supply necessity...
of course, we had the ocean as a convenient place to discharge sewage and such, no such luck on a land based field of operation...........i don't remember how many gallons daily went to feed the fishies....
  
|
VincentHill
Needs a life
Posts: 6520
|
posted October 28, 2004 04:10 PM
it's interesting that people with no military experience are soooo adept at saying how a military excercise *should* have been conducted.
This is my point! Bush has no Military experience and Kerry does!
We needed twice as many people to make the streets secure, Cover the Amo Dumps, Pipe Lines, Hospitals, Stop Looters everything that was not Done!
____________
Made History @ Daytona and still one fast old man!!
|
Dino
Pro
Posts: 1422
|
posted October 28, 2004 05:44 PM
Shit fed lemmings.
____________
uh oh
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted October 28, 2004 05:58 PM
quote:
it's interesting that people with no military experience are soooo adept at saying how a military excercise *should* have been conducted.
This is my point! Bush has no Military experience and Kerry does!
We needed twice as many people to make the streets secure, Cover the Amo Dumps, Pipe Lines, Hospitals, Stop Looters everything that was not Done!
and you ignore everything else about having twice as many people....
the point is this though: Bush didn't RUN the military exercise....that's what the generals get paid the big bucks to do....
the ammo dump WAS gaurded, it was just empty before they got there....
the SOA was so fast that NOONE anticipated how quickly baghdad fell...
but ultimately your gripe lies not with Bush, but with the people on the ground who actually decided when and where to guard... they never sent a memo to Bush every time asking "Do we get to gaurd this one? what about this palace? what about this street here, can we gaurd it too daddy bush?"
Bush gets the big picture..."here, go get Saddam, don't blow up any mosques, don't kill the civilians, but get him and get him out of power"
obviously many people in the USA do NOT get the big picture though, and think that he (Bush) makes the call on every point of the combat missions.....
No where have i EVER said Kerry is unfit to be CIC because of his military experience or lack thereof. my gripe has ALWAYS been his disgusting conduct as a naval officer, and as a naval reserve officer. my gripe is his abhorrent record of anti-sovreignty ("We must pass the global test",if a soldier dies under UN action it is honorable, but if it is unilateral US action it is not, etc etc) and his inability to make a firm comitment and stick with it. (Which way did he say Iraq was going to go again?)
even his own campaign is slowly retracting things he is saying... on MANY fronts... his OWN WEBSITE even came out sayinghis first PH was self inflicted (unintentionally)
even his OWN WEBSITE is backing down on the "missing explosives" story...
I am still waiting on what miracle cures Kerry has promised (Besides paralyzed people walking soon after Kerry takes office) on the iraq front...
what IS his plan? and how does it differ from what we currently have in place?
|
BA
Pro
Posts: 1592
|
posted October 28, 2004 07:00 PM
Edited By: BA on 28 Oct 2004 20:03
I can't fathom the logic behind some people's repeated posts pointing to a single man as being the 'cause', or, 'at fault' for so many different things.
It's not like Bush is the Hand of God or something! He is not involved with every decision on our war-front OR here at home.
Like Slug said,.....our nations leader helps to set the goals and priorities, provides direction, that doesn't make him solely to blame if something goes wrong. Democrat OR Replublican. Geez.
|
fattkaw
Expert Class
Posts: 277
|
posted October 28, 2004 07:14 PM
WMD?!?!!? HE LIED! WE TOOK OUT A USELESS FIGURE AND OUR FRIENDS ARE DIEING!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC