US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 33 of 85 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #642 Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:59 PM
Reply #642 Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:59 PM
The UN would directly feed the population of Iraq, medicine as well. Investigations of cluelty would also be heard, The inspectors would no longer rely on Iraqi government help and the inspection unit would have armed UN peace keepers.
The searches would be more secret and intelegence more effective, 100,000 UN peace troop would be in the country incase he 'decided' to attack the inpspectors.
I had other ideas but I guess it is too late....
The searches would be more secret and intelegence more effective, 100,000 UN peace troop would be in the country incase he 'decided' to attack the inpspectors.
I had other ideas but I guess it is too late....
bakerstreet
Reply #643 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:02 PM
Reply #643 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:02 PM
Dave: be serious, you sound like you are wearing an aluminum foil hat.
I would have loved to hear your opinion on attacking Al Queda *before* 9/11.
"Hey Dave! Whataya think about the US riding into Afghanistan and enacting regime change? Heck, they might attack us someday!"
Can you imagine the statistics I would have had thrown at me? How small and outdated their military is, how far away they are, how we pumped them full of money... Who'd a thunk that 20 guys and a few box-cutters would do the trick? Saddam, on the other hand is no big woop. He is halfway across the world from the US and has an really old military and... oh, wait...
Would doing nothing then have been more effective than doing nothing now? How far back would the inaction have to go to be really effective?
People always have to die to make people pissy enough to act. Sadly, it seems that it has to be more and more people closer and closer to home. The Iraqi people don't seem to be close enough to any major Judeo-Christian nation to warrant action.
****
As for colonization, you're cracked. If we decided to farm Iraq for oil, the rest of the middle eastern oil producers would flood the market with it, drop it to 10 bucks a barrel ruin everyone but themselves. france's petty aspirations in oil and arms sales are a flea circus, and Iraq has just enough to keep a flea circus fat and happy. Unfortunately, the french business model relies on an evil dictator starving his people and threatening the world...
I would have loved to hear your opinion on attacking Al Queda *before* 9/11.
"Hey Dave! Whataya think about the US riding into Afghanistan and enacting regime change? Heck, they might attack us someday!"
Can you imagine the statistics I would have had thrown at me? How small and outdated their military is, how far away they are, how we pumped them full of money... Who'd a thunk that 20 guys and a few box-cutters would do the trick? Saddam, on the other hand is no big woop. He is halfway across the world from the US and has an really old military and... oh, wait...
Would doing nothing then have been more effective than doing nothing now? How far back would the inaction have to go to be really effective?
People always have to die to make people pissy enough to act. Sadly, it seems that it has to be more and more people closer and closer to home. The Iraqi people don't seem to be close enough to any major Judeo-Christian nation to warrant action.
****
As for colonization, you're cracked. If we decided to farm Iraq for oil, the rest of the middle eastern oil producers would flood the market with it, drop it to 10 bucks a barrel ruin everyone but themselves. france's petty aspirations in oil and arms sales are a flea circus, and Iraq has just enough to keep a flea circus fat and happy. Unfortunately, the french business model relies on an evil dictator starving his people and threatening the world...
JamMeister33
Reply #644 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:02 PM
Reply #644 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:02 PM
Okay, I've read all the posts, I've weighed the pros and cons, and the only thing I want to know is:
I was under the impression that JoetheBlow was a male.....
Now, he is evidently a transvestite..... is this true, Joe?
I was under the impression that JoetheBlow was a male.....
Now, he is evidently a transvestite..... is this true, Joe?
paxx
Reply #645 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:10 PM
Reply #645 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:10 PM
Bakerstreet: "Unfortunately, the french business model relies on an evil dictator starving his people and threatening the world... "
You're joking, right? Cause that's pretty much the model for all the western civilisation, starting with the US.
You're joking, right? Cause that's pretty much the model for all the western civilisation, starting with the US.
paxx
Reply #646 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:11 PM
Reply #646 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:11 PM
well, maybe not the "threatening the world" bit, but dictator starving his people. Yep, sounds like the perfect country for cheap labour and cheap primary resources the way we like them.
alo_cmr
Reply #647 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:13 PM
Reply #647 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:13 PM
I'm back people!!!
>Yeah, scud missiles which he's not supposed to have...so much for weapons inspections
Nop, everybody knew they have it, justbecause the are short-medium range missiles and the have the right to have them.
>FB: Alo, shouldn't you be protesting
>YOUR government. Spain is allied
>with the US in this matter. At least
>our government is carrying out the
>popular will of its people.
I protest my goverment because it is not doing what i voted it to do!. I'm not the only one who thinks it,like more than 10 million people over here (and we are 40 million).
>Hum, didn't you read the news? The
>Spain government had to back out.
>Although it supported the US prior
>to the war, they decided against
>helping the US militarely.
we give US support, not military help.Our goverment never said it was deploying troops there.
>Alo is spending all this energy
>worrying about the US. Apparently
>their democracy over there in Spain
>has some serious problems.
You have taken the words right out of my mouth.
>We are stopping Adof Hitler now, not
>after he starts WW3.
Do you really think that???, was irak invading any other country right now?, was irak growing it military forces? NO. so dont thing that, its silly.
>Spain - allowed Washington to use
>two of its military bases and
>offered various combat jets.
Spain has NEVER offered 6 comat jets to US, we "need to protect our allies as we signed NATO staff" and france, germany, Britain, Italy and all other NATO allies will send forces to protect out allies in case of military action against one of it. The allie in question: Turkey.
joetheblow -> We have read your staff more than 5 times, please don't repeat what yau have already posted. It's repetitive.
>Yeah, scud missiles which he's not supposed to have...so much for weapons inspections
Nop, everybody knew they have it, justbecause the are short-medium range missiles and the have the right to have them.
>FB: Alo, shouldn't you be protesting
>YOUR government. Spain is allied
>with the US in this matter. At least
>our government is carrying out the
>popular will of its people.
I protest my goverment because it is not doing what i voted it to do!. I'm not the only one who thinks it,like more than 10 million people over here (and we are 40 million).
>Hum, didn't you read the news? The
>Spain government had to back out.
>Although it supported the US prior
>to the war, they decided against
>helping the US militarely.
we give US support, not military help.Our goverment never said it was deploying troops there.
>Alo is spending all this energy
>worrying about the US. Apparently
>their democracy over there in Spain
>has some serious problems.
You have taken the words right out of my mouth.
>We are stopping Adof Hitler now, not
>after he starts WW3.
Do you really think that???, was irak invading any other country right now?, was irak growing it military forces? NO. so dont thing that, its silly.
>Spain - allowed Washington to use
>two of its military bases and
>offered various combat jets.
Spain has NEVER offered 6 comat jets to US, we "need to protect our allies as we signed NATO staff" and france, germany, Britain, Italy and all other NATO allies will send forces to protect out allies in case of military action against one of it. The allie in question: Turkey.
joetheblow -> We have read your staff more than 5 times, please don't repeat what yau have already posted. It's repetitive.
joetheblow
Reply #649 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:35 PM
Reply #649 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:35 PM
I never agreed with Bush about the cololition of the willing being multilateral (in dictionary definition it is). As far as I see it is nothing like the Gulf War and the countries involved seem to need something from the US in one way or another.
I think that is why so many debate this action as unilateral. Also many say its is unilateral because if the US did not say anything or do anything then there would be nothing happening.
Then all my previous questions would have to be answered in one way or another.
joetheblow still waits for someone to come up with some kind os solution to this issue and the questions posed.
I think that is why so many debate this action as unilateral. Also many say its is unilateral because if the US did not say anything or do anything then there would be nothing happening.
Then all my previous questions would have to be answered in one way or another.
joetheblow still waits for someone to come up with some kind os solution to this issue and the questions posed.
joetheblow
Reply #650 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:43 PM
I know it repeatative alo, beacuse know one has answered them. No even you.
But you come up with nice one liners though. I also like some of the facts you use too. Too bad my questions still remain unaswered by all of your posts.
I do not like war and I protest how the Bush Administration went about it, Nevertheless, the questions I posed remain.
Reply #650 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:43 PM
I know it repeatative alo, beacuse know one has answered them. No even you.
But you come up with nice one liners though. I also like some of the facts you use too. Too bad my questions still remain unaswered by all of your posts.
I do not like war and I protest how the Bush Administration went about it, Nevertheless, the questions I posed remain.
JamMeister33
Reply #653 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:47 PM
Reply #653 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:47 PM
okay, spain has re-entered the equation.... but joe tell me it ain't so.....
joetheblow
Reply #654 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:52 PM
Reply #654 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:52 PM
Madam???
just a mistake when editing my personal preferences....
besides, what IS gender? what IS Gender bias?
haven't felt like changing it back yet
just a mistake when editing my personal preferences....
besides, what IS gender? what IS Gender bias?
haven't felt like changing it back yet
JamMeister33
Reply #655 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:56 PM
Reply #655 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:56 PM
okay, if that's how you feel about it.... I guess Ms. JamMeister33 wouldn't bother you then?
JamMeister33
Reply #656 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:58 PM
Reply #656 Thursday, March 20, 2003 11:58 PM
They won't let me call myself Lord Almighty High and Magnificent JamMeister33......
so I guess I'll just have to make do....
so I guess I'll just have to make do....
joetheblow
Reply #657 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:05 AM
Reply #657 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:05 AM
I have called myself the King of screenshots and downloads, but they don't have that title here.
joetheblow goes off to 'fix' the title 'error'
joetheblow goes off to 'fix' the title 'error'
DavidK
Reply #658 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:38 AM
Reply #658 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:38 AM
Auguste - you seem to be believing the CNN version of Homeland Security and the WAR ON TERROR. We never did get invaded or attacked by Afganis. We actually don't know who the 19 hijackers were, it seems most were using false identities stolen a couple years before. Their nationalities are listed as Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and I think a Yemenite and maybe a Syrian (don't remember now).
But according to Robert Mueller of the FBI there isn't a single shred of evidence connecting any of them to anyone or any group in Afganistan. So, why did Bush and Cheney insist there be no investigation into 9/11? That really bugged me, in fact it totally pissed me off. When it became public that they were going around behind the scenes telling (begging even) Senators and Congressmen there can't be any investigation, suddenly they change their minds and allow a cursory investigation headed by a CIA guy (since Kissinger, their first choice was too much even for CNN). The other investigation started by Congress was stonewalled by both the FBI and the CIA. The reports of some of the hijackers having been involved in programs at highly secured military bases (even the DLI for chrissakes, a spy school) was met, in a congressional hearing, with this from a base commander "We won't tell you anything, it's classified" Was he there? "I won't say" We'll just call the base and check "They've been instructed not to talk to you". Just great... but you're comforted because we invaded Afganistan.
Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA. His group, the Mujahedeen (now Al-Qaida), were trained at Ft Benning in the art of inflicting terror. Ostensibly, this was to bug the Soviets... or was that all there was to it? We'll probably never know the whole truth but the bits we do know are enough to demand some changes in the way our government does things. Not that they'll listen.
Although, last I heard the terrorist training facility at Ft Benning (the School of the Americas) was being closed because of public pressure, after churning out thousands of blood thirsty murderous terrorists that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths and unspeakable terrorist crimes all over the world.
Don't forget, this is all about 9/11. That's where the justification comes from. Like the Patriot Act (which was conveniently already written beforehand). Why doesn't anyone want to know who really was behind 9/11? Why was the timing so good coming on the exact day after we had moved our invasion force to the Middle East (for an unprecedented "war games" on a scale never seen before - they say) and in the exact 4 week window we had given for our invasion of Afganistan and the overthrow of the Taliban in the meeting in Brussels with foriegn ministers from Pakistan, India, Great Britain and a few others that took place in June 2001?
Why didn't the FBI or the CIA alert the airports to watch for these guys when they had 4 names and the plans 8 days before? Why did the FBI sabatoge the efforts of 2 different teams investigating the actual terror cells that did the hijacking?? Why was the head of the FBI's anti-terror squad who personally altered documents requesting a search warrant and hid the concurrent investigations from each other PROMOTED?
Why did George Bush sit silently in a classroom in Florida for over half an hour while America was being attacked? He did nothing, just sat there, knowing 4 planes have been hijacked, two had plowed into the WTC one was headed for the pentagon. No one knew (supposedly) what was going on so he could have been a target too. Why sit in a classroom full of children endangering all their lives? For 45 minutes! Not until some twenty minutes after the second plane hit the WTC did someone come in and get him... too strange to believe.
But according to Robert Mueller of the FBI there isn't a single shred of evidence connecting any of them to anyone or any group in Afganistan. So, why did Bush and Cheney insist there be no investigation into 9/11? That really bugged me, in fact it totally pissed me off. When it became public that they were going around behind the scenes telling (begging even) Senators and Congressmen there can't be any investigation, suddenly they change their minds and allow a cursory investigation headed by a CIA guy (since Kissinger, their first choice was too much even for CNN). The other investigation started by Congress was stonewalled by both the FBI and the CIA. The reports of some of the hijackers having been involved in programs at highly secured military bases (even the DLI for chrissakes, a spy school) was met, in a congressional hearing, with this from a base commander "We won't tell you anything, it's classified" Was he there? "I won't say" We'll just call the base and check "They've been instructed not to talk to you". Just great... but you're comforted because we invaded Afganistan.
Osama Bin Laden worked for the CIA. His group, the Mujahedeen (now Al-Qaida), were trained at Ft Benning in the art of inflicting terror. Ostensibly, this was to bug the Soviets... or was that all there was to it? We'll probably never know the whole truth but the bits we do know are enough to demand some changes in the way our government does things. Not that they'll listen.
Although, last I heard the terrorist training facility at Ft Benning (the School of the Americas) was being closed because of public pressure, after churning out thousands of blood thirsty murderous terrorists that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths and unspeakable terrorist crimes all over the world.
Don't forget, this is all about 9/11. That's where the justification comes from. Like the Patriot Act (which was conveniently already written beforehand). Why doesn't anyone want to know who really was behind 9/11? Why was the timing so good coming on the exact day after we had moved our invasion force to the Middle East (for an unprecedented "war games" on a scale never seen before - they say) and in the exact 4 week window we had given for our invasion of Afganistan and the overthrow of the Taliban in the meeting in Brussels with foriegn ministers from Pakistan, India, Great Britain and a few others that took place in June 2001?
Why didn't the FBI or the CIA alert the airports to watch for these guys when they had 4 names and the plans 8 days before? Why did the FBI sabatoge the efforts of 2 different teams investigating the actual terror cells that did the hijacking?? Why was the head of the FBI's anti-terror squad who personally altered documents requesting a search warrant and hid the concurrent investigations from each other PROMOTED?
Why did George Bush sit silently in a classroom in Florida for over half an hour while America was being attacked? He did nothing, just sat there, knowing 4 planes have been hijacked, two had plowed into the WTC one was headed for the pentagon. No one knew (supposedly) what was going on so he could have been a target too. Why sit in a classroom full of children endangering all their lives? For 45 minutes! Not until some twenty minutes after the second plane hit the WTC did someone come in and get him... too strange to believe.
bakerstreet
Reply #659 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:49 AM
Reply #659 Friday, March 21, 2003 12:49 AM
alo_cmr: There is always a lunatic in every discussion here. I would have put my money elsewhere.
among all the other babbling, you said concerning the scud missiles:
"Nop, everybody knew they have it, just the are short-medium range missiles and the have the right to have them."
A scud missile has a range of up to 650 km, exceeding the 150-km maximum limit. They were banned there to prevent Hussein from hitting Israel or Kuwait. Surprise...
Regardless Iraq *denied* having any, and the US said they had around 20, and the twits in the UN were skeptical. I guess they'll counter this with "Oh yeah, we'll... your momma wears combat boots..."
alo_cmr, please, preserve your dignity and shut up, or base your inane, una-bomber-esque ramblings on some scrap of fact...
paxx:
you know i like ya, and I respect the fact that you can cling so well to your position, but you really don't have a position on Iraq. You have a position on war. If the US has decided what to do about Iraq, and you differ, then you should really state what you think could be done to make Iraq a safe place. Saying, "Well, I dunno about that Iraq stuff, but war isn't the answer." makes it look like the Iraq situation is just a canvas for your dissent.
If Iraq wanted to, they could hide those scuds, and worse, from 10,000 weapons inspectors and an army of terminator robots with x-ray vision. When they dodged long enough and the sanctions were lifted, france, china, russia, and all other impoverished, industrial nations would pump Hussein's regime with all the military equipment his oil-money can buy.
Then what? What is your answer when it is 100,000 Kuwaitis that die, or a million Israelis, or the entire Kurdish population in Iraq? France sold him enough weapons grade material to make 3 nuclear bombs in the 1980s. What if Israel had insisted on UN approval before striking him? When someone sells him "the fixins for a nuclear power plant", will you apologize and tell the dead that you're sorry, but you couldn't come up with anything palatable to do about it?
You can spout statistics about why he isn't a threat, and you can lay the blame for his existence on America with a ton of incidental fact, but at the end of the day you have no clue what do do about him. The fact that your position would leave an evil man in place is irrelevant to you, your goal isn't to better the world, it is to prevent war. I don't believe the two are always synonymous.
among all the other babbling, you said concerning the scud missiles:
"Nop, everybody knew they have it, just the are short-medium range missiles and the have the right to have them."
A scud missile has a range of up to 650 km, exceeding the 150-km maximum limit. They were banned there to prevent Hussein from hitting Israel or Kuwait. Surprise...
Regardless Iraq *denied* having any, and the US said they had around 20, and the twits in the UN were skeptical. I guess they'll counter this with "Oh yeah, we'll... your momma wears combat boots..."
alo_cmr, please, preserve your dignity and shut up, or base your inane, una-bomber-esque ramblings on some scrap of fact...
paxx:
you know i like ya, and I respect the fact that you can cling so well to your position, but you really don't have a position on Iraq. You have a position on war. If the US has decided what to do about Iraq, and you differ, then you should really state what you think could be done to make Iraq a safe place. Saying, "Well, I dunno about that Iraq stuff, but war isn't the answer." makes it look like the Iraq situation is just a canvas for your dissent.
If Iraq wanted to, they could hide those scuds, and worse, from 10,000 weapons inspectors and an army of terminator robots with x-ray vision. When they dodged long enough and the sanctions were lifted, france, china, russia, and all other impoverished, industrial nations would pump Hussein's regime with all the military equipment his oil-money can buy.
Then what? What is your answer when it is 100,000 Kuwaitis that die, or a million Israelis, or the entire Kurdish population in Iraq? France sold him enough weapons grade material to make 3 nuclear bombs in the 1980s. What if Israel had insisted on UN approval before striking him? When someone sells him "the fixins for a nuclear power plant", will you apologize and tell the dead that you're sorry, but you couldn't come up with anything palatable to do about it?
You can spout statistics about why he isn't a threat, and you can lay the blame for his existence on America with a ton of incidental fact, but at the end of the day you have no clue what do do about him. The fact that your position would leave an evil man in place is irrelevant to you, your goal isn't to better the world, it is to prevent war. I don't believe the two are always synonymous.
bakerstreet
Reply #660 Friday, March 21, 2003 1:04 AM
Reply #660 Friday, March 21, 2003 1:04 AM
David: read my post to paxx. It smacks of opportunism when you guys start ranting the moment a bomb drops, and never present an alternative to the bombs. If you want to show that you care about the victims of war, decide what should be done about Saddam Hussein's treatment of his people, or what he might do to others. Hell, if you can find a way to avert wars without aggression, why deny the world your wisdom? Don't waste your time talking about the past, pony up and work on the future!
Thing is, you don't want to address anything actively, you just wanna second guess, reacting to people who courageously, if imperfectly, *make* hard decisions. It is much easier picking apart US policy bumbles in the past than actually coming up with effective policy now. That would take accountability, something pundits don't need in order to thrive.
Write a book, go stand on a corner and preach, fine. This is the century of the Pundit, i'm afraid. I've yet to hear a reasonable opinion on what *should* be done about Iraq, just a lot of what shouldn't.
Thing is, you don't want to address anything actively, you just wanna second guess, reacting to people who courageously, if imperfectly, *make* hard decisions. It is much easier picking apart US policy bumbles in the past than actually coming up with effective policy now. That would take accountability, something pundits don't need in order to thrive.
Write a book, go stand on a corner and preach, fine. This is the century of the Pundit, i'm afraid. I've yet to hear a reasonable opinion on what *should* be done about Iraq, just a lot of what shouldn't.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 33 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #641 Thursday, March 20, 2003 10:59 PM
Afghanistan - may allow coalition forces to use its airspace.
Albania - offered 70 soldiers for non-combat roles.
Australia - committed 2,000 troops, planes and ships.
Britain - committed 45,000 troops, planes, tanks and ships.
Czech Republic and Slovakia - offered 360 soldiers to help in case of chemical or biological attack.
Denmark - offered to send military personnel.
Hungary - hosts a U.S. base where Iraqi exiles are training for possible postwar administrative roles.
Italy - offered use of military bases.
Japan - offered assistance with postwar reconstruction and peacekeeping.
Latvia - waiting for parliamentary approval to deploy a few troops.
Poland - offered troops for non-combat roles.
Romania - offered use of its airspace and committed more than 200 non-combat experts.
Spain - allowed Washington to use two of its military bases and offered various combat jets.
Turkey - prepared to open its airspace for U.S. warplanes but will not allow them to access to air bases.
Other supporting countries (the nature of their help isn't specified - none is my guess)
Azerbaijan
Colombia
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Iceland
Korea
Lithuania
Macedonia
the Netherlands
Nicaragua
the Philippines
Uzbekistan
"Behind-the-scenes" countries
Bahrain - sent a frigate and troops on Gulf Co-operation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.
Belgium - allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights.
Bulgaria - approved U.S. use of military airport and airspace, dispatching 150-member Bulgarian non-combat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops.
Croatia - allowing refuelling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.
Egypt - keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to Gulf.
France - allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations, but no direct participation.
Germany - ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany.