US is going to war tomarrow... dang...
Sunday, March 16, 2003 by IPlural | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
opps
 |
|
Page 45 of 85 | |
|
|---|
DavidK
Reply #882 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:48 AM
Reply #882 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:48 AM
The initial plan, I believe, is to put Gen. Tommy Franks in charge of an 'interim' government. The estimate is he would stay there for 1 to 2 years. This obviously involves a fairly large military presence as well. The oil contracts have already been assigned to several companies (mostly American and British). The contracts for rebuilding Iraq have also been assigned already, going to private American companies. The cost has been estimated anywhere from 70 Billion to 200 Billion plus one analyst who says it will be over a Trillion dollars.
IPlural
Reply #883 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:11 AM
Reply #883 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:11 AM
Xerrarie very true, just like Afghanistan when Russia was pushed out, cutting and running isn't right, but the UN should deal with the rebuilding, otherwise it looks like the USA did it all for profit in the end...
sad, but that is they way it will be viewed...
so does it set a presidence (spelling?) with this or what? I mean we invade each one on the axis of evil list and then rebuild our economy with the spoils of war how ever you want to describe it?
doesn't seem right and it sure as heck isn't going to be acceptable to the world at large and we can only say go pee up a rope for so long and for so many times ebfore they will say,, mmm no, not this time...
sad, but that is they way it will be viewed...
so does it set a presidence (spelling?) with this or what? I mean we invade each one on the axis of evil list and then rebuild our economy with the spoils of war how ever you want to describe it?
doesn't seem right and it sure as heck isn't going to be acceptable to the world at large and we can only say go pee up a rope for so long and for so many times ebfore they will say,, mmm no, not this time...
kona0197
Reply #885 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:26 AM
Reply #885 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:26 AM
Hey Jafo if I had a quarter for every spelling mistake you catch in these threads I would not be lokking for a job right now.
Jafo
Reply #886 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:29 AM
Reply #886 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 7:29 AM
kona...if I had a quarter for all the ones I haven't bothered to catch I'd be richer than Gates himself...
IPlural
Reply #887 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:28 AM
aardvark
without a net! or ieSpell either
wonders never cease
Reply #887 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 11:28 AM
aardvark
without a net! or ieSpell either
wonders never cease
Bangkokboy
Reply #889 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:57 PM @wombat ah, the war over words! Those with the most experience flying through anti-aircraft artillery claimed the right to mongrelize it.
i personally like triple A better than ack-ack.
"then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform" where does this overwhelming obsession with conforming come from?
Reply #889 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:57 PM
@wombat ah, the war over words! Those with the most experience flying through anti-aircraft artillery claimed the right to mongrelize it.i personally like triple A better than ack-ack.
"then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform" where does this overwhelming obsession with conforming come from?
Bangkokboy
Reply #890 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:18 PM
Reply #890 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:18 PM
paxx - you're very right about the after-Sadam. it's much too easy to win the war and lose everything gained during "the peace". 
joetheblow
Reply #891 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:08 PM
Reply #891 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:08 PM
OK.
How is it US/UK fault for Saddam being there in the first place?
I don't like many of the US policies that sometime calls 'stabilization' at the cost of the people who live there, but Saddam? I guess they are talking about the Iraq/Iran war and how he was helped by the US.
Anyway, I am surprised no one has talked about the uprising in one city against Saddam army. Now the army is suppossedly shooting at the civilians. I wonder if Al Jezzera is going to show that if it is true?
As far as corperations are concerned, if there is going to be a rebiulding of Iraq they have to work with outside companies. So of course there are contracts already laid out as who will work with what. The problem I have with that is that it is mostly US companies. I also wonder when excatly do they pull out and open it to the free market and Iraqi citizens.
Vote 2004!!! ... cancelled????
As I wrote before, US citizens are not that easiely pushed over. I am not sure if there was any election pushed back because of War. I think what the real problem is that there is no Demacratic voice in any of this and no real leader as of yet.
I am pretty sure there will be a election in 2004.... Hilary Clinton!!!
How is it US/UK fault for Saddam being there in the first place?
I don't like many of the US policies that sometime calls 'stabilization' at the cost of the people who live there, but Saddam? I guess they are talking about the Iraq/Iran war and how he was helped by the US.
Anyway, I am surprised no one has talked about the uprising in one city against Saddam army. Now the army is suppossedly shooting at the civilians. I wonder if Al Jezzera is going to show that if it is true?
As far as corperations are concerned, if there is going to be a rebiulding of Iraq they have to work with outside companies. So of course there are contracts already laid out as who will work with what. The problem I have with that is that it is mostly US companies. I also wonder when excatly do they pull out and open it to the free market and Iraqi citizens.
Vote 2004!!! ... cancelled????
As I wrote before, US citizens are not that easiely pushed over. I am not sure if there was any election pushed back because of War. I think what the real problem is that there is no Demacratic voice in any of this and no real leader as of yet.
I am pretty sure there will be a election in 2004.... Hilary Clinton!!!
paxx
Reply #893 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:39 PM
Reply #893 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:39 PM
Joetheblow: http://www.midwestacademy.com/Comment/change.htm
But here is an exerpt:
The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.
From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt — much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East — all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form — Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.
In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies — chiefly France and Germany — resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.
Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.
But here is an exerpt:
The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.
From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt — much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East — all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form — Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.
In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies — chiefly France and Germany — resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.
Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.
joetheblow
Reply #894 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:42 PM
Reply #894 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:42 PM
Thanks Karma!
Server problems?
This site is to popular. If you guys start making stuff that does not work, then we can have more bandwidth.
Server problems?
This site is to popular. If you guys start making stuff that does not work, then we can have more bandwidth.
joetheblow
Reply #895 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:56 PM
Reply #895 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:56 PM
hmmmmm....
I guess this would be called a 'lesser of two evils'
Put one you can control or at least work with. I really never liked American forien policy. Support this guy and eliminat that guy.
Funny, US supports Saudi Arabia, and it would seem that the 9/11 hi jackers came from thier mostly... so did Bin Laden right?? Isn't it also true that the people don't like the ruling party of Saudi Arabia?
I guess this would be called a 'lesser of two evils'
Put one you can control or at least work with. I really never liked American forien policy. Support this guy and eliminat that guy.
Funny, US supports Saudi Arabia, and it would seem that the 9/11 hi jackers came from thier mostly... so did Bin Laden right?? Isn't it also true that the people don't like the ruling party of Saudi Arabia?
joetheblow
Reply #896 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:57 PM
Reply #896 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:57 PM
I guess in some cases it makes sense, but what cases where those?
paxx
Reply #897 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:02 PM
Reply #897 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 3:02 PM
Joetheblow: Saudi Arabia isn't a party, it's a monarchy, and yes, Ousama is a relative to the royal family. But firmly opposed to it because of its cooperation with the US. His head is wanted back home.
Doreen
Reply #898 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:20 PM
Reply #898 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:20 PM
and what is this? History 101? *sigh* all I know about this is that it is aweful to see those Families that happen to be switching the channels on the TV (one was looking for cartoons) and suddenly see their own family member as a POW right there smack in their face while trying to ignore this rediculous war by browsing the TV.
I remember Brad saying somewhere here on the msg board it should be swift maybe 2 weeks? I thought to myself 2 weeks? =/
I'm not into this stuff at all and try to avoid it (though it's all in the air and everywhere you look or breath) but this don't look like a two week deal to me?
I remember Brad saying somewhere here on the msg board it should be swift maybe 2 weeks? I thought to myself 2 weeks? =/
I'm not into this stuff at all and try to avoid it (though it's all in the air and everywhere you look or breath) but this don't look like a two week deal to me?
bakerstreet
Reply #899 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:04 PM
Reply #899 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:04 PM
Doreen I hardly think anyone with a family member in this war would be trying to ignore it, 'rediculous' or not.
Doreen
Reply #900 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:27 PM
Reply #900 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:27 PM
nah some ppl do actually do other things to keep their sanity besides play this little shoot em up cowboy n indians thing.
I know I have a family member involved in this and he does not want us sitting behind the TV or worrying about it (and as you can tell Baker I will tell you straight off this crap is crap) they should have stuck in a special force along time ago and played some friendly game inside and took out that guy not involved innocent ppl to pluck out one sick person... (that's my opinion) all these so called special trained forces and sophisticated weapons and to kill one rotten egg they gotta kill how many?
I know I have a family member involved in this and he does not want us sitting behind the TV or worrying about it (and as you can tell Baker I will tell you straight off this crap is crap) they should have stuck in a special force along time ago and played some friendly game inside and took out that guy not involved innocent ppl to pluck out one sick person... (that's my opinion) all these so called special trained forces and sophisticated weapons and to kill one rotten egg they gotta kill how many?
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 45 of 85 | |
|
|---|
Reply #881 Tuesday, March 25, 2003 6:43 AM
It's only right to help rebuild, offer aid, and hopefully our presence will maintain stability for awhile at least. Of course
there are no guarantees in anything, because as paxx said, it could well be the real challenge.