PDA

View Full Version : Attack Iraq?


Czas na Zywiec
09-09-2002, 04:36 PM
What do you think of this and all of Bush's plans? I heard on Fox News Channel right now that if Saddam Hussein (sp?) Doesn't let us inspect his weapons, then he'll attack Iraq and kill Saddam. Do you agree with him? Diagree with him? I'm a little biased because if he does attack them, then this could possibly start World War III, but what if we do nothing and another 9/11 happens? I'm just curious and wanted to get a good discussion going on this board. I can't belive it's been a year since 9/11. It fels like it just happened.

Chocoholic
09-09-2002, 04:39 PM
I think we should concentrate on getting rid of Osama and his followers first. They are our much bigger threat, IMHO.

Mr. Shy Guy
09-09-2002, 04:42 PM
I can't believe a year as gone by either. I don't know what should happen but I think something needs to. Bin Laden and/or the Saddm guy may be planning something big.

*Marilyn Monroe*
09-09-2002, 04:59 PM
I think that Saddam has been a threat to our country for a very long time and that if he doesnt allow us to check weapons, kill him. I'm tired of being afraid of the stupid terrorists, and so I'm not anymore. I know Saddam isnt exactly a terrorist, but geez, the guy's done tons of stuff to us. And Osama, my God, what is taking us so long to find him?? We have tons of people looking for him all the time, so why havent we f0und him?? This guy has got to be one of the smartest people on earth, yet the dumbest for organizing terrorism attacks on our country.

9/11 seems like just yesterday, but so much has happened since then. That was the beginning of 8th grade for me, and that year flew by so fast! I have a question: Did anyone feel guilty for having a good time and laughing and LIVING after the attacks? Because I did.

Sammy M. Malone
09-09-2002, 05:01 PM
I say we kill any terrorists that have done things to us. They killed many innocent ppl including David Angell!

FrenchFryFreak
09-09-2002, 05:03 PM
I think that we should go back and try to find Bin Laden.

Krystal Lake
09-09-2002, 05:10 PM
I think we should have taken him out back in '91 during Big Bush's presidency.

Iraq *is* a threat to our country. Mainly because they help fund terrorist regimes, and they possibly have nuclear capibilites.

Pranksta: How do you see this starting a WWIII? Heh, there aren't many countries that will be pissed that we're taking him out.
Russia, our new friends, considers Iraq to be a threat, too. That means the #1 and #2 countries with nuclear capabilities will be against them. Who's gonna retaliate that? They might, but it sure as hell wouldn't be in their best interest.

Our taking out Saddam and other Iraqi leaders is a preventative action. Why? If we give them a few years they might have the ability to do some serious damage to us with nukes.


As for Osama Bin Laden...I have a theory on this. He's dead. D-E-A-D. Have you heard Bush mention him by name recently? There's a reason for that. The government knows more than they're telling us.
As long as there's the whole myth of a big bad wolf so to speak, out there....the villian, it gives the people someone to hate. It's important in war time for America to be behind the president. As long as we think we're going after this bad guy, whose face we've all seen...whose voice we've all heard... it keeps the people actively adament towards the war.
It's all creative politics.

Crimson and Clover
09-09-2002, 05:12 PM
i dont think we should attack iraq. its not gonna do any good it will only take more innocent americans lives.

ks
09-09-2002, 06:09 PM
I honestly can't say I know enough about the Iraq situation to give an educated opinion on it.
However, I just hope Bush chooses wisely in his decision because once the war starts our country will be in even more immediate danger and it may be a war that never ends. The U.S. is going down hill, and I find the thought of it all scary...








ks

Swimfan85
09-09-2002, 06:43 PM
Yes, people I would like a good discussion to get going, what do you believe the pro's and con's in attacking Iraq would be?

DarleneIllyria
09-09-2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by ks
I honestly can't say I know enough about the Iraq situation to give an educated opinion on it.
However, I just hope Bush chooses wisely in his decision because once the war starts our country will be in even more immediate danger and it may be a war that never ends. The U.S. is going down hill, and I find the thought of it all scary...








ks

Ditto.

Call it a gut instinct, but I have the feeling Suddam and Bin Laden are working together.

Speaking of 9/11, I do expect little pranks since its the first anniversary. I swear, if someone does pull a prank on that day- I'll forever lose hope in the human race.

JoPol_wannabe
09-09-2002, 09:52 PM
If Bush does want to have a war with Iraq I hope it's after May because then my brother will be out of the army and I won't have to worry about him going to war.

TibbyTibby2
09-09-2002, 10:18 PM
ugh! I don't knwo this is all to much to handle....

Swimfan85
09-09-2002, 10:24 PM
I am persoanally a little afraid of what could happen (atomic weapons and diseaes), espically living on the east coast near New York City and other big cities...


but anyone who knows a lot about the whole situation please PM me cuz I got an essay to write!!

Kay Scarpetta
09-09-2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by hockeybabe528
I am persoanally a little afraid of what could happen (atomic weapons and diseaes), espically living on the east coast near New York City and other big cities...

Yes same here. I'm sick of war and everything.

*Marilyn Monroe*
09-09-2002, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Jenny


Speaking of 9/11, I do expect little pranks since its the first anniversary. I swear, if someone does pull a prank on that day- I'll forever lose hope in the human race.

I already have...and I know that some people from other countries are going to be celebrating this. I seriously dont think I could take it if I saw some woman in Afghanistan celebrating the 1 year anniversary of 9-11, because we gave them so many of their freedoms back by taking the Taliban out of ruling powers.

Blair85
09-09-2002, 11:11 PM
I think Dubya's dad should have gotten Saddam when he had the chance, but he didn't soooo.....I don't know. I don't think about this stuff actually. I just worry about my own problems & let others figure out what to do about the world.

Fleet
09-09-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Krystal Lake
I think we should have taken him out back in '91 during Big Bush's presidency.

Iraq *is* a threat to our country. Mainly because they help fund terrorist regimes, and they possibly have nuclear capibilites.

Our taking out Saddam and other Iraqi leaders is a preventative action. Why? If we give them a few years they might have the ability to do some serious damage to us with nukes.



Hi!

The liberal Democrats were starting to cry about going all the way and removing Saddam. Some people were already calling Bush a "warmonger..." A person who advocates or tries to provoke war. Imagine if he did take out Saddam! The demos would be all over the TV complaining.

Some terrorist experts and former weapons inspectors say that Iraq will have nukes in 3 months to 2 years.

Fleet

¤I Love Clay Aiken¤
09-09-2002, 11:44 PM
Im not a one for murders and stuff, but if they ever found Osama or anyone linked to him, stab the ba$tards :eyes2: and throw him in the shark infested pool. I think we need to take action. I dont want a war and I fear it- but Id rather have them all ded now, then to have them attack us again IMO.


Oh, about Saddam, I heard on GoodDayLive he used Viagra. Off topic, and yet gross @ the same time. His girlfriend said it-shes going to be on this Wed. on ABC for an interview and she mentions that...EWW!

Krystal Lake
09-10-2002, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


Hi!

The liberal Democrats were starting to cry about going all the way and removing Saddam. Some people were already calling Bush a "warmonger..." A person who advocates or tries to provoke war. Imagine if he did take out Saddam! The demos would be all over the TV complaining.

Some terrorist experts and former weapons inspectors say that Iraq will have nukes in 3 months to 2 years.

Fleet

Like they aren't already all over the television complaining. ;) Look who mostly runs the media.

(This isn't directed at you, more towards everyone since I pretty much know where you stand.)
Sometimes war is necessary! Like it or not, it is. It would be nice to believe that the world is a Utopia where everyone gets along and no one fights, but that's not how things are. There are two main scenarios where it is absolutely necessary: To protect the civilians of our nation, and if it benefits us financially.
I know what some of you are thinking:

"If it benefits us financially?!? That is so, like, greedy!"

Guess what. Yeah, it is. But do you like the privilages that our country has over others? Go take a look at a third world country. Pick one, any one. Would you rather we live like that? I didn't think so. Our worst slums are better than most of their "upper-class" areas!
If you think that it is wrong to fight for the prosperity of our nation, such as when we fought for Kuwait in order to keep our oil supply high and cheap, then get out. Go. We're not forcing you to live here.

Back to the issue at hand.... Taking out Saddam is an example of scenario one: "To protect the civilians of our nation."
Have they done anything to us directly? No. Indirectly? You bet! Doing one is just as bad as doing the other. Either way it *hurts* our nation. Whether it is them sending out the attacks or funding others to do it, the outcome is the same. We get hurt. Given the opportunity and means to do so, they'd do worse to us.

They do have nukes now. "Dirty Bombs" as they call them. They don't do as much damage as your average nuclear device, but give them time and they'll develop it enough to do so. Think 9/11 was bad? Image the destruction of a nuclear bomb dropped onto Manhattan or L.A. If the initial damage isn't bad enough, there's the nuclear half-life that'd screw with the health of people for years to come.
Would they do that to us? We can't know for sure. But do you want to take the chance that they would?


I trust the Government in any decision they make in this. Bush is not calling ALL the shots here. He has many, many people in his cabinet that are very familiar with war and battle tactics. Schwartzkopf, Powell, and Armey to name a few.

Any action we take on Iraq, Saddam, and other Iraqi leaders (They're not gonna just stop at Saddam. He is but one cog in the machine) has been well thought out. Every possible outcome of our attacking them has been contemplated. We've only been hearing about the plan for a few weeks, but I guarantee it's been discussed for months. The Government isn't going to jump into this with both feet and their eyes closed. Think about it.

I love farm animals....literally. Okay, sorry 'bout that. Just making sure you're still paying attention.

Before closing your mind to the possible benefits of the strike on Iraq, please consider all that I have said here. Also, consider EVERY possible outcome. Do research on Iraq and Saddam's past. You might just change your tune.

My fellow Americans: Thanks for listening, and God Bless America.
patriot:

Faith
09-10-2002, 06:18 AM
I think we should kill anyone linked to Saddam and Osama. Big Bush shoulda killed his a$$ when he had the chance

Titania
09-10-2002, 10:07 AM
I think that we need to go after Saddam before he aquires anymore nuclear power or decides to make the first step. Theres already so much talk that he was behind Oklahoma City and 9-11..
Yeah, the US needs to do something about it even though the idea of an invasion scares me half to death.

Kitt
09-10-2002, 10:23 AM
What War Looks Like

By Howard Zinn, The Progressive
September 9, 2002

In all the solemn statements by self-important politicians and newspaper columnists about a coming war against Iraq, and even in the troubled comments by some who are opposed to the war, there is something missing.

The talk is about strategy and tactics, geopolitics and personalities. It is about air war and ground war, weapons of mass destruction, arms inspections, alliances, oil, and "regime change."

What is missing is what an American war on Iraq will do to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of ordinary human beings who are not concerned with geopolitics and military strategy, and who just want their children to live, to grow up. They are not concerned with "national security" but with personal security, with food and shelter and medical care and peace.

I am speaking of those Iraqis and those Americans who will, with absolute certainty, die in such a war, or lose arms or legs, or be blinded. Or they will be stricken with some strange and agonizing sickness that could lead to their bringing deformed children into the world (as happened to families in Vietnam, Iraq, and also the United States).

True, there has been some discussion of American casualties resulting from a land invasion of Iraq. But, as always when the strategists discuss this, the question is not about the wounded and dead as human beings, but about what number of American casualties would result in public withdrawal of support for the war, and what effect this would have on the upcoming elections for Congress and the Presidency.

That was uppermost in the mind of Lyndon Johnson, as we have learned from the tapes of his White House conversations. He worried about Americans dying if he escalated the war in Vietnam, but what most concerned him was his political future. If we pull out of Vietnam, he told his friend Senator Richard Russell, "they'll impeach me, won't they?"

In any case, American soldiers killed in war are always a matter of statistics. Individual human beings are missing in the numbers. It is left to the poets and novelists to take us by the shoulders and shake us and ask us to look and listen. In World War I, ten million men died on the battlefield, but we needed John Dos Passos to confront us with what that meant: In his novel 1919, he writes of the death of John Doe: "In the tarpaper morgue at Chalons-sur-Marne in the reek of chloride of lime and the dead, they picked out the pine box that held all that was left of John Doe, the scraps of dried viscera and skin bundled in khaki."

Vietnam was a war that filled our heads with statistics, of which one stood out, embedded in the stark monument in Washington: 58,000 dead. But one would have to read the letters from soldiers just before they died to turn those statistics into human beings. And for all those not dead but mutilated in some way, the amputees and paraplegics, one would have to read Ron Kovic's account, in his memoir, "Born on the Fourth of July," of how his spine was shattered and his life transformed.

As for the dead among "the enemy"--that is, those young men, conscripted or cajoled or persuaded to pit their bodies against those of our young men--that has not been a concern of our political leaders, our generals, our newspapers and magazines, our television networks. To this day, most Americans have no idea, or only the vaguest, of how many Vietnamese--soldiers and civilians (actually, a million of each)--died under American bombs and shells.

And for those who know the figures, the men, women, children behind the statistics remained unknown until a picture appeared of a Vietnamese girl running down a road, her skin shredding from napalm, until Americans saw photos of women and children huddled in a trench as GIs poured automatic rifle fire into their bodies.

Ten years ago, in that first war against Iraq, our leaders were proud of the fact that there were only a few hundred American casualties (one wonders if the families of those soldiers would endorse the word "only"). When a reporter asked General Colin Powell if he knew how many Iraqis died in that war, he replied: "That is really not a matter I am terribly interested in." A high Pentagon official told The Boston Globe, "To tell you the truth, we're not really focusing on this question."

Americans knew that this nation's casualties were few in the Gulf War, and a combination of government control of the press and the media's meek acceptance of that control ensured that the American people would not be confronted, as they had been in Vietnam, with Iraqi dead and dying.

There were occasional glimpses of the horrors inflicted on the people of Iraq, flashes of truth in the newspapers that quickly disappeared. In mid-February 1991, U.S. planes dropped bombs on an air raid shelter in Baghdad at four in the morning, killing 400 to 500 people--mostly women and children--who were huddled there to escape the incessant bombing. An Associated Press reporter, one of the few allowed to go to the site, said: "Most of the recovered bodies were charred and mutilated beyond recognition."

In the final stage of the Gulf War, American troops engaged in a ground assault on Iraqi positions in Kuwait. As in the air war, they encountered virtually no resistance. With victory certain and the Iraqi army in full flight, U.S. planes kept strafing the retreating soldiers who clogged the highway out of Kuwait City. A reporter called the scene "a blazing hell, a gruesome testament. To the east and west across the sand lay the bodies of those fleeing." That grisly scene appeared for a moment in the press and then vanished in the exultation of a victorious war, in which politicians of both parties and the press joined. President Bush crowed: "The specter of Vietnam has been buried forever in the desert sands of the Arabian peninsula." The two major news magazines, Time and Newsweek, printed special editions hailing the victory. Each devoted about a hundred pages to the celebration, mentioning proudly the small number of American casualties. They said not a word about the tens of thousands of Iraqis--soldiers and civilians--themselves victims first of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, and then of George Bush's war.

There was no photograph of a single dead Iraqi child, no names of particular Iraqis, no images of suffering and grief to convey to the American people what our overwhelming military machine was doing to other human beings.

The bombing of Afghanistan has been treated as if human beings are of little consequence. It was been portrayed as a "war on terrorism," not a war on men, women, children. The few press reports of "accidents" were quickly followed with denials, excuses, justifications. There has been some bandying about of numbers of Afghan civilian deaths--but always numbers.

Only rarely has the human story, with names and images, come through as more than a flash of truth, as one day when I read of a ten-year old boy, named Noor Mohammed, lying on a hospital bed on the Pakistani border, his eyes gone, his hands blown off, a victim of American bombs.

Surely, we must discuss the political issues. We note that an attack on Iraq would be a flagrant violation of international law. We note that the mere possession of dangerous weapons is not grounds for war--else we would have to make war on dozens of countries. We point out that the country that possesses by far the most "weapons of mass destruction" is our country, which has used them more often and with more deadly results than any nation on Earth. We can point to our national history of expansion and aggression. We have powerful evidence of deception and hypocrisy at the highest levels of our government.

But, as we contemplate an American attack on Iraq, should we not go beyond the agendas of the politicians and the experts? (John le Carre has one of his characters say: "I despise experts more than anyone on earth.")

Should we not ask everyone to stop the high-blown talk for a moment and imagine what war will do to human beings whose faces will not be known to us, whose names will not appear except on some future war memorial?

For this we will need the help of people in the arts, those who through time--from Euripedes to Bob Dylan--have written and sung about specific, recognizable victims of war. In 1935, Jean Giraudoux, the French playwright, with the memory of the first World War still in his head, wrote "The Trojan War Will Not Take Place." Demokos, a Trojan soldier, asks the aged Hecuba to tell him "what war looks like." She responds: "Like the bottom of a baboon. When the baboon is up in a tree, with its hind end facing us, there is the face of war exactly: scarlet, scaly, glazed, framed in a clotted, filthy wig."

If enough Americans could see that, perhaps the war on Iraq would not take place.

Moonlight Lady
09-10-2002, 01:58 PM
This whole thing scares me to death. We need to get rid of these people. What's the world coming to? I'm listening to the radio and there is a special report on, they are saying that our country is now on orange alert, which is a high alert.

Lynn
09-11-2002, 02:16 AM
Thanks for providing that article kittflynn. In all this talk of "killing Saddam" it seems like people have forgotten about the loss of human life that would inevitably occur.




Originally posted by Krystal Lake


Sometimes war is necessary! Like it or not, it is. It would be nice to believe that the world is a Utopia where everyone gets along and no one fights, but that's not how things are. There are two main scenarios where it is absolutely necessary: To protect the civilians of our nation, and if it benefits us financially.
I know what some of you are thinking:

"If it benefits us financially?!? That is so, like, greedy!"

Guess what. Yeah, it is. But do you like the privilages that our country has over others? Go take a look at a third world country. Pick one, any one. Would you rather we live like that? I didn't think so. Our worst slums are better than most of their "upper-class" areas!
If you think that it is wrong to fight for the prosperity of our nation, such as when we fought for Kuwait in order to keep our oil supply high and cheap, then get out. Go. We're not forcing you to live here.



I completely disagree with that reasoning and I don't like how obsessed this country is with money and power. Is it worth it to risk the lives of our citizens just because it will "benefit us financially"? I think there are more important things in life than the price of gas. Personally I find it extremely sad that there are so many people on this planet living in such horrible poverty and yet there are stinking rich CEO's in this country with more money than they know what to do with and all they care about is making more. How on earth do you justify a war based only on that reasoning?

By the way, I'm not leaving the country just because I disagree with some of our politics. If everyone left the country when they didn't agree with the government, there'd be very few people left. That's the wonderful thing about this country – we have the freedom to voice our disagreement with the government if we so chose.

**************
Personally I think it would be a big mistake to wage a war with Iraq. The U.S. is acting too arrogant and self-important. We are disregarding our allies, losing our international respect, becoming instigators of conflict. I just don't think we are being very smart about any of this.

Plata
09-11-2002, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Original Prankster
What do you think of this and all of Bush's plans? I heard on Fox News Channel right now that if Saddam Hussein (sp?) Doesn't let us inspect his weapons, then he'll attack Iraq and kill Saddam. Do you agree with him? Diagree with him? I'm a little biased because if he does attack them, then this could possibly start World War III?

I think his plan has a good chance of starting World War 3. I read lots pf paranormal stuff and in the bible code that once had a special on TLC and there's a site on the web somewhere about the stuff that it's supposed to begin in 2006. Although, with the way things are going now, it looks like it might be sooner. :eek: I think Bush should stop and think before he carries on with any plan to attack. It will just turn this world into chaos. :(

*Melissa*
09-11-2002, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


Hi!

The liberal Democrats were starting to cry about going all the way and removing Saddam. Some people were already calling Bush a "warmonger..." A person who advocates or tries to provoke war. Imagine if he did take out Saddam! The demos would be all over the TV complaining.

Some terrorist experts and former weapons inspectors say that Iraq will have nukes in 3 months to 2 years.

Fleet

Well, don't go around thinking that all democrats are against the war, and that they all "start to cry" or would be everywhere "complaining" about a war. I'm a democrat, and I happen to think we should attack. Saddam tested chemical weapons on his own people before the Gulf War. He has chemical weapons still and most likely nukes. If we don't start going after these people now, what will they do to us next? How many lives will be lost when they next attack? If we don't stand up for ourselves, we're done for. An insane dictator with heavy weaponry cannot be trusted. Chemical warfare is a reality people, so we better realize this and take action before they come after us again. If we attack them, maybe we'll put fear into them. Right now, the terrorists think what they did was right, and that their God wanted them to do as much. Should we let them think they're right so they can continue to attack us? Other countries don't want to help us, but they weren't the ones attacked. Do you think for one minute that if they were attacked that they wouldn't want to retaliate? And they'd also be asking us to help them, and of course, we'd tell them we would help them. Maybe those countries that don't support our war should be forced to watch the tapes of the people falling to their deaths from burning buildings, or listen to the sounds of them hitting the ground. Then maybe this world would wake up and see why we want to attack those who support terror. I'm not saying kill innocents in this war. I get upset thinking about our soldiers who will most likely meet germ warfare on the front lines, and those who will never make it back to their families.

And yes, I lost all hope for humanity a long, long time ago.

Swimfan85
09-11-2002, 03:31 PM
my parents are democrats, and well if I was old enough to vote I would have voted for Gore....and I think that there are more reasons why we should invade then not to invade (I just had to do a paper on this)

Bootsy Whoosh
09-11-2002, 04:58 PM
I am not entirely against a "regime change" in Iraq, but I feel that it doesn't have to be done RIGHT NOW which is what the government seems to be pushing. I am apprehensive about us going into a war which will completely isolate us from the already pissed-at-us-Muslim world. Remember India and Pakistan have nukes too. Where will it end? Some "experts" say that North Korea is actually a bigger threat to us now than Iraq. Who do we believe? Do we wage war on the entire world? We feel that Saddam is insane and has too many powerful weapons at his disposal. Probably true. But half the world thinks the same exact thing about America. I think that war should be the last resort, instead of the first, although it seems to me our government is advocating a straight-out war without even a meager attempt at diplomacy first. I think this should be a UN matter, not strictly a US matter.

Also, someone said that if we removed Saddam the majority of the world would thank us (or something like that). I'd give that a cautious "maybe". I would wager that for every country that would be grateful, there's at least one that would be angry. And what's worse is that most of the countries it would anger oftentimes have populaces that are more than willing to be martyrs for a "higher purpose". Ideological agreement from, say, Europe, means little to nothing if those nations are not willing to provide vocal and military support. At this moment Putin is strenghening Russia's ties to its allies in the Middle East, so don't expect alot of support from our new friends. To my knowledge Britain's Tony Blair has been the only world leader to publicly acknowledge support for Bush's cause, but only if war is a demonstrated last resort. Only time will tell how far his support goes.

Kitt
09-11-2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Krystal Lake
I trust the Government in any decision they make in this. Bush is not calling ALL the shots here. He has many, many people in his cabinet that are very familiar with war and battle tactics. Schwartzkopf, Powell, and Armey to name a few.

Any action we take on Iraq, Saddam, and other Iraqi leaders (They're not gonna just stop at Saddam. He is but one cog in the machine) has been well thought out. Every possible outcome of our attacking them has been contemplated. We've only been hearing about the plan for a few weeks, but I guarantee it's been discussed for months. The Government isn't going to jump into this with both feet and their eyes closed. Think about it.
Swarskopf is against attacking Iraq. Powell is against attacking Iraq and Dick Armey is against attacking Iraq..."to name a few." Others against it are, ret General Anthony Zinni, Swarskopf's logistics chief and later successor at Central Command in the '91 Iraq war. Bush Sr's National Security Advisor ret. General Brent Scowcroft. Colin Powell's deputy Richard Armitage a U.S. navy academy grad and Vietnam vet.

Chuck Hagel, the Republican representitive from Neb and a Vietnam vet said, "It's interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about war.They come to it from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off."

Some of the strong backers of war, including Bush, who are cabinet or sub cabinet member of Bush are:

George W Bush: He served inThe National guard. Collin powell referred to the National Guard in his memoirs as a dodge reserved for the sons of the powerful.

Vice President Dick Cheney: "...had other priorities in the sixties than military service".

Donald Rumsfeld: Flew jets for the Navy between the Korean war and the Vietnam war but never saw combat.

Cheney's Chief of staff I. Lewis Libby spent the sixties at Yale University

Donald Rumsfelds top deputies Paul Wolfowitz and Peter Rodman avoided war during Vietman by going to law school.

Other prominent beaters of the war drums who avoided in one way or another seeing combat when duty called who are in positions of power and have the presidents ear are:
Richard Pearle/ Sen Henry Jackson/ John Bolton/ Eliot Abrams.

Only four of the 32 prominent men who sent a letter urging Bush to extend the terror war beyond Afganistan to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine have any military experience. Three of those four served in the reserves like Bush.

As for trusting the goverment for having thought out what they're doing. History tells a different story. Vietnam was not well thought out and neither is this impending escapade.

Krystal Lake
09-11-2002, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Lynn

I completely disagree with that reasoning and I don't like how obsessed this country is with money and power. Is it worth it to risk the lives of our citizens just because it will "benefit us financially"? I think there are more important things in life than the price of gas. Personally I find it extremely sad that there are so many people on this planet living in such horrible poverty and yet there are stinking rich CEO's in this country with more money than they know what to do with and all they care about is making more. How on earth do you justify a war based only on that reasoning?

By the way, I'm not leaving the country just because I disagree with some of our politics. If everyone left the country when they didn't agree with the government, there'd be very few people left. That's the wonderful thing about this country – we have the freedom to voice our disagreement with the government if we so chose.

**************
Personally I think it would be a big mistake to wage a war with Iraq. The U.S. is acting too arrogant and self-important. We are disregarding our allies, losing our international respect, becoming instigators of conflict. I just don't think we are being very smart about any of this.

Most of those "stinking rich CEOs" worked for their money. To put down someone for being successful is absolutely ridiculous. And how they spend their money is their own business.
Yes. Poverty is sad. Very sad. I wish that the people of those third world countries had governing that cared about their welfare and helped them. But guess what...they don't.
Is that the fault of our rich population? No! That is the fault of their leaders. To contrast and compare the two is like comparing apples to friggin' watermelons. There is a huge difference, and one does not have to do with the other.

"How on Earth do I justify a war based on that reason?"

It's for the better of our country and our quality of life. That's how. Our soldiers know that too, or else they wouldn't go out there. I think if gas were 7 bucks a gallon you might change your tune on that being a priority. Is it the most important thing we have to deal with? Obviously not. But it is important. Look how many people drive.

Yes, you have the right to disagree with some of our politics, and that is a great thing about America. In other countries, you would be shot for doing so. Hell, you'd be shot for doing far less.
I am just sick of the "F*** America" attitude that some people have developed when they don't realize how good we have it in comparison to other countries.

As for your final statement, I have a few questions.

1: What allies are we disregarding? And don't say Canada, because they've never been an "ally" of ours.

2: Instigators of conflict? Yeah, okay. Did we instigate the terrorists enough to warrant the 9/11 attack? Did we instigate Iraq in any way to *pay* for a portion of those attacks? Did we instigate Iraq in ANY way to start this conflict with them? If so, how?

3: In your opinion, what "bad" things can come out of our attacking Iraq, and do they outweigh the possible benefits?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you expressing your views on this even though I do not agree with them. :)

Hollow
09-11-2002, 11:53 PM
Im too lazy to read what this post is about but if it's about bombing iraq then no

Kitt
09-12-2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Krystal Lake
Most of those "stinking rich CEOs" worked for their money. To put down someone for being successful is absolutely ridiculous. And how they spend their money is their own business.
Yes. Poverty is sad. Very sad. I wish that the people of those third world countries had governing that cared about their welfare and helped them. But guess what...they don't.
Is that the fault of our rich population? No! That is the fault of their leaders. To contrast and compare the two is like comparing apples to friggin' watermelons. There is a huge difference, and one does not have to do with the other.

"How on Earth do I justify a war based on that reason?"

It's for the better of our country and our quality of life. That's how. Our soldiers know that too, or else they wouldn't go out there. I think if gas were 7 bucks a gallon you might change your tune on that being a priority. Is it the most important thing we have to deal with? Obviously not. But it is important. Look how many people drive.

Yes, you have the right to disagree with some of our politics, and that is a great thing about America. In other countries, you would be shot for doing so. Hell, you'd be shot for doing far less.
I am just sick of the "F*** America" attitude that some people have developed when they don't realize how good we have it in comparison to other countries.

As for your final statement, I have a few questions.

1: What allies are we disregarding? And don't say Canada, because they've never been an "ally" of ours.

2: Instigators of conflict? Yeah, okay. Did we instigate the terrorists enough to warrant the 9/11 attack? Did we instigate Iraq in any way to *pay* for a portion of those attacks? Did we instigate Iraq in ANY way to start this conflict with them? If so, how?

3: In your opinion, what "bad" things can come out of our attacking Iraq, and do they outweigh the possible benefits?

Thank you, and I do appreciate you expressing your views on this even though I do not agree with them. :)

Well Krystal, although you were writing to Lynn, I'm sure you won't mind me expressing my views too. I understand your emotions and your stance but I think you're scimming over some of the gaffs in our American system. I'm forever suspicious of statistics but the following one - even if it is not quite accurate - makes the point that more than a few CEO's and corporations don't earn or work for all of their money. White collar crime costs America 200 billion dollars a year, 50 times the cost of street crime. And then there is corporate welfare which costs taxpayers more oodles and oodles of dough. Then there is the fact that this consumer society you're so proud of produces more polution per-capita by far than any other nation. That's very costly to health and environment as well as other finances world wide. Also much of our wealth is aquired by exploiting the populations of the third world countries and thus playing a large roll in seeing to it that they remain impoverished. This greed doesn't go unoticed throughout the word and causes hardship, and in turn, resentment of, not so much the American populace but of US policies. US policies are what the people in America have a right to and do take issue with. That doesn't mean we are saying "screw" America". America isn't only a government. America is a people. We are supposed to speak our minds and contribute to policy making, not stand by meakly and let it happen.

You asked Lynn what allies we're disregarding. It would be easier to answer which of our allies is behind us in attacking Iraq because the answer is none. Prime Minister Tony Blair is out there on his own attempting to get some traction but that's about it.

There is no justification for the 9/11 attack. But let's use your apples and melons analogy. If someone - me for right now - says that we do things to put much of the world ill at ease with us, don't tie that into someone trying to make a justification for the 9/11 attack. It is not true, but it's just not smart to ignore that America, for legitimate reasons, is resented for some of what it does in our country and around the world.

You asked what bad things might come of us attacking Iraq. For half of your answer look to the article I posted about what war looks like. Other scenarios and outcomes I'd rather not guess about. But it's not unreasonable to fear some very bad unintended consequences. Oh, and the guys who might end up going into Iraq, I doubt that's what they had in mind when they signed on to the military. I would guess that the recruiters sold them on money for college and so on, and most likely didn't mention the possibility of getting gassed or who knows what in a war in Iraq. A lot of the veterans from the '91 war have had mysterous medical problems since returning from that war. And, shamefully, they had to fight the goverment for years before the goverment finally admitted that there ailments were Iraq combat related.

Kitt
09-20-2002, 10:05 PM
THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER:

The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war. The pulpit will - warily and cautiously - object... at first. The great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it."

Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the antiwar audiences will thin out and lose popularity.

Before long, you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men...

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)

ABlairican Pie
09-21-2002, 02:19 PM
If Iraq poses a very credible threat to the U.S. and the free world
(and I think it does), then I say, yes we should attack. But otherwise, we should focus on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and these other groups. It would be good if we could get both Osama and Hussein. I'm frustrated we can't find him in all those caves. I think our military intellegence is messed up, which is why 9/11 happened in the first place--and the fact that reports from inside sources were ignored and put on the back burner by higher-ups in the Administration.

Jimbo
09-21-2002, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
If Iraq poses a very credible threat to the U.S. and the free world
(and I think it does), then I say, yes we should attack. But otherwise, we should focus on Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and these other groups. It would be good if we could get both Osama and Hussein. I'm frustrated we can't find him in all those caves. I think our military intellegence is messed up, which is why 9/11 happened in the first place--and the fact that reports from inside sources were ignored and put on the back burner by higher-ups in the Administration.

I agree with you that Iraq poses a credible threat to the safety of the citizens of this country. The U.N. has passed resolution after resolution regarding Iraq, and they've all been ignored. I think that President Bush is proceeding in the proper direction. In his brilliant speech to the U.N., he pointed out how Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself. Bush then put the ball in the U.N.'s court, asking, in effect, "what are you going to do about it"? Hopefully, the United Nations will show some backbone, and take the necessary steps to enforce its own resolutions. If they do, then military action by the United States may be unnecessary. Let's hope so, but as President Bush said, if they don't act, we will.

As for Osama Bin Laden, it's my opinion that he's dead. Even if we never find out for certain, however, victory in the war against terrorism is not dependent on whether or not we capture Bin Laden, or find his remains. When the city of Berlin fell at the end of World War Two, no one knew what happened to Adolph Hitler. Even as late as the 1960s, there was still speculation that he had survived, and found sanctuary elsewhere in the world. Despite this, no one suggested that the allies did not win the Second World War because Hitler's body had not been found.

Nobody wants war, or looks forward to war. We also do not want another attack on this country that could equal or surpass the death and devastation of 9-11-01. If it becomes necessary to attack Iraq, I would rather see us do it one day earlier then necessary, instead of one day too late.

Kitt
09-21-2002, 09:51 PM
A Gulf War Veteran Asks: What Will I Tell My Children?

By Charles Sheehan-Miles
September 19, 2002

I'll never forget the morning of Feb. 27, 1991. I was a young U.S. Army tank soldier, positioned near the banks of the Euphrates River, when two trucks raced through our position at roughly 2 a.m. We opened fire. One truck carried fuel and splashed its burning cargo on the other, and burning men ran everywhere, only to be met by our machine gun fire. This was my experience of the "clean," "precise" Gulf War. And those images have never left me since.

One day my son or daughter will ask me what I did in the war, and I'll tell them. And they'll have other questions, questions that haunt me, questions we should all be asking before we go to war again.

Where were we when our country allowed untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to die of preventable diseases as result of the sanctions? Reaping the benefits of the "new" economy? Working for high-tech startups, trying to provide a better future for our children?

Where were we when 300,000 sick and disabled Gulf War fought for medical help from our government, and for years got in response lies and bureaucratic misdirection? Were we buying our first homes? Trading up to a new one? Saving for our kids' college?

Where were we, when Congress legislated away our rights to privacy and due process? Huddled with our families, protecting them against terrorists?

What about when the President named American citizens enemy combatants and denied them the rights guaranteed in the Constitution? Were we too busy worrying about the recession? Were we too busy thinking about the next round of layoffs?

Where were we when Congress handed over its Constitutional authority to declare war? The founding fathers wisely placed that power in the whole body of Congress, yet they are too timid to insist on keeping it. Were we too scared by the propaganda and lies? What if there were terrorists in our neighborhoods?

Our children are growing up in a country that is no longer America: a country where the government can search your house without your knowledge; a country where your neighbors may be informants; a country where Americans should "watch what they say;" a country where people are "disappeared" if they look wrong, talk wrong or think wrong; a country that dominates world affairs and keeps its citizens scared; a country willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives over politics, and where the people don't know or care about the cost; a country where democracy is controlled by corporations and the rich.

You know, I've been pretty busy too, with not a lot of time to spend on all those "issues." I make good money. I've got a nice house in the suburbs, a minivan, and I'm raising my children with a better standard of living than my parents had.

Isn't that the American dream? Isn't it? Do you think our children will thank us for their legacy?

The kill-the-Constitution coalition quips "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." They are utterly wrong. Our nation's quest for liberty is best typified by Virginian Patrick Henry's exhortation, "Give me liberty or give me death."

That is the legacy I want to give to my children.

Charles Sheehan-Miles, a decorated Gulf War combat veteran, is the author of "Prayer at Rumayla" (XLibris, 2001) and is a former President of the National Gulf War Resource Center. He can be contacted at http://www.sheehanmiles.com.

Cokies
09-22-2002, 11:42 PM
Down to it, I don't want war. There's enough of it as it is.

Kitt
09-26-2002, 06:24 PM
Most of the talk about war on Iraq has been repeated claims and counter claims. What about real questions and real answers. Is that not how democracy is supposed to progress? Please consider these questions put to the House of Representitives from Representive, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's questions, courtesy of Tom Paine.com "http://tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6404"

Editor's Note: Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul read the following to the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002.

Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war:

1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?

3. Is it not true that there are those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, and at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

4. Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed Al Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

9. Is it not true that the vast majority of Al Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent U.N. report the Al Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses?"

11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army one-fifth the size of 12 years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the United Nations for permission to go to war?

15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 U.S. soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

19. Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

20. Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected president?

24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the United States. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. policy?

27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

33. Is it not true that since World War II, Congress has not declared war and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear- cut victory?

34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?

ABlairican Pie
09-26-2002, 09:31 PM
Bedtime for Democracy.

KJH278
09-27-2002, 12:22 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AliciaKeysForever
[B]I . And Osama, my God, what is taking us so long to find him?? We have tons of people looking for him all the time, so why havent we f0und him?? This guy has got to be one of the smartest people on earth, yet the dumbest for organizing terrorism attacks on our country.


The reason we can not find osama is he's hinding in a cave like a little *****

MBFTfan
09-27-2002, 01:44 AM
When I first read the question posed in this thread, I thought of a million different points to make, but as I read through to get an idea of the general consensus, I realized that kittflynn already made most of them, particularly in the articles posted. So, I will try to express my views without being too repetetive.

12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the United States? And isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
Yes, this is exactly what he wanted. There was an excellent ad in the NY Times recently, in which there is a picture if Osama Bin Laden begging us to attack Iraq so that he could further prove his point that America is the oppressor.
(I feel I should say here that this is ONLY my opinion, I have no idea what goes on out there behind closed doors, maybe if I did my views would change, but I will remain steadfast in my belief that war is never the answer.)
By attacking Iraq, we only fuel the hatred and resentment that are at the very root of this problem. People have a hard time accepting this, but there are many nations that don't like us, and we have certainly given them reasons. It is disgustingly self-righteous of us to just assume that they want us to come in and "fix" their government and inundate them with American culture. We exploit their economies, we refer to them as "underdeveloped" and we smother their way of life. They see us as the reason that they are suffering, and though we aren't the primary cause, we are not innocent. I should acknowledge that there are wonderful organizations that have given aid to these countries, but this doesn't justify the hurt we have caused. It bothers me that many people are so unwilling to see this confuse understanding with agreement. We have to face the reality that we may think we are the greatest, but there is a growing percentage of the world that doesn't. We must understand where the other side is coming from if we want to accomplish anything in negotiations. That does not mean we agree that does not mean they are right, it only means we want to be better prepared to communicate, because communication is essential in maintaining peace. I think this war is wrong and I think the fact that we have no support is a BIG sign. Tony Blair is the only one who has considered siding with us and even he has allowed the issue to be seriously debated and discussed. Bush has not brought the matter before Congress, without which he cannot constitutionally declare war. I also don't like the fact that most of the reasons for this war are purely economic. Maybe we should stop worrying so much about gas prices and start worrying about the mass slaughter of innocent civilians. Why is the nation so ambivalent about this matter? Why are we allowing ourselves to be swept along without question, while our president tries to sneak through the back door with this war? It worries me that we seem to be setting ourselves up for another Vietnam. It is our right and privilege as American citizens to voice our opinions, where is the opposition that is characteristic of our nation? Silence denies us the most fundamental principle of democracy, government BY THE PEOPLE. Whether you agree or disagree, whether you have studied these issues for years or are just looking to learn, please SPEAK OUT!! Start a dialogue, communicate, it is when this is lost that we truly have been defeated.

Czas na Zywiec
09-27-2002, 02:47 PM
Yea, we were just talking about this in my AP College English class. Why should we go and inspect for weapons in Iraq? Does the United States have weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Does the United States have nuclear weapons? Yes. Then why is it OK for us to have it and not Iraq? If we invade Iraq, like everyone said, It'll just prove to the Muslim World that WE are the enemy. Plus, what is the only nation in the world to drop two nuclear bombs on another nation? I say we stick to our guns and don't invade it. This is just my opnion, so please don't get too mad. :D

Fleet
09-27-2002, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Original Prankster
Plus, what is the only nation in the world to drop two nuclear bombs on another nation?

Which saved the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1 million American servicemen's lives. That is the estimate if the United States would have had to invade Japan to end the war. Incidentally, my father was to have been one of those soldiers on the planned mission to invade Japan in Nov. of 1945.

And, let's not forget who started that war (WWII)- Japan and Germany. The United States tried to stay out of it, but (as usual) was dragged into it after Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941 (by, guess who, the Japanese).

Cokies
09-28-2002, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


And, let's not forget who started that war (WWII)- Japan and Germany. The United States tried to stay out of it, but (as usual) was dragged into it after Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941 (by, guess who, the Japanese).

Well then, wouldn't we be the hypocrites?

ABlairican Pie
09-28-2002, 01:12 PM
It makes me rather ill about Japan whining about how terrible we Americans were for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and totally being "against peace" and making themselves looking like the poor peace-loving nation...when they DID drag us into the war--AND committed possibly the most heinous wartime atrocities of any nation when they invaded the province of Manchuria in China in 1937. What they did is considered by many historians to
far exceed the atrocities committed by the Nazis. There is a book
about that put out a couple years ago called "The Rape Of the Nanking."

Kitt
09-28-2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
It makes me rather ill about Japan whining about how terrible we Americans were for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan and totally being "against peace" and making themselves looking like the poor peace-loving nation...when they DID drag us into the war--AND committed possibly the most heinous wartime atrocities of any nation when they invaded the province of Manchuria in China in 1937. What they did is considered by many historians to
far exceed the atrocities committed by the Nazis. There is a book
about that put out a couple years ago called "The Rape Of the Nanking." Be careful not to misplace your ire. No atrosity is any more or less worse than another. The Japanese atrosity at Nanking was not less horrid than the holocost or the dropping of the atomic bombs. Why do we humans insist on fighting fire with fire. Death is death, and lots of deaths are lots of deaths. Why measure one atrosity against another? It doesn't justify or downgrade the next atrosity by saying "They did it too." Having dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima will probably be forever debated for the necessity of it. And I doubt that it will ever be settled because it's difficult to put oneself in the time frame of the event. It's true that if the US had not done that, others would have died before ending the war. And, something that I think is overlooked, more civilians died as a result of conventional bombing during that war in Germany and Japan than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But! For the Japanese people today or in the past to point out that the US could have found a way to end the war without destroying two entire cities of innocent people is not a hypocrytical or unreasonble discussion. Nanking is just another example of why war needs to be avoided at all costs whenever possible. When humans are in a war like situation, their behavior tends to go beyond the boundries of our imagination - even though we've seen it time and again. Just one more example of why we should be thinking VERY hard about this current Iraq pre-emption discussion and its defininite and indefinite consequences. Don't underestimate how horrid this could become if carried out. Don't underestimate how far reaching this "pre-emptive" policy may not only not snuff out, but may actulally prompt or instigate an ongoing series of atrosities throughout the world.

ABlairican Pie
09-28-2002, 02:49 PM
Actually, I wasn't debating the morality of the choice to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, but pointing out the hypocrisy of Japan
making itself to be this "poor embattled nation" while conveniently ignoring the fact that was an aggressor nation attacking Nanking as well as the U.S. I wasn't minimizing the acts of the Nazis either, but wanted to point out that many people are not aware of what Japan did to China back in the late '30's. I don't think anyone could minimize what the Nazis did--it is incredibly a society and culture that boasted of the greatest art, literature, and even theology in Western Civilization--would descend into barbaric slaughter and greatest fascism in the 20th century.
I think you are right, though that we shouldn't fight fire with fire, because, the whole thing escalates to a point that no one wins.
It was strange that over 10 years ago, we thought that when the Cold War ended, we didn't have to worry about nuclear war--and now we are still faced with the possibility of that in the Middle East, with India and Pakistan facing off. But when you come down to it, it's a no-win situation--we shouldn't go to war, we shouldn't retaliate, but, sadly, it's a little more complicated than that. Even though we know we shouldn't, how can we trust that the terrorists won't?

Jimbo
09-28-2002, 03:16 PM
Had we not dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is estimated that the war in the Pacific would have lasted up to 2 years longer, with an additional 200,000 American lives lost. The loss of life among the Japanese - both military and civilian - would have been much higher. I agree that the use of nuclear weapons results in death and destruction too horrific to even imagine. That's why I believe we must stop Saddaam Hussein before he can unleash such a weapon of mass destruction against our country.

In the early 1980s, Iraq was building a nuclear power plant that would have given Hussein the capability to deveop weapons-grade Plutonium. Israel lauched a preemptive strike against Iraq, and took out the facility before it could be brought on line. The Israelis were denounced by much of the world community (including many in the United States) for their strike against the Iraqi facility. Looking, back, many of those same critics are now thankful that Israel took the action that they did.

Saddaam Hussein is a man who has used chemical weapons against his own people (the Kurds) and against Iran. If he'll use such weapons against his fellow Muslims, why should anyone think that he wouldn't use them on us if he gets the opportunity?

Bill Clinton, in a Veteran's Day speech in 1998, outlined the threat that Hussein poses, and did not rule out an American preemptive strike to negate that threat. It has been 4 years since the U.N. weapons inspectors have been kicked out of Iraq. Do you really believe that, in the ensuing 4 years, Hussein's nuclear and chemical weapons programs have remained inactive? Finally, If you don't believe that Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, you may want to give some consideration to the following story being reported TODAY by the Reuters News Agency:

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish paramilitary police have seized more than 33 pounds of weapons-grade uranium and detained two men accused of smuggling the material, the state-run Anatolian news agency said on Saturday.

Officers in the southern province of Sanliurfa, which borders Syria and is about 155 miles from the Iraqi border, were acting on a tip-off when they stopped a taxi cab and discovered the uranium in a lead container hidden beneath the vehicle's seat, the agency said.

The incident happens at a time of mounting speculation the United States could launch a military attack on neighboring Iraq for its alleged program of weapons of mass destruction.

U.S. President George Bush has accused Baghdad of clandestine efforts to develop a nuclear bomb as his administration works to build international support for an operation to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Officials at Ankara's Atomic Energy Institute would not confirm they had been notified about the material, which Anatolia had reported.

"Our investigation on whether the uranium was destined for a neighboring country is continuing," a Sanliurfa police official was quoted as saying by Anatolian.

Police officials in Sanliurfa and Ankara declined to comment on the case.

Authorities believe the uranium came from an east European country and has a value of about $5 million, Anatolian said.

It was not immediately clear when the operation was carried out. Anatolian only gave the first names of the suspects, which appeared to be Turkish.

Smugglers use Turkey's porous eastern border to import drugs, and hundreds of thousands of migrants each year illegally cross the rugged frontier on their way to more affluent European Union nations.

Police in Istanbul seized more than 2.2 pounds of weapons-grade uranium last November that had been smuggled into Turkey from an east European nation. The smugglers were detained after attempting to sell the material to undercover police officers.

Liza
09-28-2002, 03:22 PM
I think Bush is crazy. While no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, in the eyes of the world he hasn't done anything. This would be Bush getting the US into an unprovoked war - who are we to decide that one country's leader is unjust and should therefore be killed? How would you like it if Tony Blaire came in and decided that Bush wasn't a fit leader and he should therefore be killed? It's just not our call.

Living abroad, I have many people's views of this situation. Germany just had its elections and one of the main deciding factors was their foreign policy. The chancellor that won, Schroeder, promised that as long as he holds office, Germany won't get involved in an attack against Iraq. Good for them! Just because George Bush decides to jump off a bridge is no reason for the rest of the world to follow.

I think there is no immidiate threat to us from Iraq, and our country has gone through too much to start picking fights.

Fleet
09-28-2002, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Cokies


Well then, wouldn't we be the hypocrites?

Please explain...

We would be hypocrites for defending our freedom? For ending a war which we did not start? Huh? :confused:

Fleet
09-28-2002, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by Liza
I think Bush is crazy. While no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, in the eyes of the world he hasn't done anything. This would be Bush getting the US into an unprovoked war - who are we to decide that one country's leader is unjust and should therefore be killed? How would you like it if Tony Blaire came in and decided that Bush wasn't a fit leader and he should therefore be killed? It's just not our call.

Living abroad, I have many people's views of this situation. Germany just had its elections and one of the main deciding factors was their foreign policy. The chancellor that won, Schroeder, promised that as long as he holds office, Germany won't get involved in an attack against Iraq. Good for them! Just because George Bush decides to jump off a bridge is no reason for the rest of the world to follow.

I think there is no immidiate threat to us from Iraq, and our country has gone through too much to start picking fights.

Fleet
09-28-2002, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Liza
While no one thinks Saddam is a good guy, in the eyes of the world he hasn't done anything.

Living abroad, I have many people's views of this situation. Germany just had its elections and one of the main deciding factors was their foreign policy. The chancellor that won, Schroeder, promised that as long as he holds office, Germany won't get involved in an attack against Iraq. Good for them!

Yeah, good 'ol Saddam. He hasn't done anything- just harboring and condoning terrorists! ;)

I bet if a few jets smashed into a few of Germany's biggest and tallest buildings, they would change their mind in a hurry. Of course, even then they would probably let the United States take care of it.

(Computer foul-up on my last message.)

ABlairican Pie
09-28-2002, 06:33 PM
Just out of curiosity, would anyone go after Hitler if they knew what he was doing in Europe?

Fleet
09-28-2002, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
Just out of curiosity, would anyone go after Hitler if they knew what he was doing in Europe?

An interesting question.

I would say probably not... the other countries would wait for the United States to send their men (and women) in, and then they would criticize the U.S. for using "excessive force!"

ABlairican Pie
09-28-2002, 06:59 PM
"Excessive force"--other countries WOULD do that, of course!!:lol:

Cokies
09-29-2002, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


Please explain...

We would be hypocrites for defending our freedom? For ending a war which we did not start? Huh? :confused:

Just like the Japanese having little reason for attacking us in 1941, we have little reason for attacking Iraq now.

Fleet
09-29-2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Cokies


Just like the Japanese having little reason for attacking us in 1941, we have little reason for attacking Iraq now.

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted the U.S. out of the way so they could take over the Western Hemisphere.

We (the United States) want to attack Iraq because we want to disable Saddam's ability to attack us or Israel with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. I guess you would rather wait until Iraq obtains and uses these things before we do something about it. I'd rather not wait until another horrific attack happens.

There is a huge difference between what Japan did in '41 and what the situation is today. We are fighting for peace and freedom from terrorist acts for all countries. Japan was only interested in Japan. You are talking about something that is completely different.

Kitt
09-29-2002, 10:45 PM
Between 200,000 to 350,000 people on Saturday, one of the biggest anti-war demonstations ever, marched in London in protest of a war on Iraq. They were people from all walks wanting to express their opposition to what millions throughout the world including the US believe is a not only an unust war but a war that will cause more trouble and instability.

Some of the marchers:

On the march

Reverend Garth Hewitt, 55, vicar of All Hallows' on the Wall, City of London. On the march because: "We've lost sight of morality and people seem to think that violence is a solution." Will be marching with a cross given to him by the Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Abu El Assael, a Palestinian Israeli citizen. "I'm marching for the bishop's community as well," Rev Hewitt said, "that their suffering will be stopped. I don't understand where Blair is coming from. I think he's deserting his moral responsibility."

Anas Altikriti, 34, Iraqi living in London. On the march because: "We refuse to be desecrated and tarnished with the blood of innocent children of Palestine and Iraq. Everyone here and most people in Iraq pray to see the back of Saddam Hussein, but to do this with force is entirely unethical and will not achieve its aims. The Iraqi people will have to bear the brunt again and be torn to pieces. It's not fair for a whole country to suffer for the actions of one individual."

Sue Davis, 75, retired churchworker from London. On the march because: "There will be a huge conflagration in the Middle East if we declare war. The focus for me is the tragic situation of the ordinary people in Iraq who will be bombed and who will lose any of the infrastructure they have built up since the Gulf War."

Liz Hutchins, 27, head of student CND in London. On the march because: "I think this is an unjust war and people in Britain have a special responsibility to speak out against it as Blair has made us Bush's number one ally. I'm speaking out against our Government's support for the US. This is said to be the biggest peace demonstration in a decade and hopefully that will send a powerful message to Downing Street. It's about humanity and speaking out for a just and fair world."

Salma Yaqoob, psychotherapist and mother of two from Birmingham. On the march because: Treatment she received on the streets in the days following 11 September. "There was a lot of hostility towards Muslims. It was the first time I'd ever experienced a racist attack. A man came up to me and spat at me." Made the journey to London despite being heavily pregnant. "According to UNICEF, half a million Iraqi children under five had died by 1995 as a result of the war and the sanctions."

© 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

Cokies
09-30-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because they wanted the U.S. out of the way so they could take over the Western Hemisphere.

You are talking about something that is completely different.

We want to attack Iraq because we want Sudam out of the way, so we can take control of the region's oil supply.

And I wasn't the one who brought up the Japanese in the first place.

Truth
09-30-2002, 12:29 AM
Did you guys hear that Saddam is using body doubles? I read it on the AOL news a few days ago and they said a German TV station found from a couple hundred pics of Saddam that there are doubles of him acting like him...Ill try to find the article on the web...

Truth
09-30-2002, 12:32 AM
http://www.msnbc.com/news/813837.asp?cp1=1

theres an article on it

Liza
10-01-2002, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


I bet if a few jets smashed into a few of Germany's biggest and tallest buildings, they would change their mind in a hurry. Of course, even then they would probably let the United States take care of it.



Wow, that was pretty harsh. For starters, Iraq HASN'T flown any jets into any buildings. Is somebody a little confused as to which war we're talking about? In the eyes of the world, Iraq hasn't done anything. They haven't done anything that should provoke an attack - all they HAVE done is refuse to let weapons inspectors in, and now they are doing that. Pretty dismal excuse for Bush to take on his Daddy's war.

Germany has stood by the United States faithfully since World War II. They even sent troops into Afghanastan in support of the War on Terrorism. This is the first time in 50 years that they've taken a stand against the US, and as a US citizen, I think they were perfectly right to do so. It's not their fight, and it's not ours either.

Kitt
10-01-2002, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
it's a no-win situation--we shouldn't go to war, we shouldn't retaliate, but, sadly, it's a little more complicated than that. Even though we know we shouldn't, how can we trust that the terrorists won't? I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't retaliate" I'd say that we should use good judgement. Picking out the easy bogeyman, Sadaam, and loosing sight of the overall threats and the backing of our allies, and not so much allies, will make our situation more dangerous. The agenda of Bush and company is simplistic and foolhardy. Sadaam's interest is in himself and his tentative corner of power and riches. He doesn't want to gamble that away.The Radical Islamists, who,afterall, do not at all care for Sadaam, have a much larger, more complicated agenda. We're wasting time and money by pretending that wiping out a lot of innocent Iraqis, along with Sadaam, is going to in anyway solve our problems.

Liza
10-02-2002, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


Would anyone go after Hitler if they knew what he was doing in Europe?

An interesting question.

I would say probably not... the other countries would wait for the United States to send their men (and women) in, and then they would criticize the U.S. for using "excessive force!"

Yeah, you'd like to think that, wouldn't you? The fact is Hitler wasn't exactly being sneaky - invading Poland and publically announcing his intention to take over Austria wasn't exactly a big secret. The entire world knew what Hitler was up to, and the US stood by and did nothing until almost 3 years later when the Japs got Pearl Harbor. The rest of the world was torn up fighting the Nazis, until finally the US entered (by getting their butts kicked into it) and finished the war. Nobody was waiting for the US to come in and fix everything - if fact the US was just sitting pretty watching all of Europe go to hell. We're not exactly the saints who come in and fix everything - in fact if we hadn't gotten attacked by Japan, Hitler would have probably won the war. The US was more than willing to sit back and watch it happen.

Liza
10-02-2002, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by kittflynn
I wouldn't say that we "shouldn't retaliate" I'd say that we should use good judgement. Picking out the easy bogeyman, Sadaam, and loosing sight of the overall threats and the backing of our allies, and not so much allies, will make our situation more dangerous. The agenda of Bush and company is simplistic and foolhardy. Sadaam's interest is in himself and his tentative corner of power and riches. He doesn't want to gamble that away.The Radical Islamists, who,afterall, do not at all care for Sadaam, have a much larger, more complicated agenda. We're wasting time and money by pretending that wiping out a lot of innocent Iraqis, along with Sadaam, is going to in anyway solve our problems.

Well said, kittiflynn! I couldn't agree more!

Fleet
10-02-2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Liza


Wow, that was pretty harsh. For starters, Iraq HASN'T flown any jets into any buildings. Is somebody a little confused as to which war we're talking about? In the eyes of the world, Iraq hasn't done anything. They haven't done anything that should provoke an attack - all they HAVE done is refuse to let weapons inspectors in, and now they are doing that. Pretty dismal excuse for Bush to take on his Daddy's war.

Germany has stood by the United States faithfully since World War II. They even sent troops into Afghanastan in support of the War on Terrorism. This is the first time in 50 years that they've taken a stand against the US, and as a US citizen, I think they were perfectly right to do so. It's not their fight, and it's not ours either.

What happened on 9-11 was pretty harsh, too. Who would have thought that was going to happen? As stated before, terrorist experts and former weapons inspectors say that Iraq will have nuclear weapons in 3 months to 3 years. You really think we should wait until they get these weapons (and use them) before we do something?

The big question is WHY have they refused to let weapon inspectors in? You know as well as I... to build up their arsenal again. Of course, if we had a real president from Jan. '93- Jan. '01, he would have said to Iraq, "Let our inspectors in, or we will come in and destroy your weapons."

You're right; it's not our fight- until Iraq starts attacking neighboring countries (including possibly killing U.S. citizens over there) and maybe attacks on our shores (by terrorists already over here). Then the rest of the world will ask the U.S. for help.

Fleet
10-02-2002, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Liza


Yeah, you'd like to think that, wouldn't you? The fact is Hitler wasn't exactly being sneaky - invading Poland and publically announcing his intention to take over Austria wasn't exactly a big secret. The entire world knew what Hitler was up to, and the US stood by and did nothing until almost 3 years later when the Japs got Pearl Harbor. The rest of the world was torn up fighting the Nazis, until finally the US entered (by getting their butts kicked into it) and finished the war. Nobody was waiting for the US to come in and fix everything - if fact the US was just sitting pretty watching all of Europe go to hell. We're not exactly the saints who come in and fix everything - in fact if we hadn't gotten attacked by Japan, Hitler would have probably won the war. The US was more than willing to sit back and watch it happen.

Unfortunately, we had a very liberal president during that time (Roosevelt).

If you remember, that is exactly how it ended (the U.S. did come in and fix everything). And if the U.S. didn't, you would probably be speaking Japanese (or German) right now.

Anyway, I would rather it does not happen, but I think sooner or later, we will be attacking Iraq (although, much of this will be done secretly (the Delta Force and others) to minimize the danger to Iraqi citizens.

Czas na Zywiec
10-02-2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Fleet
The big question is WHY have they refused to let weapon inspectors in? You know as well as I... to build up their arsenal again. Of course, if we had a real president from Jan. '93- Jan. '01, he would have said to Iraq, "Let our inspectors in, or we will come in and destroy your weapons."

Now I'm not on anyone's side, but would George Bush let Iraqi inspectors into our contry to come and inspect out nuclear weapons? Would he let any countires inspectors come into America and inspect our weapons only because they were suspicious of something?

Kitt
10-02-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Fleet
If you remember, that is exactly how it ended (the U.S. did come in and fix everything). And if the U.S. didn't, you would probably be speaking Japanese (or German) right now.
Anyway, I would rather it does not happen, but I think sooner or later, we will be attacking Iraq (although, much of this will be done secretly (the Delta Force and others) to minimize the danger to Iraqi citizens. You're a perfect example of American bluster and ego. The French, the English and the Russians would sure and hell take issue with your claim that "the US did come in and fix everything." Here are a few sentences from "A Peoples History of the United States" to give you a clue as to what really happened:

"In the headlines were the battles and troop movement: Germany was pushed back toward and over her frontiers, by the increasing bombardment by the British and American air forces. And, at the same time, the Russian victories over the Nazi armies (the Russians, by the time of the cross-channel invasion, had driven the Germans out of Russia and were engaging 80% of the German troops).

And, about "minimizing the danger to Iraqi citizens." Not many Iraqis believe that, and with good reason. As I've been telling you, war is not a sanitary, A to Z playbook.

Liza
10-02-2002, 09:56 PM
Okay, you guys seem a little confused about what I'm saying. My personal belief is that the United States should NOT attack Iraq. I believe that this decision should be made by the UN. If the UN agrees that Iraq IS a definate danger, then by all means, let's go in and kick some butt.

However, the fact that many countries have stood against this idea makes me wary that Iraq is a threat, and this is in fact just a thing for Bush to finish his Dad's war. I don't think it's up for the US - or any other country - to decide if a ruler is fit or not. That's not our call. It's just our opinion against someone else's. Suppose it were the other way around - we haven't DONE anything and some big country decides our leader is unfit so they're gonna come in and attack us. How fair is that?

All in all, I believe in the United Nations. They certainly know more about this than any of us do, and if they decide to do anything, then I fully support them. I do not agree with the US going in by itself just because of our own opinions and beliefs.

Something else I wonder about - if you seem so certain that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction - why does it seem like a good idea to go to war with them?

Fleet
10-02-2002, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
The French, the English and the Russians would sure and hell take issue with your claim that "the US did come in and fix everything." Here are a few sentences from "A Peoples History of the United States" to give you a clue as to what really happened:

"In the headlines were the battles and troop movement: Germany was pushed back toward and over her frontiers, by the increasing bombardment by the British and American air forces. And, at the same time, the Russian victories over the Nazi armies (the Russians, by the time of the cross-channel invasion, had driven the Germans out of Russia and were engaging 80% of the German troops).

And, about "minimizing the danger to Iraqi citizens." Not many Iraqis believe that, and with good reason. As I've been telling you, war is not a sanitary, A to Z playbook.

The French! Are you joking? Have you heard of something called D-Day? (The invasion of France to drive out the Germans.) The Americans landed on the beaches with the hardest terrain. About 2,200 soldiers were killed at Omaha beach and 1,200 were killed at Juno beach. Many historians say the figures were much higher- they were estimated during the first hour or so of the invasion.

Oh, great. The Russians. Have you heard of the word "Commusnism?" If the U.S. had not fought WWII, all of Europe would have been in communist control. Why don't you tell the 292,000 servicemen who were killed (in battle deaths) in WWII that if they stayed home it would not have mattered?

I happened to mention your ridiculous statement to my parents (75+ years old) and I sure got a laugh! They said the Americans had a major part in winning WWII. Look at how many areas of the world the U.S. soldiers were sent to fight... Northern Africa, Italy, many portions of Europe, numerous islands in the Pacific, etc. I don't remember French, British or Russians soldiers helping us fighting on the islands of Leyte, Guam, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, Green Islands, Bougainville, Soloman Islands, Mariana Islands, Ulithi, Peleliu, Palau Islands, Philippines, etc., etc., etc.

This junk that the U.S. did not play a big part is just politically-correct nonsense. The U.S. did most of the bombing in Germany so the Russians met with much less resistance. BTW, England did the safer nighttime bombings and the U.S. did the more dangerous daytime bombings. I've read many WWII books (not to mention first-hand sources).

(My dad-who has the Purple Heart Award- is a WWII vet- he was stationed in the Pacific and was shot in the leg. He was fighting in Leyte and the Philippines.) My family knows a lot about WWII.

Not many Iraqis believe that the danger to them is minimized? Of course not, they don't have a free press there- it's all controlled by the Iraqi government (or didn't you know)?

Kitt
10-03-2002, 08:16 AM
The Iraqi people believe they will be bombed and killed because they've been bombed and killed before by the US. Their fear is based in hard cold reality, not propaganda.

The French played a large part iin D-day. All of the other involvements regarding the Russians the English and so on are true and any simple reading of history will show that to you.

You misrepresent my position about the US in WWII, I made no claim lessening our involvement in the war, I only pointed out that the allied involvement should not be overlooked. French, English and Russian troops died fighting just US troops in WWII, not to mention their civilian populations, that's not a joke and it's a shame that you think that it is.

Liza
10-03-2002, 10:55 AM
Nobody's saying that the US didn't help finish the war, what we're just trying to point out is that 1) we didn't do it alone and 2) we're not exactly the world's biggest saints because of it. We stood by for a long time and did nothing, then when we did come in it was with a lot of help from the allies that we were able to have victory.

My grandpa served in the South Pacific in WWII as well, and my other grandfather who was only 17, was a member of the Danish Resistance. Both of them are heros too, even though they're from different sides of the world - please don't think that the US did it alone.

Fleet
10-03-2002, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
The Iraqi people believe they will be bombed and killed because they've been bombed and killed before by the US. Their fear is based in hard cold reality, not propaganda.

The French played a large part iin D-day. All of the other involvements regarding the Russians the English and so on are true and any simple reading of history will show that to you.

You misrepresent my position about the US in WWII, I made no claim lessening our involvement in the war, I only pointed out that the allied involvement should not be overlooked. French, English and Russian troops died fighting just US troops in WWII, not to mention their civilian populations, that's not a joke and it's a shame that you think that it is.

Re: Iraq... but the propaganda they hear is that Saddam is great and we are the terrorists! They would not have to be bombed if their "leader" (Saddam) was not a madman who kills his own citizens!

I doubt very much D-Day would have been sucessful is the U.S. did not contribute the thousands of men, tons of equipment, thousands of airplanes and rifles. Too bad the French could not prevent the invasion of their own country. As for reading of history, true, but many history books in the last 10 or 15 years have become "politically correct" (rewriting history).

The only "joke" is the fact that the U.S. had to send over our young men in WWI and WWII to prevent a worldwide calamity. (If that can be called a joke.) Yes, Russia did make it into Germany, but who knows what they would have done if the U.S. was not involved. Would they have taken over Belgium, France or Poland like they did with Finland?

Read your books again, and go back further... into the '30s. Let me quote something for you about how Russia invaded other countries... "The Soviet Union, seeking to expand into territory in which the terms of the Nazi-Soviet pact had given it a free hand, pressed Finland for territorial concessions on the Karelian Isthmus and elsewhere. When refused, the U.S.S.R. invaded Finland on Nov. 30, 1939..." Russia signed a pact with Germany that they would not declare war against each other, then when Germany began to invade Russia in June, 1941 Russia changed over the the Allies. So don't forget- Russia was friendly was Germany until June of 1941. On the other hand, the U.S. was never on the side of Nazi Germany.

As for Allied involvement, there is no way Japan would have been defeated if the U.S. soldiers were not out there in the South Pacific (dying by the thousands, I should add) fighting on island after island. I know the British were there, too, but there were many more U.S. servicemen there than British.

Fleet
10-03-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Liza
Nobody's saying that the US didn't help finish the war, what we're just trying to point out is that 1) we didn't do it alone and 2) we're not exactly the world's biggest saints because of it. We stood by for a long time and did nothing, then when we did come in it was with a lot of help from the allies that we were able to have victory.

My grandpa served in the South Pacific in WWII as well, and my other grandfather who was only 17, was a member of the Danish Resistance. Both of them are heros too, even though they're from different sides of the world - please don't think that the US did it alone.

1)I know we didn't do it alone... we had a HUGE part in it. We built more wartime tanks, aircraft and guns than any other allied nation. Not bad considering we were fighting a war thousands of miles away from our homeland. Why don't you thank the U.S. instead of trying to minimize our help? Do you realize how much effort the U.S. put into that war? Huge factories converting to building wartime material. My mom was working 12-hour days and weekends making war material. She even used a second name so she could work longer than allowed (because of her age). But no thanks are necessary... after all we didn't do that much for the war, right? :lol:

2)I would not use the word "saints." How about "U.S. military men sacrificing life and limb fighting in foreign countries?" Of course you sound like a lot of Europeans (especially the French)... they accept our help and then spit on us. Back in the '80s, one of my brothers went on vacation to England and France. He enjoyed England very much... the people there love Americans but in France he was treated very rude. He couldn't wait to get out. Like I said, some countries are our friends only until they don't need our help. Some thanks considering we saved their country!

If you just admit the U.S. made a great sacrifice in WWII, I'll be satisfied (and you would have made an accurate statement).

Fleet
10-03-2002, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liza
[B]Nobody's saying that the US didn't help finish the war,

We stood by for a long time and did nothing, then when we did come in it was with a lot of help from the allies that we were able to have victory. [QUOTE]

Again, we did have a liberal president back then.

You have it backwards, the allies had a lot of help from the U.S.

Incidentally, 16,353,659 Americans served in WWII.

Kitt
10-03-2002, 09:14 PM
Fleet-

"They would not have to be bombed if their leader were not a madman who kills his own people." ---And that is how you justify mass murder?

In your earlier entry you laughed at Russia and France as being allies. in fact it seemed that you didn't know Russia was our ally.

As for that tired phrase "politically correct revisionist history": These two letters written by General Eisenhower can't be called revisionist.

The US forces were a great power during WWII. I suspect that they were appreciative of their Russian and French allies. Why can't you be?
____________________________________________________
Letters from General Eisenhower during the battle at Normandy. He gives acclaim to the French and to the Russians in these letters. I've bracketed each of those acclaims for your convenience.

LETTERS FROM EISENHOWER:

Citizens of France! I am proud to have again under my command [the gallant forces of France]. Fighting beside their allies, they will play a worthy part in the liberation of their homeland. Because the initial landing has been made on the soil of your country, I repeat my message to the peoples of other occupied countries in Western Europe. Follow the instructions of your leaders. A premature uprising of all Frenchmen may prevent you from being of maximum help to your country in the critical hour. Be patient. Prepare.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Broadcast to France
June 6, 1944

People of Western Europe,
     A landing was made this morning on the coast of France by troops of the Allied Expeditionary Force. This landing is part of a concerted United Nations plan for the liberation of Europe, [made in conjunction with our great Russian allies.] I have this message for all of you, although the initial assault may not have been in your own country, the hour of your liberation is approaching

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Broadcast to France
June 6, 1944

Fleet
10-03-2002, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet-

"They would not have to be bombed if their leader were not a madman who kills his own people." ---And that is how you justify mass murder?

In your earlier entry you laughed at Russia and France as being allies. in fact it seemed that you didn't know Russia was our ally.



The US forces were a great power during WWII. I suspect that they were appreciative of their Russian and French allies. Why can't you be?
____________________________________________________
Letters from General Eisenhower during the battle at Normandy. He gives acclaim to the French and to the Russians in these letters. I've bracketed each of those acclaims for your convenience.

LETTERS FROM EISENHOWER:

Citizens of France! I am proud to have again under my command [the gallant forces of France]. Fighting beside their allies, they will play a worthy part in the liberation of their homeland.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Broadcast to France
June 6, 1944

People of Western Europe,
     A landing was made this morning on the coast of France by troops of the Allied Expeditionary Force. This landing is part of a concerted United Nations plan for the liberation of Europe,

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Broadcast to France
June 6, 1944

1) What mass murder? How many Iraqi civilians were killed in the Gulf War? How many civilians of Afghanistan were killed in the recent war? Probably less than the innocent Americans that were killed on 9-11. What happened on 9-11 was really mass murder.

2) Again, Russia did NOT start out as an ally. They invaded Finland and signed agreements with Nazi Germany. It seems you need to take a history class!

3) I AM appreciative of the Russian and French allies. However, I think it's unfair to say that the 16+ million of those Americans who served in WWII were not as big as a help as is claimed (which is an outright lie).

4) Nice speech by Eisenhower. It does not change the fact that thousands of U.S. servicemen were there, too. And under his command we were successful. Thanks (in part) to the huge amounts of war material being sent to Europe from the United States. Yes, many nations contributed, but it took the United States' vast resources to help win.

Fleet
10-03-2002, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Original Prankster


Now I'm not on anyone's side, but would George Bush let Iraqi inspectors into our contry to come and inspect out nuclear weapons? Would he let any countires inspectors come into America and inspect our weapons only because they were suspicious of something?

I wouldn't trust Iraqi inspectors to bring me a glass of water, much less inspect our nuclear weapons! Besides, we are not the country that fires off scud missles into Israel because we don't agree with them and their beliefs.

You are talking about a completely different situation. We don't need another country's weapons inspectors because we believe in peace. We do not secretly build weapons of mass destruction to use on another country- unless were are attacked first. We (reluctantly) enter wars only after diplomacy fails and other methods fail.

Kitt
10-03-2002, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


1) What mass murder? How many Iraqi civilians were killed in the Gulf War? How many civilians of Afghanistan were killed in the recent war? Probably less than the innocent Americans that were killed on 9-11. What happened on 9-11 was really mass murder.

2) Again, Russia did NOT start out as an ally. They invaded Finland and signed agreements with Nazi Germany. It seems you need to take a history class!

3) I AM appreciative of the Russian and French allies. However, I think it's unfair to say that the 16+ million of those Americans who served in WWII were not as big as a help as is claimed (which is an outright lie).

4) Nice speech by Eisenhower. It does not change the fact that thousands of U.S. servicemen were there, too. And under his command we were successful. Thanks (in part) to the huge amounts of war material being sent to Europe from the United States. Yes, many nations contributed, but it took the United States' vast resources to help win. By some accounts, 5,000 civilians in Afghanstan were killed in the recent war. I don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed in the Gulf war and I don't know what would be an exceptible number by your standards

I know the history of Russia.There was no need for your declaration about a history class. None of what you've written changes the fact that Russia was our ally. It's not in dispute or a complicated fact.

"As big of a help as is claimed..." Claimed?-- by who? What outright lie? I don't know what it is that you're squaking about. My intention and Liz's intention (If I may speak for her). was to remind you that our allies - as well as the US - played an important role in WWII--not to tell any "outright lies" about the US effort.


The original subject was weather or not the US should pre-emptively invade Iraq. What the US did or didn't do during WWII has no impact on my opinion on that issue, which is that we should not invade Iraq.

Fleet
10-04-2002, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
By some accounts, 5,000 civilians in Afghanstan were killed in the recent war. I don't know how many Iraqi civilians were killed in the Gulf war and I don't know what would be an exceptible number by your standards

I know the history of Russia.There was no need for your declaration about a history class. None of what you've written changes the fact that Russia was our ally. It's not in dispute or a complicated fact.

"As big of a help as is claimed..." Claimed?-- by who? What outright lie? I don't know what it is that you're squaking about. My intention and Liz's intention (If I may speak for her). was to remind you that our allies - as well as the US - played an important role in WWII--not to tell any "outright lies" about the US effort.


The original subject was weather or not the US should pre-emptively invade Iraq. What the US did or didn't do during WWII has no impact on my opinion on that issue, which is that we should not invade Iraq.

Those "accounts" seem to be overestimated. List some sources (and websites), then we would see more accurate figures. As for an acceptable number, I'm more concered about American lives than Iraqi lives, aren't you? For instance, let's say that we knew that Iraq was going to bomb a big American city with an estimated loss of 3,000 lives. So we invade Iraq, destroy their weapons but in the process 1,000 Iraqi civilians are killed. Would you accept the sacrifice of 1,000 Iraqis to save 3,000 American lives? I certainly would.

Correct- Russia was an ally... AFTER June, 1941 when Germany turned the tables and invaded them. That can not be disputed either. It also can not be disputed that Russia invaded a country (Finland) who did nothing to them to warrant invasion.

It's an outright lie to say that the U.S. did not play as big a part in WWII as some people claim.

As for Iraq, you better prepare yourself. It looks like we are going in there and destroy their weapons of mass destruction one way or another.

Czas na Zywiec
10-04-2002, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Fleet
We do not secretly build weapons of mass destruction to use on another country- unless were are attacked first.

We know that, but how do they know that unless they've been here?

Kitt
10-04-2002, 08:19 PM
Fleet, one thing you refuse to acknowledge is that Iraq didn't kill 3,000 Americans on September 11th 2001. Before I'd be willing to back sending in our military to kill and be killled I would like, as any reasonable and responsible thinking adult should, proof of the President's and his adminstration's accusations and inuendos. War on the hunch is not good enough for me

If you want an assessment of the cold hard numbers of dead civilians go on your own fact finding mission. If you want one hard cold example of what happened in the Gulf War regarding dead civilians read "What War Looks like" on page two of this thread.

As for the supposed Iraqi weapons: inspections don't kill people. That I'm prepared for and will welcome.

What's with your little history lesson on Russia each time you reply. Are you trying to inform us or just impress us with your irrelevant to the subject at hand information ?

Fleet
10-05-2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet, one thing you refuse to acknowledge is that Iraq didn't kill 3,000 Americans on September 11th 2001. Before I'd be willing to back sending in our military to kill and be killled I would like, as any reasonable and responsible thinking adult should, proof of the President's and his adminstration's accusations and inuendos. War on the hunch is not good enough for me


What's with your little history lesson on Russia each time you reply. Are you trying to inform us or just impress us with your irrelevant to the subject at hand information ?

Just wait, I believe we are going to have proof very soon about Iraq's building of weapons. Of course, if we wait until you're convinced we'll probably all be annihilated by then! You know, I hope that 20 years from now, you will be wiser (and have more common sense). You are very naive about Iraq.

As for Russia (one more history lesson)... They were our enemies until they changed sides in '41, our allies from '41-'45, then our enemies again from '45-'89 when Reagan's policy of building our defenses worked and the Cold War was finally over. (After WWII, the Cold War began because Russia threatened to spread Communism through Eroupe One result of that was the Korean War of 1950-'53.) In other words, Russia was a "fair-weather friend." Our friends only when they needed our help. Class is over. :)

Kitt
10-05-2002, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Fleet
I hope that 20 years from now, you will be wiser (and have more common sense). You are very naive about Iraq.

As for Russia (one more history lesson)... They were our enemies until they changed sides in '41, our allies from '41-'45, then our enemies again from '45-'89 when Reagan's policy of building our defenses worked and the Cold War was finally over. (After WWII, the Cold War began because Russia threatened to spread Communism through Eroupe One result of that was the Korean War of 1950-'53.) In other words, Russia was a "fair-weather friend." Our friends only when they needed our help. Class is over. :) Your laughable crack about me and "twenty years from now" somewhat explains why you've been so damn sure througout this conversation that I simply needed more and more of your wize council to help me to see the light. I think you have made an erronious assumption - you grizzeled ol' geezer you. ;)

On what I hope is your final ?lesson? about Russia: the fair weather friends part sounds very similar to our relationship to Saddam, since we were in cahoots with him until just prior to '91. But I'm sure that you, being a history expert and all, must have know that. Right?

Kitt
10-06-2002, 01:43 AM
I have to conclude, because of what I'm about to list here, that you haven't been paying attention to anyone but yourself.

During this thread. I've posted an article from a man who is in his 70's, Howard Zinn. He wrote, much more convincingly than I am able, why this proposed war on Iraq is a nightmarish idea.

I posted an article from Mark Twain. I don't know what age he was at the time, 1910, but he was no child, I am sure. He made a case against war, and the leaders of countries who promote it for all of the wrong reasons.

I posted and article from a Gulf War veteran who lived through the hell of war. He wrote eloquently against this current buildup to war.

I posted an article from the Represetative from Texas, Ron Paul, who asked 35 important questions, about this war talk, that have been getting short changed. You should read them and think about them.

I posted an article about a peace demonstration in London attended by hundreds of thousands of people. In that articlce I quoted the comments of a few of the demonstrators, along with their ages, which were 75, 55, 34 and 27. You should read what they had to say.

I told you about Russia being an ally of ours in WWII and how they pushed back the Germans. You obviously didn't know that Russia was our ally in WWII. So, I posted letters from Dwight Eisenhower to prove it to you and to prove to you that the French and the Russians were not standers by in World War II. Then you went on a reading binge in an attempt to save face and then qouted excerpts from what you had read, as if you knew this all along.

You never commented to what Howard Zinn, Mark Twain, Ron Paul, or the Gulf War vet or the peace demonstrators had to say. I wonder why. Is it because they need to grow up for another twenty years before you can take THEIR opinions seriously?

Cokies
10-06-2002, 02:15 AM
Even if Iraq has weapons of "math death"(apparently that means mass destruction to Bush, he said it in a recent speech), and they were to attack anyone, we would retalliate. With even more force than you could even imagine.
BUT, Iraq isn't a superpower, they aren't an especially weathy country. And they have zero manpower compared to US and ally support forces.

Annilation, is that what the US wants?

Fleet
10-06-2002, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Cokies
Even if Iraq has weapons of "math death"(apparently that means mass destruction to Bush, he said it in a recent speech), and they were to attack anyone, we would retalliate. With even more force than you could even imagine.
BUT, Iraq isn't a superpower, they aren't an especially weathy country. And they have zero manpower compared to US and ally support forces.

Annilation, is that what the US wants?

Bin Laden and other terrorists are not a superpower, either. But look what they did on 9-11. I just don't trust Iraq. You seem somewhat confused- the U.S. does not start hostilities- they do. I sure hope that you and kittflynn don't vote... that would be a scary thought!

Not annilation, the U.S. wants to be sure something like 9-11 never happens again. And if you think countries like Iraq are not a threat you are severely mistaken.

Did you know that in 1981 Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq? Obviously, this was not a nuclear reactor to provide power, but for war purposes. Also, since Iraq has repeatedly broken the cease-fire agreement for the last 11 years- the agreement that we would pull our troops out and not attack- we have every right to handle the situation. Actually, we would have if we did not have a limp-wristed president from Jan. '93- Jan.01.

Fleet
10-06-2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn


During this thread. I've posted an article from a man who is in his 70's, Howard Zinn. He wrote, much more convincingly than I am able, why this proposed war on Iraq is a nightmarish idea.

I posted an article from Mark Twain. I don't know what age he was at the time, 1910, but he was no child, I am sure. He made a case against war, and the leaders of countries who promote it for all of the wrong reasons.


I posted an article about a peace demonstration in London attended by hundreds of thousands of people.

I told you about Russia being an ally of ours in WWII and how they pushed back the Germans. You obviously didn't know that Russia was our ally in WWII. So, I posted letters from Dwight Eisenhower to prove it to you and to prove to you that the French and the Russians were not standers by in World War II.

You never commented to what Howard Zinn, Mark Twain, Ron Paul, or the Gulf War vet or the peace demonstrators had to say. I wonder why. Is it because they need to grow up for another twenty years before you can take THEIR opinions seriously?

Howard Zinn? No thanks, I hate liberals. I prefer people who make sense, like George Putnam (88 years old) a conservative Democrat, who now broadcasts on KPLS AM (Los Angeles). Also, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly... they are not leftists... they care about this country and don't lead anti-war protests.

Mark Twain died in 1910, years before WWI and WWII. It was a much different world after he died- two wars unlike any other previous wars.

I couldn't care less about demonstrations of people in London- it was not their buildings that were smashed on 9-11.

Yeah, you posted a letter from Eisenhower. Why don't you post one from him about why we had to go into Korea to stop the spread of communism? Or why we were in a cold war for all of Eisenhower's presidency (and after).

Why should I comment on Zinn, Twain or some liberal demonstrators? I don't agree with them. And, unfortunately, some people never grow up. Incidentally, the demonstrators during the Vietnam war actually caused it to be prolonged.

Fleet
10-06-2002, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Your laughable crack about me and "twenty years from now" somewhat explains why you've been so damn sure througout this conversation that I simply needed more and more of your wize council to help me to see the light. I think you have made an erronious assumption - you grizzeled ol' geezer you. ;)

On what I hope is your final ?lesson? about Russia: the fair weather friends part sounds very similar to our relationship to Saddam, since we were in cahoots with him until just prior to '91. But I'm sure that you, being a history expert and all, must have know that. Right?

Ol' Geezer, huh? Okay... right???:confused: I'll have to remember that- 41 years old is now considered "old." How about the (liberal) Mr. Zinn you claim to like... how would you classify him- an old mummy!

I guess being an old geezer is better than being a "young punk!" Not necessarily saying you are one... just to all the young punks out there. :D Besides, watch it there... you're going to be 41 years old a lot sooner than you think. Then you'll be the "Ol' Geezer" and I'll be around to laugh!!!

Oh come on, you are sounding ridiculous now. We stopped being friendly with Iraq when they INVADED Kuwait. Or do you think it was okay for them to invade another country who was not hostile to them? Of course, during the '80s, when the Iraq/Iran war was going on, we were on Iraq's side. Who would be on the side of a country who had taken 52 Americans hostage?

Kitt
10-06-2002, 10:08 PM
The "old geezer" rib was a joke Fleet. You see, you've been going along thinking that you've been dealing with a "young punk" as you put it. Personally, I have more respect than that for the young people on this board. I don't automatically discount their opinions just because of their age. You apparently thought you could bludgeon me into submission partly because of my supposed, 'tender young age'. It's interesting that you don't pay attention to anything anyone writes. You don't even pick up on the obvious. I doubt that you're capable of feeling like a fool... But, you have been a fool. We don't agree, and we probably never will, on much of anything. Fleet,I'm in my forties just as you are. My opinions, my beliefs, my passions count. Jackasses who can't understand that life has just as much meaning to an Iraqi as it does to an American will forever bewilder me. I'll tell you what, Fleet, you and I have little more of anything to say to one another so I'll end this conversation with a quote from one of your heroes. And, perhaps, you'll let it go at that. My intention was to discuss a serious life and death subject. Yours was to allign yourself with your favorite TV and radio personalities. Scream loud and long and see if you come out on top, if that's what turns your nut.

"Every gun that is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired, siginifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of it's laborers, the genious of it's scientists, the hopes of it's children.
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Fleet
10-06-2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
The "old geezer" rib was a joke Fleet. You see, you've been going along thinking that you've been dealing with a "young punk" as you put it. Personally, I have more respect than that for the young people on this board. I don't automatically discount their opinions just because of their age. I doubt that you're capable of feeling like a fool... But, you have been a fool. We don't agree, and we probably never will, on much of anything. Jackasses who can't understand that life has just as much meaning to an Iraqi as it does to an American will forever bewilder me.

No kidding... I guess you did not see the big grin. You haven't fooled me for a second. Since you did not put your birthdate on your profile, I guessed you were at least 30. I have a lot of respect for young people- the ones that make sense. In fact, some of them have more sense than you! You may be in your 40s but your rationality is more like age 11 (although that is insulting to 11 year olds). Of course, I am not chicken about putting my age on the profile (you are).

The only fool around here is someone who keeps criticizing the U.S. (if you don't like it here, get out) and sympathizes with Iraq. You could go live in "wonderful" Pakistan... then you would realize how good you have it in the U.S. In the meantime, I sure hope you convert to a conservative. The liberalism/passifist way of life does not work. It's been proven over and over.

You're right (for once)... life has just as much meaning to an Iraqi as an American. The difference is that our government does not invade countries in which we have no reason to invade, knowingly harbor terrorists, kill our own innocent people or hate another country's way of life just because it's different from ours (excluding Nazism and Communism, of course). And if you can't see that you never will. Only a true Jackass doesn't see the difference!

I'm still smiling... in the long run I think time will prove me right and you wrong. Stay tuned and we'll see. :lol:

The United States forever!!! patriot:

Fleet
10-06-2002, 11:03 PM
BTW, kittflynn, to see an intelligent message board (and boy do you need a dose of intelligence), click below. I'm actually laid-back and mellow compared to some of those posters (but I agree with them).

http://www.ronaldreagon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Fleet
10-06-2002, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


http://www.ronaldreagon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Oops, typo there.

It should be http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

The other website (which I've never seen before) is to graphic for me.

Kitt
10-07-2002, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Fleet
The only fool around here is someone who keeps criticizing the U.S. (if you don't like it here, get out) and sympathizes with Iraq. You could go live in "wonderful" Pakistan... then you would realize how good you have it in the U.S. In the meantime, I sure hope you convert to a conservative. The liberalism/passifist way of life does not work. It's been proven over and over.

The United States forever!!! patriot: “Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want the rain without the awful roar of the thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Without struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might be a physical one. It might be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. People may not get all that they pay for in this world, but they certainly pay for all that they get.”
-- Frederick Douglas 1857

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

"The job of a citizen is to keep his or her mouth open."
-- Gunter Grass

Fleet
10-07-2002, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground. They want the rain without the awful roar of the thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Without struggle, there is no progress. This struggle might be a moral one. It might be a physical one. It might be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will. People may not get all that they pay for in this world, but they certainly pay for all that they get.”
-- Frederick Douglas 1857

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

"The job of a citizen is to keep his or her mouth open."
-- Gunter Grass

You sure like to post quotes! Nothing wrong with that, though. You can post all the quotes you like if (more likely when) we invade Iraq and once and for all eliminate them as a threat to the U.S. and other countries. I like a quote from Ronald Reagan regarding how to deal with foreign countries... "Trust but verify."

Interesting quote by Theodore Roosevelt. And I agree. I would like to criticize Bush for not closing our borders. I thought for sure that would have happened right after 9-11. Too bad Teddy was not around during Clinton's terms- he would have needed a 25-hour day to criticize that guy!

Fleet
10-07-2002, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Original Prankster


We know that, but how do they know that unless they've been here?

And let them in and take the risk of them possibly learning top-secret information? I don't think so. Why should we have to prove to a country that harbors terrorists (Iraq) that we are not building our defenses? You sound somewhat confused... they are the bad guys, not us.

Actually, with what the U.S. has had to go through (the two World Wars) we have every right to build up our defenses as much as we like.

Czas na Zywiec
10-08-2002, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


And let them in and take the risk of them possibly learning top-secret information? I don't think so. Why should we have to prove to a country that harbors terrorists (Iraq) that we are not building our defenses? You sound somewhat confused... they are the bad guys, not us.

Actually, with what the U.S. has had to go through (the two World Wars) we have every right to build up our defenses as much as we like.

No, that's not my point. Obviosuly we're talking abou two different subjects here. I am not sticking up to Iraq in any way, just making an observal statement. Plus we weren't half as devastated with the World Wars as some other parts of the world. I'm not talking troopwise, but destruction wise of the land. So I'm going to stop posting here to you cause obviously we aren't going to see what I'm saying anytime soon. :rolleyes:

Kitt
10-08-2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Original Prankster


No, that's not my point. Obviosuly we're talking abou two different subjects here. I am not sticking up to Iraq in any way, just making an observal statement. Plus we weren't half as devastated with the World Wars as some other parts of the world. I'm not talking troopwise, but destruction wise of the land. So I'm going to stop posting here to you cause obviously we aren't going to see what I'm saying anytime soon. :rolleyes: Chris, thanks for putting in your thoughts on your Iraq post. I wish other people would have helped. Fleet goes with that age old BS ploy of putting you or any dissenter on the side of the enemy, when in fact you're just speaking your sincere opinion. Fleet's arguments are simplistic and diversionary. I couldn't figure out where he was coming from until he told me that his heroes were Rush Limbaugh and that guy on Fox news. Then I understood that he was under the spell of the rattleonsandons. Trying to reason with or even chat with the rattleonsandons is much like tossing pebbles down a well; you might make a splash but you'll never be able to begin to fill it up or make any headway with a nearly empty dank, dull hole, half full of mud.

Liza
10-08-2002, 03:27 AM
Okay, first of all, kittflynn I apologize for not responding for so long - it seems to me you've been fighting a lone battle long enough, and I agree with everything you've said. Well done!

FLEET - I'm sorry, but it seem obvious to me that there is simply no reasoning with you. You seem determined to ignore everyone but yourself, and hear only what you want to hear. Addressing the facts - NO ONE IS DISSING THE US IN WWII, okay? Both of my grandfathers fought in it, and I'm very proud of what they accomplished. What I have trouble with is your idea that the US was the only hero. But honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering writing this, because it seems whatever I say you'll discard and just ask the same question again. As to the old geezer, I can't think of a better term for your opinions - not your age, your opinions and your utter conviction that you are right. Yes I am a young one - I'm a proud, liberal college student. I'll save you the trouble of looking up my age - I'm 20 - but I know my own mind, and am not afraid to listen to other people's opinions - a feeling of maturity that I'm afraid you lack. "I hate all liberals" well that's a very grown-up thing to say, isn't it? My parents are both conservatives and we certainly don't always agree on politics, but ruling out all people that have different political views? Yeah, I'd say Geezer suits you perfectly.

Fleet
10-08-2002, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Liza


FLEET - I'm sorry, but it seem obvious to me that there is simply no reasoning with you. What I have trouble with is your idea that the US was the only hero. But honestly, I don't know why I'm bothering writing this, Yes I am a young one - I'm a proud, liberal college student. I'll save you the trouble of looking up my age - I'm 20 - but I know my own mind, and am not afraid to listen to other people's opinions - a feeling of maturity that I'm afraid you lack. "I hate all liberals" well that's a very grown-up thing to say, isn't it?

Just repeat after me- "The U.S. contributed a lot (troops, war material, lives, etc) to help end WWII." That's all I want to hear. And where did I say that the U.S. were the only heroes?

You're right. If you're really a liberal college student (God help you) then there is no use in trying to reason with you. As I've said before, the liberal way of life does not work. It's been tried in England, it's been tried in Canada and it has failed.

I'm glad you know you're own mind- what little of it you have. :rolleyes:

Anyway, you and kittflynn are in the minority (that God for that) as far as using force to dismantle Iraq. The latest I've heard is that 74% of Americans favor going in there and making sure that nut (Saddam) does not have weapons he can use against us or any other country. I know you'll probably never agree but some day I hope you'll see the light.

As far as the "I hate liberals" (and I'm far from being the only one who does), I'm angered because many times the liberal way causes people to be killed. For instance, just think... (or try to think) what would have happened if just one (law-abiding) citizen/passenger on one of those planes that was crashed into those buildings on 9-11 had a gun? Since the terrorists had only box cutters, maybe, just maybe, he or she could have stopped the terrorists before they completed their evil deed. But, were any passengers armed. Nooooo. Because (thanks to the liberals) we cannot defend ourselves anymore. I'm actually laid-back as far as criticizing libs... the website below should get your blood pressure up. And don't try debating the members on that board- you will look hilarious trying to defend liberalism!

http://www.ronaldreagan.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi

Fleet
10-08-2002, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by Liza
"I hate all liberals"

For the record my actual quote was "I hate liberals." Leave it to a liberal to misquote someone! :lol:

There are a few liberals that aren't so bad... sometimes I agree with about 3% of what they say (no, make that 2%).

Czas na Zywiec
10-09-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Fleet
For instance, just think... (or try to think) what would have happened if just one (law-abiding) citizen/passenger on one of those planes that was crashed into those buildings on 9-11 had a gun? Since the terrorists had only box cutters, maybe, just maybe, he or she could have stopped the terrorists before they completed their evil deed. But, were any passengers armed. Nooooo. Because (thanks to the liberals) we cannot defend ourselves anymore.

So your blaming 9/11 on the passengers on the hijacked planes just because they didn't have any guns? I'm sorry, but that's just sick. How do you know what the terrorists had on board and what they were using? Were you on those planes? I don't think so. You can't just blame the innocent people on the plane for what happened. There's a guy called Osama Bin Laden who should get the blame, not them. Did anyone KNOW on those planes or in the airport KNOW that terrorists were going to hijack those planes?

Kitt
10-09-2002, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Fleet
The French! Are you joking? Have you heard of something called D-Day? (The invasion of France to drive out the Germans.) The Americans landed on the beaches with the hardest terrain.

Oh, great. The Russians. Have you heard of the word "Commusnism?" If the U.S. had not fought WWII, all of Europe would have been in communist control.

I happened to mention your ridiculous statement to my parents (75+ years old) and I sure got a laugh!

Originally posted by Fleet
And where did I say that the U.S. were the only heroes? You said it right there. Your own contemptuous words answer your own question?

Cokies
10-09-2002, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


For the record my actual quote was "I hate liberals." Leave it to a liberal to misquote someone! :lol:

There are a few liberals that aren't so bad... sometimes I agree with about 3% of what they say (no, make that 2%).

Not all of us are liberals. I'm very much of a moderate. ANYONE can disagree with you. Oops, everyone all ready is.

Fleet
10-09-2002, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Cokies


Not all of us are liberals. I'm very much of a moderate. ANYONE can disagree with you. Oops, everyone all ready is.

Another misquote- I never said that all of you are liberals.

Well, a moderate ideology is better than a liberal one (but not as good as a conservative one).

Uh, not everybody... I received a private email in which a message board member (or lurker) said, to quote, "I enjoy your unique and intelligent postings on the Iraq thread. Good style." I'm glad that there are other sensible posters out there.
Going by some of their postings, I would say that "Rudy and Kenny4eva" and "Krystal Lake" are also on the side of common sense.

Nice try there, Cokies. Better luck next time! :)

Fleet
10-09-2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
You said it right there. Your own contemptuous words answer your own question?

I still don't see the phrase "The U.S. were the only heroes." Please find that exact phrase and post it. I think you are twisting what I said.

As for D-Day, it's true. The beaches where the invasion of France was to take place were Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. The beaches where the fighting and invading was hardest was Utah and Omaha (especially Omaha) where the Americans were stationed. The Canadians and British took Gold, Juno and Sword. The British and Canadians encountered heavy opposition only on Juno, while the fighting on Omaha was bitter. Do I have to draw a picture for you or do you understand now?

As for the Russians, as I said, if they were the only ones fighting the WWII, sure, they would have probably defeated Germany, but they also would have probably spread their communism into other parts of Europe. Let's not also forget that the U.S. helped to rebuild the countries of our former enemies.

And, yes, my parents did laugh at your statement(s). They both lived through WWII (not to mention one of them serving) so I think they know a lot more about it than you. It's a fact... the U.S. contributed a lot in that war. In hard figures, there were 1,078,162 fatal and non-fatal wounds within the U.S. military. (407,316 killed.) They weren't the only heroes, but there were many many American heroes. Just think what would have happened if the U.S. did not fight in WWII. The Japanese would almost have certainly been successful in claiming the South Pacific. Perhaps you would like to discuss WWII with my parents?

Fleet
10-09-2002, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Original Prankster


So your blaming 9/11 on the passengers on the hijacked planes just because they didn't have any guns? I'm sorry, but that's just sick. How do you know what the terrorists had on board and what they were using? Were you on those planes? I don't think so. You can't just blame the innocent people on the plane for what happened. There's a guy called Osama Bin Laden who should get the blame, not them. Did anyone KNOW on those planes or in the airport KNOW that terrorists were going to hijack those planes?

Can't anybody on this message board post one of my quotes accurately? Where did I say the passengers were to blame. I said it is the liberals who have stripped us of our right to protect ourselves. It would be sick to blame 9-11 on the passengers- I did not say anything remotely like that. I said they were completely unable to defend themselves.

I'll try to phase it again, this time at a 3th-grade level so you might understand. If one or two U.S. citizens/passengers on one or more of those planes had a gun, they could have at least tried to defend themselves. Even if the terrorists had guns, I would have at least tried to fight back rather than being a sitting duck.

After reading your last inane posting, I've come to the conclusion that you just put your messages on here for laughs. And it's working- I just had a good laugh... thank you! :lol:

Czas na Zywiec
10-09-2002, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


Can't anybody on this message board post one of my quotes accurately? Where did I say the passengers were to blame. I said it is the liberals who have stripped us of our right to protect ourselves. It would be sick to blame 9-11 on the passengers- I did not say anything remotely like that. I said they were completely unable to defend themselves.

I'll try to phase it again, this time at a 3th-grade level so you might understand. If one or two U.S. citizens/passengers on one or more of those planes had a gun, they could have at least tried to defend themselves. Even if the terrorists had guns, I would have at least tried to fight back rather than being a sitting duck.

After reading your last inane posting, I've come to the conclusion that you just put your messages on here for laughs. And it's working- I just had a good laugh... thank you! :lol:

I didn't say that you said it directly, but you implyed it. You're the odd man out in this whole thread. And look at how many times Iv'e posted here. A hell of a lot more than you, so don't be saying I post for laughs, cause obviously you've only seen a small percentage. Thanks for being a total idiot and saying that the passengers were "sitting ducks." There were four planes. Remember one of those that crashed in Pennsylvania? The people on those plain were defensive. You can't expect evey single human on this planet to be brave and defensive, especially in a hostage situation. :rolleyes:

Kitt
10-09-2002, 11:30 PM
Fleet--
Regarding your last self important, obnoxious history lesson, I have parents too. My dad was in the Navy for nearly all of WWII. My Uncle was killed in WWII. We all have a history of our own and we all have our opinions formed one way or another by that history and we all express those opinions we've formed and fleshed out in one way or another. Some of us concentrate on passing along information, that we believe to be true, in a repectful way -- if possible. You take perverted joy in insulting, and attempting to demean, anyone who disagrees with you. Of course, when you do that, especially on the wholesale scale you've applied to this thread, you quite thoroughally demean yourself.

Maybe your "style" of wiseass insults are fair game and par for the course on your conservative threads - the ones you suggested we should check out, so we could get a taste of some really down and dirty conservatives who "hate liberals", but your "style" stands out as just a lot of hot air as far as I'm concerned. Your insulting retorts to everything anyone says who isn't bowing to your own imagined superiority comes off as pathetic not to mention, pointless.

Kitt
10-10-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Fleet
I still don't see the phrase "The U.S. were the only heroes." Please find that exact phrase and post it. I think you are twisting what I said.
This isn't a court of law. You hung yourself by laughing at the allies and calling them a joke. No twist about it.That clinches the agrument.

Fleet
10-10-2002, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
This isn't a court of law. You hung yourself by laughing at the allies and calling them a joke. No twist about it.That clinches the agrument.

Typical of a liberal... refusing to answer the question.

I didn't call the allies a joke, I asked if you were joking when you said that France was also fighting in WWII. No kidding, of course they would fight to save their own country (although the Germans took it over anyway until the D-Day invasion was successful). Oh, you liberals are a hoot!

Fleet
10-10-2002, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet's arguments are simplistic and diversionary. I couldn't figure out where he was coming from until he told me that his heroes were Rush Limbaugh and that guy on Fox news.

Simplistic? More like common sense.

Do you know why those people like Rush and O'Reilly are so popular? It's because many many people agree and think just like him. If nobody (or almost nobody) agreed with what they said, they would have low ratings and they would be off the air. Of course, you'll never admit that Rush, Bill and Sean make sense, but they do.

Fleet
10-10-2002, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Original Prankster


I didn't say that you said it directly, but you implyed it. You're the odd man out in this whole thread. And look at how many times Iv'e posted here. A hell of a lot more than you, so don't be saying I post for laughs, cause obviously you've only seen a small percentage. Thanks for being a total idiot and saying that the passengers were "sitting ducks." There were four planes. Remember one of those that crashed in Pennsylvania? The people on those plain were defensive. You can't expect evey single human on this planet to be brave and defensive, especially in a hostage situation. :rolleyes:

Odd man out? I don't think so. There's only been maybe 8-12 of the same people posting messages on this subject. Isn't there something like 10,000 members on this board? I bet most agree with me, but they have the sense not to debate with liberals (why I keep making the same mistake I'll never know). The libs on this board have proved me right. Instead of accepting the facts, they resort to name-calling. That's part of their method- deny, delay, distract and destroy.

Hey someone on here (like you) can post a million messages. It doesn't mean it's not for laughs! Anyone can post a lot of messages and still be irrational.

Those passengers were sitting ducks. Sure, those people on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania were defensive (and heroes), but if someone had a gun, they might all be alive right now. As for the "idiot" statement, first just look in the mirror to see a real idiot :lol: and thanks for proving me right (when you lose a debate, you start with the name-calling).

Czas na Zywiec
10-10-2002, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


Odd man out? I don't think so. There's only been maybe 8-12 of the same people posting messages on this subject. Isn't there something like 10,000 members on this board? I bet most agree with me, but they have the sense not to debate with liberals (why I keep making the same mistake I'll never know). The libs on this board have proved me right. Instead of accepting the facts, they resort to name-calling. That's part of their method- deny, delay, distract and destroy.

Hey someone on here (like you) can post a million messages. It doesn't mean it's not for laughs! Anyone can post a lot of messages and still be irrational.

Those passengers were sitting ducks. Sure, those people on the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania were defensive (and heroes), but if someone had a gun, they might all be alive right now. As for the "idiot" statement, first just look in the mirror to see a real idiot :lol: and thanks for proving me right (when you lose a debate, you start with the name-calling).

I'm not in this debate, I was just interjecting my opinion. You're the one who had to comment on it with youre trash. Plus, just because there are 10,000 members registered, doesnt mean they all post. Only about 200 do. Just check the members section id ya like. Sorry kitt for this guy being such a pain in the ass. I just tryed to interject my opinion, but oh well, it didn't work out with Fleet. Maybe he'll stop posting soon. :rolleyes:

Fleet
10-10-2002, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet--
Regarding your last self important, obnoxious history lesson, I have parents too. You take perverted joy in insulting, and attempting to demean, anyone who disagrees with you.

Maybe your "style" of wiseass insults are fair game and par for the course on your conservative threads - the ones you suggested we should check out, so we could get a taste of some really down and dirty conservatives who "hate liberals", but your "style" stands out as just a lot of hot air as far as I'm concerned. Your insulting retorts to everything anyone says who isn't bowing to your own imagined superiority comes off as pathetic not to mention, pointless.

Because I posted history (all 100% true) it's obnoxious? The truth is obnoxious? Well, if you say so! :crazy:

You have parents, too? I never would have guessed!

As for insults, I was checking you earlier posts, and you take 1st prize for insults. To recap...

Quotes by kittflynn

Oct. 2

"You're a perfect example of American bluster and ego."

Oct. 5

"You grizzled ol' geezer." (Even though I knew it was in jest.)

Oct. 6

"Jackass"

Oct. 6

"But, you have been a fool"

I have omitted some of the other insults... there are just too many.
That's the liberal way. Refuse to admit to the facts and start with the name-calling instead to distract the other person.

Like I said, you take first prize. Congratulations!!! :lol:

BTW, if you think the history I posted is obnoxious (how?), why don't you tell me about D-Day? Just don't try to rewrite history, though.

Kitt
10-10-2002, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


Typical of a liberal... refusing to answer the question.
Oh, you liberals are a hoot! I know you think this is a game, Fleet, but I would have thought that after telling you that my dad fought for four years in WWII, and that my uncle died in WWII, you'd have just an inch of sense, and back off. Another of my uncles who fought in WWII made the Navy his career. He is also in disagreement with your idea of how FUN war would be at this time. Also, my brother served three terms in Vietnam on a Navy destroyer. His name is Mick. I love him a lot, and you know what Fleet. I repect his opinoon a great deal because he has seen things that you and I will never see...I hope. So, it could be that you've underestimated my exposure to the real deal. War isn't out of the question at all times, but it is out of the question when the push, push, push, push for war is a lie.

Fleet
10-10-2002, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet--
Maybe your "style" of wiseass insults are fair game and par for the course on your conservative threads - the ones you suggested we should check out,

Actually, I mentioned that conservative message board because the some of the moderators want a nice, healthy debate with some liberals. Only a few have dared to appear, but when they realize they can't debate facts, they vanish (like you would too, if you had to debate something and had to deal with only the facts).

Incidentally, from what I've heard, if someone joins one of those liberal boards, and says something such as they don't agree with something about Gore or Clinton, they are banned! On the other hand, on conservative boards, the members there invite debates- now that I think of it, maybe you should not try it! You would lose big time.

Fleet
10-11-2002, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Original Prankster

I'm not in this debate, I was just interjecting my opinion. You're the one who had to comment on it with youre trash. Plus, just because there are 10,000 members registered, doesnt mean they all post. Only about 200 do.

Not trash- history and facts.

Only about 200, but there are "lurkers."

Kitt
10-11-2002, 01:05 AM
War Will Not End Terrorism

By Tamim Ansary, AlterNet
October 10, 2002

After 9/11, Tamin Ansary, the son of a former Afghan politician, sent an email to 20 friends about the futility of bombing Afghanistan. Ansary's eloquent letter, "The Taliban: An Afghan-American Speaks," was forwarded on and reached millions of peope around the world. It was published last year in AlterNet's book, After 9/11: Solutions for a Saner World.

Whenever I read about destroying the infrastructure of terrorism, I am troubled by the hard fact that terrorism doesn't need any infrastructure to succeed. Indeed, its lack of infrastructure is its main advantage. Historically, terrorist tactics have been exploited by groups without state power, without the capacity to field armies, and without permission to operate in the open.

The same thing is true of criminals at every level, a parallel that ought to give us pause. Our military might, money and technology toppled the Soviet Empire, but it couldn't keep one evil man from climbing through a bedroom window in Petaluma, kidnapping 12-year-old Polly Klaas, and killing her in a deserted field shortly after he had been stopped by law enforcement officers with the girl still alive in the trunk of his car.

It couldn't stop one guy, or maybe two, from making a bomb out of fertilizer that destroyed a federal building in Oklahoma and killed several hundred people.

It seems impotent to stop some man in Maryland from shooting random strangers with a high-powered rifle even as I write this.

It couldn't prevent two high school students from slaughtering their classmates at Columbine High School in Colorado. The Columbine shooters then killed themselves, so we couldn't even bring them to justice.

None of these criminals needed their own infrastructure. They used the infrastructure of the society they were attacking.

The same is true of the men who destroyed the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. They didn't have their own flight schools; they used ours. They didn't have their own airplanes; they used ours. They didn't even make those box-cutters; they bought the ones we made. And they killed themselves in the process of committing their atrocities, so we can't even bring them to justice. To me, they bear frightening similarities to the maniacs who slaughtered their schoolmates at Columbine.

Why is it then that in our national conversation about terrorism, we use the language of war and not that of crime-busting? I think the war metaphor is based on wishful thinking. Crime is a subtle problem and hard to get a handle on. War, on the other hand, is something we can just declare and wage and win -- and we can do it virtually without casualty to our own forces, as we proved in the Persian Gulf, again in the Balkans, and most recently in Afghanistan.

Therefore, wishfully, hopefully, we talk about terrorism as if it were just another nation-state, a monolithic entity. We call it by a single name -- al-Qaeda -- thereby reducing terrorism to an organization that can be eliminated if only its headquarters and officers can be found. In the first few months after Sept. 11, we even spoke of a single Napoleonic mastermind, Osama bin Laden (although it's true we haven't heard nearly as much about him lately.)

But what if we're operating with the wrong model? What if terrorism is more like crime? The model we're using shapes our assumptions, and our specific responses follow as the night follows day.

Take the "War on Drugs," for example. Merely calling it "a war" suggests the sorts of apparatus needed to solve the problem: infrared night goggles, heat seeking missiles, camouflage outfits, jungle air drops and the like. Has the military approach to the drug problem worked? I'd say the jury is still out.

Repeating the same error with terrorism could be more costly. Again: calling it a war locks us into assumptions about what steps to take. Real war consists of one state going head-to-head with another. Each government tries to destroy the capacity of the other to keep functioning. Whoever loses this capacity first is forced to say, "I give up."

Our proposals for stamping out terrorism come to us without scrutiny from this familiar model. That's why the buzz phrases are "defeating terrorist states" and "destroying the infrastructure of terrorism." In practice, these phrases turn out to simply mean "defeating states" and "destroying infrastructure." The word "terrorism" is just slapped on them to disguise the fact that these are the same old responses to a brand new problem.

After all, suppose we do conquer Iraq and then Iran and then North Korea, and then Sudan and Libya and Syria, and whatever other countries are designated as "terrorist states." Will terrorism end? That's the question.

The answer is surely no. Terrorism is born of grudge and grievance. Some say the grudges are invalid and the grievances imagined. Those people should get over it, they say. They might be right. And if wishes were horses, such opinions would be relevant. But in the real world, we have to deal with the fact that terrorism does have sources. And we have to confront the fact that terrorism is nourished by dislocation, chaos, impotence and secrecy.

Reducing functioning societies to anarchy by destroying their infrastructure and killing great numbers of their citizens is likely to increase whatever legacy of grudge and grievance is already in place. It is also likely to increase the number of dislocated individuals living in furious impotence and stewing in secrecy. This may be a price worth paying if the original threat is a foreign government that is out to conquer our country. Go to war with Iraq? Certainly, if the Iraqi government and its ruler Saddam Hussein think they have a shot at conquering the United States and intend to try.

But if terrorism is the problem to be solved, it's a whole different matter. In that case, making war on Iraq and other nation-states may well be the worst possible policy, because it is only likely to make the problem worse.

San Francisco writer Tamin Ansary is the author of "West of Kabul, East of New York" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Fleet
10-11-2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
I know you think this is a game, Fleet, but I would have thought that after telling you that my dad fought for four years in WWII, and that my uncle died in WWII, you'd have just an inch of sense, and back off. Another of my uncles who fought in WWII made the Navy his career. He is also in disagreement with your idea of how FUN war would be at this time. Also, my brother served three terms in Vietnam on a Navy destroyer. His name is Mick.

Oh, oh, there you go again. I never said anything about this being a game. You must have me confused :confused: with someone else. Another misquote... the last thing I want is another war. Who would? You have a lot of nerve to think I believe war is "fun." Perhaps you should tell your uncle what I was really saying. Or print out this thread and show him (so you can't tell him things I never said).

I'm sure you are proud of your relatives who made the sacrifices to serve (as I am of my relatives). But history is still history. Because you know people who were in WWII does not change history. Back off from what? Reciting history?

Fleet
10-11-2002, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
War Will Not End Terrorism

By Tamim Ansary, AlterNet
October 10, 2002

After 9/11, Tamin Ansary, the son of a former Afghan politician, sent an email to 20 friends about the futility of bombing Afghanistan.

The same is true of the men who destroyed the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. They didn't have their own flight schools; they used ours. They didn't have their own airplanes; they used ours. They didn't even make those box-cutters; they bought the ones we made. And they killed themselves in the process of committing their atrocities, so we can't even bring them to justice.

Has the military approach to the drug problem worked? I'd say the jury is still out.


After all, suppose we do conquer Iraq and then Iran and then North Korea, and then Sudan and Libya and Syria, and whatever other countries are designated as "terrorist states." Will terrorism end? That's the question.

Go to war with Iraq? Certainly, if the Iraqi government and its ruler Saddam Hussein think they have a shot at conquering the United States and intend to try.


So we just sit back and surrender to the terrorists?

Re: Bombing of Afghanistan. It worked. The Taliban was dismantled which is what we set out to do.

Those men (monsters, actually) should not have been in this country in the first place. If our borders were secure (which I've said 20 years ago should be) they would not have been here... during Clinton's "watch"... "Allowing the 9-11 hijackers to enter the U.S. even though several were on watch lists and had known terrorist links..." (From NewMax.com)

The drug problem- one reason it has not worked is because the liberal judges keep putting the pushers back on the street. We have needed severe drug penalties. I would sentence all drug dealers to life in jail (no parole).

"Will the terrorism end?" That would be like saying if there are a lot of burglaries and robberies in your neighborhood, you might as well leave you doors and windows open day and night because they can't all be stopped anyway.

Military experts (among others) agree that it would take about 3 weeks to topple Saddam. I personally think it would take a little longer than that. He (Saddam) also thought he could conquer the U.S. in the '91 Gulf War. We all know what happened. It was all over in two months.

Kitt
10-12-2002, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


Oh, oh, there you go again. I never said anything about this being a game. You must have me confused :confused: with someone else. Another misquote... the last thing I want is another war. Who would? You have a lot of nerve to think I believe war is "fun." Perhaps you should tell your uncle what I was really saying. Or print out this thread and show him (so you can't tell him things I never said).

I'm sure you are proud of your relatives who made the sacrifices to serve (as I am of my relatives). But history is still history. Because you know people who were in WWII does not change history. Back off from what? Reciting history? I don't bother or see any need to quote your exact words on this thread. They aren't sacred, and your insistance that each of us on the board should either quote you verbatim or else we're misstating your intent is one of the reasons why I said you think this is a game. I and others have been replying to your intent implied or stated by what youVe written. We're not filing the words of Fleet into the record for posterity here. Huffing about supposed misquotes is just another of your diversionary ploys, as is changing the subject from Iraq to WWII with your raisin-dry history lessons. I called your reciting of history obnoxious because, frankly, who asked you to play professor?

Print out this thread to show to my uncle, you asked. Well, if I did that, my uncle would think that I was a nut for bothering him with 10 pages of the world of Fleet, and he'd be right. I'm probably a nut just for replying to ten pages of the world of Fleet. I haven't bothered to tell my uncle anything you've written or anything about this discussion. He isn't asking for your advise, or mine.

Liza
10-12-2002, 08:50 AM
Fleet, I'm going to try one last time to try to get through to you.

ABOUT WORLD WAR II.
If you will bother to go back a few pages and read, I have always said - yes, even AGREED - that the United States did a lot in World War II, we helped bring about the end of the war, and all of Europe recognizes that. You just seemed to be of the opinion that the allies did next to nothing, which was what was getting me so upset. You seem to have changed your mind, because I finally saw you admitting that we didn't do it alone - maybe you meant it all the time, you just weren't saying it. That's what I was upset about, if I misunderstood you, I honestly apologize. I have my own personal family history involving WWII as well, and I think we should all be happy that we were on the winning side after all. :)

ABOUT 9/11
First of all, I don't understand why you keep connecting the events of September 11 with the war in Iraq. I could be wrong, but you seem to think that attacking Iraq will bring about the end of terrorism. The man behind 9/11 is named Osama Bin Ladin, NOT Saddam Hussein. Also, as far as weapon control goes, you're right about one thing. If the passengers had been allowed to have guns on the planes, the story would have been very different. HOWEVER, don't overlook the fact that if passengers are allowed to have guns on every airplane, the price might have been much worse. There are a lot of nutty people out there, and I don't think I'd feel very safe thinking that the spooky guy in the next aisle has a gun. Anyway, this is completely off topic anyway. I'm not going to put up all of my views about gun-control because right now it really doesn't have anything to do with this discussion and it would just be something more for you to disagree with.

ABOUT IRAQ
In my opinion (and yes, even though I'm a 20-year-old liberal I am allowed to have one) war isn't necessary. I don't see that Iraq has done anything that deserves an attack. They run their country their way and we run ours our way. If Iraq doesn't comply with UN resolutions then it's up to the UN to decide what to do - not the US.


Anyway Fleet, I'm sorry to see that this discussion is starting to get ugly. I don't believe in name-calling (the one name I called you was old geezer, which I just couldn't help from agreeing with) it seems to me you have called me many more names that vica versa. I have never resorted to calling you brainless or dumb, (which you implied about me) just that you seem to me very closed-minded. I apologize for the name-calling, and it would be nice if you would return that. Other than that, all I have left to say is that I listen to your opinions, and I respect your right to have them. It would be nice if you would return that and respect mine and everyone else's.

Jimbo
10-12-2002, 01:28 PM
[i]

ABOUT IRAQ
In my opinion (and yes, even though I'm a 20-year-old liberal I am allowed to have one) war isn't necessary. I don't see that Iraq has done anything that deserves an attack. They run their country their way and we run ours our way. If Iraq doesn't comply with UN resolutions then it's up to the UN to decide what to do - not the US.

[/B]

Liza, yes you are certainly entitled to have an opinion on any topic you wish. In my younger days, I too was a liberal, and might have said some of the very same things that you are saying now.

I'd like those who oppose a preemptive strike against Iraq to consider the following scenario. Suppose about 90 days prior to the September 11th attacks, President Bush addressed the nation, and said the following:

"We have credible information that Osama Bin Laden and his followers in the Al Qaeda terrorist network are planning a major stike against the United States. This attack could result in in the death of thousands of American civilians, and destruction on a scale not seen in this country since the Civil War. Further, we have strong reason to believe that the ruling faction in Afghanistan, the Taliban, is openly supporting this operation, and providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda as they prepare for this attack. Therefore, the United States will take all necessary action, to include military strikes, to smash the Al Qaeda network and remove the Taliban from power before such an attack can occur".

I suspect that many people would be saying the same things that are being said by those who oppose action against Iraq: "They're no threat to us!", "How could some small, obscure group that we've never heard of strike this country all the way from Afghanistan?" "The Taliban hasn't done anything to us - why don't we leave them alone?" "We have our own problems over here to worry about".

Granted, hindsight is 20-20, but most people would now concede that we should have struck first. I also find it ironic that many of the people who are criticizing our President for wanting to stop Iraq from lauching a major attack against us are the same people who are trying to hold him responsible for not anticipating and preventing the September 11th attacks.

As for your point that it's up to the U.N. to decide what to do, they've had plenty of opportunities to do something about the situation. They've passed 16 different resolutions denouncing Saddam Hussein, and calling on him to abide by the terms of the cease fire from the Gulf War. Hussein has ignored them every time, and the U.N. has done nothing about it. A few weeks ago, President Bush addressed the U.N., and called on them to do what you are saying - enforce the resolutions and the terms of the cease fire agreement. President Bush has worked with the Congress, our allies, and the U.N. to try to resolve this situation. He's doing everything he can to prevent war, but recognizes that we must be prepared for war if all other options prove unsuccessful.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against a million and a half of his fellow Muslims - first in his war against Iran, then against Iraqi citizens themselves. It's not unrealistic to believe that he would have used nuclear weapons against Iran and his other Arab neighbors if he had them available at the time. If he'll do this against his own people, he'll do this against us if given the chance.

Look at the atrocities he commited against Kuwait before we liberated that country, and how he ordered all of the oil wells to be set ablaze as his troops retreated (doesn't that upset all of you environmentalists out there?).

He kicked out the U.N. inspectors 4 years ago. If he has nothing to hide, why do you think he did that? Although he has said he will now let them back in, he is attaching so many restrictions to their return that it will render any new inspections meaningless. The head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, who has since defected to the west, has recently stated that Iraq is 6 months to a year away from having an operational nuclear weapon. Given his past history, is there any reason to think that he is going to develop such a weapon, and then not use it?

I think it's reprehensible the way Tom Daschle, Robert Byrd, and Al Gore have been gambling with the lives of thousands, if not millions, of Americans in an attempt to improve their own political fortunes. They cannot afford to be wrong about this.

This shouldn't be a political issue. The September 11th attacks didn't just kill Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives. It killed Americans from every conceivable political, racial, social, and economic background, as well as hundreds of citizens from other nations. A nuclear, chemical, or biological attack on this nation will be equally unconcerned with who gets killed, and could make the September 11th attacks pale in comparison.

It's them or us. I prefer that it be them. Some people won't like me saying that, but I don't care. You can't fight terrorism with political correctness.

Liza
10-12-2002, 01:55 PM
Jimbo - I understand what you're saying. I've always been of the opinion however that every country has the right to rule itself how they wish and make their own decisions. I don't think it's fair of the US to just decide that what they're doing is wrong (as a matter of fact, I do think what they're doing is wrong) it's just not our call. The US has plenty of secrets that we don't share with everybody, does it seem fair that another country can just decide that our secrets are dangerous and we should be attacked? Even if Hussein is building weapons, why shouldn't he have the right to have them if we do? Because we're bigger? Because we're smarter? Because we're nicer? It's one country's opinion against another. You know, I could be wrong - but that's my opinion. I think we should mind our own business.

ABlairican Pie
10-12-2002, 02:02 PM
"No war. More Totalitarianism." That's what the politically peacenik droids are asking for. Sometimes I have very mixed feelings about this whole thing, and I try to balance it out. But all the happy anti-war slogans aren't going to change the fact that dictatorships do and will exist without someone doing something about it. I alway felt that we should have done something about the Taliban a long time before 9/11.

Kitt
10-12-2002, 02:35 PM
The CIA and other intelligence agencies dispute the six motns to a year claim that Jimbo repeated and are in disagreemnt with the Bush adminstrations claims about any Iraqi link to 9/11. And consequently,. they're in disagreement with the administrations proposals regarding Iraq. You don't have to be a 20 year old liberal college student in order to see the folly in what is going on. It's insulting to keep hearing that young people who disagree with the adminstration just haven't learned how to form their naieve young opinions in a rational manner and will come around to the "conservative" way of thinking if and when they grow up.

Kitt
10-12-2002, 04:59 PM
I thought I might ignore you, Jimbo, but you come up with so many mistatements that it's impossible for me to.

I already told you that the intelligence communinity disputes nearly everything Bush said in his speach and I could back that up with specific quotes but it's all on the record You can look it up.

Chemical weapons on Iran: We helped supply Saddam with them. We gave Saddam the battle field logistics to use them.

The weapons inspectors weren't kicked out. The US turned from inspecting to spying. Then when called on it, the inspectors pulled out voluntarily just before the US bombed Iraq.

If Saddam is such a threat under sanctions, and with no proof of him possesing even one single nuclear weapon, as opposed to the the former Soviet Union possesing tons of them, why is that we should slaughter Iraq now but we were able to contain the Soviet Union for decades? And why would Saddam have the power to strongarm anyone and thus require our full and unrestained attention?

The comment about the burning oil wells: Yes Saddam is a bad man. We all know that. I wouldn't think that one would need to be a so called "environmentalist" to be pissed that Saddam made a hell of a mess of the air quality. Whether or not Saddam is a bad man is not in question. But, yet, that charge keeps coming into the debate as if those who are against the preemptive regime change policy think any different about Saddam than those who are for it.

Byrd and Daschle "reprehensible"? The Republican representative from Texas, Ron Paul, who I posted earlier asking 35 serious and legitamite questions that the American people and the congress should be asking about the Iraq debate, is he reprehensible too, or is that hyperbolic word held in reserve for "politically correct" Democrats who are putting the lives of possibly millions of Americans at risk, just by asking questions badly needing answers?

Fleet
10-12-2002, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
I don't bother or see any need to quote your exact words on this thread. Huffing about supposed misquotes is just another of your diversionary ploys... I called your reciting of history obnoxious because, frankly, who asked you to play professor?

Print out this thread to show to my uncle, you asked. Well, if I did that, my uncle would think that I was a nut for bothering him

One thing you haven't learned when debating is it is very important to post exact quotes. A small change in wording can make a big difference. Do you recall when news reporters or other members of the media are misquoted and usually the person who said the misquote has to go on TV and admit his mistake?

Diversionary ploys? How? I come up with facts and history, while you were busy posting other people's quotes.

Going by what you were saying about WWII, you needed somebody to play professor. "Obnoxious" history is done when it's told with a liberal slant to it (like in some of the recent textbooks).

Uh, you already did bother your uncle! According to your post, you said he is "also in disagreement with my idea of how fun war would be at this time..." (Which I NEVER said, by the way). I know why you really don't show him the entire thread- because he will see that my method of debating is with history and facts, while you refer to name-calling and quotes from other people.

Kitt
10-12-2002, 09:46 PM
Fleet-
Conversaitons with my Uncle have taken place most of my life - pre Fleet days. The size of your ego is stupendous. For you to think that when I talked with my uncle about this subject, you or your words would be included in the conversaiton or that I would actually bother to show him this thread is quite a striking comment about your high opinion of yourself.

There is nothing what so ever that I've said in this thread about WWII that is historically incorrect. So this history lesson jargon coming from you every other post is bull. The trouble with the WWII subject is that you've attempted to clutter this Iraq debate with it. WWII is off topic in this thrread or - as I said before - diversionary.

Fleet
10-12-2002, 10:08 PM
ABOUT WORLD WAR II.
If you will bother to go back a few pages and read, I have always said - yes, even AGREED - that the United States did a lot in World War II, we helped bring about the end of the war, and all of Europe recognizes that. You just seemed to be of the opinion that the allies did next to nothing, which was what was getting me so upset. You seem to have changed your mind, because I finally saw you admitting that we didn't do it alone - maybe you meant it all the time, you just weren't saying it. That's what I was upset about, if I misunderstood you, I honestly apologize. I have my own personal family history involving WWII as well, and I think we should all be happy that we were on the winning side after all. :)

ABOUT 9/11
First of all, I don't understand why you keep connecting the events of September 11 with the war in Iraq. I could be wrong, but you seem to think that attacking Iraq will bring about the end of terrorism. The man behind 9/11 is named Osama Bin Ladin, NOT Saddam Hussein.

ABOUT IRAQ
In my opinion (and yes, even though I'm a 20-year-old liberal I am allowed to have one) war isn't necessary. I don't see that Iraq has done anything that deserves an attack.


Anyway Fleet, I'm sorry to see that this discussion is starting to get ugly. I don't believe in name-calling (the one name I called you was old geezer, which I just couldn't help from agreeing with) it seems to me you have called me many more names that vica versa. I have never resorted to calling you brainless or dumb, (which you implied about me) just that you seem to me very closed-minded. I apologize for the name-calling, and it would be nice if you would return that. Other than that, all I have left to say is that I listen to your opinions, and I respect your right to have them. It would be nice if you would return that and respect mine and everyone else's. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Liza,

About WWII, I think I should have put it differently. Instead of saying that the U.S. came in and fixed everything (which seemed to upset kittflynn) I should have said the U.S. came in and with their vast resources turned the war to the side of the allies and the eventual defeat of the Nazis and Japan. And I agree with you 100%... I sure am glad that we were on the winning side. I'm also glad that I did not grow up during a wartime era (although I almost was in my teens during the tail end of Vietnam).

About 9-11, I believe that soon we are going to have some hard evidence that Iraq was involved and knew about 9-11. Didn't one of the terrorists (Mr. Atta) go to Iraq to get some secret info about the U.S.? I heard that months ago. It's not only Bin Laden who is responsible. There is also Ayman Al-Zawahiri (a close friend of Bin Laden), Sheik Ahmed Yassin (a leader of the Hamas terrorists) and Abbassi Madani (who heads a band of killers in Algeria). There are others, too.

About the name-calling, I checked the earlier posts, and I did no name calling until I was attacked first. I began by ignoring insults and posting facts instead. Of course, I apologize if I insulted anyone first. When posting/debating, I like to stick to opinions/facts/the truth instead of attacking the poster. Now that I think of it, I should have said "I disagree with liberals instensely" instead of saying "I hate liberals." Actually, several of my co-workers are liberals. But I don't hate them (and they rarely mention politics). :D

Since Chuck Norris is quite a bit older than I (he is 62) I guess he is an old geezer, too. But I bet he could go over to Iraq and kill Saddam with a few well-placed karate kicks! Hmm, not such a bad idea, actually. :smash:

Jimbo
10-13-2002, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Liza
Jimbo - I understand what you're saying. I've always been of the opinion however that every country has the right to rule itself how they wish and make their own decisions. I don't think it's fair of the US to just decide that what they're doing is wrong (as a matter of fact, I do think what they're doing is wrong) it's just not our call. The US has plenty of secrets that we don't share with everybody, does it seem fair that another country can just decide that our secrets are dangerous and we should be attacked? Even if Hussein is building weapons, why shouldn't he have the right to have them if we do? Because we're bigger? Because we're smarter? Because we're nicer? It's one country's opinion against another. You know, I could be wrong - but that's my opinion. I think we should mind our own business.

Liza: I, too, understand what you are saying, and agree that every country has the right to rule itself and make its own decisions. I also believe that every country has the right to take action to defend itself if there is credible reason to believe that they are about to be attacked. India and Pakistan both have nuclear weapons, and although we may be nervous about this, there is little reason to believe they pose an immediate threat to us. Unless the situation changes drastically, there are no plans by us to attack either one.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue (or any issue), and still voice their opinions in a polite and respectful manner. I may disagree with you on this subject, but I do respect you, and believe you are sincere in what you are saying. Unfortunately, there are some on this site who are obsessed with silencing any dissenting opinion, and always getting the last word.

Liza, I truly hope that you are right about this, and I am wrong. In order for me to be able to say "I told you so", it will mean that something horrible will have happened. I don't want to be proven right that badly.

Jimbo
10-13-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
I thought I might ignore you, Jimbo, but you come up with so many mistatements that it's impossible for me to.

I already told you that the intelligence communinity disputes nearly everything Bush said in his speach and I could back that up with specific quotes but it's all on the record You can look it up.


Kittfynn, I have also ignored you on this thread until now, because frankly, I was having too much fun sitting on the sidelines watching Fleet make you look like a fool (Mega Dittos, Fleet!)

So you "already told me that the intelligence community disputes nearly everything that Bush said", did you? I didn't realize that you had the final say on all of this.

For every "intelligence expert" that disagrees with Bush, I can come up with an equal number that support our President.

So you posted some questions from Republican Ron Paul. Big Deal. I can point to prominent Democrats such as Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman who support the President on this issue.

You can point to celebrities like Barbara Streissand, who quote from non-existent passages from Shakespeare to voice their opposition to Bush. I can point to others like Director Steven Speilberg and actor Tom Cruise who support GW Bush on this issue (you have to admit, neither one has been a friend of the President's in the past).

We can go back and forth like this indefinitely, and get nowhere. It doesn't matter. The House and the Senate have given Bush his resolution by significant margins. The U.N. Security Council will now take up the matter on Wednesday. The coalition is coming together. Britian has been with us every step of the way. Canada, Russia and France are coming on board. Germany and China will follow shortly.

President Bush has done everything that his critics have asked of him. He has presented his case to the U.N., to the Congress, to our allies, and to the American people. He is not going to "rush to war" as some claim, but will give the U.N. ample opportunity to resolve the matter, and will exhaust all other options before military action is taken.

Since you seem to consider yourself something of a history buff, you will agree that in every major conflict in our history, there has been a difference of opinion about the use of force. During the Civil War, there were those in the North who opposed war with the South, and felt that we should let the Confederacy go their separate way. Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, many in this country opposed our involvement in World War Two.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate, especially on a matter as serious as this. The debate is now over. It's time to come together as a country. One way or another, Saddam's days are numbered.

Fleet
10-13-2002, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet-
Conversaitons with my Uncle have taken place most of my life - pre Fleet days. The size of your ego is stupendous.

There is nothing what so ever that I've said in this thread about WWII that is historically incorrect. So this history lesson jargon coming from you every other post is bull. The trouble with the WWII subject is that you've attempted to clutter this Iraq debate with it. WWII is off topic in this thrread or - as I said before - diversionary.

More attacking a poster? Go right ahead, you will just keep looking more foolish with every passing day. I did not realize that reciting history makes for a big ego! :D

Re: WWII

Your incorrect statement #1... "The French played a large part in D-Day." I happened to find this article in Time magazine (May 28, 1984 by Lance Morrow). To quote, "Normandy was, of course, a joint Allied operation. But the Americans, from Eisenhower down, dominated the drama. The invasion, in a way, was the perfect expression of American capabilities: vast industrial energy and organizational know-how sent out into the world on an essentially knightly mission- the rescue of an entire continent in distress." EXACTLY what I was saying all along. Nothing obnoxious about it- it's history. Of course, you will try to side-step those facts in your usual insufficient ways!

Your incorrect statement #2... "Russia was an ally of ours during WWII." Not during the whole war, '39-'45. Again, they were on Germany's side until that country started to invade Russia. On the other hand, England was our ally during the whole war, not just part of it.

Actually, Liza was the one who first brought up this whole WWII subject. If you just check the earlier posts, you maybe you won't consistently make so many mistakes! :D

Fleet
10-13-2002, 09:59 PM
Originally posted by Jimbo

Kittfynn, I have also ignored you on this thread until now, because frankly, I was having too much fun sitting on the sidelines watching Fleet make you look like a fool (Mega Dittos, Fleet!)
We can go back and forth like this indefinitely, and get nowhere.

Thank you, Jimbo! I knew there were those on this message board that agree with me (are you listening, Original Prankster and kittflynn?). And I'm glad that you have posted a few messages.

And, lastly (and maybe the most important), I am glad that you have been entertained by this thread. It's amazing the lack of common sense some people have.

Fleet
10-13-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet's arguments are simplistic and diversionary. I couldn't figure out where he was coming from until he told me that his heroes were Rush Limbaugh and that guy on Fox news.

I can only imagine who your heroes are. Actually, a scary thought. :eek:

I'll take a guess... Bill Press (depressed?) :thumbsdow , Alan Colmes, Barbra Streisand :crazy: , Ted Kennedy :eek: , Jesse Jackson:eek: , etc.

It would be fun to put those irrational liberals in a room with Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, George Putnam and Al Rantel (who's a local talk-show host) and have a debate. Of course, the conservatives will destroy the libs (figuratively, that is) with their ability to produce facts to back up their statements. Oh, would it be fun to watch the libs dance around the issues! :lol:

Kitt
10-14-2002, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


I can only imagine who your heroes are. Actually, a scary thought. :eek:

I'll take a guess... Bill Press (depressed?) :thumbsdow , Alan Colmes, Barbra Streisand :crazy: , Ted Kennedy :eek: , Jesse Jackson:eek: , etc.

It would be fun to put those irrational liberals in a room with Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, George Putnam and Al Rantel (who's a local talk-show host) and have a debate. Of course, the conservatives will destroy the libs (figuratively, that is) with their ability to produce facts to back up their statements. Oh, would it be fun to watch the libs dance around the issues! :lol: Actually, I don't watch the TV pundits. And I don't pay much attention to what actors and actresses say. Writers have a more free hand and aren't constricted by the popularity polls. I respect Arthur Schlesinger Jr. And David Halberstam is a fine historian and speaker. Gore Vidal's novels bring history to life. David Corn writes well. He is especially good at disecting what is written and spoken by some of the politicians and radio and TV stars that you like. He's also good at helping me to filter out the jargon coming from the general territory of the political spectrum that I fall into. Gary Wills requires a great deal of concentration but he's worth it. He can point out exactly how some historical events came to pass in a way that puts them into a perspective that I could not have considered without such experienced guidance such as he provides. Susan Sontag writes novels and essays that make every word we've all said her seem childish in comparison. Grace Paley is a wonderful short story writer. She is amazing in that she seems to have lived it all-- from love to hate to even--war, which, of course, has been our subject here. Carol Bly!! Here is a quote from her which sums up her approach to writing and life. "If we seek self-knowledge and self-truth in our daily lives, if we speak about the values we cherish, what prevents us from seeking these in our writing as well?"

Speaking of Arthur Schlesinger, as you'll recall I mentioned him at the top of the page, he and some others have expressed their learned opinions lately about this crisis:



  Published on Friday, October 11, 2002 by the Washington Post
JFK Aides Say Bush Is Wrong On Crisis
by Kevin Sullivan
 

HAVANA -- Two top advisers to President John F. Kennedy said President Bush is misreading history when he cites Kennedy's actions in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to justify a preemptive military strike against Iraq.

"I would flunk him in history," said Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

In an address Monday, Bush cited a speech by Kennedy during the October 1962 crisis over the Soviet Union's installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba. Bush portrayed it as an endorsement of the idea of attacking potentially lethal enemies even if they have not attacked first.

"It's taken totally out of context," said Theodore Sorensen, who wrote the words Bush cited and is also here in the Cuban capital. "It was not intended to justify a preemptive strike, because JFK had specifically ruled out a preemptive strike."

Schlesinger and Sorensen, both of whom voiced opposition to a preemptive attack against Iraq, said that Kennedy never endorsed a first-strike policy at any time during the crisis and was, as Schlesinger said, "determined to exhaust all peaceful remedies before resorting to military action."

"I think the whole shift from containment and deterrence, which is why we won the Cold War, to preventive war is most alarming," Schlesinger said. "That's the doctrine invoked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. FDR called that a day that will live in infamy, and the Bush doctrine is perpetuating that infamy."

LucyFan
10-14-2002, 12:33 AM
This is an interesting thread. There is so many perspectives on this serious issue that I see. cool. :cool:

Liza
10-14-2002, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by Jimbo

The coalition is coming together. Britian has been with us every step of the way. Canada, Russia and France are coming on board. Germany and China will follow shortly.

President Bush has done everything that his critics have asked of him. He has presented his case to the U.N., to the Congress, to our allies, and to the American people. He is not going to "rush to war" as some claim, but will give the U.N. ample opportunity to resolve the matter, and will exhaust all other options before military action is taken.


Well, I'm wondering just how accurate your info is and just how much of it is wishful thinking - as I've said before - Germany is certainly NOT coming on board - they have openly opposed Bush's action from the beginning, and now that they have a new chancellor, are definately not going to become involved.

I wonder if Bush really is trying all other options before he goes to war - he seemed upset when it looked as though the UN's rules were going to be complyed with - oh no, they're taking away his excuse to go to war!

It seems to me there's a big difference between what Bush says he wants to do and the actions he's taking. I don't trust the guy - then again, how much faith can I have with a president that is Pro-Life but in favor of the death penalty? :crazy:

Liza
10-14-2002, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Fleet

Actually, Liza was the one who first brought up this whole WWII subject. If you just check the earlier posts, you maybe you won't consistently make so many mistakes! :D


If you would just check the earlier posts you would see that I didn't come on this thread until page 4 - WWII was brought up at least on page 3 and probably back on page 2. That a boy, Fleet. Way to check your info - that was an outright lie!

Oh, dear, I know you wish it was true, but it's not. Looks like that happens a lot to you, doesn't it?

Jimbo
10-14-2002, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Liza


Well, I'm wondering just how accurate your info is and just how much of it is wishful thinking - as I've said before - Germany is certainly NOT coming on board - they have openly opposed Bush's action from the beginning, and now that they have a new chancellor, are definately not going to become involved.

I wonder if Bush really is trying all other options before he goes to war - he seemed upset when it looked as though the UN's rules were going to be complyed with - oh no, they're taking away his excuse to go to war

Well Liza, since you live in Germany and I don't, you are obviously in a better position to judge the mood of the German people on this issue. I made that statement based on the news reports I've seen over here during the past few days.

I'll stand by my statement on Bush not rushing to war. I don't know why he (or any President) would risk the lives of American military personnel in an unnecessary war.

By the way, are you a German citizen, an American currently living in Germany, or a citizen of another country presently living there? (Just curious).

Crimson and Clover
10-14-2002, 08:34 PM
im totally against war. im going to DC the 26th to protest, cant wait. i truly hope that we do not go to war with iraq.

MBFTfan
10-14-2002, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Liza:
It seems to me there's a big difference between what Bush says he wants to do and the actions he's taking. I don't trust the guy - then again, how much faith can I have with a president that is Pro-Life but in favor of the death penalty? :crazy:

I couldn't have said it better myself!:)

im totally against war. im going to DC the 26th to protest, cant wait. i truly hope that we do not go to war with iraq.

Good for you! I am not able to go myself but I know a few people who are, and I will be rooting for you all. :wave:

Fleet
10-14-2002, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Liza

It seems to me there's a big difference between what Bush says he wants to do and the actions he's taking. I don't trust the guy - then again, how much faith can I have with a president that is Pro-Life but in favor of the death penalty? :crazy:

There is a big, no make that BIG, difference when comparing executing convicted murderers and KILLING INNOCENT fetuses. I really hope you are not seriously making a comparison like that. On one side, someone is being punished for a horrible crime; on the other side, someone just wants to be born! Besides, 70-80% of Americans favor the death penalty. I'm not sure how many are Pro-Life (maybe 50/50?). There certainly nothing crazy about being Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty- I bet many Americans have the exact same views.

I'm glad we finally have a president we CAN trust. I mean, our last president was not only the most unethical pres. we ever had, but he was (is) a pathalogical liar. I trust Bush a LOT more than I ever trusted Clinton.

Fleet
10-14-2002, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Liza

If you would just check the earlier posts you would see that I didn't come on this thread until page 4 - WWII was brought up at least on page 3 and probably back on page 2. That a boy, Fleet. Way to check your info - that was an outright lie!
Oh, dear, I know you wish it was true, but it's not. Looks like that happens a lot to you, doesn't it?

I should have been more specific. There were two parts on this thread referring to WWII. The first one was about the A-bomb. That one ended on Sept. 28. Then you brought the subject back on Oct. 1 (6:34 AM) with your title "Getting back to Iraq." This is where the second (and longest) postings began. It was the part 2 postings that kittflynn said I "diverted" the subject by bringing up WWII.

Let's not "jump the gun" and call it a lie. I would call it a "small mistake" that I neglected to mention the part 2 and not the part 1 postings!

Fleet
10-14-2002, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Actually, I don't watch the TV pundits. And I don't pay much attention to what actors and actresses say. Writers have a more free hand and aren't constricted by the popularity polls.

Well, if you are not an enthusiast of Bill Press, Alan Colmes, Ted Kennedy, etc. than I actually have some respect for you. ;)

Kitt
10-14-2002, 11:44 PM
The CIA Contradicts Bush
In his national address, Bush claimed there was clear evidence that Iraq could possibly give chemical and biological weapons to terrorists. But on the very same day of Bush’s speech, the CIA told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq attacking the United States without provocation was "low," but would become far more likely if the U.S. prepared for a preemptive strike.

In an Oct. 7 letter, CIA director George Tenet told Congress, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. [chemical or biological warfare] against the United States. Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." In other words, the war on Iraq may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of the worst kind.
Posted on October 14, 2002 @ 4:03PM.

Liza
10-15-2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


I should have been more specific. There were two parts on this thread referring to WWII. The first one was about the A-bomb. That one ended on Sept. 28. Then you brought the subject back on Oct. 1 (6:34 AM) with your title "Getting back to Iraq." This is where the second (and longest) postings began. It was the part 2 postings that kittflynn said I "diverted" the subject by bringing up WWII.

Let's not "jump the gun" and call it a lie. I would call it a "small mistake" that I neglected to mention the part 2 and not the part 1 postings!

Whatever... it was a lie, and you're just trying to cover it up with Part 1 and Part 2 - for starters I never brought up WWII, in either Part 1 or Part 2 as you put it. I don't remember who it was, but they asked if we would have done something if we'd known what Hitler was doing - I just answered that question. I never STARTED anything about WWII, so stop trying to blame me.

Liza
10-15-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Jimbo

By the way, are you a German citizen, an American currently living in Germany, or a citizen of another country presently living there? (Just curious).

I'm an American patriot: doing my junior year abroad in Germany. :wave:

Fleet
10-15-2002, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Liza

Germany has stood by the United States faithfully since World War II. They even sent troops into Afghanastan in support of the War on Terrorism. This is the first time in 50 years that they've taken a stand against the US, and as a US citizen, I think they were perfectly right to do so. It's not their fight, and it's not ours either.

(Originally posted by Liza, Oct. 1 @ 6:34 AM)

Here it is... see? I plainly see the words "World War II." I don't do the lying you claim I do- I leave that to Clinton. He's the expert at it. ;)

You are correct that you did not start the WWII subject, but you did mention it again after the subject disappeared from the thread. No reason to get all excited about it. I have a feeling that some members of this message board take things too seriously! Not me... after all this is just a message board on the Internet.

Fleet
10-15-2002, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
The CIA Contradicts Bush
In his national address, Bush claimed there was clear evidence that Iraq could possibly give chemical and biological weapons to terrorists. But on the very same day of Bush’s speech, the CIA told Congress that the likelihood of Iraq attacking the United States without provocation was "low," but would become far more likely if the U.S. prepared for a preemptive strike.

Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." In other words, the war on Iraq may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of the worst kind.


The likelihood of the Taliban terrorists attacking the United States was considered "low," too (before 9-11). I would rather not gamble on whether Iraq would use chemical and biological weapons. Too risky.

If (or when) there is a U.S.-led attack, we would first concentrate on destroying Iraq's chemical and biological and other weapons just like we did in 1991.

Fleet
10-15-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Liza
Jimbo- Even if Hussein is building weapons, why shouldn't he have the right to have them if we do? Because we're bigger? Because we're smarter? Because we're nicer? It's one country's opinion against another. You know, I could be wrong - but that's my opinion. I think we should mind our own business.

That's an easy question. The answer is Saddam should not have weapons because he an uncivilized leader and has already invaded another country (Kuwait) until the U.S. kicked his troops out of there. It's not one country's opinion against another- he is a bad guy, the U.S. are good guys. We believe in freedom for all our citizens, he certainly does not!

You're right- we (the U.S.) should mind our own business... unless we are attacked (which we were on 9-11 in case you forgot).:(

Liza
10-16-2002, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Fleet


That's an easy question. The answer is Saddam should not have weapons because he an uncivilized leader and has already invaded another country (Kuwait) until the U.S. kicked his troops out of there. It's not one country's opinion against another- he is a bad guy, the U.S. are good guys. We believe in freedom for all our citizens, he certainly does not!

You're right- we (the U.S.) should mind our own business... unless we are attacked (which we were on 9-11 in case you forgot).:(

AND JUST WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT? For crying out loud, it is not up to the US to decide who's bad and who's good - that's just being pig-headed, and if you really can't see that then there's nothing more I can say.

As to 9/11, in case YOU'VE forgotten it wasn't Iraq that attacked us - WHY do you keep bringing that up? Iraq has not attacked us, and they probably won't, unless we continue to threaten them.

As to your lies - you said that I STARTED the WWII subject, which I have proven is untrue - that is a lie, unless they've changed the definition (I know you do like to do that though). When you're wrong you just try and turn words around to cover your butt. That thing about part 1 and part 2 threads is just plain funny. It reminded me of Clinton and "depends on how you define the word is." :lol: I did NOT bring up the subject, nor did I bring it back up as you've accused. Check all the posts before and check them all after. Nice try, Fleet.

Liza
10-16-2002, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
Just out of curiosity, would anyone go after Hitler if they knew what he was doing in Europe?

Hey hey Fleet - Posted September 29, 2002. It was answered next by YOU, and then later by ME. Sure, yeah, um.. now HOW did I bring it up? You are funny when you're trying not to look like a liar. :lol:

Fleet
10-16-2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Liza


AND JUST WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT? For crying out loud, it is not up to the US to decide who's bad and who's good - that's just being pig-headed, and if you really can't see that then there's nothing more I can say.

As to 9/11, in case YOU'VE forgotten it wasn't Iraq that attacked us - WHY do you keep bringing that up? Iraq has not attacked us, and they probably won't, unless we continue to threaten them.

So, according to you, we should just let countries who are known to harbor terrorists, kill their own civilians, invade another country and break the cease fire agreement do what they want? I'm sure glad you're not running this country! :lol:

In case YOU'VE forgotten, Mohammad Atta was in Iraq shortly before the 9-11 attacks. And he was not there to shop in their malls (if they have any). Also, it is very probable that Saddam either knew what was going to happen or have some kind of part in it. I'm not like you; just because Saddam (and Iraq) say they had no part in 9-11 does not mean that it's true.

Fleet
10-16-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Liza

Hey hey Fleet - Posted September 29, 2002. It was answered next by YOU, and then later by ME. Sure, yeah, um.. now HOW did I bring it up? You are funny when you're trying not to look like a liar. :lol:

Hey, hey Liza- if you really want to nitpick (and you sure are) you are the one who said the words "WW II." The post by Blair's My Cherry Pie referred to Hitler (I assume) before WW II started... which would be before Sept. 1, 1939. When I was commenting about stopping Hitler in Europe, I, too, meant before the war actually started. But, if it will make you happy, I will agree that Blair's My Cherry Pie was the one who started the second part of the WW II thread (even though "Blair's" did not even say "WW II"). Okay? "Blair's" started it. If you would research WW II and atrocities in Iraq as much as you have researched this thread, your postings would probably have been much different.

BTW, regarding Iraq, did you know that Clinton send troops into both Hati and Yugoslavia without approval of the Congress and the U.N.?

ABlairican Pie
10-16-2002, 09:54 PM
Who IS, then, to decide who is good or bad in this world?

Isn't this the problem with multiculturalism and political correctness? One set of values or beliefs is as equally good or valid as another. America's belief in the freedoms established in our Constitution is EQUALLY on par with any Middle Eastern country that executes adulterers in soccer stadiums in the name of Allah.


So the reasoning would go.

ABlairican Pie
10-16-2002, 09:57 PM
Btw, my name is Greg. It's funny to have a username that's a sentence.

I'm trying to find out what I did say in regards to Hitler's Blitzkrieg in Sept. 1939.

Fleet
10-17-2002, 12:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
[B]Btw, my name is Greg. It's funny to have a username that's a sentence.

Hello, Greg. Yeah, that is an unusual (and rather long) username you have chosen! (What does it mean?) :)

Liza
10-17-2002, 12:55 PM
Fleet - um, Hitler and WWII do normally go along together. Yeah, I said WWII, in a sentance that was defending Germany. Saying we have been allies SINCE WWII is not bring the subject up - yeah I'm picky - nothing ticks me off more than being falsely accused. So apologize, cuz you're wrong already. There were no Part 1 and Part 2 threads - that's just stupid. Greg's post on Hitler was on Sep 29, my post was on Oct 1. Oh yeah, there's a real long gap there - 2 whole days! So stop blaming me. I didn't bring it up - I don't really care who did, but it would be nice if you would say: I'm sorry, Liza. You're right, you didn't start the WWII topic.

As to Iraq, no, I don't think we have the right to decide how another country should run things. No, I don't think what they're doing is right - but that should be up to the UN to decide - not the US and certainly not you. About the terrorists being in Iraq, um so what? They learned to fly in Germany and no one's talking about attacking them. Your thing about Saddam being the bad guy and Bush being the good guy is just funny - in Iraq they're saying that Saddam is the good guy and Bush is the bad guy. With Bush threatening to attack their country without a reason, who could blame them?

Liza
10-17-2002, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Blair's My Cherry Pie
Who IS, then, to decide who is good or bad in this world?

Isn't this the problem with multiculturalism and political correctness? One set of values or beliefs is as equally good or valid as another. America's belief in the freedoms established in our Constitution is EQUALLY on par with any Middle Eastern country that executes adulterers in soccer stadiums in the name of Allah.


So the reasoning would go.

AMEN to that!

Kitt
10-17-2002, 01:33 PM
[Originally posted by Jimbo on 10-13]
The House and the Senate have given Bush his resolution by significant margins. The U.N. Security Council will now take up the matter on Wednesday. The coalition is coming together. Britian has been with us every step of the way. Canada, Russia and France are coming on board. Germany and China will follow shortly. ______________________________________________________
Posted by Kittflynn 10-17

Published on Thursday, October 17, 2002 by the Inter Press Service
UN's Largest Group of States Rejects War on Iraq
by Thalif Deen
 

UNITED NATIONS - The largest political grouping at the United Nations rejected Wednesday ''any type of unilateral action against any member state of the United Nations''.

The 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which represents the overwhelming majority of the 191 U.N. member states, said it just does not want a war with Iraq.

Speaking on behalf of NAM, South African Ambassador Dumisani Shadrack Kumalo said: ''We would rather this be resolved in a peaceful manner.''

Contrary to the stand taken by the United States, NAM wants the Security Council to allow U.N. arms inspectors to return to Iraq without further delay.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has already invited inspectors into the country, but the United States is seeking a new Council resolution that would toughen the inspectors' mandate before they could leave for Baghdad in search of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Addressing an ''open meeting'' of the Security Council, Kumalo said that 11 years of U.N. sanctions have brought ''endless suffering to the ordinary people'' in Iraq.

''We hope that the Security Council would despatch the inspectors to Iraq as soon as possible, and allow the people of Iraq to focus their attention on rebuilding their country.''

The Council meeting, which is customarily confined to its five permanent and 10 non-permanent members, was opened to all 191 member states, specifically to debate Iraq. The proposal for an open meeting was initiated by South Africa, on behalf of NAM.

''My dream would be for all 191 of them to speak,'' Kumalo told reporters Tuesday. ''It is essential that the views of all member states be heard on such a critical subject.''

A Third World diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS that one of the biggest political myths is that the Security Council represents the will of the international community.

''This is a longstanding fairy tale,'' he said. ''The international community is really represented by the 191-member U.N. General Assembly, 114 of whose members belong to NAM,'' he added.

U.S. President George W. Bush, who has received authorization from the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to launch a military attack on Iraq, is seeking a similar endorsement from the Security Council to prove he has the blessings of the ''international community'' for a U.S. war against Iraq.

But for the last three weeks, the Council has remained deadlocked, with sharp divisions even among the five veto-wielding permanent members - the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia.

Kitt
10-17-2002, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Fleet


More attacking a poster? Go right ahead, you will just keep looking more foolish with every passing day. I did not realize that reciting history makes for a big ego! :D

Re: WWII

Your incorrect statement #1... "The French played a large part in D-Day." I happened to find this article in Time magazine (May 28, 1984 by Lance Morrow). To quote, "Normandy was, of course, a joint Allied operation. But the Americans, from Eisenhower down, dominated the drama. The invasion, in a way, was the perfect expression of American capabilities: vast industrial energy and organizational know-how sent out into the world on an essentially knightly mission- the rescue of an entire continent in distress." EXACTLY what I was saying all along. Nothing obnoxious about it- it's history. Of course, you will try to side-step those facts in your usual insufficient ways!

Your incorrect statement #2... "Russia was an ally of ours during WWII." Not during the whole war, '39-'45. Again, they were on Germany's side until that country started to invade Russia. On the other hand, England was our ally during the whole war, not just part of it.

Actually, Liza was the one who first brought up this whole WWII subject. If you just check the earlier posts, you maybe you won't consistently make so many mistakes! :D Read or refer to "Six Armies in Normandy" by John Keegan. That might give you enough information so that you could apprecitate the participation of the French soldiers at Normandy.

Read or refer to "Enemy at the Gates--The Battle for Stalingrad"--William Craig. Maybe that bloody story will bring the Russians up to a standard of participation which might satisfy your definition of an ally.

Fleet
10-17-2002, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Liza
Fleet - um, Hitler and WWII do normally go along together. Yeah, I said WWII, in a sentance that was defending Germany. Saying we have been allies SINCE WWII is not bring the subject up - yeah I'm picky - nothing ticks me off more than being falsely accused. So apologize, cuz you're wrong already. Greg's post on Hitler was on Sep 29, my post was on Oct 1. So stop blaming me. I didn't bring it up - I don't really care who did, but it would be nice if you would say: I'm sorry, Liza. You're right, you didn't start the WWII topic.

As to Iraq, no, I don't think we have the right to decide how another country should run things. No, I don't think what they're doing is right - but that should be up to the UN to decide - not the US and certainly not you. About the terrorists being in Iraq, um so what? They learned to fly in Germany and no one's talking about attacking them. Your thing about Saddam being the bad guy and Bush being the good guy is just funny - in Iraq they're saying that Saddam is the good guy and Bush is the bad guy. With Bush threatening to attack their country without a reason, who could blame them?

Alright, already!!! I could nitpick more (like you) but it would be a waste of time. You would find someway to counter it and this would go on forever. So, to save us both a lot of time... "I'm sorry, Liza. You're right, you didn't start the WW II topic." (Right here I would insert nitpick, but why bother?) BTW, I wasn't *blaming* you. I'm sure glad you're not my boss at work!

Iraq... correct- they did learn to fly in Germany. But (and here's the big difference), Germany does not knowingly harbor terrorists while Iraq certainly does! Well of course the government (if you can call them that) calls Bush the bad guy! These guys hate freedom and hate everything about Americans and the American lifestyle. You really think that the president of a country (the U.S.) who had an act of war committed against it is the "bad" guy. What have you been drinking?

Fleet
10-17-2002, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Read or refer to "Six Armies in Normandy" by John Keegan. That might give you enough information so that you could apprecitate the participation of the French soldiers at Normandy.

Read or refer to "Enemy at the Gates--The Battle for Stalingrad"--William Craig. Maybe that bloody story will bring the Russians up to a standard of participation which might satisfy your definition of an ally.

1) Perhaps you or I can obtain how many Americans and how many French troops participated at Normandy? Now that you mention it, I sure would like to know the ratio. However, I do know that the invasion was under U.S. control (with Eisenhower the Supreme Commander).

2) I'm well aware of how many Russians were fighting to defeat the Germans. From memory, a total of 7 to 7 and one-half million Russians were killed in WW II.

Anyway, you have my interest regarding those books and I'll look for them at a library (or bookstore).

Note- many of the facts I gave you were from memory- not from looking up in a book like you hinted I did. The 292,000 battle deaths of U.S. troops was from memory. Also, the beaches that the U.S. were to invade (Utah and Omaha). The day WW II started (Sept. 1, 1939). And that the fact that the area with the most intense fighting on D-Day was Omaha. Etc., etc.

Kitt
10-17-2002, 09:43 PM
Fleet, of course there were more American troops in Normandy than French troops. and of course the French troops were under the command of Eisenhower and Patton. France was, and is a small country and they were occupied. The trouble with the discussion for me is that you've been obstinate and unwilling to give due credit to the French or the Russians, and willing to call me foolish for giving them credit. That isn't particularly endearing behavior.

This is an interesting excerpt from the Normandy book.

The bells, word of mouth signals from the vanguard of the Deuxieme DB along the civilian telephone network kept Paris on tenterhooks throughout the night. But the crowds which thronged the southern faubourgs and the long avenues reaching to the heart of the city had no certainty yet of the identity of the troops coming to their liberation. They had heard that there were French soldiers in the city. But they were expecting an American army. The morning was misty, with the promise of a hot August sun which the last four days had withheld, and the mist muffled the sound of tank tracks and engines from the approaching columns. Occasionally the rattle of a burst of firing carried northward. Then suddenly, a litttle after 7 a.m. the vehicles were seen. The crowds were thin beyond the outer boulevards. Inside the line of the old fortifications, beyond the Porte d'Orleans and Porte d'Italie, along the sweep of the avenue du Maine and the rue St Jacques, they were ranked twelve and twenty deep on the pavements, straining for a glimpse of the first arrivals. The khaki tanks and half tracks they had heard of appeared, fronts painted with the white star of the Allied armies. But the heads in the tarrets were wearing caps they had seen before - red calots of Spahis, blue of the Cuirassiers, the fez of the Chasseurs d'Afrique, the unmistakable pom-poms of the Fusiliers-Marins. Their liberators were French.
-John Keegan

Liza
10-18-2002, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Fleet

You really think that the president of a country (the U.S.) who had an act of war committed against it is the "bad" guy. What have you been drinking?

I never called Bush a bad guy, I don't think he is. I just don't see what right we have to judge Iraq and Saddam Hussein, regardless of what they're doing. I'm certainly not saying Saddam's a good guy - I'm as against him as anyone else - it's just not up to us. The Iraqi people are speaking, and in the interviews I've seen (on CNN if you want the source) they say they don't want to see the US remove Saddam from power, they just want to live their lives in peace and not be threatened from other countries. Please, you don't have to convince me that Saddam is a bad guy, I know he is. It's just not up to us to make that call.

BTW, I appreciate the apology - I know I was picky, and I apologize for that in return. Let's try and keep this civilized, k?

:wave:

Fleet
10-18-2002, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn
Fleet, of course there were more American troops in Normandy than French troops. and of course the French troops were under the command of Eisenhower and Patton. France was, and is a small country and they were occupied. The trouble with the discussion for me is that you've been obstinate and unwilling to give due credit to the French or the Russians, and willing to call me foolish for giving them credit.

I am still curious as to how many U.S. and French (and British) troops were there. I'm going to check my books (and other sources) and see if I can find out... could be time-consuming, though. I already gave credit to our allies in Europe before. But I'll say it again... we (the U.S.) praise the help that the allies contributed (but thank God the U.S. was also fighting in that war).

Fleet
10-18-2002, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Liza

BTW, I appreciate the apology - I know I was picky, and I apologize for that in return. Let's try and keep this civilized, k?

:wave:

That would be okay by me. ;)

Fleet
10-18-2002, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Liza

The Iraqi people are speaking, and in the interviews I've seen (on CNN if you want the source) they say they don't want to see the US remove Saddam from power, they just want to live their lives in peace and not be threatened from other countries.

The Iraqi people probably are saying they don't want Saddam removed from power because they know that if they even hinted at anything otherwise, they would have their head chopped off and delivered personally to Saddam!

I found something interesting from a Newsweek magazine (Oct. 15, 2001).

The country Iraq...

Freedom of the Press?....... No
Civil Liberties (1 to 7; 1= most free, 7= least free)... 7
GDP: ave. annual growth... -0.3% (that's minus)

Just think how happy these people would be if they lived in a Republic like we do!

A lot of people are forgetting something about Pres. Bush- he has not invaded! If he was so eager (and a warmonger) as some people think he is, he would have sent troops in by now. He is doing exactly as I hoped he would. Using the troops only as a last resort. He's still waiting for the U.N. and indvidual countries to either support us or not. He is taking his time, which is the right way to handle it.

Kitt
10-19-2002, 06:07 PM
Being a story teller and a writer of sorts myself and an aspiring teller of more and better stories this bit of a lesson plan and advise given to the President by an accomplished story teller and teacher of story telling struck my fancy.

Published on Saturday, October 19, 2002 in the Seattle Times
Notes on War and Peace
by Diana Abu-Jaber
 
• Today, the book on attacking Iraq

Sure, President Bush is surrounded by all sorts of well-meaning consultants, analysts and spin-masters, but it seems that he's been getting some bad advice about story-telling — especially the story about Iraq. I'm no political pundit, but I have taught literature and creative writing for a while, and I had a few lesson-plan notes I thought President Bush might find useful.

• Show, don't tell: This is the oldest creative-writing-class axiom of all. Readers crave tangible details in a story instead of bland assertions. It's much more convincing to have physical proof that Saddam Hussein is capable of or planning to injure us than merely declaring he's part of an "axis of evil," which is actually a fairly weak abstraction.

• Pacing is crucial: Stories have to unfold at a natural, organic tempo in order to seem genuine. Pressuring Congress to make a hurry-up decision on a question as big as whether to attack another country, about two minutes before a major election, feels forced and manipulative.

• Don't drop your story lines: Readers like to follow a story from beginning to end. Don't trail off in the middle of hunting Osama bin Laden to attack a new villain — that just leaves us all dangling.

• Avoid cliché and hyperbole: A term like "war" implies there are two sides capable of fighting each other. But Iraq has already been devastated by the Persian Gulf War as well as our economic sanctions and foreign policy. Previous weapons inspectors tell us that Iraq barely has an army — much less any real "weapons of mass destruction" (see above: hyperbole, cliché and abstraction).

• Draw on personal experience: The most authentic stories come straight from our own life experience. Merely having your father state "I hate that man" (i.e., Saddam Hussein) is not satisfying to readers. I've visited the Middle East and taught lots of Middle Eastern students and I've found that they respect and admire America and that most of them would love to live here. The "bad guys" are a distinct minority — just like in this country.

• Familiarize yourself with your subject: If you haven't read any novels or seen any Hollywood movies told from an Arab perspective, you might ask yourself why that is. Ask yourself: What am I not hearing? Ask yourself: Is this really the story that I want to tell?

Consider this: There may be other, more powerful and immediate narratives we need to hear right now — tales of corporate greed and ruined life plans, right here at home; stories of pollution, disappearing forests and clean water, and global warming the world over. True, "war" is a grand story full of sound and fury, to paraphrase Faulkner, but maybe we want a different story right now. Maybe what we need to hear is the story of ourselves.

Diana Abu-Jaber is a novelist and writing professor at Portland State University.

Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company

Fleet
10-21-2002, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by kittflynn

• Don't drop your story lines: Readers like to follow a story from beginning to end. Don't trail off in the middle of hunting Osama bin Laden to attack a new villain — that just leaves us all dangling.


That would be illogical. If we were to go after one terrorist or terrorist leader at a time, it would take a hundred years to get them all! The U.S. managed to fight WW II (yes, I'm bringing up that subject again) in two areas (Europe and Pacific) so there is no reason why we can't track down terrorists in different parts of the world today.

Jem
03-19-2003, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Kitt
Familiarize yourself with your subject: If you haven't read any novels or seen any Hollywood movies told from an Arab perspective, you might ask yourself why that is. Ask yourself: What am I not hearing? Ask yourself: Is this really the story that I want to tell?

That's a good point. In films it's usually always the American point of view of things. A few months ago I was watching a film about a war with Russians and Americans and the Russians were like the "bad guys". I think in the film they even sacrificed their own people by killing them. But, it's completely false because my dad's girlfriend said that the Russians would never do that. I think an Arab point of view in a film would be very interesting. It could help with answering the question of WHY September 11th happened.

White_Daisy
03-19-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Jem


That's a good point. In films it's usually always the American point of view of things. A few months ago I was watching a film about a war with Russians and Americans and the Russians were like the "bad guys". I think in the film they even sacrificed their own people by killing them. But, it's completely false because my dad's girlfriend said that the Russians would never do that. I think an Arab point of view in a film would be very interesting. It could help with answering the question of WHY September 11th happened.

I get that view from my grandmother nearly everyday. I do love this country, but I do dislike it when living on the other side.

-*Leah*-
03-19-2003, 05:58 PM
I hope and pray that this doesn't turn into World War 3 because the thought of that scares me to death. I agree with President Bush, that if we don't get rid of Suddam and Osama, in the end they will get us. I know this sounds terrible, but I would rather get rid of them, then having them invade America with nuclear weapons. I think that we should just go over there and get rid of Suddam, his followers, and his mean,mean sons, and get rid of Osama and his followers. I hope that the war will only last a week or so, and I definatley hope that it doesn't turn into World War 3. [/SIZE]

White_Daisy
03-19-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by leah02_06
I hope and pray that this doesn't turn into World War 3 because the thought of that scares me to death. I agree with President Bush, that if we don't get rid of Suddam and Osama, in the end they will get us. I know this sounds terrible, but I would rather get rid of them, then having them invade America with nuclear weapons. I think that we should just go over there and get rid of Suddam, his followers, and his mean,mean sons, and get rid of Osama and his followers. I hope that the war will only last a week or so, and I definatley hope that it doesn't turn into World War 3. [/SIZE]

I hope that we do get rid of Saddam and Osama, but we are going about it the wrong way.

Incidently, Saddam doesn't have nukes. His weapons range, from what I hear, won't go past the Mideast. Yet he's apparently a bigger threat than North Korea, armed with not only nukes, but the capability to make more nukes.

Fleet
03-19-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Jem
That's a good point. In films it's usually always the American point of view of things. A few months ago I was watching a film about a war with Russians and Americans and the Russians were like the "bad guys".
They were the "bad guys" in the beginning of WWII. They started to invade countries like Finland. When the Germans started to invade Russia, then they became our ally.

The Finman
02-23-2004, 11:51 AM
What the hell have I just wandered into?http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/graemlins/raisedeyebrow.gif

Brent88
02-23-2004, 12:02 PM
WOW... what an old thread! :eek:

EricIdlefan
02-23-2004, 03:57 PM
We all thought Russian and East Germany were the enemies when they are not!! North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanastan, Isreal may be "bad" to the US Government but it is that the countries have terrible leaders and dictators but there are innocent people there and at first I wanted the US to bomb all those countries and get it out of the way but my family said that innocent people are in those countries!!

Fleet
02-23-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by The Finman
What the hell have I just wandered into?http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/graemlins/raisedeyebrow.gif
:lol:

You've just wandered into a lot of irrational liberals!