War with Iraq
Hellsing Agency
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Originally posted by SirSmokeAlot
All it would take is us pulling out, and they'd leave us alone as long as we left them alone.
All it would take is us pulling out, and they'd leave us alone as long as we left them alone.
I honestly think if the US deferred much of the "policing" to the UN (eg. not jumping to conclusions about Iraq's declaration etc.) we would be in a much better position. War with Iraq would be just fine IF the UN backed such action. But as of right now, the US is jumping the gun = loss of credibility and gives other nations such as N. Korea an excuse for being "nervous" at the "aggressive" policies of the US.
Shingo
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by Shingoblade-GSR
So are you proposing that we take the same stance as we did in the beginning of WW1 and WW2? Or are you considering the isolated case of Saudi Arabia/Middle East?
So are you proposing that we take the same stance as we did in the beginning of WW1 and WW2? Or are you considering the isolated case of Saudi Arabia/Middle East?
I honestly think if the US deferred much of the "policing" to the UN (eg. not jumping to conclusions about Iraq's declaration etc.) we would be in a much better position. War with Iraq would be just fine IF the UN backed such action. But as of right now, the US is jumping the gun = loss of credibility and gives other nations such as N. Korea an excuse for being "nervous" at the "aggressive" policies of the US.
Shingo
Shingo
but thats just what I think. Of course I'm wrong.
What's that smell?
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
I believe that George W. Bush should not be allowed to use public resources to wage his obviously private war. That is the issue, not what Saddam might do, not Osama or anything like that. We shouldn't forget that several months ago, Bush suddenly decided to invade Iraq on a whim. Fortunately saner minds have prevailed in the interim. But let us not forget the insane notion that got this ball rolling.
Similarities between WWII and now:
After WWI, Germany was disarmed per the Versailles Treaty. If the Allies had been vigilant, Germany wouldn't have been able to re-arm, and thus wouldn't have been able to start WWII. It had been a mistake to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, and insufficient followup was a fatal error. Same thing Gulf War I. George H. W. Bush ignored all the lessons that he learned in WWII, and snatched defeat from the hand of victory.
Differences between WWII and now:
WWII started because Germany invaded Poland, France etc., and Japan invaded China, Korea etc. Today it's the US that's the belligerent aggressor, not Iraq. Unless Iraq invades Kuwait again, we're the bad guys!
Similarities between WWII and now:
After WWI, Germany was disarmed per the Versailles Treaty. If the Allies had been vigilant, Germany wouldn't have been able to re-arm, and thus wouldn't have been able to start WWII. It had been a mistake to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, and insufficient followup was a fatal error. Same thing Gulf War I. George H. W. Bush ignored all the lessons that he learned in WWII, and snatched defeat from the hand of victory.
Differences between WWII and now:
WWII started because Germany invaded Poland, France etc., and Japan invaded China, Korea etc. Today it's the US that's the belligerent aggressor, not Iraq. Unless Iraq invades Kuwait again, we're the bad guys!
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Slow-N-Low
I believe that George W. Bush should not be allowed to use public resources to wage his obviously private war. That is the issue, not what Saddam might do, not Osama or anything like that. We shouldn't forget that several months ago, Bush suddenly decided to invade Iraq on a whim. Fortunately saner minds have prevailed in the interim. But let us not forget the insane notion that got this ball rolling.
Similarities between WWII and now:
After WWI, Germany was disarmed per the Versailles Treaty. If the Allies had been vigilant, Germany wouldn't have been able to re-arm, and thus wouldn't have been able to start WWII. It had been a mistake to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, and insufficient followup was a fatal error. Same thing Gulf War I. George H. W. Bush ignored all the lessons that he learned in WWII, and snatched defeat from the hand of victory.
Differences between WWII and now:
WWII started because Germany invaded Poland, France etc., and Japan invaded China, Korea etc. Today it's the US that's the belligerent aggressor, not Iraq. Unless Iraq invades Kuwait again, we're the bad guys!
I believe that George W. Bush should not be allowed to use public resources to wage his obviously private war. That is the issue, not what Saddam might do, not Osama or anything like that. We shouldn't forget that several months ago, Bush suddenly decided to invade Iraq on a whim. Fortunately saner minds have prevailed in the interim. But let us not forget the insane notion that got this ball rolling.
Similarities between WWII and now:
After WWI, Germany was disarmed per the Versailles Treaty. If the Allies had been vigilant, Germany wouldn't have been able to re-arm, and thus wouldn't have been able to start WWII. It had been a mistake to settle for anything less than unconditional surrender, and insufficient followup was a fatal error. Same thing Gulf War I. George H. W. Bush ignored all the lessons that he learned in WWII, and snatched defeat from the hand of victory.
Differences between WWII and now:
WWII started because Germany invaded Poland, France etc., and Japan invaded China, Korea etc. Today it's the US that's the belligerent aggressor, not Iraq. Unless Iraq invades Kuwait again, we're the bad guys!
George H. Bush did learn from the mistakes of WWII...why do you think we are enforcing the northern and southern no fly zones still? The UN mandated at the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam had to disarm and that until he did that the UN would patrol the northern and southern parts of Iraq to protect the Shiites and the Kurds as well as put economic sanctions on Iraq till it disarmed. It has yet to disarm! 8 years under the Clinton administration and we go from inspectors searching for weapons to no inspectors at all. At least George W. Bush has the balls to go in and get the world community to try and force Iraq to disarm. Had he disarmed in the first place, was up front and honest about it, and showed the world community he had no threatening weapons we would not be in this situation. The UN mandate that allows the US to fly over Iraq would end and there would be no need to for the US to be in Saudi Arabia. We could leave!
George H. Bush and now George W. Bush did learn from what happened after WWI and why WWII started...that is why they are trying to disarm Iraq and ensure Iraq does not have the weapons. Oh and the mandate for the first Gulf War was not to overthrow or defeat Iraq...it was to liberate Kuwait...we did that and stopped the aggression towards Iraq.
Sinner
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,599
Likes: 0
From: NoVA
Originally posted by DVPGSR
You are so far off base with this. When did Bush decide to invade Iraq on a whim? If I am not mistaken Congress has already given him the authority to use military action to disarm Iraq. That does not sound like one man out on a whim? And if Congress has approved military action what cooler heads are there? If anything Bush is playing a pretty cool hand right now...letting attempts at diplomacy try to resolve the crisis while building up the military in the region to put preasure on Saddam. Also if it was one man's personal agenda to get Saddam why is Britain so heavily involved? This is by far, no means, a private war.
George H. Bush did learn from the mistakes of WWII...why do you think we are enforcing the northern and southern no fly zones still? The UN mandated at the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam had to disarm and that until he did that the UN would patrol the northern and southern parts of Iraq to protect the Shiites and the Kurds as well as put economic sanctions on Iraq till it disarmed. It has yet to disarm! 8 years under the Clinton administration and we go from inspectors searching for weapons to no inspectors at all. At least George W. Bush has the balls to go in and get the world community to try and force Iraq to disarm. Had he disarmed in the first place, was up front and honest about it, and showed the world community he had no threatening weapons we would not be in this situation. The UN mandate that allows the US to fly over Iraq would end and there would be no need to for the US to be in Saudi Arabia. We could leave!
George H. Bush and now George W. Bush did learn from what happened after WWI and why WWII started...that is why they are trying to disarm Iraq and ensure Iraq does not have the weapons. Oh and the mandate for the first Gulf War was not to overthrow or defeat Iraq...it was to liberate Kuwait...we did that and stopped the aggression towards Iraq.
You are so far off base with this. When did Bush decide to invade Iraq on a whim? If I am not mistaken Congress has already given him the authority to use military action to disarm Iraq. That does not sound like one man out on a whim? And if Congress has approved military action what cooler heads are there? If anything Bush is playing a pretty cool hand right now...letting attempts at diplomacy try to resolve the crisis while building up the military in the region to put preasure on Saddam. Also if it was one man's personal agenda to get Saddam why is Britain so heavily involved? This is by far, no means, a private war.
George H. Bush did learn from the mistakes of WWII...why do you think we are enforcing the northern and southern no fly zones still? The UN mandated at the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam had to disarm and that until he did that the UN would patrol the northern and southern parts of Iraq to protect the Shiites and the Kurds as well as put economic sanctions on Iraq till it disarmed. It has yet to disarm! 8 years under the Clinton administration and we go from inspectors searching for weapons to no inspectors at all. At least George W. Bush has the balls to go in and get the world community to try and force Iraq to disarm. Had he disarmed in the first place, was up front and honest about it, and showed the world community he had no threatening weapons we would not be in this situation. The UN mandate that allows the US to fly over Iraq would end and there would be no need to for the US to be in Saudi Arabia. We could leave!
George H. Bush and now George W. Bush did learn from what happened after WWI and why WWII started...that is why they are trying to disarm Iraq and ensure Iraq does not have the weapons. Oh and the mandate for the first Gulf War was not to overthrow or defeat Iraq...it was to liberate Kuwait...we did that and stopped the aggression towards Iraq.
What's that smell?
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Originally posted by DVPGSR
You are so far off base with this.
Me? Hardly. You're the one who is exhibiting worse short-term memory than a dopehead.
When did Bush decide to invade Iraq on a whim?
Last summer. That's before Congress got involved, and after we let Bin Laden and company get away.
If I am not mistaken Congress has already given him the authority to use military action to disarm Iraq. That does not sound like one man out on a whim?
Congress and George W. Bush are completely different items. If you can't tell them apart, you have no business declaring people "off base".
And if Congress has approved military action what cooler heads are there?
For example, I am not in Congress.
If anything Bush is playing a pretty cool hand right now...letting attempts at diplomacy try to resolve the crisis while building up the military in the region to put preasure on Saddam.
Ah...what diplomacy? /me shakes head
I'll say it again--Saddam hasn't done anything that comes close to justifying war during W's tenure. Iraq poses absolutely no threat to the USA, and the countries that might be threatened aren't asking for help. What Bush is doing is illegal and morally wrong.
Also if it was one man's personal agenda to get Saddam why is Britain so heavily involved?
There's a lot more to England than Tony Blair. The vast majority of the English people are opposed to the US hostility, and as a result Blair is about to be ousted as PM. The other countries in Great Britain (and the rest of the world) never were for war.
This is by far, no means, a private war.
It will not be private in the context of the widespread death, pain and suffering that will occur. But since it's the plan of one single man, George W. Bush, it is a private agenda.
George H. Bush did learn from the mistakes of WWII...why do you think we are enforcing the northern and southern no fly zones still?
So the situation is under control, and there's no reason to go to war. So why are you so gung-ho?
The UN mandated at the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam had to disarm and that until he did that the UN would patrol the northern and southern parts of Iraq to protect the Shiites and the Kurds as well as put economic sanctions on Iraq till it disarmed. It has yet to disarm!
So in other words, that policy has failed. Just as Versailles and the Weimar Republic failed previously.
8 years under the Clinton administration and we go from inspectors searching for weapons to no inspectors at all.
Bill Clinton was the President of the USA, not the UN General Secretary! You said yourself that "The UN mandated..." Flip-flop, flip-flop. Better get your story straight.
At least George W. Bush has the balls to go in and get the world community to try and force Iraq to disarm.
Balls? I don't see anything ballsy about pursuing a personal vendetta. He's not even doing the dirty work. Sending young men and women to war, to save face on his failure in Afghanastan, and his daddy's in Iraq brings the word "asshole" to mind. I guess you were close geographically.
Had he disarmed in the first place, was up front and honest about it, and showed the world community he had no threatening weapons we would not be in this situation. The UN mandate that allows the US to fly over Iraq would end and there would be no need to for the US to be in Saudi Arabia. We could leave!
So Saddam was so untrustworthy that we fought a war against him. Then suddenly we were supposed to trust Saddam to disarm. And now that it turns out that trust was misplaced, we're supposed to pick up where we left off, over a decade ago. That's beyond stupid.
Even if you don't admit it, you're saying that George H. W. Bush's war was a failure. What I'm saying is that two wrongs don't make a right.
George H. Bush and now George W. Bush did learn from what happened after WWI and why WWII started...that is why they are trying to disarm Iraq and ensure Iraq does not have the weapons. Oh and the mandate for the first Gulf War was not to overthrow or defeat Iraq...it was to liberate Kuwait...we did that and stopped the aggression towards Iraq.
So which is it? Was the mandate to disarm Iraq, or was it to retake Kuwait? Let me know if you can ever come up with a straight story.
You are so far off base with this.
Me? Hardly. You're the one who is exhibiting worse short-term memory than a dopehead.
When did Bush decide to invade Iraq on a whim?
Last summer. That's before Congress got involved, and after we let Bin Laden and company get away.
If I am not mistaken Congress has already given him the authority to use military action to disarm Iraq. That does not sound like one man out on a whim?
Congress and George W. Bush are completely different items. If you can't tell them apart, you have no business declaring people "off base".
And if Congress has approved military action what cooler heads are there?
For example, I am not in Congress.
If anything Bush is playing a pretty cool hand right now...letting attempts at diplomacy try to resolve the crisis while building up the military in the region to put preasure on Saddam.
Ah...what diplomacy? /me shakes head
I'll say it again--Saddam hasn't done anything that comes close to justifying war during W's tenure. Iraq poses absolutely no threat to the USA, and the countries that might be threatened aren't asking for help. What Bush is doing is illegal and morally wrong.
Also if it was one man's personal agenda to get Saddam why is Britain so heavily involved?
There's a lot more to England than Tony Blair. The vast majority of the English people are opposed to the US hostility, and as a result Blair is about to be ousted as PM. The other countries in Great Britain (and the rest of the world) never were for war.
This is by far, no means, a private war.
It will not be private in the context of the widespread death, pain and suffering that will occur. But since it's the plan of one single man, George W. Bush, it is a private agenda.
George H. Bush did learn from the mistakes of WWII...why do you think we are enforcing the northern and southern no fly zones still?
So the situation is under control, and there's no reason to go to war. So why are you so gung-ho?
The UN mandated at the end of the first Gulf War that Saddam had to disarm and that until he did that the UN would patrol the northern and southern parts of Iraq to protect the Shiites and the Kurds as well as put economic sanctions on Iraq till it disarmed. It has yet to disarm!
So in other words, that policy has failed. Just as Versailles and the Weimar Republic failed previously.
8 years under the Clinton administration and we go from inspectors searching for weapons to no inspectors at all.
Bill Clinton was the President of the USA, not the UN General Secretary! You said yourself that "The UN mandated..." Flip-flop, flip-flop. Better get your story straight.
At least George W. Bush has the balls to go in and get the world community to try and force Iraq to disarm.
Balls? I don't see anything ballsy about pursuing a personal vendetta. He's not even doing the dirty work. Sending young men and women to war, to save face on his failure in Afghanastan, and his daddy's in Iraq brings the word "asshole" to mind. I guess you were close geographically.
Had he disarmed in the first place, was up front and honest about it, and showed the world community he had no threatening weapons we would not be in this situation. The UN mandate that allows the US to fly over Iraq would end and there would be no need to for the US to be in Saudi Arabia. We could leave!
So Saddam was so untrustworthy that we fought a war against him. Then suddenly we were supposed to trust Saddam to disarm. And now that it turns out that trust was misplaced, we're supposed to pick up where we left off, over a decade ago. That's beyond stupid.
Even if you don't admit it, you're saying that George H. W. Bush's war was a failure. What I'm saying is that two wrongs don't make a right.
George H. Bush and now George W. Bush did learn from what happened after WWI and why WWII started...that is why they are trying to disarm Iraq and ensure Iraq does not have the weapons. Oh and the mandate for the first Gulf War was not to overthrow or defeat Iraq...it was to liberate Kuwait...we did that and stopped the aggression towards Iraq.
So which is it? Was the mandate to disarm Iraq, or was it to retake Kuwait? Let me know if you can ever come up with a straight story.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Slow-n-low
It is obvious that you do not really know what you are talking about. Your whole last post was proof enough for me and it is obvious that no matter what I say you will never see nor truly understand what did happen and what is happening with regards to Iraq and it is futile to argue otherwise with you. It is simply a waste of my time to write a long and lengthy post explaing how you are wrong. All I can say is I am very happy someone with your views is not in the White House!
It is obvious that you do not really know what you are talking about. Your whole last post was proof enough for me and it is obvious that no matter what I say you will never see nor truly understand what did happen and what is happening with regards to Iraq and it is futile to argue otherwise with you. It is simply a waste of my time to write a long and lengthy post explaing how you are wrong. All I can say is I am very happy someone with your views is not in the White House!
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by DVPGSR
Slow-n-low
It is obvious that you do not really know what you are talking about. Your whole last post was proof enough for me and it is obvious that no matter what I say you will never see nor truly understand what did happen and what is happening with regards to Iraq and it is futile to argue otherwise with you. It is simply a waste of my time to write a long and lengthy post explaing how you are wrong. All I can say is I am very happy someone with your views is not in the White House!
Slow-n-low
It is obvious that you do not really know what you are talking about. Your whole last post was proof enough for me and it is obvious that no matter what I say you will never see nor truly understand what did happen and what is happening with regards to Iraq and it is futile to argue otherwise with you. It is simply a waste of my time to write a long and lengthy post explaing how you are wrong. All I can say is I am very happy someone with your views is not in the White House!
you know what that is? a personal defense mechinism. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LALALALALA...!"
All I can say is I wish someone with your veiws WAS NOT in the whitehouse.
What's that smell?
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
DVPGSR, I showed you where you were wrong, point by point. Now all you are doing is name-calling. You are a sore loser.
But the thing is that this issue is a whole lot more important than your fragile ego. People will suffer and die as a result of Bush's reckless acts. As a Bush apologist, that blood will be on your hands too. If you want to live in a world of lies, then knock yourself out in the "Kill Stories" section. You can find ways to prove to the world how foolish you are that don't bring about death.
But the thing is that this issue is a whole lot more important than your fragile ego. People will suffer and die as a result of Bush's reckless acts. As a Bush apologist, that blood will be on your hands too. If you want to live in a world of lies, then knock yourself out in the "Kill Stories" section. You can find ways to prove to the world how foolish you are that don't bring about death.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
OK...fine. I think slow-n-lows comments are completely off base and I really don't feel like taking the time to write a long, drawn out post to show you guys otherwise. However it looks like I am going to have to because I am such a "sore looser". The one thing I am sure of is that I am not wrong...and i have a strong feeling that no matter what I write in my post you are going to try and say how I was wrong again and the cycle continues. After your last post you took my truths and contradicted them...in my eyes you are wrong...which is why I don't want to respond because it proves to me that arguing with you is not going to get anywhere. I have come to the conclusion that you both are strong liberals and will defend that position as strongly as you must...which I admire...but I still think you are wrong. And that is the precise reason that I am a Republican...because I believe the liberal agenda is wrong for America and I identify my ideals and upbringing more with the Republican party. So give me time and I will respond to your post...but I am certain you will neither like nor agree with what I say. But hey that is politics...and the one thing I have not done is name call. So far I have been a dopehead and a sore looser...what other names can you throw at me? I think you need to reread our posts to see who infact is doing the name calling.