It's So Simple!

[sinfulone]

I respect anyones right to their own opinion. But this debating about
Iraq is giving me headache. Some of you folks are trying to make this
something that's it not, POLITICAL.

Sadam has been involved in one way or another with almost every
major terrorist incident since he's been in power. He has to go.

This ain't about the UN and it ain't about he's hiding weapons it's about
him being a worthless piece of sewage that has no respect for humanity.

Just remember 911 because that's what it's all about. How anyone
that considers them self a human being and then be against taking
this wacko out is beyond my understanding.

It's that simple. This is not a vietnam it's about protecting our right
to live without fear of some mother fucker with an axe to grind
killing masses of innocent americans in their own country.

If you think for one minute this war won't be over in a blink of an eye
then you weren't watching the last time we attacked Iraq.

Bush is doing what he promised to do and I really don't give damn if he
does have to lie to get it done. As much as Clinton was a worthless piece
shit I bet you anything if 911 happened when he president it would of
freaked him out so bad he would of turned that region of world into a
parking lot that glowed for the next one hundred years. :grrr:

[PornoDoggy]

So ... it's not political, but you blend 9/11 and Iraq without even a feeble attempt to connect them, and dragged a jab at Clinton into the mix just for good measure?

Something's simple, to be sure ... but I don't think it's the issue you're trying to discuss. Maybe the logic you're using to discuss it?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by sinfulone@Jan 30 2003, 03:50 PM

If you think for one minute this war won't be over in a blink of an eye
then you weren't watching the last time we attacked Iraq.

I sure hope you are right about this ... but this time the stated goal is to oust him. There was no urban warfare the last time. If Saddam decides to bunker down in Baghdad or someplace like it, it could be very, very ugly and a lot longer than a 100-hour war. I have very personal reasons for hoping and praying you are right ... but I think people claiming this will be a cake walk don't know much.

[Torone]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Jan 30 2003, 04:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Jan 30 2003, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--sinfulone@Jan 30 2003, 03:50 PM

If you think for one minute this war won't be over in a blink of an eye
then you weren't watching the last time we attacked Iraq.

I sure hope you are right about this ... but this time the stated goal is to oust him. There was no urban warfare the last time. If Saddam decides to bunker down in Baghdad or someplace like it, it could be very, very ugly and a lot longer than a 100-hour war. I have very personal reasons for hoping and praying you are right ... but I think people claiming this will be a cake walk don't know much.[/b][/quote]
Urban warfare ain't no cakewalk; but it is a question of whether it is Bagdhad or a US city...a question of innocent? Iraquis or innocent Americans. I vote for our side. I also suggest a resolution that basically says that no American blood will be spilled to defend countries such as France, Germany, etc. who seem to forget that they would no longer exist if it weren't for us (I know this last was off-topic; but I just couldn't resist.).

[Vick]

I have read a fiery gospel writ
In burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with My contemners,
So with you My grace shall deal":
Let the Hero born of woman
Crush the serpent with His heel,

[Evil Chris]

With the US defense budget and available resources and technology, you'd think that anyone, anywhere, could be eliminated at any time if required.

It's been 12 years since IRAQ invaded Kuwait and set off Desert Shield/Storm. Why hasn't Saddam "disappeared" in that long stretch of time?

We should remember that the Iraqi people (the general populous) are only following orders. Mass destruction of their country would not only be wrong, but sad too. They want Saddam out as much as we do, but if they say so... bang--- they're dead.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 31 2003, 11:31 AM
With the US defense budget and available resources and technology, you'd think that anyone, anywhere, could be eliminated at any time if required.

It's been 12 years since IRAQ invaded Kuwait and set off Desert Shield/Storm. Why hasn't Saddam "disappeared" in that long stretch of time?

We should remember that the Iraqi people (the general populous) are only following orders. Mass destruction of their country would not only be wrong, but sad too. They want Saddam out as much as we do, but if they say so... bang--- they're dead.
Um, weren't the Nazi soldiers only "following orders" too?

I actually saw an interesting pogram on the History Channel the other night that detailed why we haven't gone in an assasinated Saddam yet...he's more dangerous if he's "underground" where at least if he's "public" it's easier to track what he's doing. The United States isn't quite sure what will happen as far as his successor...

Ah, could be an interesting next couple of years...

Let the chaos begin!

[Vick]

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Jan 31 2003, 11:31 AM
Mass destruction of their country would not only be wrong, but sad too.
Why? ......


*(edit added) the Iraqi people have been at war for the last 22 years and have one of the poorest standards of living anywhere
One of the best things that could happen to them is their liberation by the USA - we win the war, set up a puppet goverment and things are better all over
Sorry there has to be a war to do it
but Saddam is too dangerous to be allowed to continue to exist

Tough but the facts are what they are




Last edited by Vick at Jan 31 2003, 12:15 PM

[PornoDoggy]

Torone, my point was not that we SHOULDN'T go in and fight in Baghdad if we have to. I am only warning people against assuming that this is going to be "simple" or a "walk in the park."

And I knew you couldn't miss the opportunity engage in nonsensical eurobashing. But I have a question for you ... if Germany and France ever get the agreement of Canada and Mexico while the U.S. continues to disagree on an issue, would that make the U.S. irrelevant?

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Vick+Jan 31 2003, 01:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Jan 31 2003, 01:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Evil Chris@Jan 31 2003, 11:31 AM
Mass destruction of their country would not only be wrong, but sad too.
Why? ......


*(edit added) the Iraqi people have been at war for the last 22 years and have one of the poorest standards of living anywhere
One of the best things that could happen to them is their liberation by the USA - we win the war, set up a puppet goverment and things are better all over
Sorry there has to be a war to do it
but Saddam is too dangerous to be allowed to continue to exist

Tough but the facts are what they are[/b][/quote]
Why?
Here's why....

Did you follow the news during the years Yugo was being broken up?
Towns levelled... literally destroyed. Familys eradicated... history blown to bits and never to be remembered.

*that* is a sad sad thing.

This is something that should be avoided and can be avoided in Iraq. There is a tiny fraction of people in Iraq that we need to worry about (generally, the politicians in power and their military supporters). Would you rather see this puppet government overseeing a destroyed country which needs billions to re-build? Or a puppet government that simply needs to restore some order and a sense of finality to their fears in their old leaders?

[Vick]

ok EC - how can the current goverment (the politicians in power and their military supporters) in Iraq be removed?

I think we agree there is a problem, we just don't agree on the method to eradicate the problem

[Evil Chris]

For sure we agree Vick.

I'm just hoping that in the process of solving the Saddam problem, the entire country and culture isn't destroyed as a result. I think that most people would agree that would be a shame.

[Mike AI]

Chris, the US has always gone out of its way not to destroy historic buildings, and things like this.

Especially in Iraq, we are not going to be blowing up stuff just for the sake of it because WE will be rebuilding the country. So the less stuff we break, the less stuff we have to fix!

[Vick]

Giving this a little more thought .....
and when entering a war the MAJOR (maybe only) CONCERN should be how to win with least amount of casualties

Not sure that what happens to the opposition is a concern

It's War and War is Hell

[Evil Chris]

Originally posted by Vick@Jan 31 2003, 05:57 PM
Giving this a little more thought .....
and when entering a war the MAJOR (maybe only) CONCERN should be how to win with least amount of casualties

Not sure that what happens to the opposition is a concern

It's War and War is Hell
Yikes... Vick, ask yourself if you're honestly qualified to say something like "War is Hell".

I participated in the ceremonies of the 45th Anniversary of the Liberation of Europe, and I met veterans who fought at Arnhem in the Netherlands and old soldiers who landed on French beaches without the benefit of Naval backup. They would have the right, but none of us do. Period.

Mike, I'd like to point out that I get the distinct impression that you think the US is the military saviour of every world conflict there has ever been. Am I misreading you?

[Mike AI]

Mike, I'd like to point out that I get the distinct impression that you think the US is the military saviour of every world conflict there has ever been. Am I misreading you?

You Canadiens are goof balls - I was not giving that impression, I was saying that since we are going to occupy Iraq like we did Germany and Japan for a long time, we are not going to be destroying infrastructure and killing people for fun.

However now that you mention it, in the 20th Century the US has been the military savioud of every major ( and minor) conflict in which we have been in.

Starting in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam ( though we could have done better), countless battles in Latin America, the Cold War, Somolia, Former Yugoslavia ( only coutnry to ACT, and did it without the UN - french and germany still cried, and probably Canadiens as well), Hatie, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia.

And on top of it, our deployment of OUR Military, (our brothers, fathers, sons, friends) at our expense ( trillions of $$$s) have protected many countries, and PREVENTED many wars. This is why a large strong military is an asset, NOT to fight wars but to prevent them.

Our Military is still deployed around the world helping people out - and of course I am not sayin we are doing it because we are nice guys, we do it because it is in OUR BEST INTEREST. But a lot of good comes from it for the world.... including the world wide economy - and stability.

[Vick]

Chris - yes
At it's most basic War = trading lives for real estate - (a wise man broke that harsh news to me as a teenager)
It's a really shitty concept but a fact -

we are going to war, people will die, what happens to the enemy is not a concern
concern is focused on completing the mission with the least amount of casualties to our forces

I'm the first one in my family not to serve in military since we immigrated to the USA - and the only reason I have that liberty and all the liberties that US citizens enjoy is because of those who served before me

Harsh - very,
Real - even more so

[T-Rav]

Originally posted by sinfulone@Jan 30 2003, 03:50 PM
I respect anyones right to their own opinion. But
Do you really respect anyone's right to their own opinion?

Yes, as long as they agree with you?

:D

[PornoDoggy]

Hey Mike ... you really should have left Vietnam out of your post on the good Americans have done. That clusterfuck is the most shining example of American foreign policy gone mad. The men and women who died over there were heros. The same cannot be said for the policymakers and the political pressures that caused them to be put there and stay there.

Same with your references to Latin America. We have sometimes done some good there. More often, however, from the theft of Panama from Columbia to the countless incursions into Honduras, Cuba, Nigaragua, et al., we used U.S. troops to crush local resistance (labor unrest, etc.) to explotation by U.S. commercial interests such as the likes of United Fruit Company.

BTW, saw your in your post on GFY last night that But you know if it was JUST about oil, that would be good enough reason for me... most wars are fought over economic issues. Free flow of oil is one of the things worth fighting for. Oil is the fuel of democracy and free markets. Not only for cars, but electricty, all plastics, etc... OIL is the basis for almost everything people in the modern world do...
Didn't somebody once attack the United States over our unwillingness to provide them oil, among other things? Who the hell was that ... what's the name of that place - Pearl something, ain't it?

Perhaps we could expand on that whole concept. If a smaller, weaker nation has something we need, and they aren't willing to provide it to us in a manner we consider acceptable, we should just be able to take it. We could call it "lebensraum", maybe.

[Evil Chris]

Vick... It's easy for you to sit in that comfortable chair and tell us all how horribe war is, isn't it? :awinky:

Hey Mike, did you know that there is this organization called "NATO" ?
Yeah, there is more than just the good ole USA deployed all over the world. What year did the US get involved in WWII? I laugh so hard to myself when I hear Americans who truly believe that if it weren't for them, everyone in Europe would be speaking German today.

I served for NATO for 4 years in Germany during the Cold War. I'd be happy to tell you how much trust we put in our American counterparts over there during exercises and even in the theatre of operations. You've watched too much Rambo over the years buddy.

[PornoDoggy]

What year did the US get involved in WWII? I laugh so hard to myself when I hear Americans who truly believe that if it weren't for them, everyone in Europe would be speaking German today.

Now, wait just a minute here. According to the offical declaration of war, we didn't get involved until December, 1941. We had the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard on antisubmarine warfare patrols in the Western and Northwestern Atlantic as early as March, 1940, only 6 months after the beginning of the war; and a President doing everything he could to keep Britian afloat in spite of fierce opposition from the Republicans at home. Some wanted to stay out of the war out of an insane concept of isolationism; others (far fewer, but around) were so disgusted by the way the Allied countries dilly-dallied around until it was too late. While the U.S. may not have been sending men (for which there was no real military use for anyway), it was doing what it does best - sending $$$ and materials to Britian. Not to mention the fact that only the isolationists and Republicans were able to hide their head in the sand and ignore the gathering clouds in the Pacific.

Americans are incorrect in their assumption that much of Europe would be speaking German were it not for them. Since the split with our ally we learn very little about the Eastern Theater of the war. They have grown up wathcing way too many John Wayne movies and overestimating the tactical significance the of heroic achievements of D-Day and the battle to Germany.

You are correct in assuming that had we not sent a single man to Europe, they still wouldn't be speaking German. However, I think you are being just as one-sided and simplistic as you are accusing Mike of being. German - no. Russian, however, is an entirely different matter.

[sinfulone]

I don't think anyone wants to hurt the iraqi people, I certainly
don't. They have suffered long enough.

The reason this is taking so long is to try to prevent this from
happening. To some extent it will that's what happens when
a wacko uses his people as human body shields.

I really wouldn't be surprised to see at the last second one
of sadam's men hand his head over, could happen.

If sadam goes deep in bunker I'm sure we will clear the area
before we turn the lights off. There will be no long urban battle
our weapons for that kind of thing are far superior than theirs.

Think about this- we have sats in space so advanced we can
watch someone tie their shoe laces at night, that's pretty scary.
We also have robots that can crawl through buildings and kill
anything that fires a shoot at it. And I'm sure there's much more
they don't tell us about.

If you want to read a cool article I think it's in Forbes Dec. issue.
The man is 81 yrs old, is the number one man in the pentagon, they
call him Yoda it's his job to see that our forces fight on the cutting
edge of warfare.

No matter what the price, pain or sacrifice we bare, we must kill off
the sadams and bin ladens of the world now. If we don't it will be
much worse than 911 the next time.

[Evil Chris]

Well put. :okthumb:

[Mike AI]

PD you are correct the Russians were bleading the Germans dry on the Eastern Front. But without a second front, that the US opened up, it is debatable if the Russians woudl have won.

BTW don't forget the lend/lease program which sent millions of dollars of equipment, weapons, ammunition to the Russians.

Regardless, Europe would not be the Europe it is now if not for the brave men of the United States.

[cj]

evilchris and pd, great posts ... pd, thanks for covering the vietnam comment, you beat me to it ;-)

mike, you are so pumped up on the propaganda your country feeds you that you miss 90% of the facts about america's involvement in political issues world wide.

usa cares about the iraqi people?!
usa would never blow up historical buildings?!
usa doesnt destroy infrastructure?!

puh-lease .... are we talking about the same america?

[PornoDoggy]

This is the kind of talk that scares me.If sadam goes deep in bunker I'm sure we will clear the area
before we turn the lights off. There will be no long urban battle
our weapons for that kind of thing are far superior than theirs.

Think about this- we have sats in space so advanced we can
watch someone tie their shoe laces at night, that's pretty scary.
We also have robots that can crawl through buildings and kill
anything that fires a shoot at it. And I'm sure there's much more
they don't tell us about.
There seems to be a feeling of almost invincibility about the upcoming war that I find immensely disturbing. I don't want to seem to be spreading fear and doom and gloom, but thinking that because we've got new wizz-bang toys we can avoid an ugly urban war is either overwhelmingly idealistic or the result of way too much of a controlled substance. If there are too many Americans who are lulled into this kind of thinking, and it goes badly, you can expect to see some uglieness here at home. Please - I am only suggesting a possibility - I hope I am very, very wrong.

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Feb 1 2003, 09:45 PM

Americans are incorrect in their assumption that much of Europe would be speaking German were it not for them. Since the split with our ally we learn very little about the Eastern Theater of the war. They have grown up wathcing way too many John Wayne movies and overestimating the tactical significance the of heroic achievements of D-Day and the battle to Germany.

You are correct in assuming that had we not sent a single man to Europe, they still wouldn't be speaking German. However, I think you are being just as one-sided and simplistic as you are accusing Mike of being. German - no. Russian, however, is an entirely different matter.
England would not have survived without constant shipments of supplies and oil from the US and the willingness to commit so many people and merchant ships knowing that most of them would be lost. Germany controlled a large swath of the Atlantic with their U-Boats between the US and England that could not be reached by air from either the US, Iceland or Europe due to the limited range of planes for air cover and spotting submarines. as most know, Germanys U-Boats initially dominated the sea with complete impunity and were highly successful at taking out merchant ships.

i dont think its wrong at all to think that most of Europe would be speaking German if it had not been for the US making such a massive committment to land in Europe. I dont say it because i am an arrogant American with a cowboy attitude, i say it because Hitler controlled almost all of europe before the US got involved and England was pretty much on its knees. I would not exactly call Europes resistence to the little state of Germany a great success story. Churchill was not asking for the US to get involved because they were gaining ground.

i actually just got back from London and while i was there i went to the Emperial War Museum as well. very cool place!

Russia for the most part, simply outlasted germany by throwing 10's of millions of kids at them to be slaughtered. Russia developed some great and effective weapons during the war (new artillery guns, tanks and fighter planes) but it all came quite late in the game since Stalin had no real military leadership being that he executed most experienced officers during his many purges. the remaining military officers were dinosaurs and yes men, still in favor a strong calvary over the tanks, bombers and paratroopers that were decimating them. it took them a long time to catch up to the technology and get into the game.

[PornoDoggy]

JR ... I agree that England would not have been able to last long without American aid and manpower, and that the Soviets probably would have collapsed without American aid as well. My old man was in the Coast Guard escorting convoys by June, 1940. The African and Italian campaigns also contributed to the winning of the war by diverting a great deal of men and material that the Nazis could ill afford to spare throughout much of late 42, all of 43, and the first half of 44.

By June 44, however, the circumstances were far different. The Russians had retaken virtually all of the former Soviet Union, were advancing through Poland and Rumania, and the Nazis were unable to stop them anywhere.

You and Mike seem to assume that I'm claiming America had no role in winning the war, and nothing could be further from the truth. The money, material, and manpower that we contributed saved their asses. IMHO, the war would have been won by the Soviets in another 6-12 months without the landings in France. That's all I'm saying.

And I said in my original post that I didn't think Europe would have been speaking German, they would have been speaking Russian. That alone deserves a whole lot of credit we will never get.