Did they get him already? [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 01:15 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2003Mar20.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58177-2003Mar20.html)

In the Oval Office
CIA Had Fix on Hussein
Intelligence Revealed 'Target of Opportunity'
advertisement

By Barton Gellman and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 20, 2003; Page A01

Shortly before 4 p.m. yesterday, Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet offered President Bush the prospect -- improbable to the point of fantasy, yet suddenly at hand -- that the war against Iraq might be transformed with its opening shots. The CIA, Tenet said, believed it had a fix on President Saddam Hussein.

Hussein and others in "the most senior levels of the Iraqi leadership," ordinarily among the most elusive of men, had fallen under U.S. surveillance. The intelligence was unforeseen and perishable, presenting what one administration official called "a target of opportunity" that might not come again. Not only did the agency know where Hussein was, Tenet said, but it also believed with "a high probability" that it knew where he would be for hours to come -- cloistered with advisers in a known private residence in southern Baghdad.

Bush listened calmly -- as his aides portrayed the scene -- as Tenet described the sources and limits of his information, the likelihood that it was true and the length of time Hussein could be expected to spend at the site before moving to his next refuge. The Iraqi president, a man of many palaces, avoids them at moments of maximum risk. There was no guarantee at all, Tenet said, that his whereabouts would be pinpointed again.

For the next three hours, Bush and his senior national security advisers tore up the carefully orchestrated schedule of violence that the U.S. Central Command had honed for months. Those present in the Oval Office, officials said, included Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When Bush signed the launch order at 6:30 p.m., it had a hastily prepared insert. The first shots would strike through the roof and walls of an anonymous Baghdad home and deep beneath it in hopes of decapitating the Iraqi government in a single blow.

"If you're going to take a shot like this, you're going to take a shot at the top guy," said a government official with knowledge of the sequence of events. "It was a fairly singular strike."

Aboard Navy warships waiting in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, operations officers reprogrammed Tomahawk cruise missiles on the fly with digital target data transmitted from CIA headquarters at Langley. A squadron of stealthy F-117A strike fighters pulled pilots from their ready rooms and gave them new mission briefs. The aircraft and missiles each carried satellite-guided warheads. The bombs aboard the F-117s were 2,000-pound "bunker busters" designed to penetrate layers of stone and steel.

Three hours after Bush gave the order, at 5:33 a.m. local time, southern Baghdad was rocked by a series of closely spaced explosions, witnesses in the city said. The results were unknown. Iraqi television, competing for air time with the newly American-flagged frequencies of Iraqi radio, reported within hours of the blasts that Hussein was alive and well and would shortly address the nation. The broadcast began about 12:30 a.m. today Eastern time.

U.S. officials cautioned that it would be some time before intelligence could assess with certainty what the U.S. strike had hit, and who had been there.

The 1991 Persian Gulf War included hundreds of strikes at "leadership targets," but President George H.W. Bush and his advisers did not acknowledge they were aimed at Hussein specifically. After the war, it became clear that the U.S.-led air campaign had tried and failed on dozens of occasions to pinpoint attacks on the Iraqi president.

But those attacks were not the first of the war, which of necessity targeted Iraqi air defenses and the command and control of Iraqi fighting forces. If the CIA had come across yesterday's intelligence windfall in 1991, the U.S. military could not have struck the Bahgdad residence fast enough.

Tomahawk cruise missiles could have spun up their jet engines, and the gyroscopes to guide their flight, but there would have been no way to enter precision-targeting data in minutes or even hours. At the time, the missiles required three-dimensional terrain maps that took days to construct.

In the decades since the Gulf War, the Tomahawk's guidance system has been upgraded to follow Global Positioning System satellites instead. The Navy can download new digital coordinates direct from the intelligence directorate of U.S. Central Command. "Actionable intelligence," the bane of a high-technology military faced with the wily and elusive low-tech foe, requires far less lead time in the present war.

Whatever the result of yesterday's strike, officials said, there will be more rapid re-targetings and more unexpected opportunities before the war is over.

XXXPhoto

03-20-2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 19 2003, 09:40 PM
I do not understand why people cannot see what a danger Saddam was to the region and to the US.
Mike,

I was pretty sure you wouldn't suddenly reverse yourself (would have suggested someone had hacked your nic if ya did...lol); that's the beauty of free speech though, we both can think the other is wrong and talk about it...

You said you thought I was wrong; which part please? Or did you disagree with all that I said? Don't you think that there are other things swaying Bush's go ahead that are totally unrelated to protecting Joe and Jane Doe Americans?

Never said he wasn't a danger to region nor to the US... doubt anyone has their head in the sand that much... I do however disagree with how he and the situation is being delt with by Bush.

Interesting news story... the "For the next three hours, Bush and his senior national security advisers tore up the carefully orchestrated schedule of violence that the U.S. Central Command had honed for months." part makes for a good read... but if they really did toss out 3 months of planning then it must have been a pretty pathetic one in the first place. My hopes are that Gellman or Priest just worded what was going on very poorly.

*KK*

03-20-2003, 02:16 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 19 2003, 09:40 PM
I think you are wrong.

I do not understand why people cannot see what a danger Saddam was to the region and to the US.
While I've no love for Saddam, Michael, the candid Jr mentioning that he's partly after Saddam "since he tried to kill my dad" makes me wonder what kind of rocks he's got for brains.

His complete lack of charisma or any other compelling emotion when he's orating publicly is an enormous problem. Instead of a country united behind his actions, he's got half the country sitting around wondering what the hell he is up to.

Just like Mark said, I will reiterate. I love my country, I have nothing but respect for those in the service of defending and protecting her.

However, there are too many instances of politicians using their office to further their own agendas... one of which is memorialized by your very own Huey Long Bridge ;)

03-20-2003, 04:59 AM

KK, i thought the same when i saw him giving that speach on tv earlier ... he totally looked like he had taken a couple of sleeping tablets before the recording started.

i'm sure he's under a lot of pressure and all that :wnw: but he makes me trust him about as much as a rattle snake. he continually repeats the same chorus, and i truly wonder if he really believes it himself.

one of the quotes they've used in the news leaders is "Well its going to be a harder and longer battle than we thought" .....

LMAO

duh

that man is not winning america any new ally's, that's for certain

as we say downunder ... 'ONYA DUBYA

Torone

03-20-2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by XXXPhoto@Mar 20 2003, 12:32 AM
I whole heartedly support our troops; I was one last time... I love my country...
Why do you people start out like that; then attack Bush? Is it incomprehensible to you that the Commander-in-Chief is one of the troops? :wankit:

LeeNoga

03-20-2003, 09:22 AM

Saddam hopes this war to be vietnam like in signature, so that the American people turn on Bush. Those were his words.

What better army than the entire US turning on the whitehouse.

At least Bush did not say, time up, take a break at Martha's Vineyard and bomb 2 weeks from now which they did during Desert Storm.

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 09:39 AM

one of the quotes they've used in the news leaders is "Well its going to be a harder and longer battle than we thought" .....

Come on CJ this is bullshit, your ears are failing you! The quote is....

A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81611,00.html

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 09:44 AM

KK what do you know? I am surprised you are not parotting the people who are saying this war is because of powerful Jewish interests. That the Bush team is leading the US to war for Israel.....

Bush going after Saddam is the extremely politically dangerous. IF Bush was concerend about re-election he would not have gone to war. He could have just wavered, launched a few missiles, and say he did something. But instead, he is putting his own political ambitions aside and doing what he feels ( and I agree with him) is best for this country. The history books will prove Bush did the right, brave, bold and politically VERY risky thing.

I do not trust professional politicians, but when they do take a stand, even when it puts their re-election chances in harm ( which this could do if it goes bad) I give them respect, and also tend to think they are doing WHAT THEY THINK IS THE RIGHT THING, NOT the most politically expediant!

LeeNoga

03-20-2003, 10:01 AM

MikieAI, tell us how you really feel :-)

Rox

03-20-2003, 10:40 AM

Put me in the camp with Mark & KK.

I love America, I support our troops... the people whose asses are truly in the line of fire, that is. They're doing their duty, and for that they have my gratitude and prayers for a quick and safe return to their families. In the unlikely event Mr. Bush might actually put himself in harm's way with the REAL military men, I might gain an ounce of respect for him. He certainly hasn't earned any thusfar (and that goes for the rest of his administration as well). Even Colin Powell, who at first I looked to as the one guy worthy of any respect and the saving grace of the administration, has disappointed me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The way I'd prefer to have gotten rid of Hussein would be assassination. Over the years when I've wondered aloud why it was never done, I was told that assassination was against the rules. So now I'm confused... this current action is also apparently against the rules (and goes against what most "regular" people the world over want). Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to somehow sneak in and put a bullet in the bastard's brain?

Flame away... but I'm sure it's possible to be against the war yet still be in support of our troops. And nothing Mr. Bush says or does will change my mind -- in fact, every time he speaks, he just makes me more depressed at the thought that HIS is the face that America presents to the world. No wonder so many people hate us now, since we're represented on the world stage by an arrogant, untraveled, Texas yahoo with no regard for anyone who isn't American, Christian and supportive of the interests of big business.

But hey, while we're all focussed on this military action, lots of people are distracted by how fucked up things are right here on American soil. So I guess that's a plus, huh?

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 10:47 AM

Can you guys come up with at least UNIQUE arguements?

The "lets start a war on foreign soil so people don't realize how bad things are in the US" is old, worn out, and holds NO water in this case!!

Bush is doing the right thing, he is taking enourmous risks for his political future ( which is the bravest thing any politican can do), to doubt his motives is shameful. The post 9-11 world is a different place, Bush is doing what it takes to make ALL of us safer ( even those who question his motives) amazing how many of you are just wanting to stick you heads back in the sand. Maybe we can get you all ruby slippers so you can click them together and go back to Kansas....

About supporting troops, but not the President/War, etc.... please refer to Buffs post

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...390b8bae194b93e (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=2663&s=8ba586e9c31db4f92390b8bae194b93e)

Oh yeah and I DO beleive in your right to voice and state your own opinions, I may not agree with them, but will always support your right to say, think, do whatever you want. If we all agreed on everything, life would sure be a boring thing!!

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 10:48 AM

Lee, looks like it is you and me on this one!!

:rokk:

LeeNoga

03-20-2003, 11:06 AM

As much as I hate to agree with Mikie, I do what I got to do. I agree.

Having been in the military 10 years, Bush is doing the right thing. Enough people have been involved in this decision, granted Bush's name is prominent, but given the numbers of layers of gov't involved in this decision if it were truly a bad idea it would have never happend.

Hate Bush all you want, but note there has been no more 9/11's. We Americans only probably know .00000001 of whats really going on, therefore everyones opinion, point of view are worth the same.

Mine included.

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 07:55 AM
Can you guys come up with at least UNIQUE arguements?

The "lets start a war on foreign soil so people don't realize how bad things are in the US" is old, worn out, and holds NO water in this case!!

Bush is doing the right thing, he is taking enourmous risks for his political future ( which is the bravest thing any politican can do), to doubt his motives is shameful. The post 9-11 world is a different place, Bush is doing what it takes to make ALL of us safer ( even those who question his motives) amazing how many of you are just wanting to stick you heads back in the sand. Maybe we can get you all ruby slippers so you can click them together and go back to Kansas....

About supporting troops, but not the President/War, etc.... please refer to Buffs post

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?a...390b8bae194b93e (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=2663&s=8ba586e9c31db4f92390b8bae194b93e)

Oh yeah and I DO beleive in your right to voice and state your own opinions, I may not agree with them, but will always support your right to say, think, do whatever you want. If we all agreed on everything, life would sure be a boring thing!!
Mike, I know you think it's worn out but it's a valid concern. How the fuck are we supposed to pay for this? We're in deep financial trouble as a country without the additional costs of this conflict.

There was a time, right after 9-11, where people the world over actually finally cared about the US. And then Bush and his administration started talking, and the things they said made us once again look like bullies who think they know best what's right for everyone else in the world. That REALLY bothers me. We know that Saddam Hussein isn't a fair representation of the normal Iraqi citizen (mostly because he's a fucking psycho), but people in other countries believe Bush represents the American on the street. He does NOT. Most people I know can properly pronounce "nuclear," for one thing.

I couldn't care less about his political future; I didn't want him in the first place. He's too stupid and narrow-minded to represent me. He's not scoring any points by ignoring everyone and doing whatever the fuck he wants. He will never be what I consider a great, or even a mediocre, leader.

As for making us safer, I don't believe that for a minute. In fact, this whole thing is just adding fuel to the fire for the militant jihadis. And where the fuck is Osama? Why didn't we accomplish THAT objective before getting involved in something else?

I agree to disagree, of course. Because I like ya, and I definitely respect ya. :rokk:

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 11:28 AM

I agree to disagree, of course. Because I like ya, and I definitely respect ya.

Rox I feel the same way!!

When it come to this issue though, I think you are wrong.

There is a MUCH HIGHER COST if we ignored Saddam and did nothing. The premise that since we have goen to war with Iraq there will be more terrorist attacks is based on the false assumption that if we did NOTHING, if we kept our military on our shores we would be safe.

That is completely wrong, we are in a world where the terrorist who want to harm us will try to attack and kill us in our own country no matter WHAT we do or do not do.

So short term we might have some more terrorist incidents, but long term this war will keep them down.

The only way to stop terrorism 100% is to kill the terrorist, and wipe out the regimes who support them. I promise you sitting on your hands, sticking your head in the sand would just lead to more of our buildings being destroyed, and more of our innocent brothers/sisters being murdered!

Vick

03-20-2003, 11:29 AM

Rox - sorry Dee Snider wasn't available for the Presidency of the USA :P

and for all the Bush Bashers - who would you rather have in the office of President today? Can we agree that Gore wouldn't be the right person for the incredibly hard job of President

.....and even though this is an unlikely scenario what if the attack last night took out Hussein and some of his top advisers and brought a quick end to this conflict?

How many of you (and the rest of the American hating world) could admit you were incorrect about America, President Bush, our foreign policy and intentions?

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:35 AM

If Dee were president, Ashcroft would CERTAINLY not be AG, and that would be fine and dandy by me!

I can agree that Gore probably wouldn't be the right person, but I can't think of anyone offhand I'd like to see in the role... except maybe Clinton, who everyone else hates, and couldn't serve anyway. The lack of people worth putting in the office is depressing.

I wish your unlikely scenario would have come to pass, but it would NOT change my mind about Bush, his intentions or the steps we took to get here. I would just see it as a lucky and happy coincidence.

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 11:38 AM

Vick you are right - bottom line at the end of this war we will find out who was right. If we discover chemical/biological weapons, find the details of Saddam's nuclear program ( and I think we will) - are those who slammed the US ( France, Germany), and those in the US who slammed Bush's policy going to apologize?

I bet most will not. They will say the US planted the weapons or evidence. Or they will say they knew the weapons were there, but inispections where working, and it was not worth the human toll, etc... etc....

Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!

Vick

03-20-2003, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Rox@Mar 20 2003, 11:43 AM
I wish your unlikely scenario would have come to pass, but it would NOT change my mind about Bush, his intentions or the steps we took to get here. I would just see it as a lucky and happy coincidence.
Rox - a lucky and happy coincidence??? no planning and forethought to get those results - From the Bush Administration???

Just blind luck hun?

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Vick+Mar 20 2003, 08:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Vick @ Mar 20 2003, 08:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Mar 20 2003, 11:43 AM
I wish your unlikely scenario would have come to pass, but it would NOT change my mind about Bush, his intentions or the steps we took to get here. I would just see it as a lucky and happy coincidence.
Rox - a lucky and happy coincidence??? no planning and forethought to get those results - From the Bush Administration???

Just blind luck hun?[/b][/quote]
Nah, I didn't mean it that way, Vick. Of course there was planning and whatnot. I just meant that it'd be great if the first strike would end it quickly and the massive number of troops would be unnecessary.

Of course, they'd still have to have some people stay there for some time while we oversee some form of government (that we approve of, of course) put in place; but hopefully there would be no body bags coming back to the US.

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 08:46 AM
Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!
I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there. I haven't seen any other cost analyses -- so links would be MUCH appreciated!

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me?

LeeNoga

03-20-2003, 12:08 PM

The constitution, is that the paper that says we have the right to bear arms?

Hmph.

War may cost money but it also is good for our economy.

As a kid, knowing we print our own money, never understood why US does not print the money they need..... why trillions in the hole.

Of course there are reasons to why this is.

gigi

03-20-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 08:46 AM
Vick you are right - bottom line at the end of this war we will find out who was right. If we discover chemical/biological weapons, find the details of Saddam's nuclear program ( and I think we will) - are those who slammed the US ( France, Germany), and those in the US who slammed Bush's policy going to apologize?
From what I've seen, most anti-war groups/people are NOT purporting that there 'are no' WMD.....they were just saying the situation should have been handled differently, including giving inspectors more time to FIND these 'WMD'. (save the argument...we've heard it before)

Anti-war folks would not be 'wrong' if once the US goes in they find WMD. (note: In Bush's speech he is now referring to WMD's as 'Weapons of Mass MURDER'...interesting)

And I'm still very confused with how the Bush Admin. is handling the North Korean issue.....this is a country they KNOW has WMD. Are they not even MORE SO capable of handing off these types of weapons to terrorist groups?? Where does the true imminent threat lie?

Just something to think about....

*KK*

03-20-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 06:52 AM
KK what do you know? I am surprised you are not parotting the people who are saying this war is because of powerful Jewish interests. That the Bush team is leading the US to war for Israel.....
Well, let's see what I know Michael...

I know that junior Bush has managed to squander an entire worlds goodwill and support in around a year and a half, with his underthought, heavy handed ways... totally unneccesary.

I know that junior Bush doesn't even have his own country solidly behind him and as to paraphrase Robin Cook, had the hanging chad fallen the other way things would have been very different... that election was the start of the dissatisfaction.

I know that after decades of getting pretty much our way with the UN -- and proclaiming it to be a wonderful organization -- juniors done a 'take
my ball and go home' number on them, which is hypocrisy at its' finest... doesn't look too good from an objective standpoint.

I know that junior has the public personality of a wet cardboard box, something that's not going to win him support for his cause, at home or abroad... remember Churchill's speeches during WW2, he rallied a world, not just a nation with them.

I know that in years past when the US government (and others, we are by no means alone in this folly of thinking) has 'liberated' other countries from their tyrants and replaced them with new regimes the end result has been as bad if not worse than the original situation... central and south America and African countries come to mind.

I know that the US is just as much to blame for Saddam's power as anyone else, remember the Iran/Iraq war or how many times we've managed to screw the Iraqi Kurd population... 3 I believe I read on the news the other day, and these people stand between Turkey and Baghdad, potentially causing major problems if they stand to their word of fighting the Turks were they to cross the border for any reason.

If you try to put words in peoples mouths, they often come back out in a way you didn't want to hear.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Saddam is an angel, or that he doesn't create issues. However, politics and war are not arranged around one man's agenda or ego -- EXCEPT in a dictatorship.

It's a really sad day when people have to say that there better be some chemical or biological weapons used to kill people -- OUR people especially -- in order to justify what we've done.

And it's even more sad when you realize that if there aren't, then junior has manufactured a world situation that we will be reaping what we've sown for years to come and it won't be a pretty situation. The dollar is falling, countries that we've been on good terms with for years are denouncing us and can as a whole hurt us economically now and later, it's just a bad thing all the way around.

That doesn't mean that people who disagree with the war don't support the fact that the troops are doing their duty -- this isn't Vietnam and I fervently hope it doesn't turn into that type of situation, it would put more strain on an already stressed country.

At the end of the day the choice seems simple, lose our troops to prove a point or be a world laughingstock over the fact that our 'leader' furthered his own agenda in a major way at his country's expense.

junior is no politician, he's not the man his father was and no matter what else, to say he has no eye on his re-election is like burying your head in the sand as the camels go by.

*KK*

03-20-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by LeeNoga@Mar 20 2003, 09:16 AM
As a kid, knowing we print our own money, never understood why US does not print the money they need..... why trillions in the hole.
You left the smilies off this comment Lee

urb

03-20-2003, 01:57 PM

There's a load of talk here in the UK about us following America's lead blindly.

We've fallen out with France, our nearest European neighbours.

But having seen the Iraqi mustard gas attack photographs, I have no sympathy for Saddam at all.

Sometimes you have to FIGHT FOR PEACE.

LeeNoga

03-20-2003, 02:06 PM

:D KK :D

*wink*

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 05:38 PM

URB you are 100% correct!!

KK you have a new job? Sounds like you should be a commentator for CNN, or writing opinion peices for the New York Times.

Keep parroting the same things....

Squandering the good will from the world? We had it for maybe 2-3 days after 9-11, but after that the world went back to where it was before.

Should we listen to the rest of the world? Most of the world cannot even manage the basic needs of their citizens... If anything the rest of the world should take note, and watch the US and learn.

I saw a funny photo, it was a picture of a protester in some third world country, and it said Yankee GO HOME.... AND TAKE ME WITH YOU!

HAHAHA

Rox - what does having to go to war with Iraq have to do with the Constitution? The President has EXPRESS authority to wage war as the Commander in Chief.

03-20-2003, 06:26 PM

Mike, trying to debate with you is like talking to a bull.

you refuse to see anyone else's views.
you refuse to see beyond your own misconceptions of your 'great nation'
you refuse to see why your moron of a president has put your country in the most FUCKED position its every been in
you refuse to see past the LIES your president is telling you about why there was a war in the first place

i could go on, but why bother. if someone says something you don't agree with, the only way you can retaliate is "What would you know" or "keep parroting" ... funny, seening you haven't made 1 original statement the whole time this 'war' has been getting planned.

KK posted facts, XXXPhoto posted facts, Rox posted facts ... you on the other hand continue with your 'hail america and our great president' attitude with no idea about what's happening outside your little world.

opinions are like assholes, everyone has the right to one. accepting that would help you a whole lot. everytime I read one of your posts I think "no wonder there are so many america haters." you can't blame the rest of the world for not liking you when you refuse to acknowledge any countries rights except your own.

save your response, i'm not debating war with a rock. i have better things to do than :headwall: :headwall: :headwall:

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 06:30 PM

I did not see any facts..... mere opinions.

Oh and CJ, I feel the same way when debating you.

I am glad the US has Australia as a partner in this war!

Maybe we can put an end to terrorists who blow up or civilians when on vacation in Bali....

03-20-2003, 06:36 PM

actually this has made it worse, for us and for you .... but thanks for your concern for our citizens

MikeW

03-20-2003, 06:37 PM

Well, looks like we know who's side cj is on!

:heil:

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 06:40 PM

CJ that is wrong.

You are falling under the falicy that if we retreat from the world, that the terrorist will leave us alone. That is NOT the case. The terrorist will attack the west no matter what. The ONLY way to stop a terrorist is to KILL the terrorist. It also helps to destroy/remove regimes that actively support terrorists with funds, training, weapons, and hiding locations.

You cannot defeat terrorist and dictators by appeasement. This is a FACT of history, one that many of you wish we would continue to repeat.

03-20-2003, 06:49 PM

for the record, I am FOR going to war. so thanks MikeW for throwing me into a stereotype because I don't agree with MikeAI's meathead american footballer attitude.

CJ that is wrong.

really?!?!?!?!?!? says who?!?!? you?!?!?
oh fuck, i must be wrong if you say so.

:headwall:

getting rid of bin laden would have been going after terrorism. bush has convinced you nicely that saddam is the cause and your blindly believing that this is for the good of the world.

while your chanting your 'lets get em' line, the rest of our military (minus the 2000 who are on the frontlines), are busy securing our major ports, churches, political locations and military headquarters from the billions of muslim enemies we now have a few hundred miles north, and living in our own country. between usa, uk and oz, we have just created about 100 times more terrorist organisations who believe WE are evil and must be destroyed. thank you america for protecting us from suddam, its really fucking helpful.

MikeW

03-20-2003, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by cj@Mar 20 2003, 06:57 PM
so thanks MikeW for throwing me into a stereotype because I don't agree with MikeAI's meathead american footballer attitude.
You're welcome! Glad I could help out! ;-))))))

:blink:

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 07:01 PM

I do not think there is a huge connection between al quada and Iraq. I do beleive though Saddam would have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who would use it against us. I also beleive that a strong, somewhat democratic Iraq could help stabilize the region.

If we can expand democracy, free market economics to the middle east- it will improve the lives of the people in the region, who could then focus on the quality of their lives rather then turning their anger on us.

Right now, unless you are born to a royal family, life in the middle east is pretty terrible. Why is this? Because the United States and the West opresses them? NO. It because THEIR gov'ts opress them. There are no freedoms for anyone, women are treated like cattle ( worse many times), their lives amount to nothing. So there is a huge under current of discontent - so the gov'ts that rules these people lives, throw out a RED HERRING - they blame the US and the WEST for all the problems in their miserable lives. They do this so the people will not rise up and overthrow the dictators who run every country in the middle east ( but for Israel).

CJ please answer these questions for me: why do you support the war? Do you think the way women are treated in the middle east is good? Do you think people have liberty as we know and understand it in the middle east? Do you think the US and the west are a direct cause for these peoples msiery and lives?

To sum it up. We take Iraq, stabilzie region, bring in democracy/liberty/free market economics to the region, this will impove peoples lives - THIS WILL HELP END TERRORISM!!!!

When people have a decent standard of living - have libery, are free to pursue their dreams - THIS is what makes humans happy and will cut out terrorism!

ulfie

03-20-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Rox+Mar 20 2003, 12:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rox @ Mar 20 2003, 12:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 08:46 AM
Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!
I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there. I haven't seen any other cost analyses -- so links would be MUCH appreciated!

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me?[/b][/quote]
$300/day per person in the US would equal $8.4 billion a day. I think someone needs to take some more math classes.

03-20-2003, 07:20 PM

>>CJ please answer these questions for me: why do you support the war?

I support the war because your president has put our countries in the position where we have no other choice. I believe that an issue has been invented (nuclear weapons) by george bush so he can convince his people that he is justified in blowing up a country that nobody can prove has anything to do with Bin Laden and the WTC/Pentagon attacks. If Bush backs down now, Suddam WILL use whatever weapons he has and we'll all be fucked. I trust that the leader of my country has made the right choice in supporting america in this game, just look at how you've treated france who didn't support your bullying.

>>Do you think the way women are treated in the middle east is good?

of course not, but I also think its disgusting that female circumcision is still very common in africa. should we blow them up to? what are you and your president doing about that? stop pretending that you care about middle eastern women ... you and your president do not give a shit about that - but you use it often to try to make the rest of us feel guilty for wanting peace.

>>Do you think people have liberty as we know and understand it in the middle east?

no, but what does that have to do with you? or me? what makes you think you can fix it by taking out 1 leader? again, another excuse. suddam will be replaced by someone the people want ... have you asked the iraqui people? you know, the ones you are speaking on behalf of? You are so convinced that you know what's best for them that they are justified in hating you. Have you considered that many of these people would prefer to continue living as they are rather than being killed, losing their homes or becoming permanent refugee's who will die in the desert because america has done what they came for and left?

>>Do you think the US and the west are a direct cause for these peoples msiery and lives?

not a direct cause, but a factor, yes. the assumption that everyone who is not living in usa style democracy is unhappy, doesn't hold with me. the key to accepting each other as different but equal is "They aren't wrong, they are different". USA has been trying to control the region for a long time, their people are pissed off and I believe they have a right to be pissed off. I'm not talking about the stupid jerks who believe that terrorism is justified because america is a bully ... i'm talking about the regular people, who dislike america's principals without ever wishing any harm come to america's people. surprise surprise, they do exist as a majority, terrorists as a minority.

your entire argument is based on the fact that bush is good because he's helping people to become more like america ... NEWSFLASH we don't all want to be like america.

03-20-2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by ulfie+Mar 20 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ulfie @ Mar 20 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Rox@Mar 20 2003, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 08:46 AM
Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!
I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there. I haven't seen any other cost analyses -- so links would be MUCH appreciated!

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me?
$300/day per person in the US would equal $8.4 billion a day. I think someone needs to take some more math classes.[/b][/quote]
>>>I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there.

so ulfie, you are saying there are about 30 million usa soldiers in the middle east?!??!

Torone

03-20-2003, 07:34 PM

Rox,
"Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me? "

Say what? Please document that statement about the Constitution or retract it. I know that you and your people believe that 'if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will begin to believe it'; but that is a statement that is not only patently ridiculous, it verges on being criminal and Anti-American. Do you really believe that your cohorts would let something that pass; or are you just plain ignorant of the Constitution; or is it a deliberate lie?

Mike AI

03-20-2003, 07:36 PM

NEWSFLASH we don't all want to be like america.

CJ I suggest you travel to the Middle East where they will respect your opinion.

Freedom, Liberty, Open Markets, are NOT American monopolies- they should and hopefully will be applied to all parts of the world.

Oh and I am not saying the US is going to war in Iraq to make their lives better - really I do not care. However, unlike the people in Africa who are abusing girls, the scumbags in the middle east have brought their contempt for human life, and their aggression to OUR shores.

If they were just blowing each other up, we would have a press release.... but since they came to our shores and attacked us, and will cotninue to do so until we stop them - we had to act.

Beleive me, I do not think we are doing this because we want to help the woorld out - we are doing it to help US out - primarily. Getting rid of a dictator, and possibly creatinga democratic regime, helping the Iraquis out is a bonus. Of course creating a liberated middle east, who becomes part of the global economy it can only help the US. We need more people to buy the crap we make. We need more consumers.... if Iraqies are surfing for porn in a free world, pulling out their bank of bagdad VISA card to join one of my sites, maybe they will not waste their time building weapons of mass destruction to hand out to all the other bad guys in their neighborhood.

When people have a higher quality life, freedom, property rights, can aspire to do whatever they want with their lives- they will eventually get a better apprecaite for the value of human life and will not become or support terrorist. That is how you solve terrorism.... not by hiding, kissing their asses, giving mroe aid to the dictators who run their country, or anything else.

People are responsible for the gov'ts in which they live under.

Bottom line in is democracies, with free market economies do not attack other democracies.

*KK*

03-20-2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 04:09 PM
I do not think there is a huge connection between al quada and Iraq. I do beleive though Saddam would have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who would use it against us. I also beleive that a strong, somewhat democratic Iraq could help stabilize the region.
Michael, you are kidding yourself and denying historical facts here. Time and time again, these countries that the west -- and not just the US -- have aided in tossing off the yoke of their oppressive governments and bringing in a new, oh so democratic government, have been dismal failures in nearly every case.

As a matter of fact, WE -- yes the US -- screwed the Kurdish population in Iraq multiple times... meaning more than once.

Shall we start taking Central and South American countries, Asian or African nations where the west has meddled in things on a case by case basis and see what happened?

I find it amusing as well that you claim I've got a new job but you did not bother to refute a single of the points I made with the exception of the goodwill one -- which is not correct if you look at recent history -- you simply tossed me into your 'must hate America since you don't like Bush' group.

You've known I didn't like Bush for years. Yes, I voted for him, but I won't make that mistake again.

*KK*

03-20-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 04:44 PM
Bottom line in is democracies, with free market economies do not attack other democracies.
Pardon me?

03-20-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 07:44 PM
NEWSFLASH we don't all want to be like america.

CJ I suggest you travel to the Middle East where they will respect your opinion.

Firstly, go fuck yourself ...
if you can't respect my opinion and actually address the comments i have made with valid ones of your own then you can quite simply, go fuck yourself.

are you really this blind?!?!?!?

do you think i'm on my own here in the way I feel about this?!!?!?
do you seriously think that only me and the middle east think you are wrong?!
yoo hoo mcfly!! *knock knock*

>>Freedom, Liberty, Open Markets, are NOT American monopolies- they should and hopefully will be applied to all parts of the world.

why? because YOU say so? who are you? you are only 1 person with a misguided idea of what's best for the world.

>>If they were just blowing each other up, we would have a press release.... but since they came to our shores and attacked us, and will cotninue to do so until we stop them - we had to act.

suddam didn't attack you. but if you truly believe this piece of bush propaganda, why do you keep using 'human rights' as an excuse? i'm not the one who raised the treatment of women in the middle east ... do you think that because i'm passionate about womens rights that this one would conform me to your side on the overall benefit of war? your using a defense which you blew apart only a few posts later

you stated earlier "If we can expand democracy, free market economics to the middle east- it will improve the lives of the people in the region, who could then focus on the quality of their lives rather then turning their anger on us."

what kind of a fairy tale world are you living in?!?!?
do you think that iraq is going to celebrate after you blow up half of their country?!? puhlease. in looking after your own interests, you are fucking up many other countries interests - even those who support you. if you think that will make the world love you, I hope you never have to experience the wrath of reality.

I would love to believe your fairy tale, but unfortunately we live in different worlds ... I'm in this place called 'earth' and you seem to be living in the land of Mike, where reality is hidden by the dillusion of grandeur.

RichC

03-20-2003, 08:45 PM

they should have used this one (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/030311-D-9085M-004.ram)
sets a tone...

Rox

03-20-2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 20 2003, 04:42 PM
Rox,
"Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me? "

Say what? Please document that statement about the Constitution or retract it. I know that you and your people believe that 'if you tell a lie loud enough and often enough, people will begin to believe it'; but that is a statement that is not only patently ridiculous, it verges on being criminal and Anti-American. Do you really believe that your cohorts would let something that pass; or are you just plain ignorant of the Constitution; or is it a deliberate lie?
First off, who exactly are are you referring to as my "people" or "cohorts?"

Unlike most Americans, I make it a point to listen to ALL sides of an issue and make my own decisions. Then again, I actually make it a point to work at educating myself instead of forming opinions with nothing more to go on than what's on television or Clear Channel syndicated radio talk shows.

My statement is a lie? I fail to see how anyone can look at the USA PATRIOT Act and not see the blatant disregard for our constitutional rights, for starters. John Ashcroft covered up the bare breast of a statue, for fuck's sake -- all of a sudden Lady Justice is obscene? And our "fearless leader" stood by and let this happen. How can an intelligent American NOT feel like they're watching the country go directly to shit?

As for the rest of the politicians allowing such bullshit to pass, why wouldn't they? They're all more concerned with their own careers... God (big G, of course) forbid they stand up for what's RIGHT and take the risk of being called unpatriotic or anti-American, especially when the public is falling all over themselves, waving their flags and rushing to give up their civil liberties as long as the government can "make them safe."

Most people are lazy and stupid, and politicians like them that way, so they encourage them to remain so. I'm not playing that game.

So no, I don't retract it. It's not seditious, it's not treasonous and it's not a lie. It's the opinion I've formed by looking at the facts and making my own judgments. As an American, I'm still allowed to say I think the president and his administration are a bunch of arrogant, elitist pricks who think that their idea of what's good for America and the rest of the world is more important than respecting the opinions of, and truly representing, ALL Americans.

Last edited by Rox at Mar 20 2003, 06:03 PM

photogregg

03-20-2003, 09:02 PM

Okay...my first response to a thread about politics. I don't keep up with them, don't vote because I believe all politicians are crooks and controlled by others in higher power then them, including the forces behind the New World Order, the World bank and the super rich that control the world banking system where we borrow trillions of dollars, as well as other contries to fund their wars.

Interesting book by Larry Abrahams written in the 1980 and updated 10 years later about the "real" powers that be, and why and how every war was started and how they were funded.

New World Order...an elite group of old money folks that let in a select few that control the populace...amazing that 90% of the US presidents are in that elite membership.

Read the book...very documented information about the real power folks that run the banking systems, governments and war.

http://www.wordboost.com/a/None_Dare_Call_...0899666612.html (http://www.wordboost.com/a/None_Dare_Call_It_Conspiracy_0899666612.html)

wig

03-20-2003, 09:07 PM

Bush made a strategic decision that many leaders of other nations would have made if in the same position. There are also many leaders that would have chose the opposite. Not surprisingly, many of these same "leaders" will take whatever side is in their best interest even if it means talking out of both sides of their mouths. History decides who made the right move.

Personally, I think taking the offensive is the strategic choice. It may not prove to be the correct choice, it is a risky proposition, it is ambitious to say the least, but it is the strategic move. I am glad that I do not have to make this decision, but I do not object to it.

Success means a win for the war on terror. Iraq is certainly hiding weapons and there are probably plenty other "side deals" that are going to be uncovered. It's the chance to prove that they are right and they probably will do so (start conspiracy theory here). If they can provide hard facts and make a case, they might have the "I told ya so..." and a political winner.

Success also means US has another finger in every hole. Oil is certainly a KEY part of this and to deny it is naive IMO. Stabilizing Iraq in this region is the ticket. If successful, it means long term gains that dwarf the cost of the war. It's economics and they did the math and have justified the risk.

Of course the French are pissed. They are on the opposite end of this economic gold mine. Same with Russia and China and Germany. But, they will fall back when they realize that the battle is lost and it is now in their best interest to change their tune or otherwise position themselves "strategically".

In business, if one company can out maneuver their competition, if they can out bid them, bring more volume, produce a better product, etc. then they will be on top. It is natural to do what it takes to maintain it. I believe it is the only realistic option. America is a capitalist society (despite the growing internal movement against this). If other countries are not, I don't think they should be pissed because we are -- even if this means that we can better do what is natural.

Anyone who has ever been number 1 at anything knows that it is much easier to be # 2, 3, 4. Everyone is always gunning for number 1. It is a position that everybody (except #1) wants to see devoured. This is also natural. The US has too much economic and military power and uses it just like any other country would.

The US has not always been in the #1 position and one day will relinquish this position. We will probably be addressing China then like we do the US now. :unsure:

RawAlex

03-20-2003, 09:17 PM

Wig, you are correct in many ways. Iraq almost certainly has some side deals that great affect the region and the world. They have the right attitude and approach to be in with some very unsavory types.

"junior" has taken a very tough decision, that honestly he backed himself into having to make. Attempting to force the issue with the UN, putting the troops into the field, and such basically left him with no choices that would look good. The war is the best card to play out of a very low hand. I personally support the war, I am still wondering about the "why now, why not next week"? Nobody has answered the question of timing... the deadlines all seemed a little forced with little or no explaination.

Now I am listening to the announcements of the first troops dying in the field, after a helicopter crashed. The pain has started on all sides, hoping that all of this will be over soon.

Alex

*KK*

03-20-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by wig@Mar 20 2003, 06:15 PM
Success means a win for the war on terror.
Not so sure I agree wig. Success in this case means that Americans die to prove a point. Terrorists are not going to go away because we whip Saddams ass, provided we do and in some reasonable amount of time. If the Iraqi's do not use some form of chemical or biological weapons in this war then world opinion will swing even further against the US. And unfortunately in this day of global economics the last thing we as a country need is to be hindered in our ability to do business and to drag a large portion of the world economy down that is still pinned to ours.

You are dealing with a mindset, in these Muslim fundamentalists, that is more related to the Saracen wars or the Crusades, than you are dealing with a people that recognizes and realizes that this is the 21st century.

Given that their deaths elevate their status in life, why on earth would they care how many of their brethren we kill? That only makes them hungry and jealous for what their fallen kin have supposedly gone on to...

And after all that said, I'm off to watch the Duke game :)

wig

03-20-2003, 09:31 PM

Alex, I knew we would eventually agree on something. :D

wig

03-20-2003, 09:45 PM

Not so sure I agree wig. Success in this case means that Americans die to prove a point. Terrorists are not going to go away because we whip Saddams ass, provided we do and in some reasonable amount of time. If the Iraqi's do not use some form of chemical or biological weapons in this war then world opinion will swing even further against the US. And unfortunately in this day of global economics the last thing we as a country need is to be hindered in our ability to do business and to drag a large portion of the world economy down that is still pinned to ours.

I understand that Americans may die and that others may die, but I do not see what that has to do with the big picture. If we are honest, we acknowledge that part of the price is sometimes death. That does not make it right, but it is certainly reality.

Yes it is possible that Iraq will not use WMD. It is also possible that we won't find any (although doubtful). It also may mean that all the terrorists will attack at once.

You are dealing with a mindset, in these Muslim fundamentalists, that is more related to the Saracen wars or the Crusades, than you are dealing with a people that recognizes and realizes that this is the 21st century.

By this statement alone one may also consclude that what we do (or not do) may have no affect on the terrorists. They are of a mindset that is not going to change whether we kill them all or send them a fruit basket.

I don't subscribe to the passivist role as a solution. They may be just as pissed at us either way.

Success also means 20 dollar oil and many other economic opportnities.

As Dennis Miller says, It's only my opinion, but I could be wrong.

Rox

03-20-2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by *KK*@Mar 20 2003, 06:31 PM
You are dealing with a mindset, in these Muslim fundamentalists, that is more related to the Saracen wars or the Crusades, than you are dealing with a people that recognizes and realizes that this is the 21st century.

Given that their deaths elevate their status in life, why on earth would they care how many of their brethren we kill? That only makes them hungry and jealous for what their fallen kin have supposedly gone on to...
That's the point I think SO many people are missing when they argue about how much "better off" Iraq will be because of our intervention. The fundamentalists of Islam call the West the Great Satan because they look at our way of life as immoral and evil, and the reason they hate us so much is because we've tainted their pure societies simply by being there and causing good Muslims to question a few thousand years' worth of doctrine and law.

They don't think like us, they don't believe as we do, and the ideals we hold dear are an affront to their religion and their god. Considering their long and bloody history defending themselves against the infidels, is it any wonder they're more than happy to become martyrs in order to keep us out, even today?

wig

03-20-2003, 10:19 PM

Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

There are many countries that have these and thrive and I don't think any of the individuals in these countries would want to trade places with an Iraqi.

I think there are many Iraqi's you are underestimating.

03-20-2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by wig@Mar 20 2003, 10:27 PM
Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

There are many countries that have these and thrive and I don't think any of the individuals in these countries would want to trade places with an Iraqi.

I think there are many Iraqi's you are underestimating.
Wig, your still applying western rules to a culture that is older than the wests rules ...

Rox & KK made the point better than I can ...

you are still seeing the 'injustice' done to iraqui people based on your own interpretation of what is 'unjust'. who are you or I to make that decision for these people?

you can't change a whole nations (religious & other) beliefs by claiming they'll be better off to follow yours.

Winetalk.com

03-20-2003, 10:30 PM

geeze, MikeAI,
you still don't get it?????

CJ doesn't support the war because....

she is a PUSSY!
;-))))

something even she won't argue with!
;-))))

Torone

03-20-2003, 11:17 PM

Rox,
Your people, your cohorts are led by people like WJC and Tom Daschle. You know who they are.

As for the Constitution, I sincerely doubt that you, as a Liberal, ever read it. Liberals only use the Constitution when they can interpret it to achieve their goals.
:moon:

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by wig@Mar 20 2003, 07:27 PM
Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?
Of course I don't believe that, wig. What I'm saying is that although every Iraqi is no doubt unhappy under Saddam, I think that it's likely there are also a great many that might be NEARLY as unhappy under American occupation and rule.

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

Speaking as a person born and raised in a country that has codified all of those things, and where religion isn't considered higher than civil law, of course I think they would be happier. Now, if I were a devout Muslim, however, that would be a totally different story. And though extremists like Al Q'aeda are in the minority, there are fundamentalist Muslims who might start sympathizing with them once they're confronted with the "evils" of Western civilization.

Because of their religion, they are very different from us, and I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting that perhaps what WE think is best for them might very well not be what THEY desire, that's all.

I'm also a little concerned about American government's current leanings toward theocracy these days...

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 20 2003, 08:25 PM
Rox,
Your people, your cohorts are led by people like WJC and Tom Daschle. You know who they are.

As for the Constitution, I sincerely doubt that you, as a Liberal, ever read it. Liberals only use the Constitution when they can interpret it to achieve their goals.
:moon:
Torone, fuck off. I follow NO one man, party or school of thought. I make my own decisions on an issue-by-issue basis.

I'm more Libertarian than Liberal. In fact, if you'd like a glimpse into what my beliefs and/or leanings are, click the link in my sig and read for yourself...

And I've read the Constitution many times, thank you very much. It's much more interesting than any bullshit and lies that come out of the mouths of politicians, and I wish more of them would take seriously their duty to defend it.

ulfie

03-20-2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by cj+Mar 20 2003, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Mar 20 2003, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -ulfie@Mar 20 2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by -Rox@Mar 20 2003, 12:05 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Mar 20 2003, 08:46 AM
Rox - as far as cost. I read the war is going to cost $300 per every citizen. I am happy to kick in my $300 ( with tax day rolling around, I think we ALL have contributed much more significantly then that).

How much is it going to cost to rebuild the World Trade Center? What was the economic impact of that attack on us? What are the 3,000 or so innocent American lives worth?

Bush swore to protect this country, he took and oath and he is doing it to the best of his ability - even though it has put him in a potentially tough spot for re-election!
I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there. I haven't seen any other cost analyses -- so links would be MUCH appreciated!

Bush took an oath to protect the Constitution, first and foremost; I see it being trashed and disregarded before my very eyes. So how can I pretend he's what I consider a leader who represents me?
$300/day per person in the US would equal $8.4 billion a day. I think someone needs to take some more math classes.
>>>I heard $300 PER DAY to maintain each soldier over there.

so ulfie, you are saying there are about 30 million usa soldiers in the middle east?!??![/b][/quote]
$300 per EVERY citizen is what was stated and the bullshit detector went off. I only factored in US citizens btw so my figures are actually low.

03-20-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Mar 20 2003, 10:38 PM
geeze, MikeAI,
you still don't get it?????

CJ doesn't support the war because....

she is a PUSSY!
;-))))

something even she won't argue with!
;-))))
watch it old fart, or you might find a can of whoop ass on your doorstep!!! :P

remember the last gift I sent you?!!?! i am secretly a terrorist with LL, and we are conspiring to use those knives on you in your sleep ;-))))
:P

i HAVE a pussy, but I am not one

and seeing you obviously can't read to see my stance on war, let me say it more slowly:

I
believe
we
need
to
go
to
war
with
the
middle
east
NOW

I disagree with the steps taken towards war, with the justifications given by Bush, and with the hopeful outcome. we are damned if we do and damned if we don't and war right now is our best chance of saving our own asses.

>>$300 per EVERY citizen is what was stated and the bullshit detector went off. I only factored in US citizens btw so my figures are actually low.

ulfie, no one said $300 per citizen per day ... 1 said 300 per citizen (not per citizen per day) the other said per soldier per day. the 2 posts got kinda mixed in ;-)

Rox

03-20-2003, 11:54 PM

Ulfie, the figure of $300/day per soldier came from a program I was listening to yesterday morning [edit: it was Monday morning the 17th]. It's here:

http://kpcc.org/programming/airtalk/

I don't recall who gave the figure, but it was someone on this guest list:

Joining host Larry Mantle is Hal Kempfer, a military analyst for ABC 7 News and a Reserve Marine Lt. Colonel, Ben Works, Executive Director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute, an independent think tank in Washington, D. C., and the principal radio analyst for ABC Radio, and "GI" Wilson, a retired Infantry Colonel in the USMC.

Last edited by Rox at Mar 20 2003, 09:09 PM

bpj

03-20-2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by wig@Mar 20 2003, 09:53 PM
As Dennis Miller says, It's only my opinion, but I could be wrong.
I like the Charles Barkley quote better.....
" I may be wrong, but I DOUBT it! " :yowsa:

ulfie

03-21-2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Rox@Mar 21 2003, 12:02 AM
Ulfie, the figure of $300/day per soldier came from a program I was listening to yesterday morning [edit: it was Monday morning the 17th]. It's here:

http://kpcc.org/programming/airtalk/

I don't recall who gave the figure, but it was someone on this guest list:

Joining host Larry Mantle is Hal Kempfer, a military analyst for ABC 7 News and a Reserve Marine Lt. Colonel, Ben Works, Executive Director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute, an independent think tank in Washington, D. C., and the principal radio analyst for ABC Radio, and "GI" Wilson, a retired Infantry Colonel in the USMC.
$300/day per "soldier" I can buy. $300/day per "citizen" in your original quote I can't. Big difference between the two. Personally, I think the investment is worth it but I'm a right wing kook so what do I know? We crush a nut named Hussein in Iraq, we have a fair amount of control in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabi are our allies (sort of) as well as Israel, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, etc. Do I have a point here? Yes, I do. Iran is now completely surronded with our allies. Does that have any value? Maybe GW isn't as dumb as everyone thought he was.

Rox

03-21-2003, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by ulfie+Mar 20 2003, 09:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ulfie @ Mar 20 2003, 09:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Mar 21 2003, 12:02 AM
Ulfie, the figure of $300/day per soldier came from a program I was listening to yesterday morning [edit: it was Monday morning the 17th]. It's here:

http://kpcc.org/programming/airtalk/

I don't recall who gave the figure, but it was someone on this guest list:

Joining host Larry Mantle is Hal Kempfer, a military analyst for ABC 7 News and a Reserve Marine Lt. Colonel, Ben Works, Executive Director of the Strategic Issues Research Institute, an independent think tank in Washington, D. C., and the principal radio analyst for ABC Radio, and "GI" Wilson, a retired Infantry Colonel in the USMC.
$300/day per "soldier" I can buy. $300/day per "citizen" in your original quote I can't. Big difference between the two. Personally, I think the investment is worth it but I'm a right wing kook so what do I know? We crush a nut named Hussein in Iraq, we have a fair amount of control in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabi are our allies (sort of) as well as Israel, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, etc. Do I have a point here? Yes, I do. Iran is now completely surronded with our allies. Does that have any value? Maybe GW isn't as dumb as everyone thought he was.[/b][/quote]
Mike was the one who said $300 per citizen -- I think he meant in total, as well. I think it'll end up costing more than that when all's said & done. But I'm not an economist. :awinky:

ulfie

03-21-2003, 01:04 AM

I know this is semantics but $8.4 billion which equals $300/citizen again I can believe. You originally said $300 per citizen per day which when I ran the numbers didn't make any sense. I'm glad we've cleared all that up now. :)

Mike AI

03-21-2003, 01:06 AM

Ulfie will you be my accountant, you have a good head for numbers.

wig

03-21-2003, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by cj+Mar 20 2003, 10:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Mar 20 2003, 10:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 20 2003, 10:27 PM
Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

There are many countries that have these and thrive and I don't think any of the individuals in these countries would want to trade places with an Iraqi.

I think there are many Iraqi's you are underestimating.
Wig, your still applying western rules to a culture that is older than the wests rules ...

Rox & KK made the point better than I can ...

you are still seeing the 'injustice' done to iraqui people based on your own interpretation of what is 'unjust'. who are you or I to make that decision for these people?

you can't change a whole nations (religious & other) beliefs by claiming they'll be better off to follow yours.[/b][/quote]
CJ, you miss my perspective. I am not applying western rules nor am i interpreting what is or not is unjust. I am not trying to change anyone religion either.

I am merely stating "why" I believe the choice to go into Iraq was made and that I can appreciate the choice -- right, wrong or indifferent.

My perspective is not to provide facts that support why it is right or why it will work, just why it was the strategic move.

ulfie

03-21-2003, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 21 2003, 01:14 AM
Ulfie will you be my accountant, you have a good head for numbers.
I could never equal your current accontant. :)

wig

03-21-2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Rox+Mar 20 2003, 11:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rox @ Mar 20 2003, 11:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 20 2003, 07:27 PM
Rox, do you really believe that every Iraqi is more happy in their current situation and under Saddam's rule?
Of course I don't believe that, wig. What I'm saying is that although every Iraqi is no doubt unhappy under Saddam, I think that it's likely there are also a great many that might be NEARLY as unhappy under American occupation and rule.

Do you think they would not be more happy with womens rights, property rights, a ppl's gov't, freedom of speech, etc. and the opportunities that come with these?

Speaking as a person born and raised in a country that has codified all of those things, and where religion isn't considered higher than civil law, of course I think they would be happier. Now, if I were a devout Muslim, however, that would be a totally different story. And though extremists like Al Q'aeda are in the minority, there are fundamentalist Muslims who might start sympathizing with them once they're confronted with the "evils" of Western civilization.

Because of their religion, they are very different from us, and I don't think I'm out of line in suggesting that perhaps what WE think is best for them might very well not be what THEY desire, that's all.

I'm also a little concerned about American government's current leanings toward theocracy these days...[/b][/quote]
Rox,

I certainly can appreciate that perspective. I am not saying you are wrong. I don't know whether the move into Iraq will be right or wrong, but I know that ONLY history will be the judge.

I certainly believe that Saddam is not good for the Iraqi ppl and believe that he is better off gone. Seems that going in and making this happen is the only way.

Right or wrong, the overall strategy was not chosen because GW is a madman. Saddam is a madman.

wig

03-21-2003, 01:36 AM

Originally posted by ulfie@Mar 21 2003, 01:12 AM
I know this is semantics but $8.4 billion which equals $300/citizen again I can believe. You originally said $300 per citizen per day which when I ran the numbers didn't make any sense. I'm glad we've cleared all that up now. :)
That Vulcan mind at work! :P

Wassup, Ulfie??

wig

03-21-2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by bpj+Mar 21 2003, 12:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bpj @ Mar 21 2003, 12:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--wig@Mar 20 2003, 09:53 PM
As Dennis Miller says, It's only my opinion, but I could be wrong.
I like the Charles Barkley quote better.....
" I may be wrong, but I DOUBT it! " :yowsa:[/b][/quote]
Bill, I like that one too. :okthumb:

Don't want to come off as a cocky American or CJ won't bring me any tim-tams. :D

Rox

03-21-2003, 01:56 AM

Point by Point, Lie by Lie (http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc1186.html)

A professor and author goes over Bush's 3/17 speech.

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the Constitution being ignored...

Here's a snip:

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The oath of office also demands that the president uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which forbids such an illegal use of force. Virtually no international legal authority recognizes such an invasion as an act of assuring legitimate national security interests.

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

The U.S. Congress--with the support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership--did authorize the use of force against Iraq. However, the resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow Congress to grant such open-ended warmaking authority to the president for an offensive military action. Only a formal declaration of war in such a situation can be considered legitimate. Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution declares that international treaties to which the United States is a party are to be treated as supreme law, thereby proscribing Congress from passing any resolution that violates the UN Charter, such as supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation. As a result, this resolution is unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

Interesting.

urb

03-21-2003, 04:27 AM

The situation as I see it ....

France and Russia have a deal with Iraq to buy oil from them as soon as the sanctions are lifted.

If America and the United Kingdom invade and topple Saddam, then this deal becomes void. This is why they objected to military force.

America and the UK want to control the oil in Iraq (notice I said control, not take). This will help the US and UK economies no end.

Saddam needs a big kick up the arse and I believe the USA are justified in doing so. But I also believe that the USA must also take action to settle the Israel/Palestine conflict asap.

There cannot be double standards here, so Israel and the Palestinians should also be told to disarm when Iraq has been dealt with.

I am not a big fan of Bush, but I do think he should use his nations muscle to stop conflict in the world. America has been too insulated to the rest of the world for too long.

I hope the war is over fast, and I wish US, UK and Aussie troops all the best.

:rokk:

Opti

03-21-2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by Torone+Mar 21 2003, 01:07 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Mar 21 2003, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--XXXPhoto@Mar 20 2003, 12:32 AM
I whole heartedly support our troops; I was one last time... I love my country...
Why do you people start out like that; then attack Bush? Is it incomprehensible to you that the Commander-in-Chief is one of the troops? :wankit:[/b][/quote]

hehehe

"you people"

Now that cracks me up Torone!

Hey did you hear the Fench have finally committed troops to the effort..

**************
Subject: French troops deployed to Iraq

PARIS, FRANCE -
President Jacques Chirac announced today that France would be deploying
two elite units of French troops to Iraq in the event of war.

Five hundred crack troops from the 2nd Groupement d'Instruction en
Abandonment are mobilizing to assist the Iraqi Army in the finer points of
military surrender.

"The immediate capitulation of an armed force is a delicate and intricate
tactic in which we French have much experience." said Defense Ministry
spokesperson General de Armee Francois-Phillippe Hommes de Petit-Pommes.

"There is a certain protocol in laying down your arms or fleeing the battlefield.
To wave the white flag while remaining arrogant, pompous and insufferable
requires experience and training. The French Army believes it is second to
none in the fine art of surrendering quickly. The record of our armed forces
in that area speaks for itself. The Iraqi performance in giving up without a fight
during the last Gulf War was commendable but slip-shod. We hope to improve
their level of surrender execution for the next war."

General Hommes de Petit-Pommes further announced that 1000 advisors
from the Regiment de Collaborateurs Francais will also be dispatched to Iraq to
assist the Iraqi people in collaborating effectively with any occupation force.
"It is more important to protect their art treasures than to defend their honor,"
the General pointed out.

The General also expressed the hope that Baghdad has some tree-lined
boulevards. "It was our experience that the Germans liked to march in the
shade, and we feel the Americans and the British might like that same
measure of comfort in Iraq - especially in warm weather.

Trev

03-21-2003, 05:53 AM

hahahahahahaha :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Too damn funny :rokk:

XXXPhoto

03-21-2003, 06:25 AM

Actually was going to let Torone's comment slide here as I covered it in another thread... But since it was brought back up and I was quoted I guess I'll point out why I feel he errs....

Bush is an elected official, he is not a 'troop', he is not putting his ass on the line...

That presently unknown Marine that was KIA earlier today... He was a troop, a brother to every one of us who ever wore the uniform and a son of every American... I and others support that man, he swore to put his life on the line and do what he was ordered to do knowing full well it could mean his life... There are thousands just like him racing across the desert right now who have uttered the "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)..." pledge... And they deserve a hell of alot more respect than to be lumped in with the temp Commander in Chief... :butt:

Opti

03-21-2003, 06:33 AM

I didn't mean to bring the topic up!

Torone's sweeping generalisation of "you people" makes me giggle each time I see it... by now I reckon it must cover almost everybody apart from Torone! :biglaugh:

Torone

03-21-2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Opti@Mar 21 2003, 06:41 AM
I didn't mean to bring the topic up!

Torone's sweeping generalisation of "you people" makes me giggle each time I see it... by now I reckon it must cover almost everybody apart from Torone! :biglaugh:
Ok. If you need specifics, I refer to those people known by various names (you pick your favorite)...

Clintonistas
Democrats
Liberals
Progressives
Centrists
Socialists
(my favorite) Communists
:moon:

XXXPhoto

03-21-2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Opti@Mar 21 2003, 03:41 AM
I didn't mean to bring the topic up!

Torone's sweeping generalisation of "you people" makes me giggle each time I see it... by now I reckon it must cover almost everybody apart from Torone! :biglaugh:
S'ok Opti... Torone's generalizations make me giggle sometimes too... Never had much use for disagreeing with a label... much more fun to disagree with a person on a deep individual level... Labels have caused more deaths than smallpox... B)

Opti

03-21-2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Torone+Mar 22 2003, 12:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Torone @ Mar 22 2003, 12:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Opti@Mar 21 2003, 06:41 AM
I didn't mean to bring the topic up!

Torone's sweeping generalisation of "you people" makes me giggle each time I see it... by now I reckon it must cover almost everybody apart from Torone! :biglaugh:
Ok. If you need specifics, I refer to those people known by various names (you pick your favorite)...

Clintonistas
Democrats
Liberals
Progressives
Centrists
Socialists
(my favorite) Communists
:moon:[/b][/quote]
God damn.. that almost sounds like a list of diseases! :blink:

What ideology do you think you fit into?

You should have done Colin's survey!!
http://www.buildinganempire.com/politics/results.html

*KK*

03-21-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by wig@Mar 20 2003, 06:53 PM
By this statement alone one may also consclude that what we do (or not do) may have no affect on the terrorists. They are of a mindset that is not going to change whether we kill them all or send them a fruit basket.

I don't subscribe to the passivist role as a solution. They may be just as pissed at us either way.

Success also means 20 dollar oil and many other economic opportnities.

As Dennis Miller says, It's only my opinion, but I could be wrong.
A large portion of the Pentagon etc's war strategies are now based on game theory, which was 'perfected' during the Cold War... a so-called war with two combatants, the US and Russia.

Middle eastern nations, especially Muslim fundamentalists, do NOT respond to these theories in the same manner that the Russians would have during the Cold War, that is obvious...

Interesting war games report was released recently...

the US appointed one of it's more imaginative generals to run the Iraq side. They reset the wargame and fired the general once 2 aircraft carriers went down to guys in jetboats packed with shaped charge explosives.

They said "that's not in the rules!"