The W
Views: 97619323
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.7.07 2122
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Disgusting! Bush Compared To Churchill
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(687 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (38 total)
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1873/6215
EXP: 32170673
For next: 296854

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 5.9.04 0449.13
Reposted on: 5.9.11 0451.27
Hey, if the people of Spain are spineless enough to allow a bombing to change who they vote for, then they deserve what they get for leadership. I could care less who leads Spain, because they dont effect my life on a daily basis.
Maybe its selfish, but perhaps the USA has to be. Its not like any nation other than Great Britain has gave two shits about the USA and our interests since we decided that the correct course of action was to go into Iraq. And trust me, the vast VAST majority of Americans could give a rats ass what the rest of the western world is doing, as long as it isnt detrimental to our nation.

I think most Americans would rather not have to be bothered with the rest of the Western world, and would like to be able to live our lives without the constant scrutiny of people who live free because of the strength of the United States.
CarlCX
Salami
Level: 33

Posts: 114/217
EXP: 213627
For next: 15555

Since: 1.5.02
From: California.

Since last post: 206 days
Last activity: 19 hours
AIM:  
#22 Posted on 5.9.04 0557.55
Reposted on: 5.9.11 0558.34
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    We'll stop criticising American leadership when a)It stops deciding the course of the Western world for the rest of us, and b)You stop making what the rest of us are doing your business. Simple as that.


So it's okay to do it because some of us did it first?

I think, by this point, it should be a given that most people don't know the whole truth about what's going on in their OWN governments, let alone those of other nations. Trying to argue politics for another country, no matter which one you yourself happen to be in, is roughly akin to attempting to logically prove the existence of an afterlife: you don't have the facts, and it doesn't really affect you one bit regardless.

Whatever happened to international politics being about AIDING the progress of other nations, rather than deciding said progress FOR them?
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 77/1091
EXP: 2177733
For next: 36376

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2750 days
Last activity: 2478 days
#23 Posted on 5.9.04 2021.48
Reposted on: 5.9.11 2021.48
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    You mean like Spain's prime minister had to after watching handreds of his citizens die? Or Spain's people? Did that stop many, many Republicans turned their vitriol toward Spain, accusing them of appeasing terrorists when it's, as you would argue, none of their business?

    We'll stop criticising American leadership when a)It stops deciding the course of the Western world for the rest of us, and b)You stop making what the rest of us are doing your business. Simple as that.


Deciding the course of the Western World? Hmm...did the American government actually force Britain et al to join in the war in Iraq? Or did they make a decision on there own? Whatever.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1888/3059
EXP: 11456826
For next: 14619

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1895 days
Last activity: 1829 days
#24 Posted on 6.9.04 0535.31
Reposted on: 6.9.11 0536.08
the people of Britain were STRONGLY against taking any military action against Iraq. But because your president had our PM's ear, we went in. We as a nation had no say in it whatsoever, and if had done then we wouldn't hve joined you.

And quit with the "did we FORCE you?" BS. You know as well as I do that the US wields a massive amount of power and stroke over the rest of the world, and the decisions they make on the global stage affect everyone living in their shadow. You want that sort of powr? Fine, then learn to use it responsibly.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1553/1759
EXP: 4879158
For next: 113712

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1224 days
Last activity: 23 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on 6.9.04 0630.10
Reposted on: 6.9.11 0633.24
We apparantly can't win. If we act, we are evil. If we don't act, the UN begs us to, and we are evil for not acting soon enough.

Seems to me that most in the world who HATE is for our actions are just pissed off that we aren't doing things the way they want us to, or when.

The way I see it, the US is the single most giving nation in the world. We give more money in foreign aid to nations that hate us, because it is the right thing to do. We help feed the starving, and spend money treating the sick in underdeveloped nations. Every single time the UN comes up with some scheme involving the use of force, it is mostly OUR soldiers who shed their blood, and mostly our money and equipment that supports the effort. Yeah, other nations contribute, but what major UN effort can you name that wouldn't have crumbled in failure if the United States didn't back it up with money and blood?

You disagree with us going into Iraq? Fine. But the fact remains that the bastard running that country was a brutal dictator who ruled over his people with a sadistic iron fist. The world, and Iraq, is going to be better off in the long term without him. If a nation is going to hate us for doing something like that, supporting a vicious sonofabitch of a dictator over us, then I say fuck 'em. You can disagree all you want with our actions, but if you are going to HATE us for doing it, then go ask Russia or China next time you need help with some "noble cause" like Bosnia.

Personally, I find it disgusting that you can't muster a fraction of the bile you spew in our direction for someone like Hussein. You can bash the United States all day long, and our leaders are too civilized (or weak?) to give you the finger like you deserve, but you turn a blind eye to some of the real atrocities in this world in the name of "acceptance."

As to Britain, thank God you have the leaders you do. I honor and respect Tony Blair for standing next to his ally. I don't agree with a lot of the things that this country does as a part of NATO or the UN, I think we get involved in a lot of things that just aren't our fight. But I support it because we made commitments to our allies, and it is the right thing to do to back them up. I am just sorry that half the people of Great Britain don't feel the same way about their ally across the ocean. Thankfully, Blair proved himself a real ally, and saw that liberating Iraq was better for the common good and backed us up. I, for one, am glad Blair seems to be more loyal, and more sensible, than the people who put him in office. And if he were to ever as the help of our country, I would sure support it, the "vast majority" of Britons who "strongly opposed Iraq" aside. That is what is means to be a friend and lly, not this distorted notion that "The United States should do whatever we want it to" mentality you seem to have.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 6.9.04 0433)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1889/3059
EXP: 11456826
For next: 14619

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1895 days
Last activity: 1829 days
#26 Posted on 6.9.04 0738.18
Reposted on: 6.9.11 0739.47
"As to Britain, thank God you have the leaders you do. I honor and respect Tony Blair for standing next to his ally. I don't agree with a lot of the things that this country does as a part of NATO or the UN, I think we get involved in a lot of things that just aren't our fight. But I support it because we made commitments to our allies, and it is the right thing to do to back them up. I am just sorry that half the people of Great Britain don't feel the same way about their ally across the ocean. Thankfully, Blair proved himself a real ally, and saw that liberating Iraq was better for the common good and backed us up. I, for one, am glad Blair seems to be more loyal, and more sensible, than the people who put him in office. And if he were to ever as the help of our country, I would sure support it, the "vast majority" of Britons who "strongly opposed Iraq" aside. That is what is means to be a friend and lly, not this distorted notion that "The United States should do whatever we want it to" mentality you seem to have."

Why? Why Why Why Why Why? WHY should we blindly follow you into a country that has NOT been proven as any significant threat whatsoever to the West, why should we agree to pour billions of pounds and hundreds of lives into a dead-end cause when there are REAL threats out there, terrorist groups still operating fully and comfortably who haven't been affected in the slightest by the Iraqi War? Christ, I'm sick to death of this idea that, just because there are those of us who are against the war, we are against all fighting back, we don't have any dislike for tyrants, we hate our own allies and our own leaders.

Here's the thing. I like America. I like Britain. I like Tony Blair-Hell, I fucking voted for him in the last general election! But I DO NOT trust the motives of those in power in the US that thought attacking IRAQ was the best way to go about combatting world terrorism. I do not like the culture of fear that has been whipped up on both sides of the Atlantic over a decripit, rotten, evil old goat who now rots in a holding cell, away from public justice, whilst we fart out trying to figure out how to stop Iraq burning. I do not like the fact that when Spain, a country of its own, decided that fighting in Iraq was doing nothing to prevent terrorist attacks and withdrew, they came under attack as cowards for making their own call on the situation.

I support the war on terror. I support America in its efforts to bring those responsible for September 11th to justice. What I do NOT support is the clusterfuck of a war that has eaten up billions of dollars and pounds in funds, thousands of men and women's lives and the last eighteen months of world attention when we SHOULD be out there hunting down these amorphous terrorist cels, when we SHOULD be spending our cash on intelligence and internationally co-operative precision work, when we SHOULD be giving those who serve our countries better reasons to go out and die than "these guys may or may not have weapons of mass destruction, and they may or may not have harboured terrorists of some kind in the last decade". These fuckheads don't give a shit whether we're American, English, French, Canadian or Russian-they'll kill us all the same. But are we banding together, seeking them out wherever they may be in the world? No, we're concentrating massive amounts of time and money on one small slip of land whilst the majority of the villains go about their business.

I would happily see my country stand side-by-side as allies in, as you put it, acting against this evil-but the war in Iraq was not the right act. Friends stand by each other in times of need, but friends also tell each other when they're about to make a bonehead move.


(edited by oldschoolhero on 6.9.04 0538)
Torchslasher
Knackwurst
Level: 106

Posts: 1473/3259
EXP: 12577701
For next: 94283

Since: 17.1.02
From: New F'n Jersey

Since last post: 288 days
Last activity: 255 days
#27 Posted on 6.9.04 0832.38
Reposted on: 6.9.11 0832.48
I can't fathom this anymore.

Ekedolphin intimates that George Bush doesn't care about civil rights. He thinks that the Republicans are trying to lie and say that GWB is the "greatest President in the history of the United States."

Nethackslasher (who I've always dug on this board) wants the US economy to FAIL. Net thinks that those of us who are Bush supporters are stupid and brainless (his comments of "pulling the wool over our eyes" is my basis here). Net has never seen a President so despised (how much research goes into making this statement).

I know that you guys are just passionate and all that, but you seem to be crossing over the fence from political expression to complete hate. I just can't believe that you are helping the cause by being this hostile.

I am a Bush supporter, and I'm sorry if that makes me a stupid puppet who can't see straight. But I will never attack ANY sitting president like this, whether he is from my country or not. I am not going to blindly attack or make rash or inflammatory statements. I think you guys are really doing more harm than good here.

CAVEAT- OSH may be often full of bluster, but I at least appreciate his last post, because he explains his position clearly.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1421/2210
EXP: 6797982
For next: 117946

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 day
#28 Posted on 6.9.04 1154.43
Reposted on: 6.9.11 1154.46
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Hey, if the people of Spain are spineless enough to allow a bombing to change who they vote for, then they deserve what they get for leadership.


Stagger, you're one of my favourite Weiners, but thats horribly disrespectful to the Spanish. They've been dealing with bombings for some time now thanks to ETA, so to imply that they lack backbone in the face of terrorism is way off the mark.

What they did was allow the growth of global terrorism to influence their voting, which is pretty damned smart if you ask me. They'd be positively dense not to. I honestly can't get my head round the thinking that refusing a course of action that involves going to war is cowardly. It sounds damned cheesy, but sometimes the braver, and more beneficial course of action is to NOT got to war. To my mind the Cuban missile crisis would have been a whole lot worse if Kennedy had bowed to pressure to enact military strikes on Cuba.


    ts selfish, but perhaps the USA has to be. Its not like any nation other than Great Britain has gave two shits about the USA and our interests since we decided that the correct course of action was to go into Iraq.


Why do you think they don't give two shits? Because they disagree with you? Heck I disagree with people I care about all the time. One of my best friends is a Chargers fan for cripes sakes, I try my best to talk him round, but what can you do? Honestly, Europeans DO care about America, its just that many of them disagree with some of what they're doing.


    Trust me, the vast VAST majority of Americans could give a rats ass what the rest of the western world is doing, as long as it isnt detrimental to our nation.


That lack of concern could be why a lot of us worry about America's actions.


    I think most Americans would rather not have to be bothered with the rest of the Western world, and would like to be able to live our lives without the constant scrutiny of people who live free because of the strength of the United States.


I think plenty of countries would love to be able to live in an insular bubble, but it ain't happening I'm afraid. None of us can accurately hypothesise about where the world would be without America's strength. Theres just too many variables. For one, one of al Qaeda's main problems is the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia, so maybe we'd be better off. But then maybe UK troops would be there in force instead. Many European nations have nuclear capabilities so the 'defence' of MAD would still exist in the absence of the US, but the ability to enact 'reasonable force' against enemies would be diminished. End of the day none of us can say where we'd be if America wasn't there. Chances are in their absence another superpower would fill the vacuum. Who they'd be and what they'd do is anybodys guess so its kinda pointless arguing whether we'd be worse of without them.
Hogan's My Dad
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1075/2074
EXP: 6285239
For next: 107560

Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#29 Posted on 6.9.04 2334.16
Reposted on: 6.9.11 2335.06
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Hey, if the people of Spain are spineless enough to allow a bombing to change who they vote for, then they deserve what they get for leadership. I could care less who leads Spain, because they dont effect my life on a daily basis.
    Maybe its selfish, but perhaps the USA has to be. Its not like any nation other than Great Britain has gave two shits about the USA and our interests since we decided that the correct course of action was to go into Iraq. And trust me, the vast VAST majority of Americans could give a rats ass what the rest of the western world is doing, as long as it isnt detrimental to our nation.

    I think most Americans would rather not have to be bothered with the rest of the Western world, and would like to be able to live our lives without the constant scrutiny of people who live free because of the strength of the United States.


You say this like it's something to be proud of.

Now, I usually bow out of the politics forum because, God it's a warzone in here sometimes, but I have to weigh in on the profound arrogance you've displayed here.

First of all, I will speak for Canada only. We did and do care about the US. When you guys got attacked, you came running over the border to live in our homes which we opened up to you. We also went into Afghanistan which it made perfect sense to do, I felt anyway. The only point where we differed that's of any consequence was Iraq, and I was proud we stood up for what we believed in, which was not to go and help your dumbfuck hick of a President get revenge for his daddy and make some more money for his Scumbag Godfather of a VP and that little sociopathic no-neck Satan-lookin' Rumsfeld. Whatever his position is, I don't know or care, he's a shot of poison in your political landscape.

I sit up all night with some 9/11 victims holding their hands, telling them they'll be safe here, so you can say no one but Britain gives a shit about you? Because of one war we disagree on.

It's not jealousy or the economy or opportunity that makes people hate America. It's the attitude of always being right that drips off you, particularly the bloodthirstiest of your people. It's those of you that want to kill everything that doesn't immediately submit. And I'm not talking about appeasing terrorism, I'm talking about decades of foreign policy that were about absolutely nothing but money. It wasn't too long ago that Saddam's dick was in some American president's mouth because he was the scum that could flush away other scum that you needed flushed away.

My advice to the Bush Adminstration if they want to eliminate terrorism is to stop CREATING it. No more backdeals with lowlife elements because it makes financial sense, because it bumps a multi-millionaire into the billionaire tax bracket. It's not about hating Americans or disdaining anything about them, for me, I just don't want any more of my innocent American friends to die, or to have their loved ones die so some rich bloodsucker can get a little richer. I'm not comfortable with people I know going to get killed in Iraq because the same rich bloodsuckers have squandered energy supplies within your own borders.

The worst thing about America is how the little guy gets stepped on and sodomized so the rich can get richer.

Oh and, since no one has ever even thought about invading Canada, except of course the U.S. itself, the "live free because of us" argument is about as potent as Bob Dole without the little blue pill.





(edited by Hogan's My Dad on 6.9.04 2135)
Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1037/2182
EXP: 6918124
For next: 270512

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 242 days
Last activity: 236 days
#30 Posted on 6.9.04 2357.51
Reposted on: 6.9.11 2358.05
    Originally posted by dMr
    To my mind the Cuban missile crisis would have been a whole lot worse if Kennedy had bowed to pressure to enact military strikes on Cuba.


Instead, he came up with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was brilliant he was.

What do you think eventually ended the missile crisis? MILITARY PRESSURE. Not in strikes on Cuba, but in the blockade and subsequent threats to escalate.

StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1875/6215
EXP: 32170673
For next: 296854

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on 7.9.04 0145.37
Reposted on: 7.9.11 0145.37

    WHY should we blindly follow you into a country that has NOT been proven as any significant threat whatsoever to the West, why should we agree to pour billions of pounds and hundreds of lives into a dead-end cause when there are REAL threats out there, terrorist groups still operating fully and comfortably who haven't been affected in the slightest by the Iraqi War?


Why should you help? Because it was the right thing to do to remove a brutal dictator from power. Because he was still dragging his feet on weapons inspections. Because he was supporting terrorist groups. Because, given time, he would have funded even more terrorists. Because UN inspectors and international inspectors have found hundreds of thousands of bodies in mass graves.
See, if the USA does nothing, and somehow somebody else on the planet decided to call Saddam on all the brutality, then the USA gets blamed for letting it happen. The USA gets the shitty end of the stick on the public relations deal, we get the "careless selfish USA" tag yet again.
Hundreds of men, women and children are dead in Israel, because of Hammas and other terror groups that were helped, funded and paritally paid for with Saddam's oil money, oil money he got from illegal sales to Germany, France, and Russia.



    The only point where we differed that's of any consequence was Iraq, and I was proud we stood up for what we believed in, which was not to go and help your dumbfuck hick of a President get revenge for his daddy and make some more money for his Scumbag Godfather of a VP and that little sociopathic no-neck Satan-lookin' Rumsfeld.


First off, it doesnt matter that Bush's father was the President before. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Bush Sr went into Kuwait, removed Iraqi forces, drove them back to Iraq, and pretty much stopped at that point. Removing the forces from Kuwait was the objective, the objective was met, he, along with the UN agreed that a cease fire was indicated. Exactly what in that scenario makes you think that he needed to 'get revenge' for his father? Fact is, Saddam supported terrorism, continued to kill his own countrymen, made illegal deals with UN nations, shot at US airplanes, flaunted the Army that he did have, and made absolutely no good faith effort to let UN inspectors do thier jobs, and have his nations sanctions lifted. Its much easier to get nice deals with certain European nations, pocket the cash, and cry about how the USA is responsible for starving your nation that it would be to let the inspectors do thier jobs, and have the sanctions lifted. The fact that he "posed no threat" which in and of itself is laughable, because he did pose a threat with his support of known terror figures throughout the middle east, anyhow, the fact that he could not send his Army, or Navy out to do western nations harm, doesnt mean he was not a threat.


    It's not jealousy or the economy or opportunity that makes people hate America. It's the attitude of always being right that drips off you, particularly the bloodthirstiest of your people. It's those of you that want to kill everything that doesn't immediately submit. And I'm not talking about appeasing terrorism, I'm talking about decades of foreign policy that were about absolutely nothing but money. It wasn't too long ago that Saddam's dick was in some American president's mouth because he was the scum that could flush away other scum that you needed flushed away.


Oh yes, we made a fortune going into Korea, made a killing (no pun intended) in Viet Nam, made gobs and gobs of money out of the first Gulf War, and Grenada, and Panama, and out of the buildup to defeat the Soviets. Oh yes, the American people have shelled out TRILLIONS of dollars in the last 50 years, for nothing but a chance to make a few dollars. Saddam was an ally, true, he was an ally when we were trying to *GASP* bring down a militant muslim dictatorship that was responsible for the kidnapping of US Citizens, and hundreds of terrorist attacks against US citizens, British Citizens, Isreali citizens and countless others. Seems like there is a recurrent theme with us trying to get rid of Radical Islamic Terrorists lately. Too bad its about 30-35 years too late to start. A leading British cleric came out this week saying he would be supportive of a hostage situation in British schools, just like in Russia. Perhaps that is what is needed for Britians who are so opposed to the War on Terror, and dont see a coorelation between Iraq, and terrorists, to open thier eyes. Perhaps it was also help the ones who favored Afghanistan but not Iraq to realise that there are more than just Al Queda out there, doing bad things. I said something a few weeks ago about how different people in Germany, Russia and France would feel if thier countries were the target of 9/11 instead of the USA. Now, France has its citizens held in Iraq, and threatened with decapitation if they dont reverse a DRESS CODE in the French schools. Russia has the school hostage standoff AND two planes downed. I wonder how the average citizen there feels about terrorists today, VS two years ago when Bush was asking for thier help defeating terror. The USA gets a lot of shit when it takes a stand, when it delays helping others, if it wants to have its best interests looked after and when it responds to international problems by thinking of itself. THAT is why I said I wish the USA could live and not have to worry about what other nations said, did or wanted.

Take all our BILLIONS of dollars in Foriegn aid back and give it to our citizens, or better yet, reduce my taxes. Let other nations fend for themselves. If they get overtaken, so be it. But then we would be selfish again, right? Then we would be asked to help out. What if we said no? What if we said "We'd really like to get involved, but its not our business" "We'd really like to help out, but its more convienient for our troops to not get shot at in the streets of a foriegn land" "It's not our problem, its yours"

Take our billions in aid to Africa for AIDS relief. Let them all die because they fuck like rabbits. Oh, but then the USA would be heartless.

We cant do shit right in the eyes of the world, yet somehow, always get asked to help anyhow.


    Oh and, since no one has ever even thought about invading Canada, except of course the U.S. itself, the "live free because of us" argument is about as potent as Bob Dole without the little blue pill.


Yours was not the only nation I was referring to. But, thanks for having enough self pride as a nation that you would assume I was solely speaking of you.


    Stagger, you're one of my favourite Weiners, but thats horribly disrespectful to the Spanish. They've been dealing with bombings for some time now thanks to ETA, so to imply that they lack backbone in the face of terrorism is way off the mark.


And the USA has about 35 years of attacks on its people from terrorists, and finally took a stand. I was trying to say that if they didnt want to fight against it, and elected a man who was opposed to fighting it(which to me is spineless, which is why I said that), then they deserve everything they get, hopefully for them, its peace that they get. If not, then they only have themselves to blame. No disrespect was intended though to thier people. If any was felt, I appologize.



fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2407/2679
EXP: 9095765
For next: 221593

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3170 days
Last activity: 3170 days
#32 Posted on 7.9.04 0218.33
Reposted on: 7.9.11 0218.52
Russia and France supported the US after 9/11 and sent troops to Afghanistan to terrorism. IIRC, France never got the opportunity to use its veto power in the UN because Bush just rushed into the 'pre-emptive strike'.

Russia has been dealing with Chechens forever, this was no new development in the 'War on Terror'. The Chechens have been receiving training from Al-Qaeda, who Russia supports extinguishing.

Saddam and Osama weren't in bed together. They're not the same religion. Infact, there were numerous reports of Osama issuing statements against Hussein for the longest time. Iraqi's weren't on the planes that crashed into the WTC. Not the same religion. Not the same extremists. Not the people attacking Americans and her allies.

So Iraq wasn't about terrorism. It wasn't part of the 'War on Terror'. If it's about liberation, there's worse and more brutal dictators out there right now. So nope, not about liberation. It was that Iraq was an imminent threat to United States of America because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam was going to use them. But as we learned, the intelligence was faulty and cherry picked at best. It wasn't that Saddam posed a threat, because he did. So does North Korea and so does Iran. Which of the three pose the most threat to the United States?

One would only need to look no further then this own board to see the gradual shift in reasoning for the war. If those shifts don't give you pause for concern about whether or not Bush is the right man for the job, it should. If you still want to vote for him, go ahead, but I can't see how anyone can say that Bush has done a great job on the War on Terror or doesn't see a lot of gaping holes in his handling of Iraq.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 139

Posts: 1877/6215
EXP: 32170673
For next: 296854

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on 7.9.04 0304.49
Reposted on: 7.9.11 0305.54
Please, read the ENTIRE HJR 114 http://www.radford.edu/~mfranck/images/490%20seminar/Iraq%20resolution%202002.pdf

that authorized military action against Iraq. Please see how when the US Congress gave the go ahead, it wasnt soley on a 9/11- Iraq alliance, or on a WMD hunt. The fact that the USA had to go to the UN after a dozen years of resolutions that nobody on the planet seemed to want to enforce, and show what sketchy intellegence we in fact had, and use that as a convincing point just to go and do something that the entire international community was to lazy or unwilling to do, is pathetic. The world community stood by for over a decade as Iraq was going about its normal killing, training terrorists, selling black market oil and using the money to build palaces with gold toilets while its people starved, and God knows what else.

The United States finally, FINALLY had a leader who had the gumption to go in and do what US Public Laws required, UN Resolutions required, and commond goddam sense required, and got rid of Saddam.

"It only creates more terrorists" is what we get to hear. Yes, because we all know that there was no terrorist training going on in the past three decades, right? No siree, nobody had any ill will to the USA or Israel, it all somehow started when the USA being the bullies that we are, went in and took out the Taliban government, and decided, hey, we're here, we have this pest that the world should have gotten rid of a long time ago, we have the authority, lets get rid of him and hopefully jumpstart a democratic society in the middle east, instead of one led by "holy men" or dictators, or Kings. How dare us try to do antying like that.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1423/2210
EXP: 6797982
For next: 117946

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 1 day
#34 Posted on 7.9.04 0535.11
Reposted on: 7.9.11 0536.08
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by dMr
      To my mind the Cuban missile crisis would have been a whole lot worse if Kennedy had bowed to pressure to enact military strikes on Cuba.


    Instead, he came up with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was brilliant he was.

    What do you think eventually ended the missile crisis? MILITARY PRESSURE. Not in strikes on Cuba, but in the blockade and subsequent threats to escalate.




Uh, to my mind there's a huge difference between going to war and using the threat of going to war. Kinda like the difference between pointing a gun at a burglar while telling him to get the hell out your house, and just flat out shooting the bugger. Essentialy the UN was still at the 'threatning to go to war' stage with Iraq, subject to the results of further weapons inspections.

The general consensus among those for the Iraq war was/is that refusal to go to war immediately is cowardly. My point was simply that this refusal is not in and of itself cowardly, and that the delaying of military action can in fact be beneficial. Cuba was the first example that sprang to mind where not going to war could be construed to have been so. For what its worth I wasn't intending to suggest that Kennedy was brilliant, abysmal or positively indifferent, t'was but a merry coincidence that he was the president at the time of this example.

Incidentally, while military pressure undoubtedly played a part in averting the crisis, those American missiles sure did leave Turkey in a hurry.

(edited by dMr on 7.9.04 1146)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1190/2690
EXP: 8759082
For next: 229737

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 8 hours
#35 Posted on 7.9.04 0728.16
Reposted on: 7.9.11 0728.40
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
      Originally posted by dMr
      To my mind the Cuban missile crisis would have been a whole lot worse if Kennedy had bowed to pressure to enact military strikes on Cuba.


    Instead, he came up with the Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy was brilliant he was.

    What do you think eventually ended the missile crisis? MILITARY PRESSURE. Not in strikes on Cuba, but in the blockade and subsequent threats to escalate.




The Bay of Pigs waa started under Eisenhower. Kennedy waffled before letting it go forward but with little support.

Kennedy did impose a blockade around Cuba and it was about as close as we got to nuclear war. USSR saw him as young and weak after the Bay of Pigs and Kruschev thought he could bully Kennedy. It was the final card played starting with the Berlin Crisis of 1958. In 1963 the Berlin Crisis was over and Kruschev was on his way out.

Kenedy had started to hit his stride by the end of '62 but was prevented by Oswald from fufilling his promise.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1554/1759
EXP: 4879158
For next: 113712

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1224 days
Last activity: 23 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#36 Posted on 7.9.04 1038.25
Reposted on: 7.9.11 1040.28
    Originally posted by dMr
      Originally posted by Eddie Famous The general consensus among those for the Iraq war was/is that refusal to go to war immediately is cowardly. My point was simply that this refusal is not in and of itself cowardly, and that the delaying of military action can in fact be beneficial.


See, that is where you have it wrong. I see the refusal to go to war after TWELVE YEARS as cowardly. I see threatening to pull that trigger three or four or more times, and not finally doing it is cowardly.

We didn't rush into Iraq. Even in that last spat of resolutions and posturing lasted about a year. How is that rushing? If you look at what Saddaam was giving up in 1995, and what he was giving up in 2002, the lists look just about the same. For years we threatened him, and for years he paid the world lip service. Just out of curiosity, how long would we have had to wait before invading to satisfy some of you anti-Iraq folks? In all the talk about "we went in too fast," I don't think I have ever once heard how long we were supposed to wait. I really am curious...

I see the time we spent threatening as more than sufficient. And, when you look at the Oil for Food scam the UN had going, and how much they had to lose if it ended, I suddenly don't have any faith in Annan's credibility. Of course he didn't want us to go in there - it would take away his cash cow.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.9.04 0847)
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese
Level: 40

Posts: 126/332
EXP: 406218
For next: 35095

Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1107 days
Last activity: 640 days
#37 Posted on 7.9.04 1109.26
Reposted on: 7.9.11 1113.36
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Just out of curiosity, how long would we have had to wait before invading to satisfy some of you anti-Iraq folks? In all the talk about "we went in too fast," I don't think I have ever once heard how long we were supposed to wait. I really am curious...


We wait until we have proof he posed an imminent threat. That could be 10 years, 100 years, or never. There is no "time-frame" that us anti-Iraq folks were looking for or would be satisfied with. Just proof.

(edited by Joseph Ryder on 7.9.04 0910)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1556/1759
EXP: 4879158
For next: 113712

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1224 days
Last activity: 23 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#38 Posted on 7.9.04 1649.44
Reposted on: 7.9.11 1649.50
    Originally posted by Joseph Ryder
      Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Just out of curiosity, how long would we have had to wait before invading to satisfy some of you anti-Iraq folks? In all the talk about "we went in too fast," I don't think I have ever once heard how long we were supposed to wait. I really am curious...


    We wait until we have proof he posed an imminent threat. That could be 10 years, 100 years, or never. There is no "time-frame" that us anti-Iraq folks were looking for or would be satisfied with. Just proof.

    (edited by Joseph Ryder on 7.9.04 0910)


Just for clarification then...

To end the first Gulf War, Hussein signed a treaty that stated he would dismantle his weapons programs, and provide proof that they were being dismantled. He failed to do so.

So, even though that treaty saved him from being outsted at the time, and he spent over a decade defying that agreement, even though he was proven to be a brutal dictator, even though he supported terrorism (specific proof includes his contributions to Hamas), even though the sanctions against him (the strongest non-violent course of action available) were causing him no harm, and hurting the people of Iraq in a deep way, and even though Hussein was threatened countless times by the UN with military force, you did not and do not support military action in any way until they were an immediate threat to us?

That being the case, did you also oppose any and all military action in the last decade or so (Eastern Europe, Kuwait, Somalia, etc), on those same grounds?

The reason I put it in such a way is because, while I fundamentally disagree with the line of thinking, I can't really "blame" you if you oppose Iraq, and are remaining true to an established pattern of conviction. I have reason to doubt, however - There was not nearly as much protest for any of the military actions prior to Afghanistan, and none of those situations involved an immediate threat to the United States. What I would like to see reconciled is, if not then, why now, and IF then, why are you more vocal about it this time around?

And also, if it should be proven that North Korea has continued its nuclear program, and has the capability to launch a missile with the range to hit the Western United States, and continues its hostile attitude towards the United States (thus making it an immediate threat), would you then not only support, but CALL for military action against North Korea?

I have no problem with someone who is anti-war- I may disagree with them, but I can respect the position. However, in this climate in which a certain part of the population will hate anything that Bush does, just because Bush is doing it, I feel I need a little bit more than "we should have waited until Iraq was more of a direct threat."

(edited by Pool-Boy on 7.9.04 1451)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Maybe VAT Tax is not such a great idea afterall
Next thread: Kerry Campaign in microcosm, admits to being a "confused person"
Previous thread: Bill Clinton hospitalized
(687 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Disgusting! Bush Compared To ChurchillRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.244 seconds.