The W
Views: 98965681
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.9.14 0839
The W - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next? (Page 3)
This thread has 33 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next(2169 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (83 total)
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 28 days
Last activity: 1 day
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
This is something folks far more learned than me debate, but I do have two points:

First, getting Japan to surrender before the USSR got involved certainly had something to do with dropping the two big ones, and many people argue it was the main reason. It wasn't like the military made a calculation of which way would ultimately save the most lives and went with it. There were man other, much less noble, factors at work.

Second, you're basing arguments on an assumption that the the U.S. would have continued the war until an unconditional Japanese surrender. Even though that was the U.S. policy at the time, I think if the war really would have lasted until 1955 like Grimis claimed, a far more likely scenario would have involved some kind of conditional surrender that left a demilitarized Japanese government in place. In August of 1945, Japan was the sole remaining Axis power, held no outside territories, and wasn't any kind of agressive military threat to its neighbors anymore.

Whether this would have been a good thing or not is, of course, another debate.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Janeane Garofalo, Cheer Bear, Aphrodite, a Chihuahua, Data, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Bjork, Spider-Man, Boston, and a Chaotic Good Elvin Bard-Mage.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 160 days
AIM:  
#42 Posted on

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    So, you're trying to say that the collective government of the United States of America is so (and I'm being very, very charitable using this term) naive as to believe that Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be a threat, given his connections and beliefs? That we thought Saddam Hussein (who has never, ever been anything but a dictatorial loon... the difference was, he was our pet dictatorial loon and now he isn't. See Noriega, Manuel) wouldn't use the chemical and biological weapons we sold him(not to mention material to assist in the making of nuclear weapons) against anyone he felt the need to, including, when we decided he was no longer useful and turned on him, us?

    I won't disagree that bombing Japan, as awful an act as it was, was probably the better course of action. But you can't tell me that we didn't know what type of people we were dealing with, and what the likely consequences of our actions would be.




To this I say, you cant predict how someone will act 10 years after you help them. We couldnt predict that after we helped the Afghan freedom fighters that they would use what we taught them and the equipment we gave them to build a large terrorist organization that struck out at us. Or that Saddam would defy us by invading Kuwait. We didnt decide he was "no longer useful." HE decided by waving his dick at us. If he had just not invaded Kuwait seeing off the war he would probably still be an ally today.



    Originally posted by Jakegnosis
    Hey, rockdotcom, I like the avatar and the sig. Does the Wienerboard have an All-Alcoholic in the ranks?

    Hooah!




No Im not an "All-Alcoholic," Im in the Navy, but my best friend is in the 82nd right now fighting in the desert. Ive been changing sigs and avatars over the last few posts kinda showcasing what units are fighting over in Iraq. Just my little way of saluting my military brethren. Plus since the build up started Ive been on Glabal Security.org reading about diffrent Army units and how the command structure breaks down. Anyway Jake this sig for this post is just for you ;-)









75th Ranger Regiment

The 75th Ranger Regiment, composed of three Ranger battalions, is the premier light-infantry unit of the United States Army. The 75th Ranger Regiment is a flexible, highly trained and rapidly deployable light infantry force with specialized skills that enable it to be employed against a variety of conventional and Special Operations targets.

oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1951 days
Last activity: 1885 days
#43 Posted on
"To this I say, you cant predict how someone will act 10 years after you help them. We couldnt predict that after we helped the Afghan freedom fighters that they would use what we taught them and the equipment we gave them to build a large terrorist organization that struck out at us. Or that Saddam would defy us by invading Kuwait. We didnt decide he was "no longer useful." HE decided by waving his dick at us. If he had just not invaded Kuwait seeing off the war he would probably still be an ally today."

The problem with your argument is that the U.S didn't arm the "freedom fights" et al as a noble act to protect the Middle East from the USSR, but to help themselves gain leverage in the Cold War. They turned a blind eye to what would become of the Middle Eastern political systems in exchange for having guaranteed support from the dictatorships in power. And sorry, but I don't see that as a viable option to protect a nation. Have you ever seen The Simpsons where Bart breed tree lizards, and they devour the town's pigeon population? They have to introduce snakes to eat the lizards, then mongeese to eat the snakes, then gorillas to kill the mongeese. It's that sort of stupidity, you don't fight an oppressive regime by sponsoring another that's on a slightly smaller scale. It's fucking disgusting, and it shows a blatant contradiction in the US "liberation" approach of today-because don't think that the Bush Administration wouldn't cosy up to another oppressive government if it suited them.







Hail To The King, Baby

Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1279 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#44 Posted on
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero


    The problem with your argument is that the U.S didn't arm the "freedom fights" et al as a noble act to protect the Middle East from the USSR, but to help themselves gain leverage in the Cold War. They turned a blind eye to what would become of the Middle Eastern political systems in exchange for having guaranteed support from the dictatorships in power. And sorry, but I don't see that as a viable option to protect a nation. Have you ever seen The Simpsons where Bart breed tree lizards, and they devour the town's pigeon population? They have to introduce snakes to eat the lizards, then mongeese to eat the snakes, then gorillas to kill the mongeese. It's that sort of stupidity, you don't fight an oppressive regime by sponsoring another that's on a slightly smaller scale. It's fucking disgusting, and it shows a blatant contradiction in the US "liberation" approach of today-because don't think that the Bush Administration wouldn't cosy up to another oppressive government if it suited them.






Lets say that you are totally, 100%, completely right. Why then, should we not fight THIS opressive regime, liberate THESE people, enforce THIS resolution?

One thing I do not understand is when people oppose doing the RIGHT thing, because we have done the wrong thing in the past, and we might in the future. Past or future actions (completely separate actions, I might add) do not affect the right or wrong of the present.


(edited by Pool-Boy on 27.3.03 1248)



Still on the Shelf #1
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1951 days
Last activity: 1885 days
#45 Posted on
Because perhpas the right thing to do doesn't involve installing a U.S-sponsored government, considering the situations that have arose form such a move in the past. Maybe the best thing to do would be to wait and try to get the world (or most of it, anyway) united behind removing Saddam, and then doing it as joint effort, rebuilding their country and then letting them go about their own devices, with no vested interests from other countries involved.

Perhaps. Perhaps then we won't need to go to war in another fifteen years.



Hail To The King, Baby

Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 21 hours
#46 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Originally posted by oldschoolhero


      The problem with your argument is that the U.S didn't arm the "freedom fights" et al as a noble act to protect the Middle East from the USSR, but to help themselves gain leverage in the Cold War. They turned a blind eye to what would become of the Middle Eastern political systems in exchange for having guaranteed support from the dictatorships in power. And sorry, but I don't see that as a viable option to protect a nation. Have you ever seen The Simpsons where Bart breed tree lizards, and they devour the town's pigeon population? They have to introduce snakes to eat the lizards, then mongeese to eat the snakes, then gorillas to kill the mongeese. It's that sort of stupidity, you don't fight an oppressive regime by sponsoring another that's on a slightly smaller scale. It's fucking disgusting, and it shows a blatant contradiction in the US "liberation" approach of today-because don't think that the Bush Administration wouldn't cosy up to another oppressive government if it suited them.






    Lets say that you are totally, 100%, completely right. Why then, should we not fight THIS opressive regime, liberate THESE people, enforce THIS resolution?

    One thing I do not understand is when people oppose doing the RIGHT thing, because we have done the wrong thing in the past, and we might in the future. Past or future actions (completely separate actions, I might add) do not affect the right or wrong of the present.


    (edited by Pool-Boy on 27.3.03 1248)

Maybe because this is not the "RIGHT thing", and that we're not really concerned with liberating "THESE people" from "THIS oppresive governement", but rather allowing Halliburton to liberate "THEIR oil fields"...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,916387,00.html



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 59 min.
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00


Yes and France has nothing to gain from not have this war. French exports to Iraq since sanctions were imposed at $3.5bn. (news.bbc.co.uk) It can be played both ways. The only diference is the US is willing to stop Iraq from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

(edited by calvinh0560 on 27.3.03 1619)
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1951 days
Last activity: 1885 days
#48 Posted on
So you admit that the Bush Administration is only doing this for selfish reasons? Great, at least somebody's picked up on that. Here's a crazy idea: How about liberating countries because oppressive and fascist regimes are evil and against basic humanity, rather than only going after those who will generate substantial revenue after the fact?



Hail To The King, Baby

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1233 days
Last activity: 1030 days
#49 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    SHere's a crazy idea: How about liberating countries because oppressive and fascist regimes are evil and against basic humanity, rather than only going after those who will generate substantial revenue after the fact?


We are...it's called Iraq. As I have mentioned earlier in this threat, Halliburton, et al getting those contracts are 1) the only firms capapble of handling the contracts and 2) politically connected to all sides. Hell, if it were all about the money, we would've done it years ago. Come to think of it, since he was all about helping himself, I'm surprised Clinton didn't do it using your rationale.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1279 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#50 Posted on
Plus one point that people keep missing is that if it were about the money, we would have SKIPPED the war all together and just had the sanctions dropped. War is one of the HARDERST ways to make money, because you lose a lot in the process.

Yeah, I am pretty secure in the fact that this one is not about war or money. This is not to say that I DONT think that we shouldn't go after other oppressive regimes. Quite the opposite- I think we should. After we are done with Iraq. (Iran, here we come!)





Still on the Shelf #1
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3712 days
Last activity: 3182 days
AIM:  
#51 Posted on

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    To this I say, you cant predict how someone will act 10 years after you help them. We couldnt predict that after we helped the Afghan freedom fighters that they would use what we taught them and the equipment we gave them to build a large terrorist organization that struck out at us. Or that Saddam would defy us by invading Kuwait. We didnt decide he was "no longer useful." HE decided by waving his dick at us. If he had just not invaded Kuwait seeing off the war he would probably still be an ally today.


Unfortunately, that's just flat-out inaccurate. We sold Saddam chemical weapons and other material long, long after we knew he was using them on his own people. He was waving his dick around for literally years, with our full knowledge. We ignored it, plain and simple.

If the Ayatollah were still alive, Iraq would probably still be an ally. If the Soviet Union were still percieved as a threat, Saddam would still be a valued friend. But, too bad for him, we need an enemy...


    Originally posted by Grimis
    We are...it's called Iraq. As I have mentioned earlier in this threat, Halliburton, et al getting those contracts are 1) the only firms capapble of handling the contracts and 2) politically connected to all sides. Hell, if it were all about the money, we would've done it years ago. Come to think of it, since he was all about helping himself, I'm surprised Clinton didn't do it using your rationale.


Please. If we were really that altruistic we'd always be at war. The reason we didn't do this during the Clinton administration is all about connections. Clinton wasn't connected with Halliburton the way Cheney is. He didn't have the Bush family's oil connections. He wouldn't have made anywhere near as much money as they stand to make off of this whole fiasco. If he really was "all about helping himself" why would he help THEM make money?



Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
CxMorgado
Boudin rouge








Since: 21.1.02
From: Boston MA is the rippen'ist town...

Since last post: 267 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#52 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy[quotemidOne thing I do not understand is when people oppose doing the RIGHT thing, because we have done the wrong thing in the past, and we might in the future. Past or future actions (completely separate actions, I might add) do not affect the right or wrong of the present.


    (edited by Pool-Boy on 27.3.03 1248)



No flaming intended, but I find that statement REALLY funny, because we are allegedly at war because of past and future actions.

I have nothing else to say really, I just thought that this was ironic...



Can't hear your voice
Back in the crowd
Move up front
And shout out loud...

TAKE A STAND!
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 160 days
AIM:  
#53 Posted on

    Originally posted by Nate The Snake
    Unfortunately, that's just flat-out inaccurate. We sold Saddam chemical weapons and other material long, long after we knew he was using them on his own people. He was waving his dick around for literally years, with our full knowledge. We ignored it, plain and simple


I dont like to try and speculate when, where and if we sold Saddam anything, or what we knew in far as him using it. Its a crazy argument. Because I think hard facts are hard to nail down. Anyways, my point is we do what we feel is right at the time.

How does the quote go?

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"








I Marine Expeditionary Force

On order, as a warfighting command, I MEF deploys and employs expeditionary ready, air-ground task forces in response to CINC/Component Commander taskings to operate in Joint/Combined Operations, to conduct small scale contingencies and win in combat.
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst








Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3712 days
Last activity: 3182 days
AIM:  
#54 Posted on
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    I dont like to try and speculate when, where and if we sold Saddam anything, or what we knew in far as him using it. Its a crazy argument. Because I think hard facts are hard to nail down. Anyways, my point is we do what we feel is right at the time.


There's no speculation. The hard facts are easy to nail down, because they're a matter of record.

The CDC sent the Iraqi government anthrax, botulism, gangrene, and the West Nile Virus.

There's a whole laundry list of companies who sold materials for making missles (with our government's approval) to Iraq's nuclear weapons R & D people.

I've already posted links to the Riegle report, which discussed the effects of the chem/bio weapons we'd sold Iraq.

We also sent them samples of a mustard-gas like chemical weapon, as well as sixty tons of one of the components of sarin nerve gas.

There are many reports of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iran, during the time we were directly supporting them, economically and otherwise. Not just after-the-fact reports, either. This is stuff that was reported widely at the time.

If we felt that it was right at the time, we're hypocrites, plain and simple. We were supplying chemical and biological weapons to a dictatorial regieme that had already been determined to be a terrorist state. This isn't a matter of speculation, it's fact.

(edited by Nate The Snake on 27.3.03 2235)


Kansas-born and deeply ashamed
The last living La Parka Marka: HE raised the briefcase!
Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2825 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#55 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91

    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    No Im not an "All-Alcoholic," Im in the Navy, but my best friend is in the 82nd right now fighting in the desert. Ive been changing sigs and avatars over the last few posts kinda showcasing what units are fighting over in Iraq. Just my little way of saluting my military brethren. Plus since the build up started Ive been on Glabal Security.org reading about diffrent Army units and how the command structure breaks down. Anyway Jake this sig for this post is just for you ;-)








Hell yeah!!! Thanks! If I knew how to put a picture in my sig, I'd have that shit.

Here's some words to live by...


The Ranger Creed

Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.

Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move farther, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be. One-hundred-percent and then some.

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!



Moo hoo ha ha.

Rangers lead the way
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 59 min.
#56 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    So you admit that the Bush Administration is only doing this for selfish reasons? Great, at least somebody's picked up on that. Here's a crazy idea: How about liberating countries because oppressive and fascist regimes are evil and against basic humanity, rather than only going after those who will generate substantial revenue after the fact?


I never said that the only reason Bush is doing this is for selfish reasons. The US has removed fascist regimes in the past. The US is removing one now. And the US will be removing them in the future. Yes Iraq as a large supply of Oil. Should we stay away because of that? Last time I looked Bosnia was not sitting under the 2nd largest oil supply but we still went there. Should we let thousands of people die because if we go in a mad man might blow up oil fields and we might have to put them out. Or should we just let them burn. Or maybe we should not hire the most experience company to put them out because they have ties to the President? Let them burn longer while some other company puts them out. I mean its just black smoke. We can'thave it look like the president is only doing this for money.
Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2825 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#57 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91
We've also aided and actually set up fascist regimes in the past. We'll support whoever advances our national agenda at the time.

I can't believe the number of people who seem to think this country has no skeletons in it's closet.



Moo hoo ha ha.

Rangers lead the way
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2794 days
Last activity: 2636 days
AIM:  
#58 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44

    Originally posted by Jakegnosis
    We've also aided and actually set up fascist regimes in the past. We'll support whoever advances our national agenda at the time.

    I can't believe the number of people who seem to think this country has no skeletons in it's closet.



Sure, this country has plenty of skeletons. But most of these regimes were set up or propped up during the Cold War, a time when the Soviets were advancing very, very rapidly. We had no real choice, other than to bring countries into our sphere of influence, because if we sat still, the USSR would have gladly snatched up most of the globe. In the long run, I think it was worth it. At the very least, I think that I could have justified those decisions at the time, as people were more concerned with a Russian nuke than a terrorist nuke.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1279 days
Last activity: 46 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#59 Posted on
I still can't fathom the train of thought that says we are not supposed to do right today because we have done wrong in the past...

I honestly hope that we go after EVERY nation with terrorist ties after this. One at a time...





Still on the Shelf #1
Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 2825 days
Last activity: 2809 days
#60 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I honestly hope that we go after EVERY nation with terrorist ties after this. One at a time...


That's great, but... What are Iraq's terrorist ties again?

I thought this was about freeing the Iraqi people?



Moo hoo ha ha.

Rangers lead the way
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 NextThread ahead: Village Voice of reason
Next thread: The end of war arguments?
Previous thread: RIP Edwin Starr, Author of "War (What is it good far?)")
(2169 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
This could be interesting...imagine the TV spots. Here for the full story. It's always interesting to see contested primary and nomination fights, so this could be interesting.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Can We Go After France Next? (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.15 seconds.