That part of Iraq that is not under our control has not been introduced to the 1st Marine Light Armor Recon yet.
I disagree about how long it will take to rebuild Iraq, we didn't really break that many things. Some government buildings but very little infrastructure. With the exception of military installations and presidential palaces it shouldn't take much time.
They have so much oil wealth, if used wisely Iraq should become a prosperous nation rather quickly.
I agree that building a democracy will be difficult, maintaining ours is difficult.
I don't think we will "bug out" any too soon. But it is a worthy goal to turn the country over to self rule as soon as possible. And I believe it is our goal.
Your link didn't work! However, I would have to agree that there are going to be unhappy people in Iraq. Many have lost loved ones and many have lost the privilege they had by serving Saddam in legitimate ways. There are bound to be those who are not happy. You and I never agree, but I don't hate you, I'm sure we could enjoy a cup of Starbucks and argue civilly. Agree to disagree agreeably. It's what people naturally do in a free society. Now at last the Iraqi people can join us in the exercise of free opinion.
And all the rest of the anti-war crowd?
Take the leftist challenge:
If you can say "I WAS WRONG" then there may be hope for you.
However, if you can only say "Bush is Hitler", or "Bush is AWOL", or "It's the economy, stupid", etc., etc., then I'm sorry, you are hopeless and may need to move to France to find true happiness.
True happiness will be found when Bush and his gang of altarboys is out of office, and we can have a chance to undo the damage they've done to our liberties and our image for the rest of the world.
Now, let's put the political posturing away and discuss a more important subject...
and that guy in the White House is pretty cool too.
Dear bribite,
You are a bright, educated, and "selectively" well read.
Please pray tell,
what the definition of "leftist" is, and why the anti-war crowd should say "I WAS WRONG?"
I am heading to Vancouver, then Europe, and if possible Middle East on business. We are going to see how the new landscape is shaping up. My guess is it is going to take big balls for any U.S. Executive to close any deal abroad these days, but we are going to find out ... My balls are not that big, but I am an eternal optimist.
I won't get a chance to read this board as often as I want. But, let's not forget, we are all Americans, and we aspire for freedom, democracy, and free enterprise on a global basis. We can/should debate the merits of a war, without our patriotism, or value systems to be questioned.
Meanwhile, if you all have some thoughts about places I should visit in the regions of the world I will be heading, would love to hear it. Don’t need museum recommendations, I knew them all, and if it makes bribite feel better, no, I am not going to France, but I have to go to Germany.
"Selectively" well read? I'm open to other opinions and try to read what I can. I read the WSJ (conservative), the LA Times (never accused of being conservative) and the OC Register (Liberatarian) daily, as well as at least two "current events" books weekly.
Leftist know who they are, if most of them won't admit it. They are the ones who have hijacked the Democratic Party.
The anti-war crowd claimed that kicking Saddam out would result in 10's of thousands of dead innocent women and children. It didn't happen. They also said No Proof as to WMD (check the link below), they were wrong. They also claimed if the people of Iraq wanted Saddam out, it was up to them, in fact they needed help. In short, they were not right about anything I have head them say...so in my assessment, they were wrong. If you can enlighten me on where I'm wrong about my view, I'm all ears.
I'm all for debate, but I recall the time fondly when those of either party would support whoever was president until they had their next opportunity to replace him. And yes, I supported Clinton even though I didn't like him. Comments from the rabid anti-war crowd like "Bush is Hitler" are not only assinine, but really do not lead to debate either. And I do question their patriotism and value system.
Have fun and success on your trip! I think you may find more people in Europe supporting the US than you might think.
Most of my trips to Europe were several years ago, during my drinking years and I have little memory of where I had a good time, I do however remember having a good time, I think!
I used to head for the local pubs and taverns with lots of regular people, enjoyed their company and occassionally got lucky with the local ladies, I speak German and with either English or German I was able to get around pretty well.
As far as France is concerned, its a beautiful place, only problem with it are its inhabitants, and that is nothing new, more likely genetic.
The site they found was merely a nuclear waste site which the UN inspectors had already checked out and had already reported. Now the question is, can you say "I was wrong."?
Where did you get this info?
to some articles about the possible WMD sites. As of this post there still is no definitive answer.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1087050,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83821,00.html
We shall see what does or does not happen.
HPG
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but Weapons-grade plutonium hidden in an underground complex beneath the facility I believe you are talking about is not "merely a nuclear waste site"! See link.
Furthermore, Hans (Ignorance is) Blix did not even know (?) the underground facility existed. What if Blix etal were getting a little payday from Hussein for looking the other way? One has to wonder. Follow the money.
If I am proven wrong you can count on my taking credit for it! Until then Weapons-grade plutonium does not constitute a nuclear waste site.
It is not weapons grade. Even Fox news reported it as a nuclesr waste site that the weapons inspectors were aware of and had checked out several times beginning with the original inspections. The biggest problem with this waste site is that the containers were inadequate for the job and some have had the seals on them opened. It could be a mess to clean up.
I've watched with interest as you've made blanket statements without factual basis, but whenever someone posts links to support a position opposite yours you invariably attack the source as 'leftist' and discount it's contents out of hand.
I'm overjoyed that the Bushites are being proven right as to the prosecution of this war. I am delighted with the relatively low casualty rate of both coalition troops and Iraqi civilians. Our armed forces have performed brilliantly in executing their assignments. That doesn't change the facts of the genesis of this war. Just because a fight goes your way doesn't mean fighting is a good thing.
Bush is a deserter from the Air National Guard. He used political connections to counter substandard personal achievement to get the spot in order to avoid military service in Viet Nam, just like Dad Quayle did.
The Iraqi war was the real goal from the beginning, with the failed diplomatic efforts being a mere smokescreen to mask the true agenda of Bush and his chickenhawks. I am glad that the Iraqi people are freed from a despot - let's see how deep their gratitude is, and how other middle eastern nations look on our assistance. Time will tell.
You have never posted a legitimate link. I fail to see how "BUSHWENTAWOL.COM" or "CHICKENHAWKS.COM." even require a response.
The information from the front is daily proving that the UN's efforts were meaningless. Bush did the correct thing, Saddam could have complied or sought asylum in Syria or Saudi Arabia and didn't.
Nobody wanted war, but in this case, war was necessary to enforce UN Resolutions already on the table. Even if the self interests of France, Germany, Russia and China were damaged. World opinion is seldom correct. The world opinion wanted to appease Hitler until it was too late. Then too, America had to settle it.
Your continuous rants about Bush, now Quayle are boorish.
"I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong. I'm right and you're wrong."
That about wraps up all your posts.
By the way, the chickenhawk web page is on the N.H. Gazette site. I defy you to identify a falsehood on the page - you can bet your ass that if there were one, the defamed individual would have been all over them. They're facts, as are the statements on the Bush page. Quit carping about the source and show me the falsehood. I defy you to try. You won't, of course, because you can't. You'll just belittle the source and call them leftists and liberals.
As for nobody wanting war, you did a damn fine impression of it, and continued it with your crowing about death and destruction.
You're so funny!
the self interests of France!
Now who is in need of oil more than anybody else ? The US
Who has the largest oil companies ? the US
who is the largest oil importer ? the US
who wants to ensure a steady supply of oil in the furture ? the US
who comes from Houston and had strong links with the oil & gas establishment ? the US President
Which country does have some of the largest oil reserves in the world? Iraq
is there a link there ?
Whose interests does this war serve ? the US
And as far as Hitler is concerned, you settled it that's right. But you turned your head the other way for more than 2 years. In fact until Dec. 11, 1941, when Hitler declared war on the US. Then you surely had to "settle it". And France and the UK declared war on Hitler in 39. Did the US do anything ? Nope. So do not give us that crap about the world wanted to appease Hitler. The US did worse. It simply did not care at all.
just responding to the comments on the interests of France and Germany to oppose the war.
Why dosent france just surrender to Germany and get it over with . Who cares what thay think ? Cant you see they were selling millatary secrets to Iraq the great are of wearing berets and waving "blanco " flags. and night vision gogles
While what you say about oil and Bush make intereseting reading. The facts you bring up about WWII are true, but that's why we're involved in this war now.
"Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it"
had regular direct dealings with Saddam Hussein knew about the horror of Saddam's regime. How can they justify their dealing with that regime after all they knew about those atrocities is beyond me.
The confession by CNN's Eason Jordan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
A fisking of CNN - Sins of Omission:
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-041103H
As of wanting oil and gas for US, US have to spend $78 Bil. in this campaign, endure the rising oil price because of the conflict which acted as a shock to the frailing economy. Even TotalFinaElf's incredible oil contract is only worth $50 Bil. US is not that stupid to risk everything, spend more to get less.
The opposition to this war has more dirty hands in this than people think. Here is an article about Canadian PM's connection with TotalFinaElf: http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=A60E3CF1-EEB1-46A6-9A83-1F2E7B015CAB . "Total's biggest shareholder is Montreal's Paul Desmarais, whose youngest son is married to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's daughter." "TotalFinaElf's largest shareholder is a subsidiary of Montreal's Power Corp, whose co-chief executive is Jean Chrétien's son-in-law, Andre Desmarais. Mr. Desmarais' brother, Paul Desmarais Jr., sits on the Total board."
As of WWII and Hitler, unlike UK and France, US administrations didn't praise Hitler and put down those who cautioned against his rise. US at the time were under isolationist fervor, no doubt about it and it was a tragedy. However, US didn't sell out Czechoslovakia (a loose ally of UK and France) publicly and claimed that it was done to achieve "peace for our time". Just remember, UK and France were supposed to be the enforcer of the Versaille Treaty, prevent German rearmament and the German army's march to Rhineland. They abdicated their responsibility to their people and their allies. US was not threatened physically by the rearmament of Nazi Germany, hence bared much less responsibility to react to events happened afar.
It is very disappointing of you to try to claim that US did worse than France in WWII. FDR gave materials and support to UK through Lend-Lease before Pearl Harbor. US navy provided convey covered to material shippings to UK. Those were friendly acts from a non-combatant nation. Please read more history books about WWII.
The appeasers' action in WWII is simply indefensible no matter how many time revisionists tried to shift the blame to others.
-- Modified on 4/11/2003 4:18:32 PM
"Frailing economy"? what's that. The reality is, the US sold Iraq the pre cursor elements that they used to create the poison gas that they used to kill the Kurds in 1988. That is a fact. Iraq told us they were going to make pesticides out of it.
And one can watch the video from 1983 of Rumsfeld yucking it up and glad handing Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. We were Iraq's ally then, because we were opposed to the Ayatollahs who were running Iran.
You want to talk about appeasement, we sold the Japanese scrap metal back in the 1930s, that was later used in torpedos and bombs that were dropped at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. This was during the time when the Japanese were raping both Korea and China, but we still dealt with them.
Last, where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? That is the reason our President gave us for invading Iraq right? MfSD.
-- Modified on 4/12/2003 4:52:07 AM
mentioned the strategic reasons why US was on the side of Iraq in Iran-Iraq war just like US was on the side of some dictators in the Cold War and USSR in WWII. Those are necessary evils. Situation changed and alliance changed.
I don't think US encourage Iraq to gas the Kurds nor tell them to invade Kuwait. Fertilizer could be used to make bombs. Many research items like virus and anthrax in tiny samples are used for medical research in many countries. It is the large industrial equipments and facilities that produce huge quantities that would post a threat. If I am not mistaken, it is German industrial giant who helped Iraq built the facilities that could produce large amounts of chemical agents. It is French companies who help Iraq built the infrastructure to produce biological labs and factories. It is Chirac who approved the sale to Iraq a nuclear reactor in a country awashed with cheap energy. Those projects participated by French and German companies are very easy to discern.
One can agrue that food can be used to feed Japanese military too. Scrap metal like many general raw materials are by far very different from selling armaments - tanks, guns, bombs, etc.
The architect of the attack at Pearl Harbor - Admiral Yamamoto had studied in Harvard and surely fed and housed by americans. Do we then assign blames to Harvard and those who interacted with Yamamoto?
Selling scrap metals to Japan in the 30s were far from appeasement. There is no comparison.
-- Modified on 4/12/2003 5:39:17 PM
about the oil thing, as you said yourself the TFE contract by itself is already worth 50 billion; the total value of oil in Iraq is wayyyyyyy over the 78 billion the US is spending on the war, so I do not understand your reasoning "spend more to get less."
I do not understand either "US was not threatened physically by the rearmament of Nazi Germany, hence bared much less responsibility to react to events happened afar." Why does the fact that the US was not threatened reduce its responsibility? If you see somebody getting mugged in the street does the fact that you are not threatened reduce your responsibility if you do not help him/her?
As for your advise to read more history books, it's rather mean and you should see my library first before you suggest that. I just think that we did not read the same books. I know all about pret-bail and the material the US lent to the UK. Ships, weapons. Your neighbor's house on fire, you don't help him but agree to lend him your garden hose. If I'm not mistaken those were what the US President was saying at that time. That's nice. I am not trying to shift the blame, I'm not saying that doing nothing was right, I think you misunderstand me. I'm just saying that it's too easy for the US to criticize the UK and France for doing nothing, while it did even less.
What strikes me is that you go out of your way to find nefarious reasons to oppose this war, but are blind to the nefarious reasons that started it.
articles in this board, I don't think you would be able to find one I posted that stated that I am against this War on Iraq or WWII.
Yes the total value of Iraqi oil is way more than 78 billion dollars. However, it will take a long, long time to recoup that. The oil revenue from a non-sanctioned Iraq is about 20 billion dollars / year. Excluding the expenses and the need to spend most of that to feed the Iraqi people, there is not much left. Even TFE's $50B contract is multi-year long.
I think your analogy of US is misguided. UK and France are in the same neighborhood of Germany. UK and France were like the Illinois state police and Chicage police department in the 20s and 30s. They allowed the gangsters like Al Capone to expand and terrorize the city without immunity. They are corrupted by money and fear. They wished to turn a blind eye just like the appeasers.
US was more like the Federal government or police in other states. They read about the terrible situation in Chicago, they let the local authorities to handle the situation. They tried to lend support to them when situation started to get out of hand. Finally, they decided to step up and placed hard bodies to fight against the bad guys.
Debating the evolving situation in Iraq is one thing since the end result is still unfolding. Blaming US for do much less than UK and France in WWII (a largely settled history) is not OK with me, hence the harsh comment.
You said "Comments from the rabid anti-war crowd like "Bush is Hitler" are not only assinine, but really do not lead to debate"....Well, comments made from many pundits on the right incl., but not limited to, Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc.. never lead to debate, people like this only try to divide this country...Talk about assinine, who could forget Ann Coulter's comment that Timothy McVeigh "should have gone to the NY Times Building instead".
Reagan was on "Hannity & Colmes" last night...He had the stones to try to blame Clinton for the soliders who were dragged thru the streets of Somalia in 1993....He said the troops didn't have the support from Clinton and that's why that happened....It was a shameful & disgusting display by him last night....And people are mad at the Dixie Chicks???
I think Hussein thought he`d get the Bill Clinton treatment again for his bad behavior. But this time he was up against a strong U.S. president and now life as he knew it is over. I admire Ronald Reagan very much for all he did for this country but I disagreed with him pulling the troops out of Lebanon. Same goes for Clinton in Somalia, minus the admiration. We should have smacked them hard in both cases. Bush has done a spectacular job in his war on terror. Ask yourself if Al Gore would have accomplished anything like it. If you ask me our biggest success is finally showing those who would eliminate us that we will not stand for their bullshit anymore. I say ....on to Syria and back to Lebanon to root out those coward S.O.B`S. in Hammas and Islamic Jihad.
AMPALLANG, tell us, why is it that they want to eliminate us?
Who gives a rats ass as to why they want to eliminate us?
I am sick of people trying to figure out why they hate us! While the touchy feelie crowd is trying to understand Islamic fundamentalist they are planning their next adventure!
If someone is coming to my house to kill me, that last thing I am going to do is try to pycho-analyze their fucking childhood memories. Either their dead or I am, I will kill them in a heartbeat.
Those assholes came into my house on 9/11! They came into my house in the 1993 WTC bombings. They came into my house when they bombed our Embassies in Africa. They came into my house when the bombed the USS Cole. Etc.
I am glad that we finally have a president with the balls to start protecting our house! And who isn't buying into all this HOW DO YOU FEEEEEL bullshit! Grow a pair and start standing up for your Country!
So we got out and kill them all B rite? Do we invade some other sovereign nations too? If so, name them for me. At some point we have to come to terms with why some of these radical Islamists are coming after us. Maybe killing them is the only option, I don't deny that. But if we at least try and understand the root causes, maybe we won't have to shed American blood in the future.
I agree that when someone comes after you, and they kill someone in your family(in this case the American family), there needs to be retaliation. But don't forget, it was nine months in to Bush's presidency, that "our house" was attacked on 9-11-01.
Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 93 WTC attack, was prosecuted by the Clinton justice department, and is in jail for the rest of his life. You seen Osama anywhere lately?
I applaud Bush's leadership on Afghan(with the exception of the final Tora Bora operation, where Bin Laden apparently escaped). But it was a military move that any US President would have had to make. MfSD.
-- Modified on 4/11/2003 9:56:25 AM
I don't think we have to "kill them all"! However, I do think that the lack of action for previous terrorist attacks had an impact on the terrorists behavior.
Now that America has shown its resolve in this war on terrorism, they know there is a price to pay for their actions. We will hunt them down and kill them.
We may not have Bin Laden yet, but our assets are chasing him and will either find him or at the very least keep him running and not masterminding!
As far as understanding them, get a clue, they are led by fundamentalist Islamic clerics who have bastardized Islam and the assholes think its their duty to rid the world of infidels. Look at the difference between us, who uses women and children as human shields? Even if the US did, it wouldn't help, they would (and do) shoot their own! We are dealing the fanatics, and understanding them won't change a fucking thing. On its face, attempting to understand them sounds reasonable, but we are not dealing with reasonable people. My God the Arab world was believing Baghdad Bob's idiotic ramblings from Baghdad! They actually thought Iraq was kicking our asses! They had journalist in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, they saw what was happening, but they (arab people and journalists) believed Baghdad Bob! The whole Arab world was stunned by Baghdad's capture. You try to understand that!
History tells me that Gore would probably not have authorized the military to do the job, I agree he would have been forced to act, but would have meddled in it just like Johnson did, to the same end. Just my opinon.
B rite, but my clue to you is we need to reach some of these Muslim kids "before" they get radicalized by the Mullahs and in the Madrasa schools. Because their governments(some of which we have propped up over the years) by and large, especially the Saudis, aren't doing anything to teach them an alternate point of view about the "West".
It's a hell of a lot cheaper than war (75 billion just for openers), and less costly in shed American blood. MfSD.
Here another one of those moments, I agree.
Althought its not your responsiblity, and I ask this honestly, do you have any input on accomplishing that?
It seems what the world knows of is us Hollywood, Rap music and school shootings. Not a very flattering image of America.
A complex question, that I'll have to think about. I would like to see us reduce our dependence on midle east crude, through drilling in ANWAR and higher fleet averages across the SUVs particularly. Both tough sells in the Congress, but crucial in the long run to reducing our energy dependence on the middle east.
Less income to militant Islamic regimes means less money to sponsor terrorism and pay offs for the families of suicide bombers. One step in the right direction anyway. MfSD.
-- Modified on 4/12/2003 4:25:39 AM
>>Who gives a rats ass as to why they want to eliminate us?
Because there may be some legitimate root causes for animosity (no, not things that justify their actions but that explain why they feel they had to act) that we can address in future to avoid motivating others. You sound like the Saddam regime - "yeah, we've abused our people for years and they want to kill us - not to worry, we'll just keep killing them and it'll keep them under control."
"These people" (now there's a racist code statement) feel ignored, abused, left behind, colonized, occupied, powerless, hopeless and backed into corners economic, political and social in nature. What does any cornered person do when they perceive that they have nothing to lose?
Arrogance and the arrogant use of military power will not foster peaceful coexistence. Understanding and redress for past injustice will go a long way.
Of course, it's not nearly as 'fun' or dramatic as bombing them back to the stone age. You and your ilk should just get some ultraviolent video games and leave foreign policy to statesmen, if we can find any.
Of course, it's not nearly as 'fun' or dramatic as bombing them back to the stone age.
What war have you been watching? I didn`t see any carpet bombing in Iraq. I saw a military overly cautious in their actions. We are fortunate that the Iraqi military didn`t have their hearts in the fight or we may have lost alot more courageous Americans. There was a lot of second guessing beginning to gain traction about our politically correct fighting style just last week.
You're wrong Amp, there was carpet bombing by some B 52 aircraft in the western part of Iraq. It was used to target scattered Iraqi military units in the desert. Small cluster munitions radiate out from the bomb package after it explodes to take out personnel and damage vehicles. The reality of war. MfSD.
Big difference here MfSD...... I wouldn`t equate cluster bombing troops in the desert with bombing them back to the stone age. I think you know what I meant. If that`s the only "carpet bombing" example you have it`s pretty weak. Where were the mass bombings of random positions in the cities? there were none. All the attacks were for the most part directed at specific targets. Unfortunatly some were not as accurate as we would have liked. When I say "back to the stone age" I mean not leaving one brick stuck to another in the whole country. Your example doesn`t even come close. The reality of this war.
Don't start qualifying your statement now AMP. I never said a thing about carpet bombing period, until you said you hadn't seen any reports of it, whether it was in the cities or out in the desert.
Of course we didn't carpet bomb in the cities, that would have killed a lot of civilians, which was obviously not our intent. And I have never said anything remotely close to suggesting that the intent of the US military was to kill civilians, and for you to infer that is way off base.
As far as me knowing what you ever really mean, guess again. MfSD.
Well...... I guess I may have misunderstood Puck`s post to infer carpet bombing. He mentioned bombing them back to the stone age and I take that to mean intense, continued bombing of non-military targets to which I stated there was no such activity. You implied that the cluster bombing of remote desert areas was akin to carpet bombing (wall to wall)..... simply not true. If you don`t know what I was talking about maybe you should examine the posts a little more carefully. Have a nice day.
~Jeff
You said that you hadn't seen any reports of ANY carpet bombing in Iraq. Well you were wrong, and I pointed it out to you. As prescient and lucid as you may think your posts are, a more careful reading of them would have revealed absolutely nothing. You stated an absolute and again, you were wrong. MfSD.
-- Modified on 4/13/2003 10:05:28 AM
Let me make this perfectly clear for you MfSD. Cluster bombimg is in no way related to carpet bombing.I did not say I had seen no reports of cluster bombing. I said I had seen no carpet bombing. Cluster bombing, as you stated in a previous post, was correct. It is dispersed from a single bomb used to hit troops and equipment over a large area. Carpet bombing is a lot different and if you don`t see the difference you`re not looking very hard. You would know carpet bombing when it hit you. You would look out from your shattered apartment window in Northern Baghdad and see flattened terra firma everywhere between you and your friends house in Southern Baghdad. Nothing but smoke and rubble. If you think cluster bombing troop positions is anything close to that .... you are wrong.
The statement I was making refered to the "bombing them back to the stone age" remark. It was inaccurate and in my opinion an attempt to re-write recent history.
Carpet bombing did take place in the western Iraqi desert. The bombs dropped, in a "carpet like" fashion, were cluster bombs, bombs that break open and spread smaller bomblets around a wide area to kill people and damage equipment and buildings.
I am perfectly clear on the difference between the two words, but you're comparing apples and oranges. MfSD.
So, let me get this straight so as to fully understand you. We bombed an empty desert back to the Stone Age. Hmm… now that’s an apple-to-apple comparison if I ever heard one. Once and for all my friend, I am only saying that we took great care to not inflict more damage than we had to to civilians. For Puck to say that somehow we devistated them through ... now get this right this time..... MASSIVE BOMBING IN AN INDISCRIMINATE MANNER ie. STONE AGE... is wrong.
Regards.
~Jeff
Good idea Amp man, I'm in full agreement with you on this one ( : MfSD.
Well guys, I know just a "little" bit about this carpet bombing thing as I witnessed it first hand back in the early 70's. Limited as me perspective is, it was more like bombing with blind folds on while releasing massive amounts of ordinance from 40,000 feet. The purpose, level everthing and hope something of importance was hit. Today some may also refer to such methods as terror bombing, rightfully so, as that was its other intended purpose. When I think back on seeing a mountain or earth rising 100's of feet into the sky, and extending over great distances, 1000's of meters, and when I recall "feeling" said detonations, continuous and uninterrupted over several minutes, well....carpet bombing, as I remember it, is in no way comparable to one or even several cluster munitions dropped in carpet like fashion on an enemy location. If on the other hand we had flown over downtown Bagdad indiscriminately dropping hundreds of munitions, cluster or otherwise, as described above, that would indeed be carpet bombing as it was first thunk up. I hope and pray today's war planners would find it unthinkable to do so on any city. Just my .02, now lets talk about Morgan Ashley 
-- Modified on 4/13/2003 2:21:42 PM
-- Modified on 4/13/2003 7:32:24 PM
I see were you`re going HHawks.... lets cut to the chase and you just tell us all the evil rotten things the U.S. did and continues to do to them. I`m ready for a good self hateing citizen rant about now.
I will be spending all day tomorrow, day and evening, with a beautiful woman who looks more beautiful than Susie Ormond, green eyed, 5'8", 135 lb, a body as if created by Michelangelo himself. A head turner, and about 12 years younger than I am. I am both her King Arthur, and Sir Lancelot … according to her, after seeing Camelot.
Soooo Ampallang, I am not in the mood to rebuttal, but I am in the mood for LOVE! I think PUCK and others have done a great job. We will cross swords another time another day.
Meanwhile, you take it easy, and don't be a hate monger. We all love our country, we all strive to be better, and be a beacon, not fire hydrant.
Two things HHawks..........I`m no hate monger.......Have a great time with your lady.
John Podohertz, who writes for the conservative New York Post, suggested that Al Gore, if President would have taken military action, similiar to what Bush has done in Iraq. Saw it on C Span this morning.
Just curious Amp, how many more sovereign nations should we invade in the "war" on terror? And who is going to pay for it all? Not with my tax dollars sir. MfSD.
-- Modified on 4/11/2003 9:23:25 AM
I occasionally listen to Reagan and Limbaugh, although my tastes run more to Dennis Praeger. I have noticed that opposing opinions always seem to voiced on their shows.
Regrettably, Ann Coulter's comments about the NY Times were in bad taste. But in her defense, her comments were retaliatory to comments made by Maureen Dowd in the NY Times. Still in bad taste.
In regards to Somalia, I believe (although I didn't see it) Reagan's was referring to "Rules of Engagement" given the military as to the size of the force. This has been debated many times and is hardly his opinion alone. To insinuate it was done purposefully is, I agree shameful (if in fact that is what he did), However a huge miscalculation made by the Clinton administration.
Not the first time in history either. Rules of Engagement probably cost Marine lives in Beirut. They most certainly did in my time in Viet Nam.
People have the right in this country to be angry with the Ditzie Chicks. With fame comes some responsibility and accountability. If you want to support them, buy their CD's, go to their concerts, I highly doubt anyone will try to stop you, unlike some of the anti-war protesters who have blocked city streets, etc.
They were talking about the Saddam statue being taken down then Michael Reagan says (to paraphrase) "As I saw the statue of Saddam fall, I couldn't help but think about those soliders being dragged thru the streets of Somalia and that happened because the last president didn't support the troops"...
There was absolutely no reason for Reagan to have said something like that...It was like he HAD to get in an epic blast (pardon the Jim Rome slang) on Clinton....
Well Moose, like it or not, Clinton didn't support the military.
In his eight years as president, he almost halved it! Eleven infantry divisions to 6, 24 airwings to 12, 567 Naval ships to 300.
I'm not defending Reagan's comment, just stating the facts.
""Most of the Rangers who fought were only a few years out of high school. These young men were shocked to find themselves bleeding on the dirt streets of an obscure African capital for a cause so unessential that President Clinton called off their mission the day after the fight.""""
I won't defend Clinton's Somalia policy, personally I never supported us ever going in there. But I have noticed that we have kicked some major ass, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, with the military that Clinton "allegedly" gutted.
I can predict the responses, it's Bush's military now(I guess it's still Clinton's recession though right?). MfSD.
In all fairness you have to agree that Clinton halved the military during his years. That is factual. You can defend it, but not deny it.
The difference between Bush and Clinton is having a goal! What was the goal in the 1998 bombings of Baghdad? Did we achieve that goal?
The success of Afghanistan and Iraq have come from the military being given a clear goal. Allowing the military to set the plan, approving that plan and then prosecuting it with near perfection. Albeit, maybe not a perfect plan, but giving authority to Gen. Franks has made it work.
With the post-Clinton military, if, God forbid, we are attacked on another front, we are in deep shit right now. A large percentage of our assets are in the mid-east. Our only defense would be ICBM's an you know how that ends.
Don't disagree with your "having a goal point", and I am not in a position to know the exact disposition of the logistical viability of the US military.
But charges that Clinton "gutted" the military, after our triumphs in Afghan. and Iraq, are baseless, political hyperbole. MfSD.
We sent troops to Somalia in December, 1992. Bush Sr sent them, without the armor, as Rush has been blaming Clinton for.
Do you think it was good of Bush Sr. to send our troops there, just before his term ended? It seems to me he knew there was a good chance that things would go badly, but since he was leaving in a month he wouldn't have to suffer any blame for it.
First of all, thank Bulldog for suggesting a visit to Copenhagen. I have never been there, but I have been told by others that is “my kind of town!” I want to go to Tivoli Garden, and have a beer, cheering to you! If I get lucky as well, I will owe you big time! It was not on my original agenda, but it is now, thank you.
Regarding my TER friend/nemesis/pain Bribite, here is the response!
1] Leftists, at least by conventional standards, are those who challenge the basis of capitalism, not as you said:
“Leftist know who they are, if most of them won't admit it. They are the ones who have hijacked the Democratic Party”
In that context, we have Left in UK, Europe, very little of it in the U.S. I certainly don’t qualify yours truly, or any one of Dem Presidential Candidates by a long shot a lefty.
Today, I was driving to a meeting this afternoon from my office in San Diego to Newport Beach, and NPR was interviewing various Iraqi citizens, and Jeremy Greenstock, British Ambassador to the UN. The “select” Iraqi groups, and the Honorable Greenstock, were all advocating a U.S. Military Government in Iraq. No opposing views. I remember there was a debate whether NPR is a leftist organization. Well, there was nothing leftist about advocating such an option.
2] The partial bases of core anti-war movement was:
- Loss of civilian lives on all sides. There has been plenty of civilian life lost. Unfortunately, more to come. Especially if terrorists strike at us, the worst thing that right now can happen to our economy.
- Strategic objectives will not be met by war. I view Saddam, loose, with billions of dollars, far far far far more dangerous, than when we had his address. I heard tonight from ABC News that it is likely he survived the bombing. Too bad. As you remember, I was worried like hell about this outcome.
- Anger of 1.4 billions of Muslims. There is nothing to be gained by alienating and radicalizing such a large and diverse group. And, I am afraid this goes beyond Muslims, and includes all third world nations as well, because we may be perceived as colonialist. I am setting Europe, old or new, aside even. We will patch up with them, we always do in the end
Well, the war is not over. I don’t know where 500,000 Republican Army is. Iraq, with a population of 25 million [I think], is not well represented by a handful of Kurds, or young kids welcoming us on the streets. If we do all that is necessary, and bring true democracy to Iraq, within 9 moths, I would say it was worth it. Copying our constitution is a good point to start.
But, since we have not done it yet in Egypt with $3B annual aid, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan. I want to see real action SOON before I would become a believer. I am not an ideologue, I am a businessman, and peace, stability, and creating the right social infrastructure both domestically, and internationally, help all of us. I believe the age of War as a solution is disappearing fast.
Sorry to be a pain, I enjoy the dialog.
1) As I seen it, of the Dem presidential candidates I have seen so far, all are on the redistribution of wealth bandwagon. Capitalism as described by conventional standards is: the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit. (Webster) How do the current platforms of the democratic party support this?
2) The loss of life predicted by the anti-war crowd was 10's of thousands, not 5's of hundreds. Past non action has not brought us fewer terrorist attacks. Action was necessary and warranted.
I have serious doubts that Saddam lived through the first night bombing. It would appear that all of his generals are dead. It is all speculation. If he did get to Syria, I would hope Bush would repeal Ford's Executive Order and send the CIA after him.
The silence from the Arab world since those images of Baghdad a few days ago is amazing. I think they are stunned that we have been welcomed by the Iraqi people. Those images I understand were shown on the Arab language Satellite TV stations. Our actions over the next few months can make a huge difference in their opinion of us, if reported honestly. I think 9 months might be unlikely, but we should be out within 2 years showing progress the whole way.
The 500,000 Republican Army, what left of them has most likely dispersed. They are leaderless, and have seen that resistance is futile. With all our assets for snooping I don't think they can regroup without notice. We saw their resolve in 1991, they have nothing to fight for. As far as the volume of people on the streets, many most likely still fear Saddam. It is heartening that our soldiers are attaining their help in finding Saddam's weapons and munitions hidden in private homes, schools and hospitals.
I hope you're right about war, but I doubt it.
Have a prosperous and fun filled time in Europe!
Your pain.
If it is at all possible, while you are in Europe you should make every effort to visit Copenhagen. I have visited there about 8 times. I have been to Rome, Naples, Capri, London, Berlin, Amsterdam, Zurich, Lucerne, and several other towns and cities in Germany. However, I have never seen so many beautiful women at the same place at the same time in my life as I have seen in Copenhagen on each trip. Plus, they are very open and honest about lovemaking. Check it out. You won't be disappointed.
Thank you Bulldogs, Copenhagen is now on my list. Tivoli Garden, here I come!
We don't control all of Baghdad. There's lots of Iraq not under our control. It will be though.
However, winning the war is "easy". Winning the peace will be hard. Creating a secular democracy in the middle east will be very, very difficult. And I think the Iraqis have excessive expectations of what's going to happen next. It'll take years to rebuild Iraq, and more years to make the prosperous. And we might bug out before that job is done. We are going to disappoint some of them because their expectations are simply too high. What they'll do when their hopes are dashed should concern us.
And for all the dancing Iraqis, there's ones like in this article that aren't happy with what we've done.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030410/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_baghdad_bodies
-- Modified on 4/11/2003 2:47:41 PM
Document Not Found
The document you requested is not found. It may have expired.
Try these links:
* Yahoo! News home page
* Yahoo! News search
* Yahoo! home page
If you still have problems, please visit our Help section.
That part of Iraq that is not under our control has not been introduced to the 1st Marine Light Armor Recon yet.
I disagree about how long it will take to rebuild Iraq, we didn't really break that many things. Some government buildings but very little infrastructure. With the exception of military installations and presidential palaces it shouldn't take much time.
They have so much oil wealth, if used wisely Iraq should become a prosperous nation rather quickly.
I agree that building a democracy will be difficult, maintaining ours is difficult.
I don't think we will "bug out" any too soon. But it is a worthy goal to turn the country over to self rule as soon as possible. And I believe it is our goal.
Your link didn't work! However, I would have to agree that there are going to be unhappy people in Iraq. Many have lost loved ones and many have lost the privilege they had by serving Saddam in legitimate ways. There are bound to be those who are not happy. You and I never agree, but I don't hate you, I'm sure we could enjoy a cup of Starbucks and argue civilly. Agree to disagree agreeably. It's what people naturally do in a free society. Now at last the Iraqi people can join us in the exercise of free opinion.
I don't find anything "E" about war, and I am not sorry about that either.
Can we now return to our regularly scheduled discussions?
d_d
Hey, we are on a role, why do we not just continue like Napolean or Ghangis Kahn. Our lifestyle with big cars and malls full of stuff is certainly better them everyone elses. At least that is what we have been told. It is just too bad we made a mistake in Vietnam. It could be our 51st state if me had really blown the hell out of them with a nuclear bomb. People should know not to mess with Americans?
Saw the Frontline piece yesterday on Kim Jong Il's decision to ramp up their nuclear weapons program, and the lack of any real policy by George W. et al. to deal with North Korea ("...we will not negotiate with blackmailers...") except war.
For those who think that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was the "real" problem, the above Frontline program should be enough to keep you up at night.