[slein]

Originally posted by Damn True
We have tried diplomacy. Hussein has had 12 years to comply and has yet to show even the slightest intent to do so.

The impotence of the UN and the Clinton Administration allowed him to laugh in the face of the dissarmament agreement,

explain, then, the justification of the risking the termination of lives of people who have little choice in the matter. bomb HUSSEIN, not IRAQ, i say.

then again, SADDAM has played a wonderful game (there are, in fact, three of him) of taunting the US. behind every figure of a leader, there is an actual leader (point: GEORGE's daddy GEORGE). yet SADDAM insane is a megalomaniac, and he's the dude with some serious mental issues. threatening war on a country only puts fear into people, and its clear that SADDAM doesn't really care about going through another war. he won't win....

the momentum for the diplomatic machine is moving, and it shouldn't be snuffed by supposed "smart" bombs.

 

[Damn True]

At this point the onus is on Hussein to prevent the conflict from escalating. He has had 12 YEARS to comply. He can still prevent it if he will only openly comply with the dissarmament. If he fails to do so the lives lost will be on his head.

 

[Slice]

Lot's of interesting posts here. Any leader who places his people in the line of fire should be replaced. As for Valueing life it's clear (to me) that the US is un-paralled in it's compassion. I've never heard of another country dropping bombs on targets and food in the villagesat the same time. We DID NOT have to do that...

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by Damn True
You may want to re-calculate this.

The U.S. provides over 60% of all worldwide food and medical aid. I seriously don't see the correlation between reality and your assertion.

I'll have to check the figures, but I remember someone linking to the ratings of developed nations based on charity and aid donated internationally... The US was something like 15th-20th out of 25. So the 60% MIGHT only be impressive because our GDP is so much larger than everyone else's.

And DT, I disagree that we've been trying diplomacy for the last 12 years. We've been trying politics for the last 12 years. Economic sanctions and chronic bombing is NOT diplomacy. If we'd spent the money from bombs and missiles plus the money WE lost through sanctioning Iraq, on building schools and hospitals for (and providing aid to) Iraqis, we would have no reason to feel threatened by Saddam. Unfortunately, we would have looked like we were rewarding Saddam for invading Kuwait. So 2 million Iraqi's died so politicians could swing their dicks around, and America could look "tough." That's NOT diplomacy.

For diplomacy, see: Cuban Missile Crisis

 

[slein]

Originally posted by Damn True
At this point the onus is on Hussein to prevent the conflict from escalating. He has had 12 YEARS to comply. He can still prevent it if he will only openly comply with the dissarmament. If he fails to do so the lives lost will be on his head.

SADDAM dislikes the US - he's not the only one, but the most formidable one. he thinks that he is the guy that is going to unite the arabs and persians and all the middle east (except ISRAEL). as such, i'm willing to wager that he's trying to find a common cause. the fact that opposite opinions in IRAQ are snuffed makes the situation more precarious. if he doesn't care about the lives of IRAQis, then how can bombing the **** out of the country help?

war, threatening war, bombing and all the like are simply a means for the US to flex its military might as there is no other theatre for them to do it right now. N.KOREA isn't much of a threat right now, but i can say with reasonable justification that southeast asia is as displeased with the US as the middle east is. and what about south america??? that looks like three fronts to me. US doctrine is to be able to fight on two fronts. looks like yer all phukked.

the US should back down from IRAQ as the only purpose in bothering them is answering the gluttonness desire for crude oil. IRAQ is the world's problem, not the US's. the entire area is a powderkeg ready to explode. getting SADDAM out is not the same thing as launching a war in IRAQ. power achieved by external force will not accomplish anything (remember the GULF WAR?), but doing something positive will definitely get better results.

build IRAQ DISNEY.... bet that'll get ya some free oil.

 

[rbx]

until we deal with the palestian/isarele problem there will always be nut jobs like saddam and oussama to use the palestian/isarele cause to further their own goals and tarnish the arab world and portray it as a violent community.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by Damn True
You may want to re-calculate this.

The U.S. provides over 60% of all worldwide food and medical aid. I seriously don't see the correlation between reality and your assertion.

I'd also like to see the backing for this assertion. I was under the impression that Japan was the worlds biggest aid donor, not per capita but in actual money terms. Maybe food/medical aid is just one (small?) component of aid but I was always under the impression that the US was relatively stingy with their overseas aid compared with other OECD countries.
Not that aid is really for the recipient's benefit anyway, regardless of the donor, if it helps it's a bonus.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I'd also like to see the backing for this assertion. I was under the impression that Japan was the worlds biggest aid donor, not per capita but in actual money terms.

Here's the answer (source - US Foreign Aid Q&A ):

How much aid does the United States give?
Less than 1 percent of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid. President Bush’s 2003 budget proposes about $11.4 billion in economic assistance and about $4.3 billion for peacekeeping operations and to finance, train, and educate foreign armed forces.

How do U.S. aid levels compare with those of other countries?
The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid?
No. A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.

Do Americans support increasing foreign aid?
Yes. A University of Maryland poll, which was conducted in July 2002, indicated that 81 percent of Americans support increasing foreign-aid spending to fight terrorism. According to the poll’s findings, the typical American would like to spend $1 on foreign aid for every $3 spent on defense; the real ratio in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 is $1 on aid for every $19 spent on defense.US Foreign Aid Q&A

 

[valve bouncer]

Thanks Ohio, I stand corrected.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by ohio
As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.[/URL]

Interestingly enough, these are also the countries with the highest standard of living in the world. Even MORE interestingly enough, 3 of the five have not been involved in a war in modern times. The other 2 have not been to war since WWII stormed through their back yards. Kind of negates the argument that people resent Americans because of our wealth and standard of living...


P.S. according to the numbers above we don't give NEAR 60% of total foreign aid.

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by slein
SADDAM dislikes the US - he's not the only one, but the most formidable one. he thinks that he is the guy that is going to unite the arabs and persians and all the middle east (except ISRAEL). as such, i'm willing to wager that he's trying to find a common cause. the fact that opposite opinions in IRAQ are snuffed makes the situation more precarious. if he doesn't care about the lives of IRAQis, then how can bombing the **** out of the country help?

war, threatening war, bombing and all the like are simply a means for the US to flex its military might as there is no other theatre for them to do it right now. N.KOREA isn't much of a threat right now, but i can say with reasonable justification that southeast asia is as displeased with the US as the middle east is. and what about south america??? that looks like three fronts to me. US doctrine is to be able to fight on two fronts. looks like yer all phukked.

the US should back down from IRAQ as the only purpose in bothering them is answering the gluttonness desire for crude oil. IRAQ is the world's problem, not the US's. the entire area is a powderkeg ready to explode. getting SADDAM out is not the same thing as launching a war in IRAQ. power achieved by external force will not accomplish anything (remember the GULF WAR?), but doing something positive will definitely get better results.

build IRAQ DISNEY.... bet that'll get ya some free oil.

This has nothing to do with oil!!!!!!!! We need brute force, I'm sure IRAQ is in the process of developing some type of very damaging warhead as we speak. Do you possibly think for one fu*king second that IRAQ will say.....................Oh the US has left us alone now lets not bother them. NO!!!!!!!! They would use them on us in a second or get them in the hands of terrorists. Do you think they would hesitate to use it? Probably not, they would play...How many Americans can we kill. The US has been pushed around enough!!!!!!!! We have given Saddam too many opertunities to come clean and he has failed to do so. Maybe all the people who oppose war and protest here should go to IRAQ and Afganistan to preach peace there. I'm sure you'll feel the love for Americans over there.

 

[slein]

Originally posted by Brian HCM#1

uh, okay, dude.... we need to ask ourselves if we want a war with IRAQ or with SADDAM. nothing will get out of his country - including a weapon against US interests. you've got satellites and other means of intelligence that can monitor every aspect of that country. the US is not willing to let people know what they know, for whatever reason.

SADDAM must be removed from power.... doing so should not harm anyone in IRAQ. the world can impose on them a better way of life without dropping a single bomb. yet, the US's furious war engine needs to be revved, and we all know that this revving will lead to over-revving. its not only civilian casualties that will be had, but coalition casualties as well. the entire US military methodology is blow the sh*t out of everything and see what's left. that sh8t includes friendly forces as well as the basic needs of the IRAQI people (like water, food and toilets)


i submit that all the UNMOVIC inspectors are scared right now: not because of any supposed weapons of mass destruction, but because of the imminent threat of aggression to be instigated by the US. the crosshairs have been placed on the inspectors because IRAQ believes that they are spying for the US. searching for and identifying weapons is a long process, but no one should get killed doing it. if a weapon is found, then it is blown up in place. civilians won't be harmed because they won't be in the area. dropping supposed smart bombs does not always achieve the same effect.

as for your remark about preaching peace... war is a means to get peace. the so-called modern western world should be the champions of the peace process because we are supposedly civilised. the barbaric and marginalising acts of military aggression only serve to cause death and suffering to people, who for no other reason, were there because that is their home. destroying more infrastructure doesn't matter to SADDAM because he lives in many palaces and swims every day. you should never use "brute force" when "finesse" will work. this priniciple not only applies to foreign policy, but also to working on your ride.

the US has been pushed around enough? haha! that's funny.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by slein

searching for and identifying weapons is a long process

Cant you see that your own statement completely exemplifies the problems we're faced with?

The inspectors arent there to search through every crack and crevice (sp) to look for material breachings, they're there to make sure that iraq has disarmed, and iraq is supposed to be showing that, but in fact theyre playing games with the inspectors. If Iraq really wanted to avoid war, they would comply, but so far they're not showing that at all.

Im also getting tired of all these OIL conspiracy theories that you're throwing around. If the US invades, it doesnt just get the rights to the oil. I dont know why people seem to think that. Its still managed by OPEC, the prices are still fixed, and we may not even benefit at all if they decide not to let us.

Sure it seems easy to just say, remove Saddam Hussein, and not cause the people if Iraq any undo harm, but in reality this is just not the case. Hussein has a military that acts on his orders. Those loyal to him must also be dealt with correctly to ensure a more peaceful future for the iraqi people.

 

[johnny33fb]

slein said "uh, okay, dude.... we need to ask ourselves if we want a war with IRAQ or with SADDAM. nothing will get out of his country - including a weapon against US interests. you've got satellites and other means of intelligence that can monitor every aspect of that country. the US is not willing to let people know what they know, for whatever reason.

SADDAM must be removed from power.... doing so should not harm anyone in IRAQ. the world can impose on them a better way of life without dropping a single bomb. yet, the US's furious war engine needs to be revved, and we all know that this revving will lead to over-revving. its not only civilian casualties that will be had, but coalition casualties as well. the entire US military methodology is blow the sh*t out of everything and see what's left. that sh8t includes friendly forces as well as the basic needs of the IRAQI people (like water, food and toilets)"


Do you really think we could just walk in to his country or tell him that hes not in power anymore. Please thats a pretty simplistic answer, why would a man thats been trying to keep his power for so long simply let it go. But im sure you could manage to do that with out him blowing up his oil reserves.... not! If we don't use force or a "single bomb" how would we get him out of power or over take his royal security forces or his allies because surely some of them will always back him.

And as for the methodology being blow the sh*t out of everything and then see what's left that comment is a joke.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Damn True
You may want to re-calculate this.

The U.S. provides over 60% of all worldwide food and medical aid. I seriously don't see the correlation between reality and your assertion.

I think he was talking specifically about AIDS victims in Africa, and how we supply more than 60% of their aid. Not that it matters. They still protest that its not enough.

 

[splat]

Originally posted by ohio
Here's the answer (source - US Foreign Aid Q&A ):
In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

US Foreign Aid Q&A

and how much of our military budget is for protecting several of these other donors ? Japan for one does not have an armed forces Per say. and you will find that quite a few of these others rely heavily on NATO, which keeps there military spending down.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by splat
and how much of our military budget is for protecting several of these other donors ? Japan for one does not have an armed forces Per say. and you will find that quite a few of these others rely heavily on NATO, which keeps there military spending down.

Their defense spending is near non-existent because they have nothing to be afraid of, and it's not because we protect them.

Ask the Japanese if they feel safer because of our base in Okinawa.

We justify it as "protecting them from China." That was also our justification for Vietnam. China didn't and doesn't have any interest in expansion.

 

[Toshi]

Originally posted by ohio
Their defense spending is near non-existent because they have nothing to be afraid of, and it's not because we protect them.

Ask the Japanese if they feel safer because of our base in Okinawa.

We justify it as "protecting them from China." That was also our justification for Vietnam. China didn't and doesn't have any interest in expansion.

ah, but protection from the north koreans is a valid excuse to be in the region. the threat is real, and, if my family is any indication, many japanese are annoyed that the us is pouring its resources into the middle eastern desert instead of dealing with the north koreans.

 

[slein]

the comment / joke about blowing the **** out of everything is so true that it is funny: hence your reference to a joke. you find it funny because you're an AMERICAN and its your army. Is it funny that four CANADIANS get blown up in AFGHANISTAN by AMERICAN pilots? is it funny that the coalition suffered more friendly fire (aka US) casualties during the GULF WAR than from IRAQis? yeah, sure, its a joke.... i must have been kidding. i also remember a combined exercise in GERMANY when the US blew up the CANADIAN contingent because we took enemy ground faster. i guess we were in the way.

we've already seen from the GULF WAR that military aggression won't work. yet, you are so bent on firing yo' guns n' roses that you want to do it again. sounds like reinventing the wheel to me.

so, go ahead and invade and shoot your guns in the air (just like the IRAQis) and fly your jets to drop yo' bombs. destroy as much stuff as you can, because it wasn't done right the first time. of course there'll be collateral damage.... but don't worry about that. you won't have to live with it because its gonna happen... you might as well worry about something else like the glutton of an economy that requires oil to fuel yo' stinkin SUV's. don't get me started on the state of the environment, which is only getting worse because of the ignorance bread by fueling the world's economy.

oh, i admit that when i say SADDAM, i include his command element - i don't include the IRAQI people. you wanna get him out of IRAQ? make him an offer he can't refuse. sounds like diplomacy, but you're absolutely right: that would take way too long. the US economy needs a jump start, and war is the only way to do that.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by slein
the comment / joke about blowing the **** out of everything is so true that it is funny: hence your reference to a joke. you find it funny because you're an AMERICAN and its your army. Is it funny that four CANADIANS get blown up in AFGHANISTAN by AMERICAN pilots? is it funny that the coalition suffered more friendly fire (aka US) casualties during the GULF WAR than from IRAQis? yeah, sure, its a joke.... i must have been kidding. i also remember a combined exercise in GERMANY when the US blew up the CANADIAN contingent because we took enemy ground faster. i guess we were in the way.

What a pointless rant.

Point out two incidents where Americans were at fault for Canadian deaths, and all of a sudden we're the bad guys because of some Fog of War mishaps. Slein, people die during war. Friendly and Enemy troops die because of mistakes every day. Fighting battles is an inherently dangerous task to begin with, and those who volunteer their lives go into the situation knowing that dangers exist. Yes, accidents are bad, but they do occur. Many more Americans die because of friendly fire incidents than do Canadians, so dont you dare try and have the audacity to think that some Americans killed Canadians on purpose. Its a sad thing, but such is the state of war. Collateral damage will occur.
Also, i believe we are working diplomatically as we speak on the Iraq situation. Hussein is not willing to cooperate and so other measures may have to be taken.
I also think that there are plenty of fat canadians driving SUVs as well, so why dont you step off your high horse and look at real issuses instead of slinging jargon and sounding like a coked-out hippie with a bad case of jock itch.

 

[slein]

yep, there are plenty of fat rich CANADIANS that drive SUV's that drink gas like its going out of style. we're all the blame for the sorry state of affairs we got ourselves into. i will assume for the moment that when you say "coked-out hippie" that its a coca-cola reference and that being in this state is a good thing.

sure the FOG of WAR is unfortunate, and being put in harms way for the price of freedom is very noble. i was in the army once, and i'd go back again in a heartbeat. MURPHY's law on combat states that anything you do during war can get you killed, including doing nothing. that's why there's doctrine, and i'll be the first to admit that CANUCKS are the worst at following manuals. yet, if you have the upper hand in warfare, then you should be a little more sure of your targets.... you do have the advantage. but if you can't err on the side of caution, then you might as well play russian roulette. my audacity stems from facts about mishaps could clearly have been avoided. these are not accidents, but intentional acts. if someone has the tools, then they better know how and when to use them. otherwise, stick with a hammer and vise grips.

i have a clear and wicked understanding of our mutual situation. i choose to find better solutions to problems than the ones that are hastily sought after.
i hate jock itch... do you think that gold bond will take care of it?

 

[Brian HCM#1]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
What a pointless rant.

I also think that there are plenty of fat canadians driving SUVs as well, so why dont you step off your high horse and look at real issuses instead of slinging jargon and sounding like a coked-out hippie with a bad case of jock itch.

Coked out hippies suck..................................Matter of fact ALL hippies suck

 

[johnny33fb]

slein said "sure the FOG of WAR is unfortunate, and being put in harms way for the price of freedom is very noble. i was in the army once, and i'd go back again in a heartbeat. MURPHY's law on combat states that anything you do during war can get you killed, including doing nothing. that's why there's doctrine, and i'll be the first to admit that CANUCKS are the worst at following manuals. yet, if you have the upper hand in warfare, then you should be a little more sure of your targets.... you do have the advantage. but if you can't err on the side of caution, then you might as well play russian roulette. my audacity stems from facts about mishaps could clearly have been avoided. these are not accidents, but intentional acts. if someone has the tools, then they better know how and when to use them. otherwise, stick with a hammer and vise grips."

Please do you know how many times these weapons have been used accurately without mishaps, i don't see you saying don't use them there will be accidents if we use them. No weapon is perfect neither is its operator there are gonna be accidents and yes some will be avoidable others won't. But i don't see why you seem to think Canada is above everyone because unless you believe they have never caused friendly fire deaths.

 

[splat]

Originally posted by ohio
Their defense spending is near non-existent because they have nothing to be afraid of, and it's not because we protect them.

Yeah Right, there is plenty to be afraid of .. If they didn't know that if anybody did any thing the US would be there to help! IE. Bosnia

Ask the Japanese if they feel safer because of our base in Okinawa.

We justify it as "protecting them from China."

And North Korea and at one Point not as Much any more , the Russians.

That was also our justification for Vietnam. China didn't and doesn't have any interest in expansion.

Protecting Japan, was not the main reason for Vietnam. it was to stop the spread of Communisum (sp?).

and I would not write off China that easily , if the US were not there.

 

[slein]

we could tell, but then we'd have to kill you

or, not as many if the bombs were made by the JAPANESE.

i never said CANADA was above everyone else. you guys did.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by splat

Protecting Japan, was not the main reason for Vietnam. it was to stop the spread of Communisum (sp?).

and I would not write off China that easily , if the US were not there.

I didn't mean protecting Japan was the main reason for Vietnam. I meant we were claiming to protect Vietnam from China, just like we are claiming with Japan...

Also, a lot of people have been citing Bosnia as one of our huge philanthropic deeds.... anyone check on the current state of things over there? Boy we sure helped a lot by bombing the living sh!t out of everything.

 

[slein]

there was pretty sick happening there. a lot of rape and murder goin on.... so called ethnic cleansing.

hey, remember when IRAQI soldiers were surrending by the hundreds and thousands? that was funny.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by splat
Japan for one does not have an armed forces Per say.

Actually Japan has the fourth highest military budget of any country in the world. Their euphimistically named "self defense forces" have all the most modern equipment. They pay for the up-keep of the American military bases here. Australia is another country with a huge military budget proportional to its size. These countries don't rely on the US, they are all part of the same team, it's called being allies, we all rely on each other.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im also getting tired of all these OIL conspiracy theories that you're throwing around. If the US invades, it doesnt just get the rights to the oil. I dont know why people seem to think that. Its still managed by OPEC, the prices are still fixed, and we may not even benefit at all if they decide not to let us.

If you don't think that this isn't about oil you better quit eating those burritos because they are going to your head. I will say it again, right now the oil development and drilling contracts are held by companies from RUSSIA, CHINA, FRANCE, GERMANY AND ITALY. If Saddam is deposed in a military offensive, then it is almost assured that any new government is going to view these contracts has potentially invalid and want to renegotiate the whole thing. Even if they don't, the companies in question do not have near the working capital to begin to give any justice to the amount of work ahead of them. It will require the intervention of the big US and British petroleum companies and a whole slew of little ones. Halliburton being one. OPEC will control the pricing of the oil but you need to learn a few things about where the money for that oil goes and what percentages drilling and development companies get.

And even if you have been asleep for the last 10 years, are dumber than a stump, have the intellectual capactiy of house plant (plastic at that) you are perfectly aware of the ties of Bush and the rest of his cronies to the oil industry.

 

[gecko]

Originally posted by BurlySurly

I also think that there are plenty of fat canadians driving SUVs as well.

I've seen 'em!

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by slein
sure the FOG of WAR is unfortunate, and being put in harms way for the price of freedom is very noble. i was in the army once, and i'd go back again in a heartbeat. MURPHY's law on combat states that anything you do during war can get you killed, including doing nothing. that's why there's doctrine, and i'll be the first to admit that CANUCKS are the worst at following manuals. yet, if you have the upper hand in warfare, then you should be a little more sure of your targets.... you do have the advantage. but if you can't err on the side of caution, then you might as well play russian roulette. my audacity stems from facts about mishaps could clearly have been avoided. these are not accidents, but intentional acts. if someone has the tools, then they better know how and when to use them. otherwise, stick with a hammer and vise grips.

For someone in the army its surprising you don't have a better understanding of Murphy. Murphy is the father of all f' ups. Then you throw live bullets into the equation.... his power grows by a factor of 10.

You say that if you have the upper hand in warfare you should be a little more sure of your targets. And that is 100% true WHEN no one is shooting at you. BUT the second you begin to receive fire all bets are off. But even then the individual battle has nothing to do with the overall tide of war. Two platoon size infantry units engage and it doesn't matter a damn bit who is winning the war. The one that strikes first is typically the one that is going to live.

But put quite simply, in combat situations, mistakes get made because delay can lead to your own death. You can talk all you want about it but this is a simple truth. And Murphy loves for you to freeze up and not make a decision. He does his best work then.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by slein
SADDAM dislikes the US - he's not the only one, but the most formidable one. he thinks that he is the guy that is going to unite the arabs and persians and all the middle east (except ISRAEL). as such, i'm willing to wager that he's trying to find a common cause. the fact that opposite opinions in IRAQ are snuffed makes the situation more precarious. if he doesn't care about the lives of IRAQis, then how can bombing the **** out of the country help?

war, threatening war, bombing and all the like are simply a means for the US to flex its military might as there is no other theatre for them to do it right now. N.KOREA isn't much of a threat right now, but i can say with reasonable justification that southeast asia is as displeased with the US as the middle east is. and what about south america??? that looks like three fronts to me. US doctrine is to be able to fight on two fronts. looks like yer all phukked.

the US should back down from IRAQ as the only purpose in bothering them is answering the gluttonness desire for crude oil. IRAQ is the world's problem, not the US's. the entire area is a powderkeg ready to explode. getting SADDAM out is not the same thing as launching a war in IRAQ. power achieved by external force will not accomplish anything (remember the GULF WAR?), but doing something positive will definitely get better results.

build IRAQ DISNEY.... bet that'll get ya some free oil.

Read an interesting article yesterday about how unlikely Hussein is to recieve help from other Arab countries. I kinda doubt Hussein is going to get a great deal of help from the folks next door.

Iran? Nope. They have been at war with Iraq for over 20 years.
Suadi Arabia? Nope. Still pissed about Husseins unwillingness to play with OPEC and the SCUDS he tossed into their country 12 years ago.
Turkey? Nope. Turkey is a staunch NATO ally and they are pissed about Husseins attacks on Kurdistan. Kurds live on both sides of the border.
Jordan? Nope.


Most of the Arab world is far more fundamentalist than Iraq is. They don't dig the "westernization" and lack of religous zeal in Iraq.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by ohio
Interestingly enough, these are also the countries with the highest standard of living in the world. Even MORE interestingly enough, 3 of the five have not been involved in a war in modern times. The other 2 have not been to war since WWII stormed through their back yards. Kind of negates the argument that people resent Americans because of our wealth and standard of living...


P.S. according to the numbers above we don't give NEAR 60% of total foreign aid.

The quote was "food and medical aid". Like I said, a person on Fox questioned it. They quoted a UN document that supported the quote.

By no means am I an expert on any of this sort of thing. But I assume that this, like most other statistical analysis can be made to say nearly anything. I'm certain that your info is correct as well.
If you pick and choose what forms of aid to add or subtract from the equation you could make any country look quite good, or very bad.

 

[Broken]

Ask the Japanese if they feel safer because of our base in Okinawa.

Theres also half a dozen bases on the Japanese mainland also. I know of three USAF bases alone but not sure of the USMC,USN and USA bases. I have friends station at Yokota and Misawa on the mainland and at Kadena in Okinawa. Japan is a beautiful country with awesome culture by the way.

 

[Broken]

if someone has the tools, then they better know how and when to use them. otherwise, stick with a hammer and vise grips.

When I was in Afghanistan I watched as a Canadian special forces soilder was attacked from the rear by almost 20 Taliban forces. We watched helplessly on infared camera as they cut his throat and broadcasted it over a secure satcom radio that he was carrying. We were not allowed to actually engage until almost 3 hours later thanks to the canadian commander. We have the tools and know how to use them but alot of the time we are not allowed.

 

[mdavid]

Your assertion that the US government or policies regard white americans at a higher level of value than others is absurd. You are ignorant of history and facts.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
I think we Americans value life enough to put our own troops at risk to save the Iraqi people, and the rest of the people in the Middle East, from a deranged psycho.

Don't tell Americans that we don't value life as we should. Nazi Germany? Kuwait? Do I need to continue? What is Canada doing for the Middle East?

What about saving the Palestinians? Oh yah there no oil there. I sad to say this but this war in Iraq is mainly about oil. Yes Saddam in a mad man, but there are many leaders in the world that need to be removed.

What really scares me more then anything is the possibility of terrorists launching attacks for revenge of the Americans attacking Iraq. Remember the attacks on 9/11 were based on the fact that the US has troops on Arab soil. This is the really scary outcome of this war, not to mention the Iraqi civilians that might be killed.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by SandMan
I sad to say this but this war in Iraq is mainly about oil.

You all like to sound so sure of yourselves, yet all ive seen is evidence to the contrary. The US isnt hurting for oil. We dont get the oil if we win the war, and Saddam is breaking all the rules. Whats left? What more do you all need?

The simple fact of the matter is that some of you all are so bent on not conforming...yet again...that you fail to pay attention to real issues, and automatically jump for the conspiracy theory option. How trite.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You all like to sound so sure of yourselves, yet all ive seen is evidence to the contrary. The US isnt hurting for oil. We dont get the oil if we win the war, and Saddam is breaking all the rules. Whats left? What more do you all need?

The simple fact of the matter is that some of you all are so bent on not conforming...yet again...that you fail to pay attention to real issues, and automatically jump for the conspiracy theory option. How trite.

There in real need for oil in the present, but what about 30-50 years from now, when American and British oil companies control most of the oil, if the US gains control of Iraqi oil. What then?

What happend to Bin Laden, he is not a prority anymore?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
There in real need for oil in the present, but what about 30-50 years from now, when American and British oil companies control most of the oil, if the US gains control of Iraqi oil. What then?

What happend to Bin Laden, he is not a prority anymore?

Keeping Bin Laden and others like him from gaining possesion of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weapons is part of the reason for the necessity of ousting Hussein.