(09-23-2010 02:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 02:31 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 02:19 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 06:12 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This should have been the plan in 2002. Or else we should never have gone in. Ever. Period.

Never fight a war you don't intend to win.

I got shouted down by my HS Gov't teacher for advocating the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. We are trying to get ride of our stockpile, right? Well, drop 2-3 on Tora Bora.... But, hey, I think we should have tested our chemical/biological weapons on Al Quieda too. Great way to find out how well they work on humans, eh?

(Yea, I'm a bit trigger happy right now.)

Trigger Happy? Try insane. Global Thermal Nuclear War is not a video game. "Joshua, what are you doing?"

That's fine then. Don't say you are for getting Osama and destroying the Islamic terrorists, if you aren't gonna DO WHAT'S NECESSARY. They you just sound more wishy-washy then John Kerry.

and 2-3 nukes ISN'T GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR.

Problem is, he's on the border with a nuclear-capable Pakistan. It would not turn out well.

They are Muslim too, I would assume SOAF wouldn't mind a coupla hundred thousand going with him... Maybe I misjudged SOAF and he's secretly in love with the moderate Muslims.

(09-22-2010 09:43 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Never fight a war you don't intend to win.

Yep. The EXIT strategy is for there to be no other "bad guys" left to kill. They are either dead or have surrendered... which DOESN'T involve negotiations, but mandates. The biggest way to end extremist recruiting is to eliminate, not control or negotiate or make less capable, the organization doing the recruiting. If you don't plan on doing that, then don't go in. If the UN won't stand behind their declarations, then I say leave.

(09-23-2010 02:41 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 02:32 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 02:31 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 02:19 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 06:12 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  I got shouted down by my HS Gov't teacher for advocating the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. We are trying to get ride of our stockpile, right? Well, drop 2-3 on Tora Bora.... But, hey, I think we should have tested our chemical/biological weapons on Al Quieda too. Great way to find out how well they work on humans, eh?

(Yea, I'm a bit trigger happy right now.)

Trigger Happy? Try insane. Global Thermal Nuclear War is not a video game. "Joshua, what are you doing?"

That's fine then. Don't say you are for getting Osama and destroying the Islamic terrorists, if you aren't gonna DO WHAT'S NECESSARY. They you just sound more wishy-washy then John Kerry.

and 2-3 nukes ISN'T GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR.

Problem is, he's on the border with a nuclear-capable Pakistan. It would not turn out well.

They are Muslim too, I would assume SOAF wouldn't mind a coupla hundred thousand going with him... Maybe I misjudged SOAF and he's secretly in love with the moderate Muslims.

Dead would be good, I would still sleep well at night. However using Nuclear as a first strike weapon invites being attacked with Nuclear weapons. Same with bio. Thats the insanity. or MAD. A moderate Muslim are those who stand up against radical Muslims. But since their religion allows them to lie for the advancement of Islam, they cannot be trusted. Hence, there are no moderate Muslims. I am all for letting the troops loose to do the job they were trained for. They have the stomach for winning the war. It is the civilian leadership and general populace that don't have the cajones necessary to win. We could win a staggering victory if we unleashed our troops and took the war to the ragheads. They would return victorious and soon.

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

(09-23-2010 03:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

Quit whining, Nancy.

(09-23-2010 04:37 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 03:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

Quit whining, Nancy.

Watch who you call Nancy, Donald.

(09-23-2010 03:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

Gotta tell you Mach,... If you NEEDED evidence of WMD in order to attack Iraq, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Bush 41 went in... a cease-fire was negotiated... there are somthing like 100 documented violations of that cease-fire by Iraq. In and of itself, THAT was a reason to resume. If you required more than that, then we shouldn't have gone in when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Either treaties mean something or they don't. Go ask Powell what he thought of the situation... I guarantee he'll tell you that he didn't think we needed anything but a declaration by the UN that there had been a violation, and we had more than 100 such declarations... but the politicians wanted more...

THIS is where we failed. Either you do it or you don't.

(09-23-2010 05:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-23-2010 03:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

Gotta tell you Mach,... If you NEEDED evidence of WMD in order to attack Iraq, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Bush 41 went in... a cease-fire was negotiated... there are somthing like 100 documented violations of that cease-fire by Iraq. In and of itself, THAT was a reason to resume. If you required more than that, then we shouldn't have gone in when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Either treaties mean something or they don't. Go ask Powell what he thought of the situation... I guarantee he'll tell you that he didn't think we needed anything but a declaration by the UN that there had been a violation, and we had more than 100 such declarations... but the politicians wanted more...

THIS is where we failed. Either you do it or you don't.

Exactly, sometime you have to throw down the gauntlet. No one likes war. Saddam dared us to go to war. You see where it got him. Other Tyrants should learn from that example, but no such luck.

Either you sit on a pile of oil or you don't. Either you have a nuclear weapons programs or you don't.

Here's my read for people who violate UN Security Council Resolutions.

Nuclear Program / No Oil --- Buddy you have the keys to the golden palace. Violate at will.

Nuclear Program / Oil ---- Magic 8 Ball is a little cloudy, but you have some leeway.

No Nuclear Program / No Oil ---- You can thumb your nose at the West.

No Nuclear Program / Oil ---- Warning*** Warning **** you better watch your p's and q's. You are endangered. Especially with a certain type of cowboy on the Ponderosa.

The lying village idiot should watch that calling others stupid.

(09-23-2010 10:34 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Exactly, sometime you have to throw down the gauntlet. No one likes war. Saddam dared us to go to war. You see where it got him. Other Tyrants should learn from that example, but no such luck.

Oh they learned all right... just not what we wanted them to

(09-24-2010 06:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Either you sit on a pile of oil or you don't. Either you have a nuclear weapons programs or you don't.

Here's my read for people who violate UN Security Council Resolutions.

Nuclear Program / No Oil --- Buddy you have the keys to the golden palace. Violate at will.

Nuclear Program / Oil ---- Magic 8 Ball is a little cloudy, but you have some leeway.

No Nuclear Program / No Oil ---- You can thumb your nose at the West.

No Nuclear Program / Oil ---- Warning*** Warning **** you better watch your p's and q's. You are endangered. Especially with a certain type of cowboy on the Ponderosa.

This doesn't sound intelligent Mach... it sounds purely leftist political junk... and I think I know you better than that.

Giving a particularly good answer would require a history lesson... but BESIDES ignoring the basic question and trying to reframe the debate as being "about oil" and "about Bush"... you CLEARLY didn't live through the 70's Oil embargo. Oil is power... more power than having nukes... unless you're actually willing to USE your nukes... Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan (twice) and others have proven that superior weapons without the will to use them can be burdens rather than advantages... and terror has proven to be FAR more effective a deterrent than Nuclear weapons in today's society... especially if you are willing to stomach what the enemy won't... like public beheadings, dragging bodies through the streets or hanging them from bridges, public rebukes of your way of life, or innocent collateral damage from your attacks.

We're not talking about some political committee meeting at the UN who decided that somebody is in violation of something as clearly subjective as "human rights"... We're talking about a country who had warred with numerous of his neighbors who had invaded another for the purpose of controlling oil fields and ports for the delivery of oil... which, like it or not, is a threat to our national security... and don't go back into the "that's why we need XYZ"... because that wasn't the option at the time. We didn't have it and STILL don't have it... so if it were to happen again, we would likely need to get involved again, but I digress. The bottom line is, he invaded a country and threatened the stability in the region that is critical to our, and many other countries security... so we went in. We didn't really NEED the UN resolutions... we could have simply decided on our own that they had violated the cease-fire... It's what you DO when you're the de-facto leader of the world... and I won't feel guilty about that... but deferring to the unanimous judgment of the UN limits any charges of being the global bully... This wasn't OUR determination that he had violated the cease-fire... virtually the entire world AGREED that he had done so.

When engaging in honest debate with people, I find analogies to be an effective means of framing a discussion so I use them a lot... unfortunately, they are only particularly effective when you know something about your audience... and open boards aren't particularly good for that... but I'm going to do it again anyway...

Imagine a Chinese child molester who lives on a lot with live water that the city buys for its drinking water, caught in the act of kidnapping and injuring a child... He gets arrested and agrees to a variety of conditions in exchange for not going to jail... fully aware that a single violation of a single term of that agreement returns him to jail... We only agreed to his release in the first place because so many of our own citizens, not to mention the world, blame our dependence on water for our mistreatment of Chinese people, who for some reason are often close to water... The police think he has violated those rules by not checking in when he was supposed to, wearing his band, staying away from schools visiting porn sites on his computer... and a variety of other specific violations... but are worried about being painted as "Chinese bashers", or in some way trying to "steal" his water (despite the fact that water is an easily priced commodity and the city pays market rates for it) so they present their evidence to courts all over the world who agree that he violated his conditions at least 100 times. The police are still concerned and want a slam-dunk, so they go to the public with their circumstantial evidence (which they have, but it is circumstantial) of missing children in the area who fit his profile... he has dug holes in his back yard and buried SOMETHING there... and every time the police come for an inspection, they are made to wait out front while he carries things out the back door, and there is a secret locked room that he won't let them in... so the people say okay... and while he absolutely violated the terms of the release, the circumstantial evidence cannot be proven. Does this mean that the police were racist, or that the 100 violations of the parole didn't mount anymore?? Does it mean that it was "just about water"?? Or did the city go way beyond what they needed to, to the point of making unrelated mistakes to demonstrate what everyone has already agreed on, that this guy is a convicted criminal who violated the terms of his release and should bear the clearly articulated consequences of those actions??

(09-22-2010 04:28 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 04:02 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(09-22-2010 07:56 AM)Paul M Wrote:  There are winners and there are those with an exit strategy.

Mission Accomplished.

Paul, is this what a winner looks like?

His liberal spending and McCains worthless liberal ways are why I left the Republican party.

(09-23-2010 03:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

Quote:half the damn Congress thinks it's our own fault when we get attacked.

This is the s hit Reb gets away with on here that should be bitched slapped to reality. Bush had a 93% approval rating numb nuts. You could of declared war on Afghanistan and had 100% agreement. Damnit how can you be so damn stupid sometimes. Even with the trumped WMD charges some D's went along with Iraq. I think history has proven the ones who were against Iraq correct btw.


Just a stupid stupid statement.

Are you blind or ignorant? The Dem's in the Senate (including John F Kerry) were writing letters to Slick Willy demanding that he take action against Saddam and his WMD's. They may not have been there, but he had EVERYBODY fooled.

Hambone-

Thanks for the response. A couple of points that I would like to contend.

Giving a particularly good answer would require a history lesson...

I always liked Winston Churchill's quote. “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”.

Are you aware that Iraqi's always considered parts of Kuwait to be disputed territory. Countless examples of this phenomena is documented throughout history. Nations dispute territory. Heck Michigan and Ohio both sent militias over Toledo. Just sayin' it happens and why do you think the US was so concerned about these particular territory disputes. The real war was waged in the "media" and the court of public opinion. Saddam was no where near as media savvy as Kuwait and it's media consultants. It has been proven that some of the most disturbing video images before the US commited to the first Gulf War were fabricated. There were tensions over the rights of underground oil resources along the border, Iraq claimed that Kuwait was depleting resources that territorially were on Iraqi side of the border using angled drilling techniques. Iraq at the time was facing immense fiscal difficulties. They felt Kuwait was artificially keeping oil prices low by flooding the market with IRAQI OIL. Add these together and you get an invasion. From interviews with Saddam it is clear that Iraq expected to claim Kuwait as its territory, and that they initially never expected an allied force to fight back. According to reports they sent word of the invasion through back channels to Washington. They never expected an Allied response and their calculus was flawed.

(09-24-2010 11:35 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hambone-

Thanks for the response. A couple of points that I would like to contend.

Giving a particularly good answer would require a history lesson...

I always liked Winston Churchill's quote. “History will be kind to me for I intend to write it”.

two ways to take this. History is usually written by the victors, not the conquered... it COULD mean that he intends to do something so significant that everyone remembers it, O it could mean that he intends to win and control the message. My comment wasn't meant to be condescending (and I don't think you took it that way) merely that like you mention in the next line, there are lots of moving parts and impressions.

Quote:[quote] Are you aware that Iraqi's always considered parts of Kuwait to be disputed territory. Countless examples of this phenomena is documented throughout history. Nations dispute territory. Heck Michigan and Ohio both sent militias over Toledo. Just sayin' it happens and why do you think the US was so concerned about these particular territory disputes. The real war was waged in the "media" and the court of public opinion. Saddam was no where near as media savvy as Kuwait and it's media consultants. It has been proven that some of the most disturbing video images before the US commited to the first Gulf War were fabricated. There were tensions over the rights of underground oil resources along the border, Iraq claimed that Kuwait was depleting resources that territorially were on Iraqi side of the border using angled drilling techniques. Iraq at the time was facing immense fiscal difficulties. They felt Kuwait was artificially keeping oil prices low by flooding the market with IRAQI OIL. Add these together and you get an invasion. From interviews with Saddam it is clear that Iraq expected to claim Kuwait as its territory, and that they initially never expected an allied force to fight back. According to reports they sent word of the invasion through back channels to Washington. They never expected an Allied response and their calculus was flawed.

None of this matters. You're using the Mary Kay LeTourneau defense... that in the culture, the guy was "a man"... so she wasn't a child molester.

The US recognized Kuwait. The UN recognized Kuwait. Despite the dispute, I'm not sure Iraq didn't recognize Kuwait... which means you respect their borders. The drilling claims you make are thus far unconfirmed, but it is clear that Iraq Soldiers invaded Kuwaiti space. .. and you're ignoring my comment from the first one... If you don't think they EVER should have gone in, fine... but once they did... act 2 was completely justified under law. You are practicing situational ethics to claim that because you disagreed (either then or now) with step 1, that step 2 by 43 was eggregious. Without step 1, step 2 would have never happened, because there would have been no peace treaty for them to violate. IIRC, not many people had a problem with what 41 did at the time, other than that he stopped.

Kuwait won independence from the UK in 1961

You're using the Mary Kay LeTourneau defense... that in the culture, the guy was "a man"... so she wasn't a child molester.


I didn't think I was using any defense. I'm saying the victor controls the message. I also contend that if Saddam wasn't sitting on a pile of oil we never would of went in. Saddam easily could have been justified in his invasion of Kuwait. We don't like to hear that because it doesn't fit the narrative. The war was sold as "good vs. evil". I'm well aware of the atrocities linked to the "House of Saddam". But think about this for a moment. Who has killed more innocent Iraqi's. Saddam or the US military? Now I know we don't target innocents. That is not my contention. I'm just asking a simple question. Who is responsible for more Iraqi deaths? Saddam or the US military.

We liked the fact that Kuwait was stealing the oil and flooding the market. It all ties back to OIL. That is my point. It's an unhealthy addiction we have.

(09-24-2010 02:33 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You're using the Mary Kay LeTourneau defense... that in the culture, the guy was "a man"... so she wasn't a child molester.


I didn't think I was using any defense. I'm saying the victor controls the message. I also contend that if Saddam wasn't sitting on a pile of oil we never would of went in. Saddam easily could have been justified in his invasion of Kuwait. We don't like to hear that because it doesn't fit the narrative. The war was sold as "good vs. evil". I'm well aware of the atrocities linked to the "House of Saddam". But think about this for a moment. Who has killed more innocent Iraqi's. Saddam or the US military? Now I know we don't target innocents. That is not my contention. I'm just asking a simple question. Who is responsible for more Iraqi deaths? Saddam or the US military.

We liked the fact that Kuwait was stealing the oil and flooding the market. It all ties back to OIL. That is my point. It's an unhealthy addiction we have.

Um... best of my recollection, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people using Chemical weapons. We had reporters staying in hotels right next to the bomb sites. I think it's clear he is responsible for more innocent Iraqi deaths than the US military.


But you're continuing to try and reframe the point.

Arguing that "it's about oil" doesn't matter. We aren't "addicted" to it... we're BUILT upon it. It drives our entire economy. I understand that you'd like to change that, and so would I... but we werent there in 1992, or 2002 and won't be there in 2012. If we didnt' have to have it, it wouldn't cost what it costs, and Saddam wouldn't have had his palace and he wouldn't have cared that Kuwait was (according to him) drilling into his territory or need the extra port capacity.

By LeTourneau, I mean that you're arguing that something that everyone agreed was illegal at the time SHOULDN'T have been illegal. Okay, so what?? It's illegal!! Invading your neighbor with tanks and soldiers is an act of war. You want to argue that it was provoked?? FIne. Prove it! The UN didn't find it so.

Once again... He was a convicted child molester out on parole who violated that parole... and you want to argue that the child LOOKED older... and that his violations of the parole, despite the number, weren't THAT bad.

I'm saying Saddam's regime was treated differently than other regimes for the same type of transgressions. Why the difference? We all know the answer. There is blood on our SUV's.

(09-24-2010 03:53 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  There is blood on our SUV's.

You're getting more and more feminine every day. Is "it" starting to invert yet?