billvon 3,072
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Guest
QuoteYes, it won't mean much to those caught in the crossfire, but I don't want to hear again how "It's just about the oil".
Quote
I'm sorry about the injuries and deaths that are being caused, but I'm also looking beyond it.
isnt it great that you have that option...
Im very tired at the moment and i know im not thnking very clearly but ive taken your argument to mean: we are fighting this war to free that little girl. its not ok that she personally got hit but it is ok to accept collateral damge (a phrase i loathe) in order to free all the other children. - is that right?
by the same logic then it would be ok to use children as test animals for vaccines and drugs because while the subject might die, its so important for all the other children who might get sick in the future?
Ends dont justify means. And hey the war isnt all about the oil - but it sure as hell isnt all about the humanitarian issues - if it was why is iraq the only country that has to be invaded?
Re missing the mosque - that wasnt to protect the mosque, that was to protect the US from screams of sacrilege and abomination..imo.
Genie
Please read my earlier remarks in reply to billvon.
No, it's not okay. In war, innocents die.
Please read this, especially this quote:
"Every human being is against war. Iraqis are against war. But this is a war against the most dangerous monster ever created. For 30 years our people go to bed and wake up every morning to see pictures of Saddam. School textbooks have his picture on the front page. Two of my sisters and one brother are still in Iraq, hiding in the mountains in the north. Iraqi people are willing to pay the price of the war to get rid of him, so the next generation do not have to live in fear. We have sacrificed millions of people in the last 30 years in torture and genocide.”
Maybe your heart will bleed a little less now.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
outrager 6
QuoteYes, it's heartbreaking to see little kids getting harmed like this, but it's for them that this action is being taken.
"We have to kill them or else they will die" (c) South Park.
It truly sucks there are so many brainwashed people in US...
bsbd!
Yuri.
Quote>
Our 'goons' did the same to a van full of women and children who were trying to escape a few days ago. Again, such is war. I wouldn't use the "respect and chivalry" angle to try to defend either side; it is what people do during war. Killing the people in that van is defensible because it's war, not because there is a moral plus for killing them.
You have reached a new low, "GOONS". What should thery have done, let them roll right into them and not done anything to defend themselves.
The "GOONS" are the assholes that forced them to drive into the checkpoint.
To call those men at the checkpoint GOONS in inflamatory and totally disrespectful. And YOU are a moderator, you should have better sense that to post something as inflamatory as that.
Hey HH, time to bounce someone.
Who Dares Wins
Iflyme 0
This war is NOT about liberating Iraqi children. It is part of Paul Wolfowitz plan for the USA to gain contro of the middle east in the post-Soviet Union era. This war has been on paper since the early 1990's. A small group of neo-conservative men -- Republicans -- all in top positions -- none elected -- would see the Un eliminated becasue they see it as a hinderance to US world domination. Even now, Rumsfeld wants no UN contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq. He thinks it should be a USA controlled endeavour. Wolfowitz hopes that once the USA is done changing the government in Iraq, people in Syria and Iran will -- with support for Uncle Sam -- will "rise up" and change their governments ... to a USA friendly administration. Then the USA can build more military bases in the middle east, and gain control of natural resources and stratgeic territory.QuoteYes, it's heartbreaking to see little kids getting harmed like this, but it's for them that this action is being taken.
THAT is what this war is about. Remember -- the money trail from 9/11 leads to Saudi Arabia, NOT Iraq ... and none of the men on those planes were from Iraq. As far as a "threat tto the USA" ... N Korea poses much more of a threat to Americans that Iraq does ... but like I said, then plans to attack Iraq were drawn up by Wolfowitz in the early 1990's ... 9/11, while terrible and horrific, made a convienent excuse the American public would buy for attacking SH.
Guest
Geez, and I thought the extremist nonsense on the right was far-out...
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
skreamer 1
I would've thought the fact that he put it in ' ' made it fairly obvious that he was saying that this was how people on the other side of the conflict might view the soldiers at that check-point (all a matter of perspective). Seemed pretty obvious to me...
[shrugs]
[shrugs]
billvon 3,072
>You have reached a new low, "GOONS". What should thery have
> done, let them roll right into them and not done anything to defend
> themselves.
I did not call them goons. I put "goons" in quotes because I specifically do NOT consider them such. They are soldiers doing what soldiers do during wartime, defending themselves and their comrades.
Contrary to popular opinion, quotes are not used as emphasis, but rather to indicate a reference to what someone else said.
> done, let them roll right into them and not done anything to defend
> themselves.
I did not call them goons. I put "goons" in quotes because I specifically do NOT consider them such. They are soldiers doing what soldiers do during wartime, defending themselves and their comrades.
Contrary to popular opinion, quotes are not used as emphasis, but rather to indicate a reference to what someone else said.
billvon 3,072
>Wolfowitz hopes that once the USA is done changing the government
> in Iraq, people in Syria and Iran will -- with support for Uncle Sam --
> will "rise up" and change their governments ... to a USA friendly
> administration. Then the USA can build more military bases in the
> middle east, and gain control of natural resources and stratgeic
> territory.
I don't think that's the objective. The "domino theory" of democracy has been discussed and discarded. There are a lot of reasons for this war, and they range from humanitarian (i.e. stopping some serious human rights abuses) to practical (a new government will require less 'management' by the US) to financial (a stable government in that region will help stabilize oil prices.) People's political leanings tend to determine which of them are the most valid, but I think the 'true reason' for the war is a combination of all of them.
> in Iraq, people in Syria and Iran will -- with support for Uncle Sam --
> will "rise up" and change their governments ... to a USA friendly
> administration. Then the USA can build more military bases in the
> middle east, and gain control of natural resources and stratgeic
> territory.
I don't think that's the objective. The "domino theory" of democracy has been discussed and discarded. There are a lot of reasons for this war, and they range from humanitarian (i.e. stopping some serious human rights abuses) to practical (a new government will require less 'management' by the US) to financial (a stable government in that region will help stabilize oil prices.) People's political leanings tend to determine which of them are the most valid, but I think the 'true reason' for the war is a combination of all of them.
jerry81 10
Quote
You have reached a new low, "GOONS".
Read Bill's post again. Quotations were used, hinting that the term goons was not to be taken literally.
Anyway, I fear this thread is just a couple of similar posts away from being deleted. I do admit my starting post did touch a sensitive subject, but, damn, I didn't mean to open another left-right flaming front.
QuoteGeez, and I thought the extremist nonsense on the right was far-out...
Really? Take a look at this site and what their membership and positions are. http://www.newamericancentury.org
For some independent viewpoints on the "New American Century" group, google "wolfowitz cabal"
Here's their "Statement of Principles". Take a good look at the signatures.
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
Guest
QuoteI think the 'true reason' for the war is a combination of all of them.
I agree.
"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."
Iflyme 0
Ya ... Wolfowitz's proposal, considerer "extreme" by most, were withdrawn in the early 90's by the administration of the day ... that was then -- this is now.QuoteI don't think that's the objective. The "domino theory" of democracy has been discussed and discarded.
Quotepractical (a new government will require less 'management' by the US) to financial (a stable government in that region will help stabilize oil prices.)
SAme thing I said, different choice of worlds. It all equals USA control of the region.
Do you really believe your government would send American soldiers to their deaths for "humanitarian" reasons ... would the USA really spend hundreds of billions on a humanitarian cause in a country on the other side of the world? I don't believe so ... it's all about power and control. Remember, the Taliban and SH were friends of the USA not too long ago ...Quotehumanitarian (i.e. stopping some serious human rights abuses)
BS! You are more professional than that and more than anyone else know how inflamatory your choice of wording was. If you didn't mean it then you should have never even used the word. It's kinda like using the "N" word, sorry, wasn't me, I meant someone else was saying it.
This is starting to get kinda dejavu, as I recall the folks that yelled and screamed at me in the airport in '70 when I came home from RVN.
This is starting to get kinda dejavu, as I recall the folks that yelled and screamed at me in the airport in '70 when I came home from RVN.
Who Dares Wins
billvon 3,072
> would the USA really spend hundreds of billions on a humanitarian
> cause in a country on the other side of the world?
I don't think they would if that was the _only_ reason, but given a few other reasons (like someone who is an enemy of the US, someone who might be a threat, someone who is messing with our foreign trade etc) it could be the final straw.
> cause in a country on the other side of the world?
I don't think they would if that was the _only_ reason, but given a few other reasons (like someone who is an enemy of the US, someone who might be a threat, someone who is messing with our foreign trade etc) it could be the final straw.
> kingdome come when the Iraqis were fighting from it the other day.
If we had to do that to win, or even to save a few american soldiers, that mosque would be rubble faster than you can say GBU. Our not killing everyone in that mosque is primarily evidence that we don't need to do that to win the war. Not blowing it up _and_ showing respect for the beliefs of the people inside it was a good move, though.
>Restraint, respect and chivalry are being shown, while Saddam's
>goons are shooting women in the back for trying to escape.
Our 'goons' did the same to a van full of women and children who were trying to escape a few days ago. Again, such is war. I wouldn't use the "respect and chivalry" angle to try to defend either side; it is what people do during war. Killing the people in that van is defensible because it's war, not because there is a moral plus for killing them.
>Yes, it won't mean much to those caught in the crossfire, but I don't
>want to hear again how "It's just about the oil".
OK, but I also don't want to hear about how "it's all about freeing the Iraqis." Both statements are false. It's for about a dozen reasons, most of them not so noble.
>I'm sorry about the injuries and deaths that are being caused, but
>I'm also looking beyond it.
I am too, simply because the deaths are going to happen no matter what now (and will get a lot worse in coming days.) I hope we can look far enough beyond it to avoid the _next_ war.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites