quote:PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - President Bush has decided to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, and has ordered the CIA, the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies to devise plans to remove him, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported Wednesday.
Interetsing... I didn't realize they had found Cheney...
So, we've invaded Afghanistan, and now we may be invading Iraq. How long 'til we occupy the entire mid-east?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I'm not so sure that President Bush would want to be known throughout history as the person who started WWIII. (hypothetically, of course it's just one in many possible outcomes to this)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: I'm not so sure that President Bush would want to be known throughout history as the person who started WWIII.
Funny, I remember people saying that 11 years ago.
"OH, it's the FOURTH-largest army in the world! We're DOOMED!"
Man, if TWO of these guys had had matching uniforms, I MIGHT have been concerned.
"OH, it's another Vietnam! We'll be fighting for years and years!"
Say it with me. 100 hours. I've been to parties that lasted longer than World War III!
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Rob, I'm impressed. Obviously, you knew better then all the military brass who did have concerns that we would come away much bloodier then we did. Ritten, a soldier at the time, also voiced in an earlier thread on this topic that the concerns WERE justified. It wasn't just the "liberal press" as I'm sure you'd eagerly claim.
But, no matter. You Republican morons are the same guys complaining about how Clinton ruined the military, but look how it performed in Afghanistan.
[ February 13, 2002, 18:25: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
One day, fifty people go out and buy AK-47s. They leave these weapons in a damp, cold basement for decades. Then they manage to use the rusty, ill-maintained weapons to kill six people with people with peashooters. By your logic, one could conclude that because they managed to kill the six people with peashooters, the weapons MUST have been well-maintained.
I also believe that we were told not to call each other morons, or other uncivil behavior, correct?
[ February 13, 2002, 19:01: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I didn't realize the military locked all its weapons, vehicles, fighters and ships in a damp, cold basement for a decade.
Er, which would mean Bush Sr. put them in before his term ended.
Omega's ... naievety?* ... reaches new bounds. Now, apparently, the U.S.'s success in Afghanistan is LUCK.
*forgive the spelling ...
[ February 13, 2002, 19:02: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
Looks like this War on Terrorism could be pretty profitable for Bush in terms of money, public opinion, kudos with the oil people, and public education (how many Americans knew where Afghanistan was before the war? ) Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, getting rid of terrorists is good, especially the repressing fundamentalist Taliban. I don't think that the war in Afghanistan constituted World War III though, First. More like World War III(a). Iraq will be World War III(b).
Posted by G.K Nimrod (Member # 205) on :
There actually are some guidelines as to what qualifies as a world war. Involves continents, I seem to recall. One country getting all its military- and defense equipment destroyed and its government thwarted does NOT constitute World War. Perhaps a potential prelude, as some say.
Anyone got anything more, any manual from Jane's about world wars? Not a how-to, of course, we don't need more of that floating around the 'net. :-)
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Obviously, you knew better then all the military brass who did have concerns that we would come away much bloodier then we did.
Obviously, I did. After all, when you're right, you obviously know better than the people who say you're wrong, don't you? Isn't that a given?
Oh, the war ended faster that _I_ thought it would, too, given that no large-scale chem-bio warfare seems to have happened. Based on what I knew about the situation, I expected the ground war to last a whole month. I didn't think the Republican Guard would fold as quickly as it did, and I underestimated the damage and morale effect of the airstrikes.
(I also didn't forsee 2000 Iraqi soldiers surrendering to a guy with a camcorder. "You in the back! Don't make me USE this! I've got ZOOM! I've got ZOOM!")
Now, if Hussein HAD used a large-scale chem-bio assault, I suspect the war (in another form) might have gone on longer, because we would be a bit more likely to have invaded and occupied the whole shebang, and we would have clearly sustained more casualties. But Hussein didn't choose this option, probably because he had information similar to that in the the conversation reported to me, which went like this:
Person: What casualties do you expect in the first chemical/biological attack? General: We expect 10%-15% loss rate after the first attack, due to surprise, and soldier's inability to put on their gear properly. Person: What about the second attack? General: There won't BE a second attack. Person: Why not? General: After the first attack, Baghdad will be fused glass.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
^Bloated ego, party of one, your table is ready.
[ February 14, 2002, 15:09: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I'll say this, Mr. bush has revived the politcal art form of waving the bloody shirt.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
There was a show on TV about a sting, that laster almost 2-3 years. about a guy who was stealing weapons, helmets, night vision gear, JET ENGINES, uniforms, explosives and the such. I'm sure it's alot easier to break into a dark damp basement to steal a multimillion dollar aircraft engine (3 of them by the way) than it would seem to be.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:H, it's the FOURTH-largest army in the world! We're DOOMED!"
But, Rob, surely you would agree that if the Pentagon tells the media that tells the masses that fighting against Iraq is probably going to be costly, it's a good thing to believe, don't you?
Because, frankly, you're acting rather silly at the moment.
No one (even, as admitted, you) expected the mass defections that occured. We're talking about a military that had eight-years of combat experience against Iran. This isn't like the Taliban, whose main body of troops kept switching sides with the Northern Alliance and did a bit of skirmishing and beating up helpless civillians. This was a military with combat experience we were talking about. And a big military, to boot. Fourth largest doesn't sound that great, until you realize that a preemptive strike on Saudi Arabia by Iraq could've eliminated our beachhead, as well as any forces we had on the ground.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
Well if dubyah doesn't get him there's always the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Now, being the argument-disdaining, puppy -loving pacifist that I am, I am loathe to even look in the flameboard, especially since there hasn't been anything interesting, new, or civil since 1975.
However, this one got me a-thinkin', which is a dastardly offence, as one must take into consideration that I concieved of a fully-working miniature Man Train, and the art of wearing undergarments outside of regular garments with little or no people noticing, while a-thinkin'.
I do have one question, and far be it from me to question or even doubt the President of the United States in this new Americanized, Amerocentric and patriotic World Order, but what I ask is this:
Other than being the President, and Pretzel affectionado, who does President George Washington Bush (I assume it stands for Washington. Or "We're No. 1!") think he is?
While not disagreeing that Mr. Hussein and co. are not the kind of people that we can have over for tea and a Rudyard Kipling circle discussion with, and agreeing that they are Bad, Bad Anti-American Affectionados who must be disposed of, mercilessly and expediently.
Has anyone read XPD? It's a good book. At least it's a book.
So, Monsieur Bush wishes to oust Mr Hussein. Fine.
But, taking a break from this conquest of domination of the Irakis, one wonders two things.
Where is the line, and who draws it?
And perhaps, veinly, two more things.
Why is it the Bush, and is his nose really so big that it cannot help but to get stuck elsewhere in the world. (Primarily in Non-US countries that dislike such American activities as Roller-Skating, and Pinball)?
And tertiarily, two more things.
Who is the next threat, and the next?
As if a cacaphony, two more things arise.
When will it stop, when all the "BAD EVIL ANTI-AMERICAN DO NOT BUY ANY TVS FROM THIS COUNTRY" are disposed of and replaced with Pacemaker kiosks and Pretzel Stands? Or, more relevently, American Puppet Governments?
When will Canada be a threat? Jean Poutine could be more Ameri-friendly. When does the Bush oust him?
I'm the only one not hoping for another Miracle on Ice, I suppose. It's too bad all those Vietnam hippies are all old and decrepit.
[ February 15, 2002, 22:32: Message edited by: Ultra Magnus ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Why us?
No one else has the will. Everybody else stands there shouting 'something must be done!' then they create a commission to resolve to consider the idea of putting a decision before a committee. We, on the other hand, decide something, then act. If that scares other people... too bad.
When will Canada be a threat? Too much of Canada is French for it to ever be a threat.
Snay: Eight years of desert warfare usually creates one of two things:
1.) Grizzled, battle-hardened vets (usu. in movies)
2.) Weary, battle-fatigued mostly conscripted veterans wearing ragtag hand-scrawled T-shirts saying "I just wanna eat!"
And a month of aerial carpet bombardment generally turns 1 into 2 pretty quickly.
"When you're sitting in your tank in the morning fog, and all you can see are the tanks on either side of you, and suddenly, the tank to your right goes KA-BOOM! and explodes, And a few seconds later, the tank to your left goes KA-BOOM! too, pretty quickly you decide 'I'm not staying in this tank.'" -- Actual anecdote from captured Iraqi officer, courtesy U.S. Army
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Actually, UM, it stands for "Walker."
I do think that Bush is pushing this "war" more for political gain then anything else.
You're going to have to forgive this next quote, but the website won't allow a direct link without logging in, and I don't want to put anyone through all that. You can click here to go to the website.
quote:1) Why is Saddam more dangerous today than he was 11 years ago when President Bush's father decided to leave him in power?
2) The postwar sanctions and inspections imposed on Saddam did not completely stop him from continuing his doomsday weapons projects, but they did seriously hinder him. Most world leaders advocate escalating the pressure on Saddam to permit U.N. inspectors, who were thrown out in 1998, back into Iraq. Administration officials agree with this but have also announced that this step is doomed to fail so they are already pushing for Step 2, a military invasion. Why would Saddam comply with weapons inspections if the U.S. is already determined to attack him? Shouldn't Step 1 be given more of a chance to succeed?
3) Despite the administration's strenuous efforts, no compelling evidence has been found to tie Saddam into the Sept. 11 attacks or last fall's anthrax terrorism. Why, then, is Iraq being targeted in the war on terrorism?
4) Except for his war on Iran, which was fully supported by the West, and his invasion of Kuwait, which he initially thought was sanctioned by the U.S., Saddam's atrocities have been confined to his own people. Why should we believe that Saddam, after being soundly defeated in the Gulf War, still has expansionist aims?
5) Saddam is, if nothing else, a survivor in the cunning mode of Stalin. Why would he risk the instant destruction of his regime by attacking the U.S. or Israel with nuclear or biochemical weapons? And with the West on high alert to terrorist threats, would he risk passing on these doomsday weapons to networks like al-Qaida?
6) If Saddam is backed into a corner militarily, however, and feels he has nothing to lose, some knowledgeable observers fear that he might launch a final, desperate doomsday weapons attack on Israel. How can this be prevented?
7) Washington hawks claim that the Afghanistan strategy can be applied to Iraq, with the Iraq National Congress playing the role of the Northern Alliance. But the Iraqi opposition strikes many strategists (including some in the Pentagon) as soft from years of U.S.-subsidized exile, and woefully inexperienced on the battlefield. (The INC's one military strike against Saddam, in 1995, ended in a disastrous rout.) Until Bush's axis of evil speech, INC officials were kept at arm's length from the White House, with one senior administration official dismissing them as "half-assed people who can't get the president's ear" and "pissants" who have never "smelled cordite," according to a December article by the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh. Why should we have confidence that the INC can defeat Saddam's military? Would American ground troops have to be put more in harm's way than they were in Afghanistan?
8) The one group within the loose anti-Saddam coalition that does have plenty of battle experience -- mainly from fighting one another -- is the Kurds. But, according to a report in this week's Wall Street Journal, Iraq's Kurdish population -- after years of savage repression and deprivation -- has prospered in recent years, thanks to the U.S.-enforced no-fly zone in the country's north and the billions of dollars of Iraqi oil money that has been funneled to the Kurds under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program. As a result, they are not eager to plunge back into war and strife. Why should the Kurds take up arms against Saddam again and why should they trust the U.S. this time, when they have been betrayed more than once by Washington?
9) Neighboring countries fear that a war on Iraq would splinter the country and destabilize the region. Turkey fears a Kurdish republic in the north and Saudi Arabia fears a breakaway Shiite state in the south. How can the U.S. assure its allies that a post-Saddam Iraq would not be even more volatile?
10) Is the U.S. prepared to accept a democratic government in Baghdad, even if it is controlled by Shiites and tilts toward anti-American Iran?
11) Given the meddlesome role that the U.S. and its principal ally Britain have historically played in Iraq -- as well as Russian concerns that we are mainly interested in usurping their oil concessions in Iraq -- how can we reassure the world that we are seeking peace and democracy and not simply the country's resources?
12) The U.S. has never demonstrated much concern for the health and human rights of the Iraqi people. Why should they believe another American-led war on their country will bring them anything more than further suffering?"
-- David Talbot, Salon Premium.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
That leaves us with my reasoning for GW wanting to go into Iraq. Guhaw, lookie ma, I kin git the varmint and daddy coultna, I's real smart ma.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
1.) Intel estimates he's a year away from a nuke. He's got BM's. He's got friends in low places.
2.) 10 years of nothing. *sings* How many years must an inspector wait, before he is fed up to here? The answer, I say, is 'make him go away,' the answer is 'make him go away...'
3.) That's not what I've heard.
4.) Oh, so we should get involved in countries internal struggles (Yugoslavia, Rwanda), UNLESS it's Iraq? Hypocracy.
5.) Because people like Hussein do things if they think they can get away with them. And because of that whole 'martyrs go straight to heaven' thing.
6.) Get him before he can... by doing the very thing you're proposing we NOT do.
7.) No, probably we'll need ground troops. We used them to good effect last time, we can do so again.
8.) Good question, but wouldn't it be better for the Kurds not to need us to enforce the no-fly zone to keep them from being bombed and gassed?
9.) They don't consider Iraq stable NOW. If we can prop up Afghanistan, with its myriad tribes, we can prop up Iraq, with far fewer divergent groups. Worst comes to worst, we stabilize it the same way we stabilized Germany.
10.) We can burn that bridge when we come to it. Who says it will be controlled by any one group? If we leave Iran alone and continue to encourage the pro-west momevent that is in the ascendancy, this may well be a non-problem.
11.) We can invite them to help. But hurry, this offer ends soon. No endless talking in committee.
12.) And their leader HAS?? There isn't much worse than having your leader take billions of dollars to make himself palaces and nuke programs, while you don't get any of the food and medicine you should be getting. It's not our sanctions, it's his distribution.
[ February 16, 2002, 07:55: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:3.) That's not what I've heard.
So, what have you heard? And can I ask from where you've heard it from?
quote:4.) Oh, so we should get involved in countries internal struggles (Yugoslavia, Rwanda), UNLESS it's Iraq? Hypocracy.
Idiocy. No one is questioning getting involved in Iraq's internal struggles, Rob. If you'd bothered to read, you'd've noticed that no one is condemning the "no-fly" zones. The question is, 'why should we invade'? Nice attempt at diversion.
quote:8.) Good question, but wouldn't it be better for the Kurds not to need us to enforce the no-fly zone to keep them from being bombed and gassed?
Are you willing to enforce a no-fly zone to keep the Turks out, Rob? The Kurds are perfectly safe right now. Give them their own country, and you might face a preemptive strike from Turkish forces.
quote:9.) They don't consider Iraq stable NOW. If we can prop up Afghanistan, with its myriad tribes, we can prop up Iraq, with far fewer divergent groups. Worst comes to worst, we stabilize it the same way we stabilized Germany.
Yes, but obviously they fear it becoming less stable. Why should they care, since Hussein seems to care only for what happens inside his borders?
quote:10.) We can burn that bridge when we come to it. Who says it will be controlled by any one group? If we leave Iran alone and continue to encourage the pro-west momevent that is in the ascendancy, this may well be a non-problem.
Given that Dubya is calling Iran an "axis of evil" member nation, how do you figure we're doing any encouraging?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:3.) That's not what I've heard.
Interesting I also wonder where you heard this because the CIA report of Feb. 6 says that Saddam only has tentative ties with Al-Qaida, they are more worried about them getting together as they have differing ideologies., Also this report also says that they are worried that Iraq will get fissionable materials. And there is a long way off from here to a nuclear bomb. So one wonders where you get your intelligence FOT. http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/dci_speech_02062002.html Seems to me that you have more to worry about with your newfound friend Pakistan then with Iraq. Better make sure you prop up this regime better than you propped up Iraq's Hussain, cause when they come back to bite you it will be a lot harder than just invading Kuwait and stopping your oil supply. And while we are talking about this. Why doesn't bush try to cut off Iraq's oil flow, Syria and Jorden are pumping more Iraqi oil than they should which is fueling the research that Iraq is doing, but GW does nothing about this. I think it is because GW friends in the oil industry are making money from the higher grade Syrian oil. I'll admit there is reason to keep an eye on Iraq but there is no reason to invade them right now, that is why the US has no support for the Iraqi invasion from even it's stauncest allies, Canada & UK. Our countries see this as a personal vendeta of GW's and are not supporting it.
[ February 16, 2002, 09:43: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Actually, we DID just yell at Syria... what are the sources of YOUR intelligence?
It should be noted that a resolution to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was actually passed by Congress way back in 1998.
quote:Iraq close to building nukes - defector By Janine Zacharia
WASHINGTON (June 21) - Iraq has all the basic components necessary for a nuclear bomb, but it is unclear whether it has acquired the fissile material to power it, the former head of Iraq's nuclear weapons program said yesterday.
Describing Iraq's nuclear weapons program as "more or less complete," Dr. Khidhir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, told the American Enterprise Institute that no sanctions or inspectors could thwart the well-concealed Iraqi program.
"The basic bomb components are there in Iraq. The casting is there. One of the casting furnaces was taken out but another one was built... The fuse components are there. Explosives are there. And the initiator for the nuclear reaction is there. So bomb-wise, Iraq is finished. It has the full technology to make a nuclear bomb," Hamza said.
Hamza said he understood that Iraq now has a much better bomb design than the one he was involved in producing, "but the bottleneck remains the supply of fissile material."
If Iraq has managed to purchase such nuclear-ready material, he said, "Iraq has a nuclear weapon by now. If it [has] not, it will have within a short time a nuclear weapon. I expect, another year."
Citing German intelligence estimates, Hamza said Iraq is said to have 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium and 12 tons of natural uranium, which in their processed form would supply enough material for roughly six bombs.
Now, he said, scientists are focused on adapting the bombs to missiles that can transport them. With continued sanctions making smuggling difficult, Hamza speculated that Iraq is also pursuing a program to develop the technology to produce its own fissile material primarily through what is known as "diffusion."
"Iraq has the material right now, has the technology right now, to go into uranium enrichment if it wants," he said.
[ February 16, 2002, 10:50: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Y'know, every time I see this thread's title, it looks like it says "Bush Decides to Out Saddam Hussein". I have to admit, it would be a lot more interesting if it did...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
If only the CIA had tried it with Castro. . .
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm just a little bit concerned. Absolutely, Saddam Hussein is a complete despot who should be blown out the airlock of Spaceship Earth.
But that's by our lights. For all we know his people love him, he makes the trains run on time, whatever. The evidence of any involvement with Al-Qaeda is slim or else he'd have been hit at the same time as Afghanistan (and spare me the whole "war on two fronts" thing, Bush isn't a complete idiot but he still isn't THAT smart). We also know that as soon as he can he'll be up to his old Emperor Ming tricks again, threatening the world (or at least his neighbours in general and Israel in particular) with nukes if he ever gets them.
But I don't like the way the USA seems to claim the moral right to be the ones to oust him. You alone have the will, right? Well, back in 1990 this guy had the will to say "that country is actually my country's 20th province, just look at the map if you don't believe me" and if Bush senior hadn't felt the need to prove he was more than just Reagan's buttboy, history would be a lot different. What next? Where will your will take you?
Quite frankly, it strikes me this has less to do with the strength of your will, and more to do with the size of your willy.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Actually, we DID just yell at Syria... what are the sources of YOUR intelligence?
I wouldn't exactly call this yelling at Syria.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Grocka: I'm afraid I have to say you're right on this. We aren't yelling at Syria. We should be, but we aren't.
quote:if Bush senior hadn't felt the need to prove he was more than just Reagan's buttboy, history would be a lot different.
With an Iraqi-controlled Kuwait, and potentially a large chunk or more of Saudi Arabia under the control of a man whose stated intentions were to unite the Arab world by force of arms? With an intact military, chemichal and biological stockpiles, and quite probably nukes? Yes, that probably would be a lot different.
Face it. The EU isn't up to taking decisive military action ANYWHERE, which leaves us. Of course, the most effective opposition to the U.S.'s idea of eliminating Saddam in the FIRST war wasn't from the Middle East as much as it was from Europe.
You said it, he needs to be gone. They're not doing it. We are. You don't like our doing it? Beat us to it. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
[ February 16, 2002, 13:26: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I like this "we," by the way. When you signing up for this holy crusade, library boy? I'm sure you'll be totally safe, hardly any REMFs got killed last time. Apart from all the guys in barracks who got that Scud dropped on them. And the MP who blew his own head off while demonstrating the safety on his Beretta. There's an advert for the shortcomings of inadequate gun control, right there.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Saddam made a statement during a parade, that they were not researching nuclear weapons, but something, "that will make people happy". First off, that's a load if I ever heard one. Second all this talk about "happiness" while the parade has tanks, and troops, and he is firing a rifle into the air.
Thoughts anyone?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This century does not appear any more pleasent than the last one, and I want a refund.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
Well, the previous one didn't start off all that good either, especially if you were a Boer. Oh, and this didn't actually take place, did it?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er...thus my point?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
No. Although I did read an extrememly nihalistic PPG fanfic last night that made you Simon appear to be a fluffy and happy bunny that loves the world by comparison. Yes.
Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
Wow. Winston Churchill had balls. Must've been teased alot in school, having so much testicular fortitude. He was a Real Man.
Ugly, but Real.
It's a shame he didn't get elected again. Why'd that happen again?
Lesson from this? War Heroes don't always win the battle they want to win the most.
Bush best recognize.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Vogon: Bleah! You know very well I was using a generic 'we' to refer to the United States.
As for the rest of your comment... I was offered incentives, (scored very high on the Armed Services Vocational Apritude Test) and I came very close to enlisting out of H.S. (*lukespeak* like my father before me), and likely could have been there (in the Gulf) the first time, (only 2 years after I finished h.s.) had I not become medically unfit for service the January preceeding graduation. Unfortunately, major automobile accidents tend to have a detrimental affect on one's medical status. Although I am technically 'healed,' they don't want me anymore.
Anyway, that's irrelevant. I just thought I'd answer the question.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
American hubris, coming to a theater (of war) near you.
Spreading American hegemony around the world...now there's a cause to get behind with everything 'we' have.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I know how that goes. With my record as a cadet, the OTC at university were very interested in recruiting me, until they heard (no pun intended) I'd been deaf in one ear since the age of 10.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
RE: the Rest of the World
(swiped from a couple of posts on another site, but all of which I agree with entirely. Thanks go out to the original posters, Dave Biggins and Dan Stack. They said it all far more eloquently than I have been able to.)
quote: US vs. EU We share a common heritage. While we all have our own nuances, I believe that there is this overall "Western European Culture" that we all share. We're individualistic. We believe that governments are answerable to the people that they govern. We believe that religion, at the very most, should play only a periferal role in politics. We have so much in common that unfortunately the saying that "Familiarity Breeds Contempt" holds true.
Both sides have to understand some things.
Americans have to understand that Europeans fear being hit by errant fists. Terrorism is an old shoe to them with such elements as the IRA, ETA, and the Bader-Meinhoff Group. This, to them, is a law enforcement vice military issue. Our seeming dismissal of them is not making things easier. Ultimately, it will have to come down to diplomacy.
Europeans need to understand that we haven't been this pissed off since Pearl Harbor. Most of y'all didn't mind that when we entered the war. We're trying to clean up situations where diplomacy has failed. The carrot is worthless without a stick and knowledge of what the stick does.
RE: Non-European involved nations:
quote: OK folks, there's a lot of you out there in the world that talk good talk about how buddy buddy you are with us, how you stand with the United States. But at the same time you take your peoples freedoms away, don't let them express frustration with your corrupt goverments - heck the only expression you allow them is to vent their frustrations at us, and you're their stroking those fires since it distracts them from you. And your richest 1% puts ours to shame - channeling money to terrorist organizations.
Well folks, we were just attacked and maybe we're kinda silly, but we've always viewed these oceans on our east and west coasts as good marking points for our borders. And we get a little perturbed when people ignore those borders. Last time it happened it wasn't even a violation of the borders, it was the bombing of a naval base in the Pacific ocean. Perhaps you remember how annoyed we got at that one?
Anyway, it just happened again, and we are going to get the people responsible. And we might ask you for help. And trying to be on both sides isn't going to cut it anymore. You can't say nice things to us and then not do anything. We're going to ask to use your airspace, we're going to ask you to seize terrorist bank accounts, shut down "charities" which fund terrorists. And based on who says yes and no we'll know who are friends. And we'll also know who is against us.
I could be wrong, but that's how I see things. I personally wish the administration did more. The country second most behind this attack, just after Afghanistan, is in my opinion, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. If there ever was a country that talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk with regards to its friendship with the United States. And I suspect it is they who such remarks were directed at. And countries like Pakistan, which chose to side with the United States.
The fact of the matter is other countries are for or against the United States. Does that mean we bomb everyone against us? No, I should hope not. But I hope we remember. And on both sides. I hope we are a good friend to those who do back us in our time of need.
quote:To be honest, we still feel threatened. What if Iraq supplies terrorists with a few bioweapons to be unleashed against the eastern seaboard cities? What if Korea supplies a nuke or two to be used against us. We have no reason to believe Iraq under its current leadership will ever make nice with us. These are countries which have the ability to do some pretty nasty stuff to us and the motive or desire to do so. That is why we don't attack France, Germany, or the UK. They may have the ability to hurt us, but they lack the inclination to do so. It is not just the possession of weapons of mass destruction, it is what we think they will do with them.
Pre-emptive war need not be a bad thing. If Western Europe and America had stood up to Hitler and Stalin in the 30's, millions who died might have lived.
[ February 18, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Oh, sure, it's easier to say that now, but fact is things were different back then. He had to go too far before anybody'd do anything, and I need hardly point out that it took someone else altogether to do anything to directly harm the USA before you then went to war with him. You may give us grief for Chamberlain's appeasement, but note we still in the end declared war without anything actually being done to us.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
If this is a genuine war against terrorism and not just the Americans killing anyone they feel like particularly someone who happened to piss off the presidents daddy; could America please invade Ireland? Quote:"That is why we don't attack France, Germany, or the UK. They may have the ability to hurt us, but they lack the inclination to do so." France and Germany may not have the inclination to strike back but we do!! Look at the Falklands. I would also contest the French ability to strike back at anytone; half their tanks don't work, they only have 5 Rafale fighters when they were supposed to have 150-odd and their aircraft carrier keeps letting in large amounts of water.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Dear Mr. Bush. I am a mapmaker.. I am currently having trouble keeping track of countries ending in '-stan.' Please eliminate any three. Enclosed is a contribution to the GOP.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:If this is a genuine war against terrorism and not just the Americans killing anyone they feel like particularly someone who happened to piss off the presidents daddy; could America please invade Ireland? Quote:"That is why we don't attack France, Germany, or the UK. They may have the ability to hurt us, but they lack the inclination to do so." France and Germany may not have the inclination to strike back but we do!! Look at the Falklands.
So.. you can 'strike back,' but you need OUR help against the small groups of Irish terrorists? Why don't you go in and wipe out both sides yourselves... since it's not as simple as what we're doing.
And clearly you do not know the difference between a first attack and striking back... the post you quoted above says we wouldn't attack the UK because the UK has no inclination to attack us. In other words, we're fairly certain the UK has no intention of ever attacking the US, (unless we attacked them first, which we have no intention of doing) so it would be silly for the US to attack the UK. IIRC, Argentina attacked you FIRST during the 'Falklands War.'
[ February 19, 2002, 16:28: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Last time I checked, Britain didn't call in the US Army Rangers to obliterate the IRA. Major and Blair, unlike Thatcher, had the good sense to realize a prolonged military campaign wouldn't get anyone anywhere and sat down and solved the situation peacefully.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I was under the impression that Argentina took control of some place (which, IIRC, Britain had taken from them originally) w/o killing or injuring anyone, and it was Thatcher that chose to go to war over it.
But, then, maybe I shouldn't take my history lessons from Pink Floyd...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
It's also good to note that the British didn't want the Falklands Islands. They tried to sell them to Argentina just a few months before the war.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, getting rid of terrorists is good, especially the repressing fundamentalist Taliban. I don't think that the war in Afghanistan constituted World War III though, First. More like World War III(a). Iraq will be World War III(b).
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)