Force Against Iran

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
JohnGalt wrote:

In case anyone has forgotten, Osama Bin Laden (like castro) was put into power by the United States.

Just so we’re clear, Castro came to power without foreign intervention, it was a popular revolution. The USSR didn’t come into the picture until a couple of years later (1961 I think, but I’m too lazy to look it up).[/quote]

And OBL has been supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

OBL often rebuffed the CIA during the Soviet War in Afghanistan. The US ha been (half-heartedly) trying to get rid of OBL for a decade prior to 9/11/01.

The US did not put OBL or Castro “in power”.

[quote]orion wrote:
JohnGalt wrote:
I can understand the desire to dismantle an enemies nuclear weapons program. Why, however, should anyone be denied nuclear power? Electric power generation is a critical element in supporting a growing infrastructure, why is it necessary to destroy this as well?

Because if a country that practically swims on a sea of cheap oil all of a sudden feels the urge to build a whole nuclear industry for “civilian” use, it tends to make other people nervous. [/quote]

Maybe they just want to be able to sell ALL of their oil?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Iraq was in violation of, not just one rule, but 16 resolutions passed by the UN dealing specifically with Iraq.

hardly the same thing, vroom.

If the UN is a farce, who cares how many rules and resolutions a country is in violation of?

The UN is either useful or it isn’t, you don’t get to change the status based on the issue you are discussing.

Honestly, I don’t care either way, I just wish I knew which it was![/quote]

See Zap’s answer to this. He is way more articulate on this matter than I.

But - I personally think the UN is a farce. A paper tiger. But the US still plays their games, and tries to work within the framework of the UN.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:

Where, oh where is, the pious one? If a “bush hater” had called someone douchebag and accused them of masturbating to another members picture the morality and standards judgments would have been flying fast and furious. But, I guess when it’s one of you like-minded brethren it is easy to overlook.
[/quote]

Go back and read. I didn’t originally call you a “peacenik douchebag”, you chose to identify with the term.

[quote]doogie, I applaud your purchase of two A/C’s (were they brand new what was the cost) and donating your last two tax returns (you whole tax returns?) and buying goodies for the troops. But, your A/C’s and goodie bags are really not what is needed. They need bodies over there, they need drivers willing to drive the death gauntlet from Baghdad to the airport…
Men who because they know this action is fully warranted and justified are gladly willing to offer their life (not an A/C) in the mother of all battles for freedom. [/quote]

HomeDepot: $238 and $399

Yes. I got back more from the IRS than I paid in and felt guilty. You can help here:

http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=what.levelc&cid=177

http://supportveterans.pva.org/site/PageServer?pagename=givingopportunities

You know what Elk, I could have just gone with some bullshit about not being able to re-enlist because of some bullshit medical ailment, but the truth is I am conflicted about not serving now.

I joined the reserves before I was married or had children. I never had to think about what it would be like to be deployed and be separated from them. I felt like I owed the country something, I signed up, did my time and moved on.

Now that I have a wife and kids, it’s damn hard for me to figure out where my obligations in this thing are. I like to tell myself that if I didn’t have kids now, I would have re-enlisted, and I hope that is true. I like to tell myself that if a draft was instituted, I would go re-enlist, and I do hope that is true.

When I’m tucking my kids in at night, I do think about those kids who don’t have their dads or moms anymore because they died defending us in Iraq. When I’m bitching about work, I do think about our soldiers being hurt and killed everyday. There are many, many times when I do feel selfish for not re-enlisting, when I do feel like a chickenshit who has made excuses not to be over there. It’s hard, but I can admit that. What it boils down to is that there are a lot of people over there who are better men than me.

Now, with all of that admitted, can you tell me how any of it has anything to do with my original question? Here, I’ll repeat for you:

Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?

Calling me a coward is fine, possibly even fair. Doesn’t answer the question, though.

[quote]I didn’t start this war and I am not going to camp out on a road to protest it…
I am not going to stop paying my taxes as I don’t want to go to jail. Those are
unrealistic demands. [/quote]

If you think American soldiers are dying unjustly by the hundreds, why is pitching a tent in Central Texas to yell at the president’s caravan twice a day or refusing to contribute financially unrealistic? Both of those seem less harsh than expecting everyone who supports the war to enlist in the Army.

[quote]However it isn’t unrealistic for you as you fully and without fear of contradiction support this action to re-enlist and offer your
life if need be in a war that again you support 100 percent. [/quote]

Even if I am a coward(and I may well be), that says nothing about whether the war is right or wrong. I’m anti-abortion, but I don’t shoot abortion doctors. I’m pro-guns, but I don’t own any. Do you give all of your money/time to every hippie cause you believe in? Your arguements make no sense. In the end, I’m doing more to support the war and our soldiers than you are doing to stop it.

[quote]You call me a douchebag, If I had children in your classroom they would be removed with haste for I wouldn’t want the influence of a hypocritical coward to be something they were subjected to!
[/quote]

Hypocritical? I don’t think that means what you think it means. I don’t say I support the war and then work against it. Hypocrisy is more like saying you are against the war, but helping to fund it. Or saying that you think it was all about oil, but continuing to drive.

It would be your kids’ loss. Anyway, I’m sure they already know what a douchebag you are.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
Going to war against another country is the worst thing you could do to break UN law because the UN was founded to prevent wars.

That pretty much marginalizes your entire argument right there. You are against the use of force. Period. With that bias - it is no wonder you think that the U.S. is in violation of “International law”.[/quote]

No, ? was actually for the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was a murderous asshole that needed to be removed and even now there are less people dying than under his rule.

If the US actually pull it off to build another strategic partner with plenty of oil reserves (oh sweet, sweet oil) in the region, while at the same time liberating a people and building the second democracy in the region, I shall be seriously impressed.

Doesn?t change that it was against international law though and I don?t think for one second that you believe that the USA cannot violate the UN charter just because it has a veto.

It might also be necessary to bomb the Iran, but to justify it with international treaties? Won?t work.

The WMD-thing was still BS though. Or, um, facts that were largely, um, inflated and distorted to serve a political purpose. Oh, wait a minute, I believe the word for that is bullshit!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:

The USA is a member of the UN. The UN charta (signed by the USA) clearly states that a war is only justified if a) in self-defense or b) if sanctioned by the UN.

The 2nd Iraq war to the best of my knowledge was not sanctioned by the UN and the US was certainly not attacked by the souvereign nation of Iraq.

I am referring to the article 41 and 42 of the UN charta especially the part of article 42 that states that only the whole security counsel can decide that a war is necessary.

The 2nd war in Iraq was nothing more than an extension of the first.

Iraq did not meet the terms of the peace treaty.

We have been at a continual state of war with Iraq since 1991.
[/quote]

That is clever. You may actually be right on this one.

Well, I don’t identify with your statement at all, but I would suggest that nobody is talking about trying to make “terrorists” happy.

Are you another one of those warmongering cheerleaders that can’t tell the difference between the general populace of the Middle East and those that are actively of a terrorist mindset?

Who the hell cares if terrorists are happy or not?

When someone you think is a peacenik douchebag is expressing concerns, its generally not about the terrorists… if it is, then go on about your ridiculous assertions.

[quote]vroom wrote:
When someone you think is a peacenik douchebag is expressing concerns, its generally not about the terrorists… if it is, then go on about your ridiculous assertions.[/quote]

You are way off here, vroomie.

The douchebag in question is a self-proclaimed peacenik douchebag.

Doogie is only calling the douchebag a douchebag because the douchebag called himself a douchebag.

It has nothing to do with doogie’s beliefs, or biases, or intolerances.

You really need to keep up - it makes you look stupid when you pop off for no reason.

Rainjack,

Okay, I’m going to use your own words here, but prove it.

Prove that someone actually wants to make the TERRORISTS themselves happy. It should be a simple matter of cut and paste if it is true.

Now, with all of that admitted, can you tell me how any of it has anything to do with my original question? Here, I’ll repeat for you:

Can one of you peacenik douchebags explain what the U.S. could do, short of everyone converting to Islam, to make the terrorists happy?

Calling me a coward is fine, possibly even fair. Doesn’t answer the question, though.

I have stated my view on this before. You act as if there is a solution (through force) where the world will be in perfect balance (for the US). What you fail to realize is there will always be discontent from some source. This will never end it is human nature. And, unlike the current power base in America who falsely believes that one can attain this utopian state of bad guys not existing and good guys ruling the world, I wood like to have leaders in office who would rather govern from a place of sanity and reality.

I have said this before and I will now say it again, Saddam was a paper tiger and the fact that he wasn’t holding to a U.N. resolutions was hardly an excuse to invade. The only justifiable reason for invasion which Bush and company manipulated everyone on was “Mushroom cloud over US” “Imminent threat” “Can launch WMD to American shores within forty five minutes” none of which were proven to be true for those of us who knew this was BULLSHIT from the start. Those reasons would have been the only justifiable reasons to start war to invade another country.

Saddam could have been delt with on numerous diplomatic and even lethal covert means to get rid of him that would have been effective albeit taken more time, but patience in my opinion is warranted when you are talking about American and innocent Iraqi lives. Call me a peacenick, I just have that weak stupid value for human life.

No these alternatives weren’t explored because the Bush camp thought, yes, Strategic control benefiting the U.S., but also lucrative profits for you guessed it Good ol Dick Cheney’s old company Haliburton. We can kill two birds with one stone get our desired strategic power-base and rake in some powerful profits for our buddies in the oil business. No, No, you say that is preposterous? Even though Bush and Cheney come from big corp. America and Oil money this could never be true, again, PREPOSTEROUS.

So, let’s see was Iraq an imminent threat. Well, from the Bush camps perspective what does it matter! We can start our invasion and you know what because everybody loves “FREEDOM” American style we will crush any resistance and then the joyous populace will greet us with flowers so , then all the doubters will be forced to shut up, we have our strategic power and Haliburton has it’s fingers in all of the oil business dealings and life is grand.

But, wait a minute, if it doesn’t work out, and we will only spend a few seconds focusing on this side of the fence, why should we care? It’s not like the twins are in the 3RD Armored Calvary Unit. Dickey are any of your daughters in the Army or nieces or nephews? What’s that no? Good, good, you Rumsfield, Wolfowitz? No, good!

You know if we rush into this and it doesn’t turn out very good its just middle class and poor Americans who will be dying and losing arms and legs. And, you know what the good part is? Most of em don’t care!!! Yeah, just get em whipped up on patriotism, and the bible, and thrown in “Will put a boot up your ass” song by that big country singer dude who like us never served and they will be more then happy to die for us!

But, hey let’s not think like that because thats not gonna happen. Let’s forget about history lessons of the past and what happens when you try to forcibly change and control a country that doesn’t want to be controlled.

What we’ll do is this, we’ll put a tight lock on the media so we don’t have to deal with that damn Vietnam era death on the evening news every night and we won’t show civilian causalities for the freedom starving Iraqi’s. We’ll sanitize this and if one of those pesky idiots who disagrees with us says anything we’ll tell em shut up asswipe don’t you know we built a school yesterday, but we won’t tell about the twenty kids killed by friendly fire who won’t be going to that school. Nope, not a word of that.

From my perspective doogie there were many other alternatives. The world as we know it wasn’t going to end if we didn’t invade Iraq. The experts knew it but were laughed at when the said it. The world, the US, England isn’t any safer from Terrorism and the meat grinder that is Iraq grinds on daily until one day when someone finally has the sense whether it finally is Bush or the next President who says this waste is going to stop and stops it.

It it is Bush, he will never admit to total failure instead he will paint some rosy picture about giving them freedom and withdraw leaving a power vacuum for our enemies which may eventually drag us into WWIII nuclear holocaust.

But, hey that’s just fine with you, you aren’t feeling the pain yet and maybe you never will. So, doogie, i am not going to quit driving to work and lose my job, but what I will do whenever a forum lends it self to it, I will share my opinion in the hopes that it will influence one person to open their eyes and see this wacked out wreckless administration for what it is and vote them out of office.

I will say this at least you acknowledge you may be a coward for not participating in something you are so vocally in support of!

[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
When someone you think is a peacenik douchebag is expressing concerns, its generally not about the terrorists… if it is, then go on about your ridiculous assertions.

You are way off here, vroomie.

The douchebag in question is a self-proclaimed peacenik douchebag.

Doogie is only calling the douchebag a douchebag because the douchebag called himself a douchebag.

It has nothing to do with doogie’s beliefs, or biases, or intolerances.

You really need to keep up - it makes you look stupid when you pop off for no reason. [/quote]

The blow hard coward was doing so good at portraying a stable person, but just couldn’t resist getting in on the action. You are the definition of a loudmouthed douchebag.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,

Okay, I’m going to use your own words here, but prove it.

Prove that someone actually wants to make the TERRORISTS themselves happy. It should be a simple matter of cut and paste if it is true.[/quote]

Two words. Apologists and appeasers. Next question.

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
The blow hard coward was doing so good at portraying a stable person, but just couldn’t resist getting in on the action. You are the definition of a loudmouthed douchebag.[/quote]

No - I believe you called yourself that first. I am just someone that is calling the spade a spade.

But nice try with the name calling. You have indeed found your niche.

Too bad you are wasting your days here instead of training. It must suck to know that a guy my age has a physique, a job and a wife that you never will never be able to attain.

You have my pity you poor little bastard.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
The blow hard coward was doing so good at portraying a stable person, but just couldn’t resist getting in on the action. You are the definition of a loudmouthed douchebag.

No - I believe you clled yourself that first. I am just someone that is calling the spade a spade.

But nice try with the name calling. You have indeed found your niche.

Too bad you are wasting your days here instead of training. It mus suck to know that a guy my age has a physique, a job and a wife that you never will never be able to attain.

You have my pity you poor little bastard. [/quote]

What on earth makes you think I covet your physique, or job, or wife?

I guess, it’s not hard to fathom when one considers your delusional state of mind.

I have a job that I love and which provides my a lifestyle that I can’t complain about, I don’t envy being in a married union, and your physique is surely not one, I would choose to have given a choice. You think way too much of yourself.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
The blow hard coward was doing so good at portraying a stable person, but just couldn’t resist getting in on the action. You are the definition of a loudmouthed douchebag.

No - I believe you called yourself that first. I am just someone that is calling the spade a spade.

But nice try with the name calling. You have indeed found your niche.

Too bad you are wasting your days here instead of training. It must suck to know that a guy my age has a physique, a job and a wife that you never will never be able to attain.

You have my pity you poor little bastard. [/quote]

Rainjack, while I didn’t agree with you I still valued your opinion until that comment. Resorting to ego bashing and the “im cooler than you, poopie head” mentality of a four year old is not a way to win an argument. Besides, many people value their non steroid injected physiques above yours.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You continue to make assertions. Simply because we are an oil consuming society you cast these aspersions. Why don’t you try to tie some hard facts to the accusations.

When you claim that “it’s about Oil” you need to support that claim with some proof. I know it looks clear to you, that5’s obvious. But…it’s not clear to the rest of us who are not anti Bush. I would defend Clinton the same way if he was President.

Again, anyone can say anything about any situation. You have done no more than offer certain speculation. You can believe that all you want. However, that does not make it true!

That is simply your perception and no more![/quote]you sure do like calling me an american president hater for some reason… . hope it makes you feel better but Im not going to get angry about your pigheadedness. …

look at it this way what is more damaging to america and the world… . terrorism? or no oil? if you answer terrorism I will bail out of this pointless “head-into-wall” bashing conversation. …

[quote]JohnGalt wrote:
Rainjack, while I didn’t agree with you I still valued your opinion until that comment. Resorting to ego bashing and the “im cooler than you, poopie head” mentality of a four year old is not a way to win an argument. Besides, many people value their non steroid injected physiques above yours.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right. I am better than that. I shouldn’t have lowered myself. I guess no one is perfect.

Rainjack,

I’ll have to up my estimation of your counting skills, but the fact that you recognize those are two words, does very little to prove your point.

Would you like to PROVE that someone , in this thread, actually is an appeaser or an apologist, or are you just throwing these labels around because other people who know what they mean are using them?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Would you like to PROVE that someone , in this thread, actually is an appeaser or an apologist, or are you just throwing these labels around because other people who know what they mean are using them?[/quote]

It’s just like Bush said. If you are not against terrorism and everythng it stands for, then are no better than the terrorists themselves. That is a paraphrase, but you get the idea.

Now - you want me to point my finger and tattle? Sorry I 'm not taking you bait.

But if you are an appeaser/apologist, then you are as much a part of the problem as the terrorists.

I don’t need FACTS to support my opinion of those ABBers that would harbor terrorists, or sympathize with them.

I could give a shit if I’ve convinced you, or any other apologist/appeaser on here. So you can stop trying to force me into a corner. I’m not going.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Two words. Apologists and appeasers. Next question.

Rainjack,

I’ll have to up my estimation of your counting skills, but the fact that you recognize those are two words, does very little to prove your point.

Would you like to PROVE that someone , in this thread, actually is an appeaser or an apologist, or are you just throwing these labels around because other people who know what they mean are using them?[/quote]

That isn’t possible. Once they are taught to pick a lock they will do it over and over again. “ABBer, ABBer, ABBer”. It’s just because others are using them.