To mark and realest:
Please read my earlier post and respond directly. I asked direct questions and I want direct answers. Please do not digress further without answering these direct questions.
By the way, mark the difference between iraq and all the other countries is the fact that hussein has used the chemical weapons on iran and on his own people. That willingness to use these weapons make them much more dangerous. What is this garbage about his neighbors not perceiving the threat? Stop with that. Please open mouth, inhale, and allow oxygen to flow to your brain. Where are our bases for this war? Three countries are allowing basing and overflights. Kuwait=direct ground troop=public support for the war. Saudi Arabia=overflight rights. Turkey=overflight rights. The last two have apparently been very supportive, in private. It’s too bad the last two haven’t been more supportive publically. However, the region has always been very mistrustful of American and British intentions. Please look up British and French colonialism and you will see the roots of this mistrust.
einstein once said, peace should not be kept by force. Obviously, he’s wrong. God bless the US army.
When i said WMD i was reffering to the atomic bomb. the war had already been won, we just had to prove we had the balls to use them, thus the cold war.
i am well aware of the other forms of WMD, we had to go through pretty extensive training in dealing with them in the service. but the only thing that could possibly rival the destructive power of a nuke is biological warfare-on a much broader scale than any nation is capable or prepared to unleash.
Think in terms of the Plague, that is what i am refering to. An “inteligent” terrorist could do far more damage than any “war”.
Are you aware that the chem/bio suits and masks that the military uses are all but useless in real situations? they do not even completely block CS-
which is much larger molecularly than bio weapons?
This board is meant to provoke intelligent conversation, argument, and
debate. “Moron” is not an intelligent word. My posting is merely meant to spark a little “thought”. if personal attack is your only recourse-then please don’t post!
Getting pissed off is wonderful! it motivates us to get off our ass and do something. While i may not agree with the protesters, i respect the fact that they care strongly enough about the way the “peoples’ government” is run that they are willing to do SOMETHING about it. As a former soldier i do not like seeing the country devided in a time of war-or any other time for that matter. However you must take the good with the bad, the salt with the sweet, and the “moron” with the intelligent in the Democracy.
The Internet Is The Ultimate Democracy.
What NO GOVERNMENT CAN EVER REPRODUCE!
Pitt,
We did not win the war yet when we dropped the Atomic bomb. The war was far from over. No island / land of Japan was occupied yet. Sure they where defeated numerous times but the fight was no where near over. They where on the defensive but they still had capabilities. They had troops in China still. Japan as a whole was bombed but not occupied. They where continuing there massive Bio weapons program (consider the fact it was as big if not bigger than our Manhattan project, just amazing). Consider they where still in development of a long range bomber (designs based on B-17 or was it 27). The people as a whole was totally devoted to the word of the emperor. They would not surrender unless told by the emperor. They where prepared to fight if the allies invaded. Every man, woman, and child would fight to the bitter end as cannon fodder to allow their soldiers the chance to kill the allies. The children where learning to run underneath tanks with explosives to blow themselves and the tank up. Men in scuba gear where trained to swim up to the landing crafts and blow themselves and the landing crafts up. They had still thousands of Kamikaze (sp?) pilots left. The war was far far from over if the nuke was not used. Also if Russia did get involve in the war, then Japan more than likely would be split up into 2 control zones (one American, one Soviet).
Lets not even forget that we would use nerve gas on them. We plan to drop 60,000 tons of nerve gas in 5 days on Okinawa before we tried to invade there. Before someone gets upset with that notion. Just remember the Japanese where the masters of Bio weapons (US Bio weapons division is an off shoot of theirs after the war ). They launched high air balloons by the thousands in an attempt to hit major cities in the west coast. They did kill a father and son (which the US covered up so the public wouldn’t fear) with the black plague. They where planning to fly a long range bomber to drop bio bombs on us. They even came up an idea (and first to actually build) a sub that could open up and launch a singe dive bomber from the haul. They wanted to use that to attack the west coast also. Where they really succeed was when they pretended to retreat against the Chinese and laced the area with the plague and everything else under the sun. The result was in a few weeks over 500,000 Chinese where killed. They still suffer to this day from that one assault.
The war with the Japanese was far from over. It would have been a very bloody and messy war. Thats just half the reasons.
To Mark:
I’m posting this again and it is the reason why Iraq is being singled out.
We are at war with Iraq because they have violated numerous sanctions in a war that they lost 10 years ago. Because of that treaty they are not supposed to be producing wmd’s. They were also supposed to destroy their chemical and anthrax stockpiles, but they didn’t. They couldn’t come up with any proof or documentation of this. To me, that is enough of a reason to be over there. Are we supposed to just let Saddam keep on violating this treaty?
TO Pitt and Mark,
I am almost getting tired of taking apart your arguments…almost. I do not result to personal attacks, please reread all my posts and you will see this, you obviously did not know the definition of WMD and I called you on it. SO now you retreat behind your barrier of “personal attacks” to save face.
As to our use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki you may read Rock1356’s post. The only tidbit of information he left out was that by invading Japan we would have lost an estimated 1Million soldiers, yes 1million american lives. See you deal in half truths, you only present the “demonstration of American prowess” as our reason for using nuclear force. I am willing to admit that your side of the argument did factor into decision. However the if providing the USSR wirh evidence of military might was factored out of the equation the use of nuclear force would have still been the correct path to choose.
Now on to Mark. Where the discussion of third party candidates entered into the mix I will never know, but if you wish to debate every issue I will. Here it is, I agree that our Government abuses their powers, I agree they are corrupt. Do I feel Ralph Nadar or Al Gore would have been better choices well Gore would have been merely just a different evil and Nadar who knows. So why do we put our trust into leaders,( leaders who are thousands of times more informed then we all are ) well it is a simple symbiotic relationship. As we prosper they prosper, in general. If the economy is terribly, and we are under terrorist attack and unable to protect ourselves most likely the government officials will not be relected. Of course blind faith in men is dangerous, but no faith is deadly.
Do other countries have WMD, the anwser is yes. Have other countries used them to commit mass genocide recently, the anwser is no (Although there is evidence Milosavich used them and possibly even the Russians in Chechynia). Even if those other countries have used them would that prevent us from aiding the Kurds, and even the women in Iraq who are beating raped and deprived of even the shreads of a human existence in most cases??
Furthermore you are terribly wrong about their neighbors not worrying about or viewing Iraq as a threat. Kuwait, Iran, and turkey are all terrified of Iraq posseing chemical weapons. Not to mention Israel, as for Saudia Arabia they breed 15 of the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC, and Yemen has dealings with NOrth Korea so they may be slightly biased.
Scall144 said: “We are the only Superpower left standing, there is no need to demonstrate our prowess especially after we just defeated an Afghani nation that halted the USSR in its tracks for over ten years.”
We did not defeat Afghanistan. We overthrew the Taliban regime. The Afghan people were behind us. The ground war was even fought by Afghans (Northern Alliance).
The Soviets, on the other hand, attempted to occupy Afghanistan. They failed because the people resisted.
The different responses of the two wars lies in the objectives: One was a war of invasion; the other, liberation. We did not defeat the Afghani nation. We liberated it.
Mark,
Thank you for finally responding to my post. You obliquely stated that saddam is guilty of these crimes. Therefore, you have the answer to your moral dilema. There should be no doubts in your mind that our cause is just.
I never have understood when people change the subject. Let’s not sidestep the major issues. Stick to the topic. By saying that the U.S. government is guilty of so and so, doesn’t make this war any less valid. By asserting that north korea is also a threat, doesn’t make this war any less necessary. Don’t change the subject. Stick to the task at hand.
By the way, your waco argument is way out in left field. We killed those nutballs when they holed themselves up and killed our secret service agents. Did you happen to read that koresch was raping little girls in front of their mothers? Not to mention violating just about every other Federal and State law on the books. What the hell were we supposed to do? You have to enforce the law or it becomes invalid. If you are for anarchy and chaos just state that clearly. I’m for straight answers.
U.S.=good people: About percieved threats. Y’know it’s kinda funny how the U.S. had to bribe Turkey with $54 billion just to use their land. You’d think if they were so scarred of Iraq they would have been begging for this country to please come and save them from the big bad wolf. But of course that wasn’t the case. This also begs the question, why now? Why would Iraq’s neighbors be so afraid of him when his military is probably 50% of what it was 12 years ago. Yeah Kuwait has been letting us use their land since the first Gulf War. Hell, we’ve been bombing Iraq pretty much non-stop for 12 years. And what about Saudia Arabia? That counrty funds and harbors more terrorists than Hussein has ever thought of even in his best wet dream. Man, and I thought we were having a war to rid the world of terrorism. Yeah, right! By the way, what ever happened to that war on terrorism?
Y’know there is a broad divide among the governments who are for the war and the people who live under their “leadership”. Doesn’t that strike you as strange?
And what question of yours haven’t I answered?
to scall144: You can read the post I sent to US=good people. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on the percieved Iraqi threat.
To David H,
Yes the objectives of the two wars were different, but you also neglected to mention the Taliban were the ones fighting to keep the Soviets out.“So, we can see that most of the Taliban are the children - often quite literally - of the counterrevolutionary jihad against the Soviet Union and the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan.” YOu can contact me if you wish to verify this information. You also over emphassized the importance of the NOrtern Alliance in the liberation of Afghanistan.
To Mark,
Why do foreign governments oppose their own governments support of the US, here is a better question to ask yourself: why do those same people cheer when the planes flew into our buildings??? SInce you brought up public dissent from some in their own governments views on the war lets look at america. Bush’s approval rating 71%, in favor with war in Iraq 72% (polls as of 25th 2003, CNN/USA Today/ Gallup).
Here are some short retorts;If Iraq did not violate numerous UN sanctions maybe we would not be compelled to bomb their military instalations. Other countries now fear Iraq because of their possesion of chem. weapons and possible use of them.
To U.S.=good people: I just saw your last post. First your comments about Waco and “laws”. Yes we do have to enforce laws but some laws are unjust and shouldn’t be enforced. The moral imperative must come first. And whatever “laws” the Branch Davidians broke it surely did not justify the live cremation handed to them by our “brave” law enforcement officials. You also implied that the BD fired first and murdered Secret Service agents. Now either your lazy with the facts or you are purposely misleading to bolster your own frail arguement about the atttack. It was the other way around. You say that you’ve read the children were molested by Daid Koresch. I’ve also read that wasn’t true. Even so, did it justify the murdering of said children. Well, I guess they were just collateral damage.
Here is another fine example of your moral reasoning - It’s okay for the U.S. to do it but not Saddam. The fact that the U.S. has committed numerous atrocities does bear heavyweight on it’s descion to attack another country. How could it be otherwise?
Oh, pleasr come down off your hubris as I wasn’t sidestepping any of your questions. You ask simple questions to a problem that deserves a much broader querry and then become smug when I add in much needed qualifiers. Good lord!
Scall144, Afghans have resisted invaders for centuries. When the Soviets invaded, the entire nation resisted. It’s called a national uprising.
The Taliban was comprised of 40,000 fighters when the 9/11 attacks took place. Many were kids during the Soviet war, which began 24 years ago. This small & young group did not keep the Soviets out of Afghanistan, nor could it. The entire nation did.
I didn’t overemphasize the importance of the Northern Alliance in the liberation of Afghanistan. I said the ground war was fought by them.
Forwarded WITHOUT verification…
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the
Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
Powell answered by saying that, “Over the years, the United States has sent
many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom
beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return
is enough to bury those that did not return.”
Best of Luck
TO David H,
The Northern Alliance controlled an estimated 5% of Afghanistan at the onset of the conflict. The United States was unable to fully trust the Northern Alliance due to their history of breaking alligiances(read the history of the norther alliance). They did contribute effectively to the removal of the Taliban but you still over emphasized their importance.
To Mark,
The US handling of the branch davidians CULT in Waco was horrible. Any one who disagrees with that is incorrect, the loss of lives was unacceptable. Now the reports of the raping of young childern are accurate, these accounts are true. Your argument that you read an article that these abuses did not occur does not prove your point. I can send you to the flat earth societies web page and then you can tell me how columbus was wrong and never really proved the earth was round.
Scall, you are right to say that the Northern Alliance “controlled an estimated 5% of Afghanistan at the onset of the conflict.”
The United States did eventually trust them. We supplied them with military equipment, clothing, and food. Special Ops forces were sent to assist them.
With our powerful bombing campaign, the Northern Alliance was able to capture Kabul.
So, yes, they fought the ground war.
TO David H,
I am not arguing that the majority of the ground war was fought by the Northern Alliance, I am arguing that you over emphasize the importance of the Norther Alliance. Though you are correct that the two wars were different in nature, I was merely attempting to draw a parrallel.
mark,
Again, you’ve changed the subject. The subject is iraq. If you accept (and you said that you do) the things that saddam has done, then I can’t imagine having a more clear moral imperative and mandate to remove him. I fully support your right to make the statements you make. I categorically disagree with you on nearly every point. I am heartened to know that you are clearly in the minority. My fellow T-men by at least a 4 to 1 margin support our position in this war. I must say it seems that there is a segment of our population that knows that saddam is a threat to civilization, but is unwilling to do what it takes to remove him. Please do not say that sanctions or un inspections were working. They were not working in any conceivable way. The only thing that sanctions were doing was hurting ordinary iraqi’s. As I indicated, saddam was diverting the food for oil profits to his personal infrastructure. The tiny fraction of weapons that were destroyed cannot by construed as real disarmament by reasonable person. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT hussein’s GOVERNMENT DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR EITHER THE EXISTENCE OR THE DESTRUCTION OF AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS THAT HE ADMITTED TO IN 1998. I look forward to the swift resolution of this war. I also hope that you listen to the iraqi scientists, soldiers, and common people when they tell you what has been happening inside iraq. I hope you don’t travel down the road of, “Well, the United States Government must have brainwashed them in order to justify their attack.” Again, if you take that line, I support your right to say it.
waco, was extrememly disturbing. I have always been critical of how it was handled. However, I firmly believe that these people should not have been allowed to flaunt the laws. By the way, are you suggesting that raping of little girls doesn’t give law enforcement the moral imperative to punish the offenders? I can’t imagine a more despicable crime.
To United States=Good guys:
He most likely will never answer your question directly. The same people posting on this board keep asking the same questions. When you give them answers, they just ignore it and start talking about something else.
Scall, there isn’t a disagreement between us. There’s a miscommunication.
We both agree that “the majority of the ground war was fought by the Northern Alliance.” There’s nothing left to debate.
As I said, the ground war was fought by the Northern Alliance. Such a statement does not “over emphasize the importance of the Norther Alliance.”
I never suggested the Northern Alliance won the war for us, or that without them we would’ve lost. I said they fought the ground war. Not the war, the ground war.
This is a fact. You didn’t see American troops marching into Kabul when the Taliban fell, did you?
As a reminder, I mentioned the Northern Alliance to contrast our war with the Soviet war. We didn’t face widespread resistance. We had the goodwill of the Afghan people. And we even had some fighting for us.
If you still find my statement an exaggeration, fill me in on your interpretation. Let me know exactly how you take it, and what you understand it to mean. I’d rather communicate with you, not miscommunicate.