Sat Jun 12, 2004 1:58 am
He was still never a direct threat to the US....
Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:02 am
I don't believe we ever claimed that he could hit the U.S. directly. Only a select few countries have the long range capability. The problem is he could hit a number of targets that would have a domino effect in the region.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 3:32 am
This sure seems like a vindication of some of "W"'s reasons for going to war. I wonder how much air time this will get here in the U.S. Let alone overseas with our allies.
You can maintain that he was never a direct threat to us (I disagree but then I was there the first time around, I freely admit bias, and he sure as hell seemed like a threat then) But you must also admit the world is a helluva a lot better off without him.
I never really cared about wether or not he was a direct threat to us. I said before the war and stand by it now that he was a direct cause leading to 9/11.
Most of the terrorists were Saudi's. The reason Al Quada had so many Saudi recruits was because we maintained a US miilitary presence (at the request of the House of Saud) in one of the richest regions in Islamic holy sites of the entire world.
Why? (and this pisses me off)
BECAUSE DUE TO LIBERALS AND GREEDY MOTHER FUCKERS HERE AND ABROAD WE NEVER FINSIHED THE JOB!
I think I speak for many vets of the first Gulf War that nothing pisses us off more than knowing that our successors had to go over there to finish it and some of them lost their lifes doing it. That was totally unneccesary. And if we had shown the wherewithal to get the job done right the first time the world would be a very different place today. (and by we I mean all of us. US Canadian British France Germany Russia, Arabs nations.. etc. WE ALL BEAR ESPONSIBILITY!)
Due to economic and national ties (not just the US's there's plenty of people that use Saudi and Kuwaiti oil and they were perfectly fine with Americans doing it so they didn't have to.) we couldn't just leave. Now we can. In fact we are and have been.
And although I detest the loss of a single American (or allied) servicemans life I do see one important thing going on here. Notice how we are killing a lot of fanatical fundamentalists? and we are doing it over there where everyday civilians (those who the servicemen in question swore to die for) are not at risk. I think if you asked the guys over there the majority of them (British, American, whatever) are A-OK with that.
I know the media plays the hell out of any loss that occurs over there but I think the average person has a hard time making a connection here.
This isn't Viet Nam. No one was drafted. We all volunteered and we all took an oath. Men trained in violence and expected to go into violent situations know the risks.
Investment bankers sitting in the WTC never took that oath, probably couldn't conceive of those risks in their everyday lives, and never expected to face them. Hundreds of Firemen and Policemen face risks that can injure or kill them everyday but they shouldn't die doing their jobs trying to save others lives in a situation like what happened.
Thats what we who have served, are serving, or will serve are there for. and I think you would find that most of the former, serving, or future servicemen would agree with me.
I may sound all philosophical and pontificating but this strikes close to home for me. I know guys over there, My oldest brother in the Guards is going over there, I know two guys from my VFW club that are serving in that shithole Kosovo that no one seems to care about anymore. Its personal and I feel it.
I think this and the previous administration are both partially to blame for the fact that they came over here and fucked our shit up. I'll say this for George. He's not giving them the chance to do it again.
You can maintain that he was never a direct threat to us (I disagree but then I was there the first time around, I freely admit bias, and he sure as hell seemed like a threat then) But you must also admit the world is a helluva a lot better off without him.
I never really cared about wether or not he was a direct threat to us. I said before the war and stand by it now that he was a direct cause leading to 9/11.
Most of the terrorists were Saudi's. The reason Al Quada had so many Saudi recruits was because we maintained a US miilitary presence (at the request of the House of Saud) in one of the richest regions in Islamic holy sites of the entire world.
Why? (and this pisses me off)
BECAUSE DUE TO LIBERALS AND GREEDY MOTHER FUCKERS HERE AND ABROAD WE NEVER FINSIHED THE JOB!
I think I speak for many vets of the first Gulf War that nothing pisses us off more than knowing that our successors had to go over there to finish it and some of them lost their lifes doing it. That was totally unneccesary. And if we had shown the wherewithal to get the job done right the first time the world would be a very different place today. (and by we I mean all of us. US Canadian British France Germany Russia, Arabs nations.. etc. WE ALL BEAR ESPONSIBILITY!)
Due to economic and national ties (not just the US's there's plenty of people that use Saudi and Kuwaiti oil and they were perfectly fine with Americans doing it so they didn't have to.) we couldn't just leave. Now we can. In fact we are and have been.
And although I detest the loss of a single American (or allied) servicemans life I do see one important thing going on here. Notice how we are killing a lot of fanatical fundamentalists? and we are doing it over there where everyday civilians (those who the servicemen in question swore to die for) are not at risk. I think if you asked the guys over there the majority of them (British, American, whatever) are A-OK with that.
I know the media plays the hell out of any loss that occurs over there but I think the average person has a hard time making a connection here.
This isn't Viet Nam. No one was drafted. We all volunteered and we all took an oath. Men trained in violence and expected to go into violent situations know the risks.
Investment bankers sitting in the WTC never took that oath, probably couldn't conceive of those risks in their everyday lives, and never expected to face them. Hundreds of Firemen and Policemen face risks that can injure or kill them everyday but they shouldn't die doing their jobs trying to save others lives in a situation like what happened.
Thats what we who have served, are serving, or will serve are there for. and I think you would find that most of the former, serving, or future servicemen would agree with me.
I may sound all philosophical and pontificating but this strikes close to home for me. I know guys over there, My oldest brother in the Guards is going over there, I know two guys from my VFW club that are serving in that shithole Kosovo that no one seems to care about anymore. Its personal and I feel it.
I think this and the previous administration are both partially to blame for the fact that they came over here and fucked our shit up. I'll say this for George. He's not giving them the chance to do it again.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:12 am
Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I don't believe we ever claimed that he could hit the U.S. directly. Only a select few countries have the long range capability. The problem is he could hit a number of targets that would have a domino effect in the region.
Actually, our Presidents main reason for going in so fast was the threat Iraq posed to us.
Ingus, I do not not know what to tell you about your post. Very ranty, all over the place, and doesn't add up.
I know people over in Iraq, too. I do nto see how you knowing vets and soldiers gives you the right to speak for them.
Of who i know over there, some believe it is right, some say there is no reason(of those some had been die hard Bush supporters). I also know vets that are for the war, and vets that say it is stupid an pointless, especially as real threats like Afghanistan, which we are losing control of(only control the capital, where before the Iraq war we controlled about 3/4 of the country) and South Korea which has nukes and whose economy is based off of selling weapons to the highest bidder(what bigger threat is there?). I see more 50/50 than one way or the other.
I see you blaming 'liberals' for Saudi terrorists, as they occupied Islamic regions which angered them. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we kinda doing that now in Iraq?
As for this website, can anyone give me any information on it? I have never heard of it, and after flipping threw some pages, it is rather unprofessional and seems to be run by a group of guys in a garage. I have seen 1,000's of sites that look like this one, with messages about the earth really being flat, the moon landing faked, and that monkey's will rule the world after the martians attack us(stupid monkeys and their stupid deals with the martians). However, I have also seen very accurate and informative websites that look very amature.
I just find it really odd, that for years and years there were weapons inspectors in that country, even before the war broke out, requesting specific locations to investigate and were never given it. These inspectors say there was no evidence of a WMD program, yet the UN knew about it the whole time and never informed the inspectors of it, or where to search? The same UN that did nto want to go in because there was not enough evidence? I just find that really hard to believe.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:40 am
Originally posted by MMmmGood
He was still never a direct threat to the US....
that was never the problem, he was never a DIRECT threat, and we knew that. The dominoe effect and his ties and dealings with other enemy countries was the problem.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:56 am
Because we all know how truthful the domino effect has been...
Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:58 am
That and the oil... You guys seem to forget the hidden economic reasons for this war grealy outweigh the political...
Sat Jun 12, 2004 11:00 am
I feel sorry for you guys.
/"The briefing contained satellite photographs"
/"Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe"
/"at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month"
/"Destionations the Netherlands" ((notice the typing error))
/"You can also use it to breed anthrax"
/"In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12"
Everything is clear now.
Santa claus still exist.
/"The briefing contained satellite photographs"
/"Iraqi facilities were dismantled and sent both to Europe"
/"at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month"
/"Destionations the Netherlands" ((notice the typing error))
/"You can also use it to breed anthrax"
/"In the Dutch city of Rotterdam, an SA-2 surface-to-air missile, one of at least 12"
Everything is clear now.
Santa claus still exist.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:00 pm
Originally posted by deathBOB
That and the oil... You guys seem to forget the hidden economic reasons for this war grealy outweigh the political...
...where are the benefits? Has anyone seen oil and gas prices dropping? Are we shipping oil by the tons from Iraq for consumption in the US (without paying a premium for it of course) or for sale elsewhere? I really haven't seen any justification for this argument (caveat: maybe I'm reading the wrong rags or something).
Sat Jun 12, 2004 12:14 pm
My thoughts he just went in to clean up Daddy's mess, but whatever the reason or reasons I just have to go with the flow for my husband is in the army and has to do what he is instructed to do and well damn it as a devoted wife I have to follow that as well. I just do not have to like it.
So whatever is whatever!
So whatever is whatever!
Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:06 pm
He had missles of a range he wasn't allowed. Which could hit other people besides us and given anouther decade he would have had long range missles.Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I don't believe we ever claimed that he could hit the U.S. directly. Only a select few countries have the long range capability. The problem is he could hit a number of targets that would have a domino effect in the region.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 5:28 pm
Gasoline prices are high because we have a shortage of processing centers and refineries... I believe oil prices themselves are lower than they would be...
Besides Shwoff, it makes sense for the companies to keep prices high, they make more money because we are willing to pay out the nose for it...
Besides Shwoff, it makes sense for the companies to keep prices high, they make more money because we are willing to pay out the nose for it...
Sat Jun 12, 2004 9:54 pm
In case anyone thinks that article is bunk, here is the actual report:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
Why is going to war for oil such a bad thing? It is the fuel that runs the engine of our economy....the world's economy. Make oil scarce and watch our way of life vanish.
If we are so hell bent on "taking over" the oil fields, why didn't we do it in Gulf I? I wouldn't have cried foul if we did.
George Bush Sr. did not act unilaterally the first time around. GW saw the corruption and incompetence of the UN when it refused to enforce it's own resolutions. The U.S. is once again taking care of business for the rest of the world, not to mention the Iraqi's were buying off the countries (shipping illegal materials and weaponry, plus the phony "food for oil" program) that thumbed their noses at the U.S. That is the real reason they didn't want to go to war.
It's not a question of whether or not Iraqi has/had WMD, it's where are they now.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/quarterly_reports/s-2004-435.pdf
Why is going to war for oil such a bad thing? It is the fuel that runs the engine of our economy....the world's economy. Make oil scarce and watch our way of life vanish.
If we are so hell bent on "taking over" the oil fields, why didn't we do it in Gulf I? I wouldn't have cried foul if we did.
George Bush Sr. did not act unilaterally the first time around. GW saw the corruption and incompetence of the UN when it refused to enforce it's own resolutions. The U.S. is once again taking care of business for the rest of the world, not to mention the Iraqi's were buying off the countries (shipping illegal materials and weaponry, plus the phony "food for oil" program) that thumbed their noses at the U.S. That is the real reason they didn't want to go to war.
It's not a question of whether or not Iraqi has/had WMD, it's where are they now.
Sat Jun 12, 2004 10:16 pm
Originally posted by deathBOB
Gasoline prices are high because we have a shortage of processing centers and refineries...
o my son.....