Keep an eye on this situation!

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

This whole thread is political.. no way to avoid that and I didn't know it was against the rules. Most comments on this thread are politcal.
In regards to Iraq being an extension of Afgahnistan.. uh.. dude. There were no terrorists threatening the US from there, there was no money going from the Iraq government (Saddam) to Al Quaida. There was NO connection whatsoever, in fact, they were mortal enemies. Now however, there IS a connection because all the terrorists got what they wanted. Americans in easy reach.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

Every administration, Dem and Repub has been skirting the issue of NK since they signed the cease fire. This has been going on since the late 40s, early 50s. The Soviets sold them nuclear reactors in the 70s, so there is nothing new under the sun. The only thing that has really changed is the South Koreans (especially the younger generation) now hate us and would like us to leave. I say we should leave and let the North take the South (that battle should last about a day). SK is an economic competitor to us, why should we fight their battles? BTW, in case anyone was wondering, the NK soldier are tough with a capital 'T'. They are pretty good and brainwashed too, years of isolation, their whole life spent learning about their 'glorious revolution' and how the whole World (the US in particular) is jealous of them and wants to take it away from them. They would fight, and fight hard. NK has nukes, and a pretty impressive arsenal of missiles. It would not be pretty. Best thing we could do is trick China into fighting NK

[Conscious* Profile]

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
This whole thread is political.. no way to avoid that and I didn't know it was against the rules. Most comments on this thread are politcal.
In regards to Iraq being an extension of Afgahnistan.. uh.. dude. There were no terrorists threatening the US from there, there was no money going from the Iraq government (Saddam) to Al Quaida. There was NO connection whatsoever, in fact, they were mortal enemies. Now however, there IS a connection because all the terrorists got what they wanted. Americans in easy reach.

No connection what so ever...so none of the suicide bombers are Al-Queda supporters? Please...even so Sadaam needed to be removed, i would still upport US action in Iraq if i knew Sadaam had no weapons or no connection to Al-Queda anyway. NK needs to have a revolution, but i think it will be too bloody, and they know this from the start. Their leader will be assasinated in a gfew years i think. He makes the kids in school take a class just about his life, which most of it is made up.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

I didn't mind seeing Saddam taken out, but I'm not big on the whole nation building that's going on. What ever happened to bombing the shit out of someone and then just walking away? Ever since WWII everyone is in the bomb 'em, rebuild 'em mode. If we had let Iraq fall into a civil war, it would probably be over by now. Iraq will eventually become a theocracy like Iran. Either a few years from now, or ten years from now. The Kurds will be their own little breakaway democracy.

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

You, my friend, need to start acquiring new news sources. I might suggest some which are not biased towards the political right because you don't sound like you have the FACTS straight. Forget about propaganda pumped out by the current administration. The fact that the suicide bombers poured into Iraq after the US destabalized the country is (I thought) a well known and publicized thing. People from other countries came pouring into Iraq with the intent of volunteering to fight the US. I'm not counting out pissed off Iraqis here either though as I'm sure there are plenty of those. After an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths ("collateral damage"), I'm quite sure there are some pissed off Iraqis dying (literally) to get revenge. Let me stress that I don't think Saddam was a saint by ANY stretch of the imagination. He was a brutal dictator who did what he wanted to his people, when he wanted too. We, the US, put him in power through the machinations of the CIA back when he was a common thug - a bully if you will. That is exactly the type of person he was, is and always will be. That does NOT give the president the right to go into Iraq under known false pretenses to remove him. Regardless of whether you accept it or not, there are facts and saying you would still support him is not dealing with whether or not Bush LIED to get us there in the first place. IMPEACH!
As for NK, yes, they are quite a dangerous bunch. Did you know they have snatched souldiers over to their side and that the US has a protocol in place that requires anyone talking to them through the mutually built parlay building to be held by no less than 2 people to avoid them being literally snatched to the NK side?
NK is guilty of most of the charges leveled at Iraq and for that matter, so are many other countries in this world. Now that we've started policing the world, I look forward to our next toppling of a dictator. Hmmm.. oh wait.. we'll have to reduce that list to only include immensely wealthy oil-producing countries and I guess NK isn't on that list so we'll have to wait for another president to take that dangerous situation seriously.

[Major SONAR Profile]

under known false pretenses to remove him

Now we know why political discussions are not allowed here... too much animosity and general misinformation all around.

The following statement does not endorse our nations actions toward Iraq.

Perhaps you fail to recall all the resolutions the UN had for Iraq. Let me provide a quick link.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

In particular the infamous proposition 1441. I believe this to be the basis of our invasion into Iraq. How much of this information is based on fact, I do not know.
Perhaps we should stop trying to police the world, stop giving aid to dictators (and allies) and just become an isolated, self supporting country... (I know it's been tried before and failed).

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

Again, to make myself clear. I don't think Saddam was a nice guy. I agree that we shouldn't have put him in power in the first place. As far as resolutions go, the information is clearly, to anyone who follows the news, FALSE. Weapons of mass destruction charges .. false. In fact, all of those charges, and more, could be applied directly to many many other countries including... North Korea! Let the invasions begin!

[flapjack]

Originally posted by PraiseA||ah
Again, to make myself clear. I don't think Saddam was a nice guy. I don't disagree that we shouldn't have put him in power in the first place. As far as resolutions go, the information was as is clear to anyone who follows the news, FALSE. Weapons of mass destruction charges .. false. In fact, all of those charges, and more, could be applied directly to many many other countries including... North Korea! Let the invasions begin!

http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html#Hypocrats

[=ender= Profile]

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
I didn't mind seeing Saddam taken out, but I'm not big on the whole nation building that's going on. What ever happened to bombing the shit out of someone and then just walking away? Ever since WWII everyone is in the bomb 'em, rebuild 'em mode.

The US spent years and tons of cash to help rebuild Japan and Korea after each of those wars. Matter of fact, even though the US lost the fight in Vietnam, we spent tons of cash helping to rebuild there too, just not in the same occupational way (obviously) as we did in Japan and Korea. Our bases in those two Asian nations are the very same bases leftover from the occupation and rebuilding after their respective wars. And we're still there. Though our interests in Japan are mainly two-fold: (1) they are an ally of ours (with a small "defense force" and army... people have said, "let them defend themselves... we don't need bases in Japan anymore" except they have such a small defense because of our post-WWII occupation and terms of surrender) (another note: people have said similar things about our presence in Korea, but there are some obvious differences in this case) and (2) it keeps the US close to Korea (NK and Japan do NOT get along... they threw a missile OVER Japan and into the ocean just to prove a point that they can strike if they wanted to).

Not to assist in nation building after fighting a war there? We've always helped out fiscally or physically in every major conflict the US has been a part of.

[PraiseA||ah Profile]

[quote]Originally posted by flapjack
[B]http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html#Hypocrats

The times changed. In those years Saddam DID have WMD's.. a HUGE difference from a few years later when Bush lied about them still having them. The UN agreement worked in that the weapons inspectors did their jobs! They said that they did not support a war based upon the WMD 'evidence' presented to the UN by Powell. They said that they thought, in their very professional opinion that he had none left.
If you're going to dig up the past, please remember to put it into context. At that time Clinton did indeed bomb Saddam as a means to an end which apparently worked! As we find out years later. The tactic was used to force Saddam to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq after he had thrown them out. That was the focus of that UN agreement, to force Saddam to disarm. Mission accomplished.
In the lead up to the current war, those quotes were based upon the 'evidence' presented by the current administration. At the time, even with doubts, many of those people thought it better to err on the side of going to war. Now however, you will find that they have different opinions on the matter in light of the revelations that the 'evidence' was false, misleading, and just plain bullshit.

You know.. I am going to stop posting on this thread because I really don't want to get banned for violating the rules. I think you can email me.. i suggest you do so if you want to continue this off-line.

[cavalierlwt Profile]

Exactly what I said, after WWII we are stuck in bomb 'em, rebuild 'em mode. I've entered a cynical phase of life, my opinion now is: Helping people is stupid. Getting involved in anything outside of our borders is a waste. Helping SK right now is stupid. We should withdraw the vast majority of our overseas troops, and let other figure out their destiny without us. If NK takes SK, so be it. If a dictator abuses his people, so be it, not my problem. If someone attacks us, then we should hit back. Somalia, Kosovo, ect, all were pointless. If the serbs want to kill the croats, screw 'em. If the Somalian like fighting amongst themselves, let 'em. Like I say, let the world figure itself out without our intervention.

[Rand0m Profile]

Originally posted by cavalierlwt
Exactly what I said, after WWII we are stuck in bomb 'em, rebuild 'em mode. I've entered a cynical phase of life, my opinion now is: Helping people is stupid. Getting involved in anything outside of our borders is a waste. Helping SK right now is stupid. We should withdraw the vast majority of our overseas troops, and let other figure out their destiny without us. If NK takes SK, so be it. If a dictator abuses his people, so be it, not my problem. If someone attacks us, then we should hit back. Somalia, Kosovo, ect, all were pointless. If the serbs want to kill the croats, screw 'em. If the Somalian like fighting amongst themselves, let 'em. Like I say, let the world figure itself out without our intervention.

Exactly. Amen to that brotha! If it doesn't directly affect me or the people I love then I have the, whatever fuck it attitude.

[gowhitesox99 Profile]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion... but this thread needs a......

[LordShard]

This land is my land.
This land aint your land.
I've got a shotgun.
And you aint got one.
If you don't get lost.
I'll blow your head off.
this land is provate property.

[CodeRed68 Profile]

The balance of the world governments is a very delicate one. While I support the idea of keeping to ourselves and saying fu to the rest of the world, (in true Libertarian speak) it is just not that simple, from what i have understood, in my own small capacity. The US and other economic powers have real interest in the security of the third world. Be it for resources, humanitarian, or for any reason they determine to be in the interest of economic or personal security. At times, this may mean actually supporting dictatorship rule in some areas, because that is what keeps the general populous at peace and not in chaotic civil war that would have grave effects on the world economic stability as a whole. It may mean taking a dictator out at times too. It may mean keeping the status quo. And a lot of this is going on now and will continue and we may never know about 1/8 of the covert stuff that happens. There are political minds greater than ours that do these things for reasons above (or below) the surface.
That being said, I am not going to sit and play armchair president like i know what is best when in actuality, I probably know (like 99.999% of us) about .00001% of what really is going on regarding the economic stability of the world. I admit I trust our government has a reason to do what they think is best. That is thier job.