| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Highlander |
Posted - February 10 2004 : 05:45:22 AM
Did President Bush go to war without solid evidence of a threat? As questions about the integrity of the case for attacking Iraq escalate,so do questions about Bush's own credibility.I can't see how Bush was able to sell the people a false bill of goods about this looming threat that Sadaam Hussein supposedly represented. After all,we're talking about a country whose military we decimated in the first Gulf War. They were also under U.N.sanctions for a dozen or so years as well.It came out in one of my hearings with the VA that Ronnie Raygun gave Saddam much of his WMDs that were supplied by American companies.There was certainly no outcry from the U.S. when Saddam used them on the Kurds in the late 1980's. It seems as if GWs reasons for going to war change daily since no WMDs have been found.The least of which is his own ego.Would any of you guys send one of your loved ones to fight in this war under such shakey circumstances? |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| 42ndOfficer |
Posted - November 01 2004 : 10:32:20 PM
I agree.The gov't could if they wanted to,but the business lobby demands cheap labor so they look the other way.I saw a special on CNN recently where a community in Virginia has been overrun by illegals.Concerned citizens were seen on camera calling the local INS office and were told that they're not going to respond because they're too busy out looking for terrorists. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 01 2004 : 3:36:47 PM
quote:
lanceman asks: If Al qaeda is the threat that they are supposed to be, why aren't there thousands of troops/border patrol agents on the US/Mexican border?
You know, I've been asking that question for over twenty years. Even though I support President Bush and his foreign policy, I do find fault with some of his domestic agenda. Illegal immigration is a big one, that bothers me very much. I would be all in favor of three or four infantry divisions, and maybe an armored cav division for good measure, to be permenantly assigned on the southern border. Add to that several thousand miles of razor-wire, motion senors, claymore mines, real check-points and appropriate sea/air assets on-call; and we would finally have a southern border as secure as President Fox's own southern border of Mexico.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| lanceman |
Posted - October 31 2004 : 7:14:24 PM
If Al qaeda is the threat that they are supposed to be, why aren't there thousands of troops/border patrol agents on the US/Mexican border? |
| susquesus |
Posted - October 26 2004 : 1:33:39 PM
BBC News World Edition reports:
US plays down loss of explosives
The US is playing down the significance of a UN letter saying almost 350 metric tons of high explosives went missing from an Iraqi base after the war.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said there was no risk of nuclear proliferation because of the theft.
It has become a big election issue after President George Bush was accused of incompetence by his Democrat rival.
Meanwhile, some US media reports have queried if the theft happened before US troops arrived at the base at al-Qaqaa.
NBC television reported that one of its correspondents was embedded with the 101st Airborne Division which temporarily took control of the base on 10 April 2003 but did not find any of the explosives.
However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.
Weapons destroyed
Arms experts say the missing explosives - monitored by the UN nuclear watchdog until the March 2003 invasion - could potentially be used to make a detonator for a nuclear bomb or other explosive device.
MISSING EXPLOSIVES
195 metric tons of HMX
141 metric tons of RDX
5.8 metric tons of PETN
US presidential challenger John Kerry condemned the incident as a prime example of what he said was President George W Bush's mishandling of the war in Iraq.
"This is... one of the greatest blunders of this administration - and the incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk and this country at greater risk," Mr Kerry said.
Administration officials, quoted anonymously by US media, criticised the UN watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - for leaking the news at such a sensitive time, a week before the US election.
The Vienna-based IAEA said it had been informed on 10 October by the Iraq interim government that the explosives were missing.
Mr McClellan pointed journalists to the 243,000 munitions destroyed in Iraq since the invasion, and another 163,000 earmarked for destruction.
"The first priority, from our standpoint, was to make sure that this wasn't a nuclear proliferation risk, which it is not," he said.
"These are conventional high explosives... and the president wants to make sure that we get to the bottom of this."
Improvised devices
The IAEA last inspected the munitions at al-Qaqaa in January 2003, at which point the HMX explosives had been sealed and tagged.
The agency has not been allowed back into Iraq since the invasion.
Analysts say the theft raises the possibility that some explosives could have found their way into improvised devices used against US-led forces in Iraq, or could do so in the future.
But US officials say the car and roadside bombings that have claimed thousands of lives in the Iraq insurgency have mostly used artillery shells or dynamite.
The explosives lost at Qaqaa consist mainly of 195 tons of HMX (high melting explosives) and 141 tons of RDX (cyclonite) - both key components in plastic explosives.
- article found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3955007.stm
|
| Oneida |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 6:39:49 PM
Israeli intelligence, which is the best in the world, told the
administration before the war began that Iraq had biological weapons and were very close to possessing nuclear capabilities.
The problem, they told the U.S., was it would be unlikely that many would be found in Iraq, since the Iraqi's had moved their
supply outside of the country, most likely Syria.
I personally saw on NBC News with Tom Brokaw back in the summer, a report that U.S. officials had found reams and reams of paper confirming Iraq's WMD capabilities. Brokaw reported that it would take possibly 6 months to a year to sort through
the volume of paper.
I believe there is more to come on the subject of WMD. |
| securemann |
Posted - March 04 2004 : 4:57:10 PM
With all this talk about brutal regimes and evil empires that slaughter people,there's one in mind and we do nothing.For twenty years there has been an oppressive government which slaughtered 2 million people and forced 4 million to flee.They have the Chinese being used as security personnel to guard the oil fields.That's one reason we don't dare get involved,the Chinese can give us a good fight.The brutality inflicted on the Christian population in southern Sudan is unbelievable.It is the Islamic North that is selling young Christian girls into slavery and killing the rest.Two million people killed and as far as I know,no action by the U.S. Northern Sudan supports terroism and has connections with folks that we are after.But the slaughter goes on and was going on while we were buddies with the butcher of Baghdad.Big butchering going on in the Sudan and we do nothing. |
| securemann |
Posted - March 03 2004 : 8:58:53 PM
Well said Christina and Sarge. We might not agree on everything but we are all friends and show mutual respect. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - March 03 2004 : 8:18:11 PM
Well said, Christina!!! You and I may disagree on some subjects (notice I said 'some' and not 'all'), but the one thing we are in total agreement is the right to debate them. Huzaahhh!!!!
Mr. Jumonville, even though 'Highlander' and I disagree on this (and some other topics), he is still a man I count as among my friends (along with a good part of this board). An assault on him (or any member of this board), is one upon me. You are forwarned, sir...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Christina |
Posted - March 03 2004 : 3:49:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jumonville
[
I thought this was a historical board - let's leave the politics at home. Highlander is a blatant Democratic political hack, and not a very good one at that.
Dear Jumonville,
Yes, the Mohican board does have sections dedicated to mostly history. However, the Lion's Den/International Debate section, if you will read the guidelines, was set up as a place specifically where people here could discuss politics and other related issues OUTSIDE of the historical sections. Also, regardless of political opinions, which are many and varied, we try very hard not to resort to name calling and insults, also stated in the guidelines. If you don't agree with someone's opinions, so be it. But insulting them is unnecessary.
Christina |
| Jumonville |
Posted - March 02 2004 : 9:40:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Highlander
And finally,I believe that former U.N.inspector Scott Ritter will go down in history as an American hero such as Gen.Billy Mitchell for warning this country not to go to war.His reward was to be demonized  and almost called a traitor by this administration.History will vindicate him,and we'll all be better off after John Kerry is elected president.
I thought this was a historical board - let's leave the politics at home. Highlander is a blatant Democratic political hack, and not a very good one at that. |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 15 2004 : 08:24:12 AM
quote:
Vietnam and Pearl Harbor are apples & oranges.The Japs attacked us.
Maybe yes, maybe no, I do not believe that we have finished collecting and examining all of the evidence available in Iraq. What I was refering to was the validity of the testimony from the former NVA general.
quote:
Actually my prof was in R.O.T.C and supported the war and expected to go.
Your professor may very well have been in ROTC, but he is not on the ground over there. As I've said before; I trust the word of the men and women actually doing the job in Iraq, over that of the media and academia types back here 'in the world', saying whatever they think "feels right" regardless of the evidence.
quote:
And finally,I believe that former U.N.inspector Scott Ritter will go down in history as an American hero
Would that be the pre-1996 Scott Ritter who was warning of the Iraqis developing WMD's, or the post-1996 Scott Ritter who did a complete turn-around and denied any such thing (Probably after 'the check' cleared the bank)?
quote:
History will vindicate him,and we'll all be better off after John Kerry is elected president.
The only way he could be vindicated would be to have another Clintonesque President, the current guy at 1600 Pennsylvania knows a con-man when he sees one.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Highlander |
Posted - February 15 2004 : 02:24:20 AM
And finally,I believe that former U.N.inspector Scott Ritter will go down in history as an American hero such as Gen.Billy Mitchell for warning this country not to go to war.His reward was to be demonized and almost called a traitor by this administration.History will vindicate him,and we'll all be better off after John Kerry is elected president. |
| Highlander |
Posted - February 15 2004 : 02:12:55 AM
[quote]Originally posted by SgtMunro
P.S.- I also do not trust government without reservation, you know that, but I do trust what our people over there are saying. So far their biggest complaint are of the "Talking Head" types in the mainstream media singing songs of 'gloom & doom'. That is straight from the people who have their boots on the ground; not some professor who has never worn a set of fatigues, humped a rucksack on a 15 mile march, handled an M-16A2, or knew the fear of combat firsthand rather than only dealing in theory.
Actually my prof was in R.O.T.C and supported the war and expected to go.The war then ended,and he was released from the program.He may not have handled an M-16A2(because it hadn't been invented then )but he was familiar with the M-1 Garand.
Vietnam and Pearl Harbor are apples & oranges.The Japs attacked us.The Vietnamese did not(except for the time when they sent the hit team after Ross Perot).We were in their country,propping up a series of corrupt puppet governments in the south.The North Vietnamese were told that they were fighting for the reunification of their country(after battling invaders for over 4,000 years).The south didn't know what they were fighting for,and probably wouldn't have even if they did.They weren't called Marvin the ARVN for nothing.We had Ho Chi Minh in our hands after WWII(he helped the OSS against Japanese occupation).We let him slip away in order to support the French.Even then,the U.S.did not learn from their mistakes.Can't blame him for going to the communists,since they were the only ones who were willing to help him.
The U.S.S Maddox was sent into the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 the day after South Vietnamese commandos raided the islands that were in the area.The Maddox was bait as far as I'm concerned.Compare that to the U.S.S Liberty incident that I've posted over previously.The U.S. didn't go to war over that.LBJ even prevented the Sixth Fleet from going to her rescue.
Back to Iraq however.There was a chance to overthrow Sadaam after Desert Storm when George Bush Senior encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to rebel,then abandoned them to their doom. They join a long list of other people throughout history whom the U.S.has sold out such as The Cuban exiles in The Bay of Pigs,H'mong tribesmen in Laos and who could forget our P.O.W.s who were left behind in Vietnam?Looks like the only thing worse than being an enemy of the U.S. is being an ally.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 09:07:31 AM
P.S.- I also do not trust government without reservation, you know that, but I do trust what our people over there are saying. So far their biggest complaint are of the "Talking Head" types in the mainstream media singing songs of 'gloom & doom'. That is straight from the people who have their boots on the ground; not some professor who has never worn a set of fatigues, humped a rucksack on a 15 mile march, handled an M-16A2, or knew the fear of combat firsthand rather than only dealing in theory.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 08:22:43 AM
quote:
So?If you were to go into Iran,Syria and Lebanon,you would probably find the same thing.
Don't be suprised to find one of the above next in the crosshairs. Remember what the quote from Lincoln, "One war at a time..."
quote:
Your point is? Terrorism was only listed as an after thought when the WMD issue became shakey.
My point has been made numerous times in this thread, and if you remember the President's speech in October of 2001 he said that the 'Decades of the Dictators are over'. Looks like to me that the 'Terrorism' mission never did get moved to the back burner.
quote:
In class the other night I learned that during a meeting between U.S.& Vietnamese in the 1990's over trade,MIA etc.the U.S.diplomat asked a Vietnamese General "So what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin?"
"Nothing" he replied.
And if you ask alot of Japanese they would say that proper notification was sent, right before the first bomb hit at Pearl Harbor in 1941. What did you think he'd say, he was the enemy. Come on, Captain, I would expect a regular college student to buy that bunk, but you're a vet. You most certainly are not some 18-19 year old kid with a head full of mush; looking for some socialist professor, who couldn't find honest work in the real world, to shape your opinions. I know you better than that.
quote:
You forget,that the chemicals that Sadaam had in the 1980's were supplied by none other than the U.S.Apparently,his scientists are also saying that they told him what he wanted to hear or else.
Yes, we did supply the chemicals, but it was his people that weaponized them. I have been doing a little research myself, and found that the compounds sold to him could have been used for polymers, solvents or any number of other industrial applications. We sell the same chemicals to a good part of the industrialized world, it was still his folks that made them into weapons and his troops which deployed said weapons.
quote:
The slogan that this administration keeps repeating that"Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror" is a crock!
On this we shall continue to disagree.
quote:
It reminds me of another slogan from the not too distant past,that being "If we do not stop communism in S.E.Asia,we'll have to fight them in San Diego."
We already did, and we lost, look at places like U.C. Berkley.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Highlander |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 05:14:06 AM
Well, being that training camps were found by our troops, not of the standard military variety (aircraft fuselages, buildings with rooms done up like elementary school classrooms, and other layouts similar to the interior of malls), I don't think they were for use by the Republican Guard.
So?If you were to go into Iran,Syria and Lebanon,you would probably find the same thing. Your point is? Terrorism was only listed as an after thought when the WMD issue became shakey.
So, are you saying that a U.S. warship was not fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin? As for the WMD's, I stand behind my earlier posts, in.re. we acted under information we believed to be true. Also we are not done searching yet, we knew he had them in the past because he used them in the Iran-Iraq War, and on his own people afterwards. We also have some of his bio-chem scientist in custody, who have stated that while his nuke program was nowhere near deployment capable, his bioweaps program was very much 'on-line'.
In class the other night I learned that during a meeting between U.S.& Vietnamese in the 1990's over trade,MIA etc.the U.S.diplomat asked a Vietnamese General "So what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin?"
"Nothing" he replied.You can draw your own conclusions.I don't know about you,but I need more nowadays than the word of somebody who works for the government.You forget,that the chemicals that Sadaam had in the 1980's were supplied by none other than the U.S.Apparently,his scientists are also saying that they told him what he wanted to hear or else.So Sadaam thought he had WMDs but in reality he did not.
The slogan that this administration keeps repeating that"Iraq is the frontline in the war on terror" is a crock!It reminds me of another slogan from the not too distant past,that being "If we do not stop communism in S.E.Asia,we'll have to fight them in San Diego."
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 03:41:01 AM
quote:
There is still not the degree of collaboration between the two that we are being told of by this administration. If they were willing to put aside their philosophical differences,it would make sense to attack Western Civilization,but there just isn't enough evidence to support this.
Well, being that training camps were found by our troops, not of the standard military variety (aircraft fuselages, buildings with rooms done up like elementary school classrooms, and other layouts similar to the interior of malls), I don't think they were for use by the Republican Guard.
quote:
I see the correlations between The Vietnam War and this current conflict.Both were started under false pretenses(Gulf of Tonkin Incident & WMDs).
So, are you saying that a U.S. warship was not fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin? As for the WMD's, I stand behind my earlier posts, in.re. we acted under information we believed to be true. Also we are not done searching yet, we knew he had them in the past because he used them in the Iran-Iraq War, and on his own people afterwards. We also have some of his bio-chem scientist in custody, who have stated that while his nuke program was nowhere near deployment capable, his bioweaps program was very much 'on-line'.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Highlander |
Posted - February 14 2004 : 01:18:50 AM
There is still not the degree of collaboration between the two that we are being told of by this administration.If they were willing to put aside their philosophical differences,it would make sense to attack Western Civilization,but there just isn't enough evidence to support this.
I see the correlations between The Vietnam War and this current conflict.Both were started under false pretenses(Gulf of Tonkin Incident & WMDs).Whatever happened to The War Powers Act of 1973? |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 13 2004 : 6:51:47 PM
quote:
Just a word about Saddam and Osama, from the religious point of view (NOT stepping into the rest of the debate...)
Saddam and Osama were/are about as far apart from each other when it comes to religion and outlook as possible, so it's highly unlikely they would ever have worked together.
Christina, you are right about how opposite they are in religous matters, Osama being a Wahabbist nut case and Saddam being a secular serial killer. If the two of them were left in a room alone, you would come back fifteen minutes later to find one or both dead. However, they have a common enemy, Western Civilization.
Osama and his Al-Qaeda boys are more than willing to take money from the Saudi Royal Family (Some of the least fundalmentalist 'Hedonists', that Islam has ever seen), and don't think for a minute that he wouldn't turn on them if they lost their usefulness. The Saudi Royal Family fund 90% of the madrosses religious schools, which turn out little terrorists with the efficency of a Detroit UAW assembly line, they do this to keep the radical clerics in their corner and stabilize their power. the radical clerics, in return for the monetary support, then turn a blind eye to the 'less than islamic' behavior of the members of the royal family.
Saddam, who has no use for anything dealing with Wahabbist Islam (His 'Love Shack' palaces, should tell you that), looks at men like Bin Laden in the same manner he looks at an AK-47/74 Rifle or Mig-29 Fulcrim Fighter Jet, that being he is a useful weapon system and nothing more. More importantly he was banking on the fact that people would say, "Nah, Saddam would never work with Osama, they are philisophical enemies." In a nutshell, he could have easily forked over money and training space to the radical islamic 'self-propelled sandbags', so that they could do the dirty work and none or very little of it could be traced back to him. I do believe as more of his documents and high-ranking personel get a good 'going over', we will find more and more evidence showing the connection.
So, I wouldn't bet any of my retirement funds on the therory of 'religion uber alis', there are just too many varibles, and a large prize at stake, the Free World.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Christina |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 7:51:32 PM
Just a word about Saddam and Osama, from the religious point of view (NOT stepping into the rest of the debate...)
Saddam and Osama were/are about as far apart from each other when it comes to religion and outlook as possible, so it's highly unlikely they would ever have worked together. Saddam for most of his life as a dictator has been a purely secular leader, running a Baath party that operated on a weird mix of totalitarianism and socialism -- not Islam. Only when it looked like he was slipping did Saddam in recent years begin to "embrace" Islam. To Bin Laden's radical fundamentalist Muslim world view, this makes Hussein and his minions the worst kind of Muslims.
Saddam, meanwhile, has no stomach for Jihadists. In fact, he feared radical Islam as an element that possibly could have contributed to his downfall (in fact, he feared all observant Muslims...look what he did to the very religious Shiites after the '91 war...)
It's possible that some funds, information, and etc. have been funnelled back and forth between Saddam minions and Al Quaeda over the years -- the Middle East is a hive of cross-pollinating interests, beliefs, and etc. -- but this very different attitude about Islam and its role in the world, believe me, precludes any serious alliance ever between Al Quaeda and Saddam. Saddam wanted power for Saddam's sake, Al Quaeda at its heart wants a Middle East (and whatever else they can get) under the rule of fundamentalist Islam.
Here's a paragraph from a good New York Times article that explains some of this (and yes, folks, the NY Times does occasionally have some good stuff in it.)
James Resin of the NY Times writes:
Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured ... The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials. It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein. Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists ...
Again, I'm coming at this from the religous study point of view.
Anyway --
Christina |
| Theresa |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 6:13:44 PM
Highlander,
I'll pass your opinions on to my soldier. |
| Highlander |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 5:42:55 PM
I like the idea of them being drawn over to Iraq instead, where the Americans they face are the highly trained, equipt and motivated soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of our armed forces. If you remember from our mutual friend over there, we are killing them by the bushel, and they are starting to feel the pinch.
There is nothing that restricts them to Iraq.It is a nice thought,but you've bought the party line too apparently.It is only a matter of time before they get here.Nice to hear that we're killing them in droves,however its not like they invaded New Jersey(which wouldn't be a bad idea by the way) Ever hear of a blood fued?The Ugly Americanism that was created will only create more people who will want a little payback.The same happened in Vietnam,and they only wanted us out of their country.You may then have to deal with them wether you want to or not.
|
| Highlander |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 5:27:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
What Hussein did here was comparable to the Nazis. Oil is not the root of the war with Iraq we have plenty and the prices were fairly stable. It does not matter that we have found no evidence of WMD, but he was trying to pursue them and if he would use Nerve and mustard agents on his own people, why in the world would he hesitate to use them against anyone else to include the US. In the end, it will all be justified, but Americans want undeniable hard evidence. How many killers are convicted in the US on circumstantial evidence? A lot!!! Maybe if our court systems had been better the guy that killed the 11 YO would have been in Jail and she would be alive, but the judge had asked for more documentation. If Clinton had not sold our country for campaign contributions, CHina would not now have a rocket that can reach the US. Had the liberal administration not botched the Ye Lee or whatever his name is investigation, then he as well would be in jail. Remember 16 Jet Fighters have been found buried in the sand and if it took 5 months to find those then how long would it take you to find an artillery shell. We still have not lost as many as we did on 11 sep 01 and if we don't press the fight and take it to them, another grand attack will occur and the only reason it hasn't yet is we have them on the run.
Terroirsts only know one thing FORCE. They are runnning scared and attack innocent people. Look at how hussein was hiding in a hole when found. You are extremely lucky to have the freedom to express the incoherent garble that comes from your mouth. Disagree with Hussein and you were executed. People that think like you are the kind of people that got McAurthur fired and the big reason the country in in the mess it is now. We tried your way for 50 years and it doesnt work. Go read a BOOK and let the men finish the work we started this time.
From a soldier in Iraq
And what is it that Hussein did here again?Actually he studied Joseph Stalin who never seems to get the credit for the 20 million people that he murdered.But then again, Uncle Joe was our "ally" during the Big One remember? So its o.k.then.
Theresa you have no idea about what you are talking about here.There are no links to Sadaam & 9/11.GW said so himself.Osaama & Sadaam have always been ideologically opposed to each other.If you are up on current events,a letter that was intercepted from an Al-Quaida operative last week indicates that they are NOT getting the Iraqi volunteers that they need to sustain operations there.So much for the myth that Iraq is the "frontline in the war on terror".Furthermore,Al-Quaida did not focus on Iraq until Oct.2003.Now that the Baathists are killing Iraqis,Osama is probably having second thoughts about his commitment there since killing fellow muslims does not exactly enhance his image in the Arab world.You have been to the Middle East right?Otherwise,you should get your information from other sources besides O'Reilly.Oh,tell your friend that he should really take advantage of that G.I.Bill.It might actually bring him up to speed.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 1:15:20 PM
quote:
And never fear, your flanks and back are protected......my silence does not mean I am not with you, simply covering you from surprises!
Thank you Seamus, it is good to know a veteran 'woods warrior' is watching my six.
quote:
Does anyone really think that the U.S. backed government which is scheduled to be implemented in June will last? Like Vietnam,we are stuck there for now.When the day comes when our troops can leave Iraq in honor with a new "Free" Iraqi government in place,will it last?
Timetables are always flexible in these situations. As for the Vietnam comparison, there is none. Maybe in another 10 years or so you could make such a statement, but not when we are only at the 11 month mark could you come to such a conclusion using logic. As to the question "Will it last?", I am willing to give the Iraqi people a little more credit in how they will manage their independence. It's not time yet to blow the dust off of the old Bob Dylan L/P's...
quote:
It seems to be about a strategy that seeks to control the future of stronger nations (like China) not even in the Middle East, and its working and at a great expense.
I don't know if its about controlling the future of nations like China, but certainly controling their influence. We are behind the eight ball, as far as China goes, thanks to eight years of intellegence and weapon tecnology being handed to them in exchange for boatloads of cash being dumped into the Clinton and DNC war-chests. Using 'straw men' like Moktar Riyahdi of the Indonesian Lippo Group and Charlie Tree with his Chinese Government and Triad (The original Mafia) connections to facilitate the deals through the commerce department (Thereby avoiding congressional oversight). Unfortunately we need to spend a lot to put a crimp in the threat from the east.
...And to answer a question I didn't get to earlier
quote:
Incidentally,I will bet money that this war has created more terrorists now,than were actually there to begin with.
Negative Captain, it is concentrating them in Iraq, but it is certainly not creating more. As a cop, I would rather those animals not be here, in the U.S., hurting our innocent men, women and children, especially my children. I like the idea of them being drawn over to Iraq instead, where the Americans they face are the highly trained, equipt and motivated soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of our armed forces. If you remember from our mutual friend over there, we are killing them by the bushel, and they are starting to feel the pinch.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - February 12 2004 : 12:03:14 PM
The thing that worries me most about the War in Irag is that it may not be about Bush's integrity, or WMDs, or oil, or even terrorists...but how much of it is about the "machine" around the President, the defense chain of Cheney - Rumsfield - Wolfowitz. Is Wolfowitz the heir apparent after Rumsfield (YIKES!)? This has transcended administrations, liberal and conservative. It seems to be about a strategy that seeks to control the future of stronger nations (like China) not even in the Middle East, and its working and at a great expense. Is anybody else the least bit concerned about the additional motives that WEREN'T so obvious?
GG |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
