The U.S. Military, abuse & paintball :(

[Carbon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?hp&ex=1142830800&en=d312add1d360187e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[grEnAlEins]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/international/middleeast/19abuse.html?hp&ex=1142830800&en=d312add1d360187e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
That is unfortunate :(

[Carbon]

horrible as it is, i cant help snicker at the cynical "no blood no foul" slogan. :(

[Pyroboy597]

This is what gives the sport and the USA a bad name. Now Europe is going to think that we are all not only hicks, but hicks who torture people with paintball guns -_-

[Carbon]

to be quite honest, this is hardly a blip on the radar in mainstream public-to-paintball relations. I think for the most part people are still concerned with waterboarding.

[Lohman446]

I saw less concern over the televised beheading of civilians. Although the presence of secret prisons and torture chambers in the new Iraq alarms me greatly, I really don't feel bad for our enemies.

Not to turn this political, but I did not see a calling for the banning of dogs after it was revealed that they were used to "interogate" individuals. I just think that the American public is smart enough to seperate an act of torture from the device that was used.

[Recon by Fire]

NY Times can kiss my behind :cuss: How about printing some names and determined proof instead unamed sources and allegations. Proof not words. I operated in the BIAP area and "red lined" suspects for the CIA...I never saw any paintball markers. Where the hell would they get them from? Ever try storing paintballs when it is over 140 degrees out? Where would the air come from? Believe me I tried scrounging for some ways to get some paintball going there and did not succeed.

[Army]

Hidden secret cells, super top secret program, un-named secret sources, super secret intel guys. That's a lot of super secret stuff for a pair of "reporters" that have never been there.

Yeah, real credible reporting.

[jenarelJAM]

This is why I hate Bush... his stupid little war is.... gaa. I just hate him.

(sorry for the political opinion)

[dahoeb]

wow....i can always count on NY times for some ooh-rah motivating reporting. like army and recon by fire said, its really cool how they ALWAYS seem to have an un-named or anonymous source. i honostly feel no pity for any of what the insurgents get.

they lop of heads of humanitarian workers with swords, and next week its completely forgotten. but when "get shot with a pball gun" according the these random sources, NY Times is more than happy to slap it in their paper. and i'll bet they'll run with that article for weeks.
psshh if a unit i'm with heads over there, i sure wouldn't be wasting time shooting them with paintball guns. theres a lot worse things in the world happening, than supposedly torturing the enemy with paintball markers. :shooting:

sorry for sounding redundant...just gotta vent.


This is why I hate Bush... his stupid little war is.... gaa. I just hate him.

(sorry for the political opinion)

this really isn't the place for a hard political post like that. theres people in here who've sacrificed a lot for that war and probably don't appreciate you calling what theyve off and done their duty for "gaa". i respect those that disagree with the war, but at least have the character to dignify it with a valid excuse instead of "gaa".

[bentothejam1n]

This is why I hate Bush... his stupid little war is.... gaa. I just hate him.

(sorry for the political opinion)
Why do you hate him?? Because of some article in the NY Times?? NY times isn't the most credible source for political articles. If you have talked to someone who has been over to A-ghan or Iraq, they probably told you it was needed. I have two family members in the military. One is my uncle who has been in the army for around 20 years and is a Command Sergeant Major. The second one is my brother who just completed the marine school of recon and will be going over to Iraq in September. You should be getting your views about the war from people like that, rather than some far left NY times reporter that gets paid to make up BS
Back on topic now. I cant say I lose any sleep about this... I mean after reading some of the stories written by former American POWs in Desert storm, it only seems just to them
/Not a flame
//If that doesnt make any sense its because I'm really tired

[ThePixelGuru]

NY Times can kiss my behind :cuss: How about printing some names and determined proof instead unamed sources and allegations. Proof not words. I operated in the BIAP area and "red lined" suspects for the CIA...I never saw any paintball markers. Where the hell would they get them from? Ever try storing paintballs when it is over 140 degrees out? Where would the air come from? Believe me I tried scrounging for some ways to get some paintball going there and did not succeed.
Nevermind the whole "No Blood No Foul" thing. Paintballs draw blood...

[Ratt]

Now, I am not a supply-weenie, but I would have to imagine: If I were in Iraq, and I was CIA, Ranger, Marine, Seal, or any other grunt/groundpounder/jar-head/squid, and I ordered a MK 18 with a aimpoint sight, 20 30-round magazines, and a couple of boxes of ammo, that would be normal. And no one in the supply chain-of-command would say anything. But if I ordered a couple of Tippman A-5s, a few CO2 tanks, hoppers, and a few cases of paint, wouldn't that raise some flags? Just curious. Not to mention...whoever mentioned the 140+ degree heat has a point. I would imagine that a case of paint wouldn't last but maybe 10 minutes there. And so what if personnel are using paintball guns? Those Taliban bastards are lopping innocent peoples' heads of with machetes, or sawing their heads off with swiss army knives! And now some jack-hole thinks he has a "big story" because we are supposedly using paintballs on them? Well, let's see the pictures! Even if he did have pics, SO WHAT! (in case you didn't figure it out, I hate the press...)

[VFX_Fenix]

A-Hem....


We've found a which! May we burn her?

Bush... well... what can be said about Bush...

Well... I'll let the man speak for himself.

"I'll be glad to talk about ranching, but I haven't seen the movie. I've heard about it. I hope you go—you know—I hope you go back to the ranch and the farm is what I'm about to say."—Explaining that he hasn't yet seen Brokeback Mountain, Manhattan, Kan., Jan. 23, 2006

"As you can possibly see, I have an injury myself—not here at the hospital, but in combat with a cedar. I eventually won. The cedar gave me a little scratch."—After visiting with wounded veterans from the Amputee Care Center of Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas, Jan. 1, 2006

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome."—Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005, on the reception of American forces in Iraq

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."—Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005


If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me?

-Moxy Fruvous

[TheAngryDrunkenRussian]

This is why I hate Bush... his stupid little war is.... gaa. I just hate him.

Hating someone or something usually accomplish's nothing. Plus what would Bush have to do with this, presidents order wars to happen not plan them.

And son watch what you say around here. I'm a vet and I'm pretty sure there are more on here.

[warbeak2099]

Yup, I wonder why the liberal media tends to care more about our enemies than our own citizens and allies. When a Briton, American, Canadian, Italian, etc is taken prisoner, there is some light coverage and no calls from the media for the action to stop. Instead, they work to serve their own political agendas by making the Coalition look like the bad guys and make up torture stories. Some are real and some are false, but abuse is hardly the norm in Iraqi POW camps. The media conveniently leaves out that fact. I really don't look to the news for facts anymore. Entertaining stories? Yes of course, they're always good for some entertainment. But they just don't report facts. Yellow journalism is at an all time high I think. And sadly, there are gullible people like jenarelJam who buy into it all. It's a shame. We really need to get back to teaching children critical reasoning skills in public schools, instead of teaching them how to memorize various peices of information. Learning how to think in different ways is much more important. I think this ridiculous effect that the media has on many people is a result of the poor educational methods in our school systems. Yep, I'm moving to Switzerland...

[azzkikr]

well while its unfortunate in a way. any time something like this comes up i just remind myself what they would do to our guys. then all feelings of guilt go away.

after all, this is war, what do you want them to do. sit down their captured enemy offer them a cup of coffee and ask them nicely where their friends are at.

the whole using paintball thing as a negative thing in the news is bad for us. but everyone whos ever gotten shot with one knows that is not very pleasurable. and to those who are going to say paintball doesn't hurt, while your playing you adrenaline is up and all that good stuff, but you stand there and take a few hundred rounds at close range while defenseless, you'll change ur mind.

azzkikr

[Lohman446]

Why do you hate him??

Because my government teacher told me to?

/Sorry, couldn't pass up the chance.

[muskratjim]

***This post edited for filter violations. Army**

[deathstalker]

I have two family members in the military. One is my uncle who has been in the army for around 20 years and is a Command Sergeant Major. The second one is my brother who just completed the marine school of recon and will be going over to Iraq in September. You should be getting your views about the war from people like that...
I use my Father for some of my own views. As a decorated combat veteran, retired Lieutenant Colonel, and an officer who was assigned to least two M.I. battalions, I highly value his input. His description of U.S. soldiers' activity? "Sick." He is certain that these kinds of abuses indeed take place, based on his previous combat experience. While he does not necessarily feel the NY Times article is accurate, he feels there is probably a lot more truth to it than people are willing to admit.

Another thing that makes me value my Father's input even more is he is not one of those they-did-it-to-us-so-we'll-do-it-to-them type of people. He feels sorry for people who think that way.

[neppo1345]

They gotta do what they gotta do

If it's keeping one of my friends over there alive, I'm all for it.

[Baby Huey]

I love W, support the vets (my Dad, 2 uncles and several cousins), and God Bless America.


On a side note, who is excited about spring getting here and playing some Pball outside (for those of us in the snow regions)?

[warbeak2099]

I have two family members in the military. One is my uncle who has been in the army for around 20 years and is a Command Sergeant Major. The second one is my brother who just completed the marine school of recon and will be going over to Iraq in September. You should be getting your views about the war from people like that

Bingo, I get the real news about Iraq from my uncle in the Navy. He's the captain of a frigate over in the Mediterranean, escorting and patroling the coast for terrorist/pirate boats. He was also a part of a joint operation staff in Iraq before. That's a much more reliable source of factual information than the media.

[Pump Scout]

Seems to me (and my aging memory) that TF 6-26 is old news. This was brought up, albeit in somewhat less detail, several months ago. Why would the Times run this story now? Nothing better with which to sling mud at the military today?

As much as the mention of paintball touches a nerve to us American paintball players, I doubt it's going to have any impact whatsoever on the public or world opinion of the sport. Two lines and an image in a five page article will likely go unnoticed by anyone except paintball players. We tend to be hypersensitive to paintball in the media because various people and agencies have taken shots at us. I think overall, in the big picture, the good that paintball does will far outweigh the abuses that come about involving paintball equipment. There's a big difference between an inherantly evil sport/game, and one where the equipment is misused.

[craltal]

why would our "most elite counter-terrorism force" be the ones torturing the prisoners? that doesn't make sense to me. The intelligence people would be the ones doing that

Funny how this stuff comes out when the approval ratings are so low...

[hitech]

It is okay to shoot at kill your enemy, it's not okay to "yell and spit in their faces and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of jailer paintball". While I don't condone torture, I don't agree with most of the definitions I hear of torture either. While beating prisoners with rifle butts likely crosses the line, most of the other actions do not. If this is truly war, it's not supposed to be pleasant. It's also quite possible that we would have never found Saddam Hussein if it weren't for the work of counterterrorism units.

The article is taking the word of the enemy to make its claims. What's next... :wow:


Five days later, the C.I.A. issued a classified directive that prohibited its officers from participating in harsh interrogations

So, this is a war on terrorism, you can shoot and kill them, but don't be too harsh. :tard:

It's war people.


BTW, I don't support the invasion of Iraq. But war is war. You can't expect the military to act like cops...

[hitech]

why would our "most elite counter-terrorism force" be the ones torturing the prisoners? that doesn't make sense to me. The intelligence people would be the ones doing that


Interrogating enemy combatants (they are not prisoners, and they should not be referred to as such) would most certainly be the job of "elite counter-terrorism personal. Intelligence personal don't typically "get their hands dirty". They would work with the results of the interrogations.

[Baby Huey]

prepare for a completely unqualified post:

It is sad that it takes a national event (9/11) to spark support for our troops and government when all along there has been the same goal (in my unqualified opinion), to keep our country safe. A democratic Middle Eastern country = a safer America. Again take it with a grain of salt as I am just a preacher who loves to play paintball (see I tied the post to paintball) and who loves his country and its troops. Take care and God Bless.

[RoamingStorm]

Ill say that even torture with a paintball gun isnt that severe. Id rather get shot 50x barechested than get pistol whipped in the head. or kicked and beaten. I believe some of the stuff that they are saying, Im sure the paintball thing happened, and that there are "secret" prisons throughout the world. they also referred to declassified documents that I would like to see them make reference to.. Besides thats all army stuff... Semper Fi baby!! :cool:

[SCpoloRicker]

**Welcome to BanTown. Army***

[RoamingStorm]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

2) I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they admitted housing and supporting Bin Laden. What did Saddam have to do with any of this? he didnt supply weapons, he didnt house Al Queda, he didnt have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hey we got him, for crimes he committed 15 years ago, our invason of Iraq 3 years ago was supported by false pretenses which didnt exist. I didnt support going in because there were the wrong reasons. If they had said that they were going in for the sole purpose of removing a sadistic dictator who tortured his own people, killed at will, etc. To re-establish a gov't that the country decides is right, I would have been supportive.

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

[Baby Huey]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

Alternatives, Al gore or John Kerry :rolleyes:

Depends on how you hope he makes his decisions.

[Magglerock]

The link requires registration to read, which I refuse to do, as its only a tool for on-line rags to increase their ad revenue. But I assume islomafascists were shot with paintball guns? And the problem is? These people are the worst of the worst - bloodthirsty, theotocratic fascists who want all non-muslims to die a horrible death. I could care less what we do to them, and even less if its in an effort to stop a terrorist attack. The only thing I'm upset about is that they arn't using real firearms to shoot the scum instead hobbyists' implements that we all regularly endure every weekend.

[Magglerock]

well hey then good for him

I dont like bush because:

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

2) I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they admitted housing and supporting Bin Laden. What did Saddam have to do with any of this? he didnt supply weapons, he didnt house Al Queda, he didnt have "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Hey we got him, for crimes he committed 15 years ago, our invason of Iraq 3 years ago was supported by false pretenses which didnt exist. I didnt support going in because there were the wrong reasons. If they had said that they were going in for the sole purpose of removing a sadistic dictator who tortured his own people, killed at will, etc. To re-establish a gov't that the country decides is right, I would have been supportive.

3) He doesnt have the qualifications of being a president. Minor military backround, C student at a school he got into because of a Legacy. Known for recklesness and irresponsibility in his teen years. His religion seems to cloud his judgement from time to time

All fair (if misguided - especially the economics portion) critiques. What I don't understand is what that has to do with the war on terror? Do you prefer islofascist dictators to a democratically elected official? Are you denying the real threat possed by terrorism, and willing to live (or rather, die) under the boot of intolerant, theotocratic monsters? "Well, Bush is intolerant, blah, bla, blah" - go read the Koran sometime. Ask those living under the Taliban and Hussien what "intolerance" really means. I don't get you people. Spend less time getting your news from MTV and more time thinking for yourself.

[Lohman446]

1) I think that after his dads tax ideas continued this countries slow regression Clinton comes up with a new tax plan.. you know one based off of entry level economics. that says if peoplel have more to spend they will do so. It scores big, cleaning up alot of gov't debt, getting thousands of people jobs. Then bush comes along and uses his daddys plan again to try fix the economy.

Just for curiosity's sake. Elaborate? It almost sounds like your applying reagonomics to the general public rather than the idea of large corporations having more and spending more...

[RoamingStorm]

From what I understand Bush Sr. had an economic policy which included tax breaks for the wealthy upperclass citizens, thinking that the wealthy will redistribute the money and help the overall economy. This didnt happy, the rich spent the same amount of money and kept the rest getting richer with tax breaks, While when Clinton was in office the economy boomed, and Jobs went up, incomes went up, some of the national debt was cleared up. Now we have the largest deficit in history, less jobs, and plenty of other issues contributing to a recession. Ive seen friends and family lose jobs, money, business owners locally go bankrupt, this idea of "globalization" is hurting our economy at home. Too few politicians realize this, So from my understanding and based off of those opinions I think Bush was a poor choice

edit: also to answer the question, I said that I feel we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, in my post previous it clearly states that if our goal was to establish freedom for the Iraqis then I would be for it. However we went in under the excue, withough UN approval, that we were searching for weapons that did not exist. We went in for the wrong reason, but we achieved something worth going in for.

[Lohman446]

From what I understand Bush Sr. had an economic policy which included tax breaks for the wealthy upperclass citizens, thinking that the wealthy will redistribute the money and help the overall economy. This didnt happy, the rich spent the same amount of money and kept the rest getting richer with tax breaks, While when Clinton was in office the economy boomed, and Jobs went up, incomes went up, some of the national debt was cleared up. Now we have the largest deficit in history, less jobs, and plenty of other issues contributing to a recession. Ive seen friends and family lose jobs, money, business owners locally go bankrupt, this idea of "globalization" is hurting our economy at home. Too few politicians realize this, So from my understanding and based off of those opinions I think Bush was a poor choice

The theory you are stating was Bush's is commonly referred to as Reagonomics (needless to say they were not truly Bush's). Conservatives will make an argument that is at least partially supported by "base entry level economics" that reagonomics did in fact work. First off - the economy moves in cycles. Secondly anything one does takes time. Clinton surely cannot honestly take credit for the economy that was in place when he entered office, or the long term effects of it that resulted in the "boom" during his time. The current recession, if one actually looks at indicators of trends started before Bush (W) took office. Granted things could have been handled better but to say the economy was good when Clinton was in office so he must have done well, or to blame the current economic situation (either the recovery or the continued downturn depending on what side you are on) on the current President is simplistic, and more often than not, simply wrong.

As to the idea of "globalization" hurting our economy - who signed NAFTA? Who opened up trade with China? Keep in mind this had sweeping bipartisan support though. American business could compete in the world market if properly supported, and allowed to properly compete (see my various rants on the current state of organized labor in America).

You are trying to see things in far too black and white of issues. You cannot simplify it as far as you have wanted to as the economy is based on far too many things, most of them well outside the scope of control of the executive branch.

Edit: Oddly enough I do lay some of the blame of todays economy at the foot of Reagonomics. Not for the reasons you have outlined but for an unforseen effect. Large business given more money did not invest it on better / more workers. They invested in increased productivity through technology. This allowed them to boost productivity without hiring more qualified or more employees over time. Think of the amount of entry level jobs lost to the automation of grocery store checkouts for a simplified example.

[RoamingStorm]

or for the research of better technology.. could you please link me to some of these rants?

[dahoeb]

roamingstorm,
do you realize that Saddam's generals even believed they had WMD's? The only person in iraq who knew the truth was saddam. The dictators plan was to basically use that belief against us, believing the threat of them would prevent us from invading. If the saddams own generals believed they had weapons of mass destruction, could you really blame bush? Saddam spent a lot of resources and time for years, making the the world think that he had WMD's.

[Killer V]

All politicians are corrupt even the senior class president in high school. Toture is a necessary evil imo.

[RoamingStorm]

but he didnt, and no one could prove he didnt, because its pretty hard to verify that if it wasnt true, we invaded based upon an assumption. He made people think he did for his own protection

[Lohman446]

but he didnt, and no one could prove he didnt, because its pretty hard to verify that if it wasnt true, we invaded based upon an assumption. He made people think he did for his own protection

Its nearly impossible to prove a negative. Prove for instance that you are simply not a brain in a bottle with various sensory inputs put into your mind through electronic pulses generated by a machine. Hard to disprove.

We beleive Saddam had chemical weapons because we know what he had in the 70s and 80s and what technology we shared with him. We beleived he had chemical weapons because he actually used some against the kurdish resistance. We beleive he had them because he had failed to destroy them in a verifiable manner. We beleive he had them because he would not allow UN inspectors free and full access to records. Does all of this mean he had them? No, not necessarily, but it surely points to the probability that he did, and more alarmingly was willing to use them.

History though teaches us that any occupation of the middle east is doomed to failure. Democracy and those leaders that are part of what will be perceived as a "puppet" regime are doomed to failure. I beleive, in hindsight and further consideration of the events of history, that there had to be a better way of dealing with Saddam through diplomacy.

[Tunaman]

Everybody just listen to wabc 770am(I wouldn't know what station it would be where you live)-Sean Hannity, Rush Limbough, Mark Levine, all Great Americans. I listen everyday...whenever I can find time. These guys know the truth like the rest of us Great Americans. I wouldn't watch the Liberal News Media if you paid me to. Fox News ...thats the only one. Where is all the news coverage of US Soldiers kicking butt? The Liberals make me sick. I am done now...but there is a lot more I can't say here. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[bleachit]

that there had to be a better way of dealing with Saddam through diplomacy.


IMO, the UN was made a total fool by Saddam in their attempts to deal with him diplomatically. He needed dealing with, now he is dealt with. what happened happened, and now, I believe, the Iraqi people are better off. a little off topic, but thats where things lie now, leaving Iraq now leaves the Iraqi people in a precarious situation...

[RoamingStorm]

not a big fan of Rush, hes too opinionated for my tastes

[Tunaman]

Why is it a fact that Every country we have ever gone to war against is now our close friend? Why is that? The Iraqi's will be our close friends too. History will dictate that.

[Lohman446]

IMO, the UN was made a total fool by Saddam in their attempts to deal with him diplomatically. He needed dealing with, now he is dealt with. what happened happened, and now, I believe, the Iraqi people are better off. a little off topic, but thats where things lie now, leaving Iraq now leaves the Iraqi people in a precarious situation...

I don't not support the use of force. However, I don't think what we are doing now, judging by history, will be there fifty years after we remove the brute force that can put it there and keep it there. I don't think Saddam was our real worry but his eldest son who may very well have sought to harm us in any way possible. I think our concern lay with his sanity. Saddam would have kept power, he was not going to attack us, I'm not sure if that was true for the next generation.

We had diplomatic steps we could have taken and "played nice" with Saddam. It just seems to me the US, in modern times, is poor at mending relations after there are problems. I think of the boycott of Cuba as an example, the tense relations with North Korea (though perhaps more justifiable), and even our poor relations with China until very recently.

Saddam provided something that I question if we ever can. A stable Iraq...

Interesting Tuna, I was just making the exact opposite argument in regards to every country we have gone to war against.

[Tunaman]

I don't not support the use of force. However, I don't think what we are doing now, judging by history, will be there fifty years after we remove the brute force that can put it there and keep it there. I don't think Saddam was our real worry but his eldest son who may very well have sought to harm us in any way possible. I think our concern lay with his sanity. Saddam would have kept power, he was not going to attack us, I'm not sure if that was true for the next generation.

We had diplomatic steps we could have taken and "played nice" with Saddam. It just seems to me the US, in modern times, is poor at mending relations after there are problems. I think of the boycott of Cuba as an example, the tense relations with North Korea (though perhaps more justifiable), and even our poor relations with China until very recently.

Saddam provided something that I question if we ever can. A stable Iraq...

Interesting Tuna, I was just making the exact opposite argument in regards to every country we have gone to war against.Well I dont understand. The british, Germans, Japanese, Koreans...all of these countries are friendly now with almost no problems or threats to US security anymore. It's not the answer, but doesn't history tell you that a GOOD butt kicking will in most instances lead to a secure, friendly relationship with the US? Why are there only a few countries left in the whole world that don't want to get along with us and live peacefully together in this world? I say a few good sorties will help them along in their realization that American (and other countries) democracy is really a good thing. Like Superman says...("for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!") What else could a country want for? :confused:

[Lohman446]

Well I dont understand. The british, Germans, Japanese, Koreans...all of these countries are friendly now with almost no problems or threats to US security anymore. It's not the answer, but doesn't history tell you that a GOOD butt kicking will in most instances lead to a secure, friendly relationship with the US? Why are there only a few countries left in the whole world that don't want to get along with us and live peacefully together in this world? I say a few good sorties will help them along in their realization that American (and other countries) democracy is really a good thing. Like Superman says...("for Truth, Justice, and the American Way!") What else could a country want for? :confused:

I would argue that North Korea is far from friendly. I would point to Cuba in the same manner. Though in reality, I was almost looking for an argument based on yours. We never really called Desert Storm over. We never "made nice" with Saddam afterwards. We may have found, had we made the first move to welcoming Iraq back into the international community that we could have found a strong ally in the middle east.

I would argue that we could have gotten along peacefully with Iraq, under Saddam, in the future had we attempted to be something other than enemies.

[Tunaman]

I would argue that North Korea is far from friendly. I would point to Cuba in the same manner. Though in reality, I was almost looking for an argument based on yours. We never really called Desert Storm over. We never "made nice" with Saddam afterwards. We may have found, had we made the first move to welcoming Iraq back into the international community that we could have found a strong ally in the middle east.

I would argue that we could have gotten along peacefully with Iraq, under Saddam, in the future had we attempted to be something other than enemies.Am i mistaken?...or didn't the International community(United Nations) give Saddam 12...14 different chances(resolutions) to adhere to the rules? He blew them off. He deserved what he got. People seem to forget the fact that we didn't just go to war over wmd's. It was those 14 resolutions that had all to do with it....

[dahoeb]

I would argue that North Korea is far from friendly. I would point to Cuba in the same manner. Though in reality, I was almost looking for an argument based on yours. We never really called Desert Storm over. We never "made nice" with Saddam afterwards. We may have found, had we made the first move to welcoming Iraq back into the international community that we could have found a strong ally in the middle east.

I would argue that we could have gotten along peacefully with Iraq, under Saddam, in the future had we attempted to be something other than enemies.

well we never went to war with cuba, for one.

when it comes to iraq i saw two roads we couldve taken.
1. keep trying diplomacy, through a obsolete and corrupt UN. All they wouldve done was write a letter of reprimand or something if they did find weapons. they accomplish nothing.

2. we go into iraq, and make sure the work gets done like it shouldve been done years ago, and finally put a close to saddam husseins games. give the people a clean slate to start again. it also makes sure that if saddam had weapons, they're not going to the wrong people.

I would take option 2. I would rather go in there and be wrong, than wait 5 years for a nuclear blast to go off in downtown chicago, just to find out that weapon came from iraq. failure to act has already cost us to much in the past few decades.

Also, try thinking of it like this. the terrorists are flooding into iraq and afghanistan and are putting a lot of their resources into fighting us there. would you rather the battle take place there against the US and iraqi military or would you rather have the terrorists spread about the world even more, making bombs and driving them into our schools, and malls, and our hospitals here in the US? this just keeps them from developing other attacks on us to the scale of 9/11, back here at home.

[warbeak2099]

I would argue that North Korea is far from friendly. I would point to Cuba in the same manner.

We didn't win. The historical pattern tends to be that we beat a country and then help them rebuild. We did not beat N. Korea or Cuba. We didn't beat N. Vietnam either. America is not invincible, but when we do suceed, the long term results are usually a the enemy nation being better off for it. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have set up relatively successful democracatic free market economies. This hopefully will elliminate a lot of the poverty in the two countries, a key source of crime and terrorism. Radicalism does not brew out of higher economic prosperity.

A democratic socialist state wouldn't be bad either. I mean, Sweden and Norway were the first to really embrace that system during the Great Depression and they were the only nations who really pulled out pretty quickly. By creating a larger deficit with government spending on the economy, they were able to stabilize rather quickly. America and Britain's capitalist method of elmininating the gold standard also worked, but slower.

But either way, economic gains are the key to an overal reduced crime rate. Of course there are other factors, but poverty, oppression, and desparation are the highest causes of crime and radicalism and have been throughout history. So now that we've won, we are giving the Iraqi's and Afghani's a more stable, free economy. Bush is doing a choppy job but his heart is in the right place. For 2008 we really need some one who is a better administrator to get the work done more smoothly.

EDIT: Dahoeb also made a good point. Inaction and isolationism by the U.S. and other governments has almost always led to catastrophe throughout history. Because the U.S. and Great Britain backed out of the League of Nations after WWI and took on isolationist modus operandii, only France's antiquated albeit large military was left to stop the 3rd Reich. Other examples of the failure of isolationism are China and Japan. Both were ravaged by Western powers because they operated under isolationism. The experiment has been run many times. It has failed each time. Isolationism does not work.

[dahoeb]

Bush is doing a choppy job but his heart is in the right place. For 2008 we really need some one who is a better administrator to get the work done more smoothly.

well said

[Lohman446]

Am i mistaken?...or didn't the International community(United Nations) give Saddam 12...14 different chances(resolutions) to adhere to the rules? He blew them off. He deserved what he got. People seem to forget the fact that we didn't just go to war over wmd's. It was those 14 resolutions that had all to do with it....

We were had full rights to go to war, I agree with that. For all intents we beleived Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I question if we ever beleived he would strike us directly with them. He had failed to follow various UN resolutions and that alone, perhaps to uphold the integrity of the UN demanded action. The war need not be justified to me, its there, I agree.

I think there was a better answer, or may have been. I don't think we are going to create a stable democratic muslim country... only history will be able to judge if we do or do not in the end. Sometimes there are options that short term suck, dealing with a tyrant who ignored the security counsel. Sometimes those options are better in the long run.

The war was / is justified. I question however if there can ever be a truly democratic stable country, independent of the US, where Iraq is now. I hope to be proven wrong in the long term.

[BeaverEater]

We didn't win. The historical pattern tends to be that we beat a country and then help them rebuild. We did not beat N. Korea or Cuba. We didn't beat N. Vietnam either.

politics are the main reasons that we "lost" vietnam. If you look at the statistics and battles, you would see that we came out ahead. But the politicians back at home wanted to pull out.

[dahoeb]

just like we had the american revolution, this is like the iraqi revolution. if you remember right, things didn't go so well for us, the first decade our country was in existence, in fact, it went pretty bad. but look at us now. we should at least try to give iraq a similar oppurtunity to achieve great things on their own, not under the thumb of a sadistic family, the husseins.

whether things will work out in iraq or not is a question that can't be answered right now. its just way too early. its only been 3 years. if you look at history, 3 years is not a lot of time to get something like nation building accomplished. look at it in another decade or so then you can get a better answer.

[Recon by Fire]

not a big fan of Rush, hes too opinionated for my tastes


But that's the idea, he is a commentator, not an anchorman! Like they are less opinionated? LOL


WHY are people discussing GWB in this thread? It had nothing to do with him. I hate the stereotypical "I hate Bush" response to everything: "My checkbook is overdrawn! Damn that Bush! I hate him!" :rofl:

[Evil Bob]

On topic: Aye, its old news, I'm curious as to the motivation in dragging it out into the open again? What is it they're looking to gain by it? Its very possible its going on, but getting paintball gear there in a war torn country and successfully storing paintballs in the desert heat I find highly suspect.

Semi on topic:

Economics 101: Every first year students learns this right off... Short of a major catastrophe, there is very little that the current administraction can do to effect immediate change in the economy, changes take quite some time to happen, anywhere from 3-8 years, usually the next administration either inherits a mess or enjoys a boom, that's just the way it works. That being said, the boom that Clinton enjoyed early in his term was the direct result of what Bush Sr had put into effect. Clinton had his hands tied for the most part by a republican controled congress for most of his term, it wasn't until the second term that key seats had overturned and the democrats gained controlling seats that Clinton could start affecting changes. The recession and outsourcing of high tech was a direct result of increasing taxes on big business.

WMD's: People tend to think "nukes" when WMD's are mentioned, however, WMD's can be chemical, biological, radiological, or just really big bombs, the point is that a single weapon can do alot of damage (hence the term "mass destruction"). I was in the first desert shield/storm operating behind enemy lines, my unit collected soil samples from Kurdish villages which had been hit with different types of chemical agents. Some of the chemical agents were of german origion, some russian, some they home brewed. The evidence was overwhelming. Bush was not alone in believing that Saddam was working on WMD's, the Brits thought it was the case as well as the Cannucks and several others. France, Germany, and Russia didn't want us poking around in Iraq for fear of finding evidence that they had been bypassing the sanctions levied against Iraq by the UN and selling Iraq chemicals and other weapons materials.

Military Intel: ARMY MOS 97E (interrogator), 97B (counter intel), both of which can and will perform enemy interrogation. I have even seen psyops personel work someone over for a week, intentionally feed them false info, then cut them loose with the expectation that they'll pass on the bad info to the real target. It all depends upon what the desired end result is to whom will do the dirty work.

Off Topic: I like pie!

-Evil Bob

[dahoeb]

ooh rah evil bob, you rock.

[Troen]

Everybody just listen to wabc 770am(I wouldn't know what station it would be where you live)-Sean Hannity, Rush Limbough, Mark Levine, all Great Americans. I listen everyday...whenever I can find time. These guys know the truth like the rest of us Great Americans. I wouldn't watch the Liberal News Media if you paid me to. Fox News ...thats the only one. Where is all the news coverage of US Soldiers kicking butt? The Liberals make me sick. I am done now...but there is a lot more I can't say here. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
wow, i like tuna more and more every day.
as far as the paintball target practice goes i say: a man has information that can lead you to one of the most feared terrorists, is shooting him with a paintballgun nearly as bad as other ways you can extract info?

[grEnAlEins]

integrity of the UN
:rofl: What integrity is that? :confused:
Forget Tyco or Enron (millions of dollars), how bout Kofi and his Oil for food scandal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html) ( :eek: BILLIONS OF DOLLARS). The UN has become the joke of the free world, and has no real power--economic or military (except when the US and/or GB agree to supply that power). "The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED." (from http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/Articles/Anonymous-2003-08.asp) The UN is a joke, and Kofi is a :cuss:ing idiot. The UN is like France, "they're always there when they need us." "Going to war without them is like going duck hunting without an accordian."
MAJOR DOWNERS: Most people do not understand that the UN is such a crock-o-crud. Some Americans want to see the UN become the higher authority of all affairs. The UN still exists. People break out the torches and pitchforks over corporate scandles involving a few million dollars, but not the oil for food scandal involving billions of dollars.
ON A POSITIVE NOTE: Evil Bob likes pie :D