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

[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?

[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?

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.

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?