IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[aaron_mag]

oldsoldier-

Even the French say that ANY compliance from Saddam has been the result of US and British buildup in the middle east (mostly US of course). I think it is good that Bush is backing down a bit for Blair as Blair has been a loyal ally to Bush. I even think the military buildup is good. If Bush is able to repair the breech with our allies and bring this all to a conclusion (with invasion or without) I'll be satisfied that he did an amazing job. At this point, however, it is my feeling that he handled the diplomatic end of things badly (but appropriately put the pressure on).

[1stdeadeye]

Well ince you asked....

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Can I change my vote on who is the master debater? (chanting) Jack Dubious, Jack Dubious. I am a humble student to the master. You should take notes as well Collegeboy.

Don't worry, however, 1stdeadeye is going to come back with that this was BEFORE 9/11. So the debate goes on, and on...

Hindsight is always 20/20. The Gulf War was fought for a different reason with a different mandate. G.W. Bush is looking to get the mandate he wants for this action. Besides maybe once a resolution authorizing force is approved, Saddam will do the African Dictator thing and take his billions of looted dollars and move to France!

Hey Collegeboy,
What do you call someone born in France? French

To Everyone: Please watch your language! This wonderful debate risks being closed by some people with filthy mouths.
Most of us have been civil. I would love to see this lively discourse of ideas continue so I am asking everyone to keep it clean! No cursing, flaming, or potty mouths!

[Collegeboy]

FOL. Will since you graduated with honors I would hope you know what the French truely did in WWII.

joeyjoey- I am not against war. War has its purpose. In talking about this war, I am against it because I can not see anyway we can win the peace. If there was a possible way for us to win the peace then I would be behind our president on this issue.

If Bush doesn't go to war and the build up of troops was just a diplomatic maneuver to get Saddam to comply then I would hail his staff and him as brilliant on this matter. But if we go to war, I will think of them as stupid on this matter.

Jack_Dubious- Thanks for posting that quote. Where did you find it at? I wanted to say something to the effect of why they didn't take out Saddam in the Gulf War, but could find hard proof or quotes on it.

But 1stdeadeye, you are now agreeing to me, it is a first hehe. I have tried forever to show you the difference between what happened at the end of the Gulf War and at the end of this war. And now you come out and say it.


Alot of US military dependents was born overseas, and all of them have American citizenships. My mom isn't called a German and my father isn't called French. But it would be kind of funny for someone with my last name and the family members I have to somehow be considered French (just think PM of England).

[irbodden]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
If Bush doesn't go to war and the build up of troops was just a diplomatic maneuver to get Saddam to comply then I would hail his staff and him as brilliant on this matter. But if we go to war, I will think of them as stupid on this matter.

Wait, so Bush is brillant if he does a move big ol' Collegeboy agrees with, however if he doesn't do what YOU think is right, he is stupid?

Some logic

[Collegeboy]

If he doesn't do what I think is best, then it is only logical to think of him as makeing a stupid move. For this is of course in my opinion.

And no I won't.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Re: what Bush Sr. has to say..

Originally posted by Jack_Dubious
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

-From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998)

On the other hand If you were getting paid $10,000 a day to kill all of the flys in your house, would you kill them all in one day???? I know I bloodywell wouldn't! It would take me years to kill them all. American Millatary doesnt care how many of its forces get killed or injured in any millatary occupation. Just look at Vietnam. However if the threat is still around (Sadam) & someone else pays (Saudi) then the U.S can get paid for being a peacekeeper.

These are my views only & could be total hogwash But it could be an issue to think about.

I strongly believe that everything is buffed & cleaned & laid out sanitised by Governments so that the general public can swallow their Crudd hook line & sinker.

[cphilip]

Re: Re: what Bush Sr. has to say..

Originally posted by Lone Brain Cell
...then the U.S can get paid for being a peacekeeper.

Thats about the most ignorant thing I ever heard. It costs each and every American money to do this. And your own people in Australia and your government which has always been a good ally of ours too. We both invested much together and not reaped a single dime for it. You need to realize that we pay almost half the bills for the UN and in fact paid many more percent of that until recently. And that goes to the aid that the UN provides too. What do you think its costing us to guard that No Fly Zone for 12 years? And you have people there too. NO one is paying us to do that. Wish they were. Maybe if they were picking up that tab they would not feel so free to let it drag on forever? WAKE UP!!!!

[Lone Brain Cell]

Re: Re: Re: what Bush Sr. has to say..

Originally posted by cphilip


Thats about the most ignorant thing I ever heard. It costs each and every American money to do this. And your own people in Australia and your government which has always been a good ally of ours too. We both invested much together and not reaped a single dime for it. You need to realize that we pay almost half the bills for the UN and in fact paid many more percent of that until recently. And that goes to the aid that the UN provides too. What do you think its costing us to guard that No Fly Zone for 12 years? And you have people there too. NO one is paying us to do that. Wish they were. Maybe if they were picking up that tab they would not feel so free to let it drag on forever? WAKE UP!!!!

It's not Ignorant!!
The U.S pays for its armed forces weather they are being used or not. When they are being stationed in the gulf (since the Gulf war) Part of the cost to station them there is being paid for by Saudi. Now if these troops were in the states doing drills they would be paid by the U.S and only the U.S.
I'm not saying that it doesnt cost a fistfull of buck to keep Americas armed forces up to scratch, all I am saying is that America can reap some of its costs back. Just like it did when you guys were stationed in West Germany. Part of the costs were paid for buy Nato & western europe. So I am led to believe.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
FOL. Will since you graduated with honors I would hope you know what the French truely did in WWII.

the french resistance did as much they could under the circumstances.

HOWEVER....

The French as a whole were a gutless pile of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

[irbodden]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
The French as a whole were a gutless pile of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

I love it.

[cphilip]

Re: Re: Re: Re: what Bush Sr. has to say..

Originally posted by Lone Brain Cell
Part of the costs were paid for buy Nato & western europe. So I am led to believe.

No Sir you are mislead. It cost us far above anything they contribute and we have always spent money on that AND contributed more than our fair share to the UN. The UN costs us money. We do not recover any of that. We pay it.

The first Gulf war was UN Sanctioned and Countries did offer and pay portions of it. Not all of it.

It costs nothing to have bombs and Aircraft and not use them. It costs nothing to leave reserve Soldiers in their regular jobs and not call them up to duty. All of the costs of mobilizing and preparing and actually using them are far above maintainign a static force. Those EXTRA costs we do not recoup.

Ignorance MEANS not informed. And that is the case.

By the way I realy do apreciate what a good relationship we have with you Aussies. Love you guys. You have always been true friends of ours and we do not forget things like that.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: what Bush Sr. has to say..

It costs nothing to have bombs and Aircraft and not use them. It costs nothing to leave reserve Soldiers in their regular jobs and not call them up to duty. All of the costs of mobilizing and preparing and actually using them are far above maintainign a static force. Those EXTRA costs we do not recoup.


Yes you are correct, But you still have to pay for your regular armed forces weather they are at war or not. you still have to pay for your aircraft carriers & planes. they do not stop flying or going on 6 month long exercises just because they are not on a war footing.



Ignorance MEANS not informed. And that is the case.

My X missus tells me I am alot worse than ignorant



By the way I realy do apreciate what a good relationship we have with you Aussies. Love you guys. You have always been true friends of ours and we do not forget things like that.




Hey the same goes out to you guys, we have & always will go out to help whenever you guys are needing a hand. albeit in a lesser role. we dont have the resorces or manpower you guys have. The last time Labour got into power in the government they downgraded our Millatary so our frontline fighter aicraft are now paperairplanes with a paperclip on the nose. Very scary stuff! I think in the future we may be calling on you guys to stop a major invasion from the north


Cos our government told us we were not able to own guns anymore we will have to arm ouselves with pichforks if anything happens.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


the french resistance did as much they could under the circumstances.

HOWEVER....

The French as a whole were a gutless pile of cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Again history is a great thing, why don't you learn in one day.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Again history is a great thing, why don't you learn in one day.

You seem to forget junior who's already graduated and who's still buying used books in school. You of course being the latter.

take the blinders off child, your view of history is an inch wide and badly skewed at that.

[Lone Brain Cell]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Again history is a great thing, why don't you learn in one day.

FOL is correct in his assumption of how the french conduct themselves. The french resistance was great. BUT a handfull or ppl fighting for freedom v millions rolling over to be bum boys for the German army .
I feel that the French have the shortest memories. or at least short ones when it suits themself. I would like to see what they would want the States to do if some schmuck flew a plane into the eiffel tower.