U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[Southpaw]

To all that think the UN should have ben let alone to take care of Iraq LOOK at thisThe UN gets ready to run away with their tail between their legs! How are they going to use possible force as a dissuasion to countries? You expect them to go to WAR that is much more dangerous!!

[aaron_mag]

Hmmmm. Why don't we have more troops in Afghanistan? I thought we were commited to finding Bin Laden there? Oh that is right, we had to divert our forces to deal with an impending WOMD attack from Saddam......

[Southpaw]

If you dont believe Bush believe Clinton look up 4 posts and read the link!

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
You can wipe the floor with your enemy, but if you have a poor diplomatic working the peace treaty you will get hardly anything out of it. You can have your but kicked, and if you have a good diplomatic you can walk out without a scratch. You can go on living your fantasy of who does what, the military is just a tool used by the government to get what they want, be it economic or what ever gains.

You say we did nothing for 10 years take a look at this UN resolutions in Iraq! LINK
and you need to back up your diplomatic talks with the threat of war/action against them if they dont follow the diplomatic solutions! Sadam routinely walked all over the UN. We under Clinton were living FAT off the land so we did nothing! Then if you remember 911 and our foreign policy changed! Iraq was a message to North Korea, China, ect ect! Go against resolutions and think the UN will not have the balls to act watch out for the US and their buddies! you need to back you TALKS and stern hallmark cards with a BIG STICK and beat them when they dont follow the RULES they agreed to when we kicked their *** last time!!

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
Racist, where in the world did you get that from. Stop trying to throw terms around that doesn't mean anything or even apply. First it was anti-American, then anti-us, now racist. It is a simple fact that because of nationalist feelings, democracy will not work in Iraq, just like it will not work in many countries throughout the world. Democracy is not the end all solution for everyone, it was the solution for us.

Why do I think you're a racist? Oh, I don't know, maybe because you seem to think that Arabs can't governm themselves simply because they have different religions. Look out your door, not everyone here is Christian, but we get along just fine. I can only assume that the reason you think they can't govern themsleves is because you think Arabs are lesser then the rest of us. Oh, and should I repost your comment that ALL KURDS ARE TERRORISTS? If that wasn't a racist statement then what is?

And what solution do you propose instead of Democracy? Are you implying that Arabs don't deserve to be free? That somehow they are undeserving of anything better then living under a tyranny?

Gee, why do you think I've labeled you a racist?

The US at no time tried to go through the UN, it was a last ditch attempt to bring other nations to the table. The US would not consider a plan that did not involve war. They made it perfectly clear what they wanted. That is not how diplomacy works.

If it was a last ditch effort that went through the UN how can you say we didn't go through the UN?

Three different Presidents went through 12 years in the UN trying to depose Saddam via diplomatic, economic, and political forums. President Bush spent 14 months at the UN trying to pass resolutions and gather support for the war. And he succeeded to some degree, as he formed the coalition of the willing (or as I like to call them, guys that don't suck as much as France).


What makes you think that people who think like me don't do the same things. I plan on serving my country in the State Department. Of which I feel is just as if not more important then the military. For it doesn't matter if you whip your enemy in the field, you win or lose a war in the negotiations. I am not snipping your contributions, just asking what you consider a contribution and what you don't consider a contribution.

What do negotiations matter without an armed force? How can you even pretend that a diplomat can even be remotely taken seriously if the country he represents in a paper tiger?

Also, serving at a desk in the state department and serving in the front lines in Baghdad are not exactly comparable. That's like saying that the receptionist in a doctor's office on park avenue is the same as a Brooklyn emergeny room nurse because they both work in the medical field.

Bush can not afford for soldiers to be in Iraq in a year from now.

The talking heads also claim that if Clinton didn't have the troops out of Kosovo in 12 months his head would roll. Six years later they are still there. So long as Iraq doesn't deteriorate in a dramatic fashion there is no need for concern.

And expand a bit on the Clinton attacking Iraq.

Clinton rattled his saber at Iraq I don't even know how many times. Clinton, backed by both houses of the congress declare denounced Saddam in the strongest possible langauge (I believe it was the Iraq Accountability Act). Even Daschle supported that! Then there was the minor little thing called operation Desert Fox (which by the way didn't have UN permission) of about 100 cruise missiles and dozens of sorties off carriers. The targets? Iraqi WMD.

There is a difference between the US where we DID NOT HAVE A NATIONALISTIC WAR, we had a war fought by few people where the vast majority of the people wanted nothing more to do then to just live their life.

So what? What are you suggesting? That Iraqis don't want to live their life in peace? Is this your racism rearing it's ugly head again? Next time warn me before you do that.

As to the Germany and Japan, please study warfare before listing examples that do not fit. Germany and Japan were two symmetrical armies fighting each other with a populace that was of one nationality, or at least the majority nationality was liked.

So let me just see if I understand what your trying to write in whatever language that paragraph represents. Germany and Japan Fought each other? When? Germany and Japan have one nationality? or at least Germany and Japan shared one nationality that was liked?

I think you you meant to say was Don't compare Iraq to Germany and Japan because Iraq is a multi-ethnic nation whose population may have intercine hatreds? Does that sound better?

Assuming that's what you meant, yes there are differences. Of course having studied the history of warfare to a point where your ramblings seem not to have reached, many paralells in fact DO exist. The Japanese were suffering from an insanity on a national scale. Like Iraqi suicide bombers only on a grand scale. America occupied and cured this nation of this illness. It wasn't pretty, clean or fun, BUT IT DID WORK.

Also while you cannot imagine that Iraq could stay together and get along, they did. FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS. It was called the ottoman empire and its fall, in fact, is the very thing that one Osama Bin Jacktard laments the most. His greatest wish is the restoration of the "Caliphate". Such a restoration would litterally incorporate Iraq and its people and its problems as its historical antecedent did.

In little words: They did it before. for a long time. Worked Good. May work now. We'll see.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Collegeboy
You said people like me never contribute anything. I asked you what makes you think that people like you will contribute while people like me will not.

We conquer nation, you cry. They sound similiar, but ask any German if they are.

You can wipe the floor with your enemy,

You're right, we can. And like they always say, those who can, conquer, those who can't negoitiate (France).

but if you have a poor diplomatic working the peace treaty you will get hardly anything out of it.

After my enemies rotting carcases are stretched out before me I don't really feel motivated to talk about what I want out of the conflict. I just take what's lying around.

You can have your but kicked, and if you have a good diplomatic you can walk out without a scratch. You can go on living your fantasy of who does what, the military is just a tool used by the government to get what they want, be it economic or what ever gains.

This line of reasoning must be why after Israel destroyed a total of 7 Arab armies in three different wars the Arabs occupy Tel Aviv and the Jews were cast into the sea. Oh wait, we've discussed that before, with your so called "You can't take land without the UN saying it's ok" rant.

If a country attacked us, then retaliatory action against them is a given. Saddam has never and probably would never pose a threat to the US.

That's what we said about Bin Laden on September 10th, 2001.

Iraq is NOT our own nationally affairs, it is international affairs.

Technically nothing is in our nationally affairs. I don't even know what that means. In order to carry out or conversation I'll speak of national interests.

If Saddam had conquered all the oil supplies in the middle east (the energy source our entire economy is based) it is conceivable that might have nation security implications.

Quite calling names and debate, or leave the debate.

It's my party and I'll call names if I want to.

Never said we should give them tax payer money. I said the US is eliminating all competition from a country in which they illegally invaded, thus showing the true reason for the war to the international community.

The total value of Iraq's oil exports a year (at optimal conditions) is about $20 billion a year. By the end of next year we will have spent $100 billion dollars in direct costs. Clearly we are in this for the money.

And, just because I refuse to leave your "eliminating competition" line alone. What level of competition do you think existed pre liberation? How many times do you think the CEO's of Pepsi and Coke clashed over the lucrative Iraqi vending machine contracts?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Hmmmm. Why don't we have more troops in Afghanistan? I thought we were commited to finding Bin Laden there? Oh that is right, we had to divert our forces to deal with an impending WOMD attack from Saddam......

How many troops would you like in Afghanistan? At last count we had 85,000 soldiers in Germany not really doing anything. I'm sure any additional forces you may think we need for Afghanistan can be diverted from Germany. The war in Iraq hasn't depleted our forces to the point we can't function. We have in Afghanistan what the commanders feel is the right number. If they wanted more all they would have to do is bring them over.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

How many troops would you like in Afghanistan? At last count we had 85,000 soldiers in Germany not really doing anything. I'm sure any additional forces you may think we need for Afghanistan can be diverted from Germany. The war in Iraq hasn't depleted our forces to the point we can't function. We have in Afghanistan what the commanders feel is the right number. If they wanted more all they would have to do is bring them over.

Yeah you are right. That is why we've pulled national guardsmen away from their families for six month tours...because there isn't any strain. And don't start a debate on whether we SHOULD be pulling guardsman for long tours, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that Iraq AND Afghanistan HAS put a strain on our military. Perhaps there is a convincing argument that we SHOULD'T be in Germany at all (and I tend to agree with you there)but the fact is our military is strained from what the COMMANDERS feel should be deployed.

Of course why am I arguing with you? You are the one who thinks the administration is holding the announcement for the WOMD for just prior to the election. That be stupid because it is our tax money and our troops (we are a republic after all) that fought the war (those sort of announcements are not for politicians to hold based on an election). So either the adminstration is stupid or no glorious notification awaits the American people.....

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Yeah you are right. That is why we've pulled national guardsmen away from their families for six month tours...because there isn't any strain. And don't start a debate on whether we SHOULD be pulling guardsman for long tours, that is not what I'm saying.

Why have a national guard if you are not going to use them? They volunteered do go into the guard Got help to go to school and now they are serving their country! The guard and all of the military right now is made up of volunteers the US did not make them go to Iraq THEY did it to themselves!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Southpaw
Why have a national guard if you are not going to use them? They volunteered do go into the guard Got help to go to school and now they are serving their country! The guard and all of the military right now is made up of volunteers the US did not make them go to Iraq THEY did it to themselves!

Exactly the argument I did not want to get into. That is TOTALLY beside the point. What are they? They are RESERVISTS. So when do you call up reservists? When there is a strain on the "active" members and you need to call up help. For people to say, "Oh yeah. There is no strain. We're just calling up reservists to so we can meet all of our obligations...." WHAT DOES THAT SAY?????

[Southpaw]

No strain we are just flexing when/if we have a draft that is strain! And the Guard IS the military! I do not see the difference between them and the military in Germany leaving their family behind! How is it different at all!

[Collegeboy]

No I am not saying Arabs do not or can not live under a democracy. Stop you attempt to defame my character by stating unsubstantiated claims. Just like a conservative.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No I am not saying Arabs do not or can not live under a democracy. Stop you attempt to defame my character by stating unsubstantiated claims. Just like a conservative.

You need to have character before it can be defamed!

Collegeboy=Racist!

Arabs are people too! The US is not a homogenous country. We manage with all races and religions. Maybe the Iraqis can too. Do they not at least deserve the chance?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No I am not saying Arabs do not or can not live under a democracy. Stop you attempt to defame my character by stating unsubstantiated claims. Just like a conservative.

Actually just like you.

Typical how you scream "I'm a victim" whenever someone points out the nonsense of your so called logic.

You've said time and again on here how you think the populace of Iraq will be incapable of self governance because that's the way ALL Arab states act.

And yet you see nothing inherently racist in that.

Got news for you junior, it is. And it's blatant.

You ought to be ashamed.

But barring that, you've been shown to be what you are.

A racist.

[mcveighr]

Why is it absolutly necassary that the live in a democracy?

Also only one guy had the balls to comment on my previous question.