WAR has begun...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
The U.S. is going to rebuild Iraq. Isn't that a good thing?

yes, absolutely. the iraqi people deserve better than they've gotten. i sincerely hope they will be able to lead happy, normal lives. i sincerely hope they will be thankful to the US when it's all said and done.

contrast that to afghanistan (which we promised to rebuild). many people complain that the warlords are worse than the taliban and are not at all happy w/ the US. can we do better? yes, and we must.

THE MAIN POINT

it's my nature to look beyond what the media and administration are telling me and question motives. many US companies stand to make a lot of money from this war, halliburton especially. cheney is still being paid by halliburton (c.f. a link i provided above). there is a potential conflict of interest. it raises a red flag in my brain and i begin to wonder, "is there more going on than i'm being told?" "are there ulterior motives for going to war w/ iraq?"

i _must_ ask these questions. i would be heartened if others, lots of others, joined me.

am i wrong to wonder? i get the impression that many people think it's wrong of me. that i should simply smile, eat my cheeseburger, and trust an administration that many people in the media say is the most secretive they've ever seen.

i'm still granted the freedom to wonder and ask questions. that's a great thing. as much as it annoys me sometimes, people have the right to disagree with me. :-)

i'm all for a good political discussion. but if anyone's position here is: "shut up, you're unpatriotic, just trust the gov't, they've got nothing but happy thoughts for you," excuse me for being dismissive.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform

The Scots Man (http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/opinion.cfm?id=291702003)

uhhhh... from your own link:

"Yet what is being done in Afghanistan? Precious little and it is very slow."

[G4scott]

OK, so the US is going to help rebuild Iraq. Would you rather have them just leave it the way it will be after war? I see it as a good thing. It's just traditional American business competition. Who loses with this rebuilding?

You must get the idea out of your thick heads that we are destroying all of Iraq. We are destroying saddam's military buildings and compounds. Rebuilding is just a part of war. You guys keep on blowing everything way out of porportion. You also have to remember that saddam is also destroying his own oil wells. They might also blow up dams, which would mean even more work to rebuild the country, and it wouldn't be damage caused by US bombings.

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
uhhhh... from your own link:

"Yet what is being done in Afghanistan? Precious little and it is very slow."

Was our main goal in Afganistan to rebuild and liberate it?

No.

We are there to hunt down the terrorist leaders and cells which have currently gone into hiding.

One cannot compare the mission in Afganistan to the mission in Iraq as they are completely seperate.

[Stelliform]

....

[job]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Anyway, I agree in the protestors right to protest, and I agree in the rights of individuals rights to question. I do not agree with breaking the law for your protest. And I do not like when people insult our leaders. I tend to discredit everything after their name calling.:)

Your rights are yours to exercise so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. :)

Nice analysis Stelliform.

[pseudobrit]

If the oil in Iraq "belongs to the Iraqi people" then who does the oil in America belong to?

I'm expecting some royalty checks soon.

[Stelliform]

....

[job]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Anyway, I agree in the protestors right to protest, and I agree in the rights of individuals rights to question. I do not agree with breaking the law for your protest. And I do not like when people insult our leaders. I tend to discredit everything after their name calling.:)

On a related note, protesters "trashed" several properties owned by Rumsfeld.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81798,00.html

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Buy some land, get your check. My neighbor got $160 for his 1 acre lot a few months ago. My other neighbor is holding out... My bet is that they will find oil everywhere in town, but my holdout neighbor's lot! :D

Oh.

So you have to own the land to have the oil belong to you.

Who do you think is going to buy the oil fields in Iraq (for a song)?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman
On a related note, protesters "trashed" several properties owned by Rumsfeld.


i don't condone destruction of property. i also think it's dumb to trespass onto a military base, especially when orders include "shoot to kill."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If the oil in Iraq "belongs to the Iraqi people" then who does the oil in America belong to?

I'm expecting some royalty checks soon.

errrr, that would be communism. we've all seen that communism doesn't work on a large scale. my personal opinion is it will only work when everyone knows each other (e.g. a family).

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott

You must get the idea out of your thick heads that we are destroying all of Iraq.

has anyone said that? i don't think i did.

a long time ago, in a post far, far above, i lumped many arguments into "he's a bad man and must be stopped."

i don't disagree with that. hussein out of power is a good thing.

where i take issue is with the method, process, timing, and ramifications.

even if hussein is out of power soon, iraq is rebuilt, and we're all very proud of ourselves, was it worth it if the entire muslim world hates the US? it's too early to tell, but what if that is the result?

the military campaign matters not nearly as much as the PR and political / foreign policy campaigns.

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman
Was our main goal in Afganistan to rebuild and liberate it?


main goal or not, bush promised to rebuild it. he said something along the lines of "we will not forget afghanistan."

also promised were free elections, with a deadline. that deadline has past.

again, to me the most important thing is image. if the muslim world hates the US, it doesn't matter how good we feel about ourselves. we'll still be attacked. THAT is where my concern is.

[Stelliform]

....

[Stelliform]

.....

[macfan]

Originally posted by dubbelhund
It is quite obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about. There is a number of people currently detained in Cuba from all over the world, one of whom is a 19 year old Swedish boy! He held indefinetly, is not allowed to communicate with anyone, not even his family. The US is not everything-is-perfect, la-la-land like you seem to believe! The arrogance in this country makes me sick. The US uses torture to soften up the "terrorist in Cuba and elsewhere, torture techniques that are being taught right here in the US at the school of americana. There is no difference in the "evil" actions between "us" and "them", we are not any more "good" than they are.

I am quite clear on Blix as well, it wasn't toothpicks that they were destroying in Iraq recently, it was Al Samoud missiles, so don't try to tell me that the inspections weren't working. We do NOT know if Iraq has nuclear weapons (WMD) because there is no evidence, I do not claim that they don't have them (nor that they do) simply because we do not know (We do know that North Korea does, however).

Goebbel propaganda techniques is all the Bush administration has, because they have no evidence of anything, which is why they have to resort to empty worlds and catchphrases to fool the public into believing that there is a clear and immediate threat.

dubbelhund,
I do know what I am talking about, but you do not know what I am talking about. You are talking about something different. I am talking about US citizens and their rights under the Constitution of the United States. You are talking about non American combat captives. I do not believe that the US is perfect, as you claim, but I do not believe that it is a NAZI state, either, as you seem to believe.

The war on terror presents differnt legal challenges, but the American system is capable of dealing with them and will adjust over time with legislation. With time, the courts and Congress will establish the legal mechanisms for dealing with the variety of combatants and criminals. There will probably be new international conventions established as well. Under some traditional rules of war, those detainees in Cuba could have been executed out of hand for failing to be in uniform on the battlefield. The detainees in Cuba are not US citizens. The 19 year old Sweedish "boy" was captured in a war in Afghanistan. He is not a US citizen, and the same rights accorded by the Constitution of the United States do not apply to him as a combat detainee. However, he is not being abused. There is no evidence of torture among the detainees in Cuba, that is mere rhetoric on your part. They are well-treated, they are well-fed, and the International Red Cross is able to see them and speak with them to verify this, and they are permitted to send and receive letters from their families, according to the IRC. You are, quite simply, misinformed on this matter. If there is anyone using Nazi propaganda techniques by repeating lies, it is those who claim torture and mistreatment of the prisoners in Cuba and that they are not allowed to communicate with their families--and they have been successful in making you believe this.

You are not exactly clear on Blix, either. You merely cite a small part of his report and treat this as though Saddam was in compliance. However, Blix has said in every report that Saddam has not complied with the requirements of the UN resolutions.

He was given 45 days and he never complied. No serious person has ever said otherwise. We don't KNOW if Iraq has WMDs, we do KNOW that Iraq had WMDs and we KNOW that he never complied with the UN regarding those WMDs. These are matters of fact. It is a matter of opinion and debate as to what should have been done about his non compliance, but the question of his non compliance has never been in doubt.

With regard to the construction contracts to rebuild Iraq, I would certainly hope that such planning is underway. It is important to do so as fast as possible.

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If the oil in Iraq "belongs to the Iraqi people" then who does the oil in America belong to?

I'm expecting some royalty checks soon.

Move to Alaska. I understand they pay out royalty checks to the citizens there.

http://www.marci.net/taxes.htm

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

Move to Alaska. I understand they pay out royalty checks to the citizens there.


(sounds of packing)

"dude, you know they have to import women there, 'cuz there's so many guys"

(sounds of unpacking)

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
also promised were free elections, with a deadline. that deadline has past.

I was under the impression that the elections had already taken place, some time last year if I recall.

Elections or not, war-lords and terrorists in hiding are still the main focus of the forces stationed there. The primary mission has not been completed, thus we cannot begin the secondary mission, i.e. the reconstruction of Afganistan.

[macfan]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
BBC America is reporting stuff I haven't heard all day from the Cable Newsies. It's a shame you can't trust the US media to tell you what's going on anymore, like the worldwide protests going on today, or the fact that Blair and Chirac are so mad at each other that they're not speaking to one another over their state dinners.

This one's from the Guardian:



That's one too many already... how many more human beings must become "collateral damage" so that we can feel good about allaying our fears?

How many people is it okay to kill so that America can feel more secure about not losing one citizen to terror? Are a million foreign lives worth a thousand American lives?

Just FYI, Agence France Presse has reported that the Palestinian Liberation Front says that this taxi driver was also member of their group.

"The slain PLF officer al-Baz was employed as a taxi driver with a Jordan-based company. He had stopped at a roadside rest area about 190 miles west of Baghdad when he was struck by a missile from a helicopter while using a satellite phone, Agence France-Presse said."

While there have been and will be many innocents killed, this man was not one of them.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman
I was under the impression that the elections had already taken place, some time last year if I recall.

i believe karzai is the interim president. elections are still forthcoming (afaik, no definitive date has been set)



Elections or not, war-lords and terrorists in hiding are still the main focus of the forces stationed there. The primary mission has not been completed, thus we cannot begin the secondary mission, i.e. the reconstruction of Afganistan.

agreed. but kabul _is_ more or less secure, and according to sources of seymour hersh not a lot as been done even in the capital.

hey, maybe the rebuild is still to come, or maybe it's gone by the wayside. wait and see, i guess.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

While there have been and will be many innocents killed, this man was not one of them.

all righty, then.

i was under the impression this happened in baghdad. i'm trying to remember where i'd heard that.

news at the beginning of anything like this is always shaky. e.g. radio bulgaria is claiming the marine helicopters downed yesterday fell victim to enemy fire

link (http://www.nationalradio.bg/English/bulgaria.htm)

obviously, US media claims it was merely a crash. who knows what really happened?

[macfan]

zimv20,

obviously, US media claims it was merely a crash. who knows what really happened?

On this one you can trust the US military. Just say the video of the helicopter crash. It was probably due to weather.

Of course, there might have been more than one Jordanian taxi driver killed.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
Just say the video of the helicopter crash.

there was a video of the actual act of crashing?

[macfan]

Not very clear, but it was there. You could see it fly into a sandstorm and you can see the fireball. A real tragedy. Just like those poor Iraqis who are dying right now, too. There was also a reporter on another aircraft in the formation. Also, there is no reason that the US wouldn't release the fact if a helicopter had been shot down.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
there is no reason that the US wouldn't release the fact if a helicopter had been shot down.

i can see a reason. it takes away from the perfection of the assault, it may galvanize anti-US views, it may give the iraqi army hope.

i'm not saying it _was_ shot down, i'm saying we need to be skeptical.

i haven't seen the video. in your opinion, is the video conclusive in the reason for the crash? what evidence is there that it's even the copter(s) that went down?

again, not saying it's manufactured, but it's something to keep in mind when your gut says, "something isn't right here."

[macfan]

There is a difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. There is no legitimate reason to suspect that this event was anything other than an accident. All evidence points in that direction.

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
i'm saying we need to be skeptical.

It crashed. We have seen already that the Pentagon is willing to inform the public when it comes to KIAs. The Pentagon already reported the 2 Marines who were killed in action. If the helecopter was shot down, they would have mentioned it as well.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman
It crashed. We have seen already that the Pentagon is willing to inform the public when it comes to KIAs. The Pentagon already reported the 2 Marines who were killed in action. If the helecopter was shot down, they would have mentioned it as well.

the best lie is the one closest to the truth. would you be more skeptical if there were zero KIAs? the truth is, we don't know how many KIAs there are, nor may we ever know how many are due to fratricide.

even recently, families are still finding out what happened to loved ones in the first gulf war. there are MIAs from vietnam where families still think there are soldiers being held. do i believe that? not necessarily, but some do.

and it makes my point -- the military is not always totally forthcoming about what happens in battle. you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. it's PR and it's _very_ carefully managed.

hell, if i were running a war, i wouldn't want you knowing about every little thing that goes on. you might end up being opposed to the war! and we can't have that. "we" learned our lesson in vietnam: a free press = anti-war opinion.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
There is a difference between being skeptical and being paranoid. There is no legitimate reason to suspect that this event was anything other than an accident. All evidence points in that direction.

all evidence that you've seen or care to pay attention to.

does the bulgarian radio report not count as evidence? bulgaria is in the coalition, if you recall.


There is a difference between being skeptical and being paranoid.

yep -- and i _love_ skating that line :-)

[zimv20]

pentagon: "weather-related accident"

bulgarian radio: "downed by enemy fire"

(some on) this board: "believe the pentagon"

me: "keep an open mind"

[wdlove]

Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,


On this one you can trust the US military. Just say the video of the helicopter crash. It was probably due to weather.

Of course, there might have been more than one Jordanian taxi driver killed.

With this war the media has unprecedented access. Ability to see the action in real time. Only restriction is on actual positions, number of troops, and goals.

[macfan]

zimv20,
pentagon: "weather-related accident"

bulgarian radio: "downed by enemy fire"

(some on) this board: "believe the pentagon"

me: "keep an open mind"

OK, Sherlock, is the Bulgarian radio still saying this? There were initial reports in the American media that the number killed was 16 instead of 12 and that there were more Americans killed than British, when it was the opposite. There was a report of a car bomb at the state department on 9/11. Initial reports aren't always accurate, but it seems very likely that this was the case. The helicopter crashed, the cause isn't known, but there were no reports of enemy fire, it went down in Kuwait, where there aren't Iraqi forces, and the video has been released of it.

There's a difference between an open mind and a "beautiful" mind, for those who have seen the movie.

[wdlove]

A poll from Bill O'Reilly.com

Q: Does the United States have the right to specifically target and/or kill Saddam and his leadership?
Answer Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes - Saddam is a military leader.
96%

No - We don't assassinate world leaders.
3%

Maybe - But only with a UN mandate.
1%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Votes: 11847*

It's already possible that he has been injured!

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wdlove
With this war the media has unprecedented access. Ability to see the action in real time. Only restriction is on actual positions, number of troops, and goals.

you really believe that? technology allows us to see images in real time, yes, but the military tells reporters where they can go and where they can point their cameras.

contrast that to vietnam where reporters could go basically where they wanted, film casualities, and report on enemy successes.

believe me, you are seeing only what the military lets you.

side note: yes, there are live cameras in baghdad. with those, you'll see only buildings and explosions. low-risk for seeing american casualities, from a military perspective.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

There's a difference between an open mind and a "beautiful" mind, for those who have seen the movie.

okay, i'm game. what's the difference?

i've got two conflicting reports. i don't have enough evidence to allow me to believe anything, other than what they agree on: the copter went down.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
The helicopter crashed, the cause isn't known,

oh, i missed that the first time i read it. so we agree the cause isn't 100% known. what are we disgreeing about?

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
hell, if i were running a war, i wouldn't want you knowing about every little thing that goes on. you might end up being opposed to the war! and we can't have that. "we" learned our lesson in vietnam: a free press = anti-war opinion.

I actually heard a news cast from several reporters on NPR earlier today. They said that this was the first conflict in which the press had such free reign.

An example: 2 hours after the SEALs had captured the oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, several reporters were allowed to board the platforms and report on not only what happened, but also the tactics used and the number of prisoners. It's unprecidented. Look at all of the live video and still pictures flashing around the globe. I don't think the media coverage was even this great during the first Gulf War.

I'm not splitting hairs here. I agree somewhat with your analysis. ;)

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
contrast that to vietnam where reporters could go basically where they wanted, film casualities, and report on enemy successes.

Yes, that is true, but do Mom, Pop, and Uncle Joe really want to see American boys being shot while they eat their dinner? Probably not. Casualty reports are fine, however why would anyone want to see video feed of American soldiers dying?

Side note: What if CNN had been at the Normandy landings in the Second World War? I doubt public support for the war would have been as high as it was.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman

Side note: What if CNN had been at the Normandy landings in the Second World War? I doubt public support for the war would have been as high as it was.

thank you. you just made my point.

that said, i will say that WWII was, in my mind, a case where diplomacy never would have worked. it seems hitler was hell-bent on war and would not be contained. i do not feel the same about this war.

[job]

Originally posted by zimv20
thank you. you just made my point.

Like I said, I agree with certain parts of your analysis.

The media, especially visual images have a powerful effect on the general public which is not used to seeing American soldiers killed.Remember Somalia and the tapes of the American pilots being dragged through the streets? The media can hype events or play them down, and in the modern world, presentation of information can shape that way people perceive current events.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by hitman
presentation of information can shape that way people perceive current events.

yes! yes yes yes!

anyone remember what andrew card, white house chief of staff, said last september about the timing of selling the war to the american public?

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce a new product in August."

it's PR, it's marketing, it's knowing that the american public has a short approval span for wars.

is this news to anyone? seems pretty straightforward to me.

[macfan]

Originally posted by zimv20
okay, i'm game. what's the difference?

i've got two conflicting reports. i don't have enough evidence to allow me to believe anything, other than what they agree on: the copter went down.

Having an open mind means that one looks at all the evidence and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. Having a mind like that in "a beautiful mind" means taking all the evidence and reaching the conclusions that most satifies one's fears and prejudices.

Media coverage has a huge impact on public perception, and managing media coverage is critical to any strategy that involves promoting a particular policy, without regard for whether the policy is a good policy or not. Working to frame issues in the media is an important element for anyone who wants to promote a particular policy. The efforts to frame an issue on the part of particular stakeholders should not be taken as evidence that all there is to an issue is a marketing campaign.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by zimv20
that said, i will say that WWII was, in my mind, a case where diplomacy never would have worked. it seems hitler was hell-bent on war and would not be contained. i do not feel the same about this war.

Well, it's good we're getting rid of saddam, because in a few years, him, or one of his sons could've been just like that...

Just a note- I noticed that a few people here are very sensitive about the loss of life, especially on the Iraqi side. I've even noticed a reference to an article that talks about the loss of millions of foreign lives for the safety of thousands of American lives, and this puzzles me. We aren't targeting and aiming at civilians. Our precision weapons are very accurate. This is war. In war, people do die. The soldiers of both sides know it, and they don't dwell on it. If soldiers thought "Oh, think of all the Iraqi troops dying out there, and the civilians we might be hitting", they wouldn't get anything done. They would be scared, and our casualties would soar, because they wouldn't be able to concentrate when they need to. We aren't killing millions of innocent people for the safety of a couple thousand Americans. 3000 Amercan civilians and civilians of other countries died because of terrorists, and we didn't kill millions of innocent muslims. Where do people get the idea that thousands upon thousands of civilians are dying just for the US? I know that in the past, US supported leaders (saddam himself) have gone on to kill innocent civilians, but how did the US know that those actions were going to happen? We are not trying to kill civilians here. We are also trying to keep from killing Iraqi soldiers here, by letting them surrender, and telling them in advance that they will be safe if they surrender. We only target those who fire upon coalition forces, because they are a danger, and we assume they know what they are doing and the consequences. Compared to other wars, for the amount of progress done, the amount of casualties is extremely low. This war is not a killing spree. Get over it. The US will do what is necessary to take out saddam, but they won't mindlessly kill troops or civilians.

I've noticed that macfan says that 'the poor iraqui's are dying too'. And this angers me. They could put up no resistance, surrender, let us get saddam and his minions, and make Iraq free. The people who fight are loyal to saddam, and support the murder and terror he does. These poor iraqi's are the ones who probably murder or torture innocent civilians. If he is talking about civilians, I believe that more have been hurt from Iraqi anti-aircraft fire falling to the ground than actual US bombs (but I may be wrong). Either way, as I stated before, the amount of casualties for this war is extremely low. More people die of drunk driving and smoking cigarettes.

In my humble opinion, you would be much better advocating anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco programs than anti-war. War has already started, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. About the best thing you can do now is support US troops. This doesn't mean don't question the government. It's the ability to question the government's motives without being prosecuted that makes this country so powerful, but don't dwell on things that have already started and can't be stopped now. If you want to save lives now, support coalition troops, and support anti-alcohol and anti-tobacco groups.

[macfan]

G4Scott,
I talking about the Iraqi civilians and those conscripts who have just been thrown out in the desert to die. I don't care if they are dying from bombs or from AAA fire falling back to earth. They are human beings, and they are dying. They deserve some sympathy, even though Saddam is 100 percent responsible for their deaths.

zimv20,
Originally posted by zimv20
that said, i will say that WWII was, in my mind, a case where diplomacy never would have worked. it seems hitler was hell-bent on war and would not be contained. i do not feel the same about this war.

We tried diplomacy for 12 years on Saddam. Only for six on Hitler! (1933-1939). Saddam was never going to comply with the UN.

[iJon]

check this out. this is from the father of one of the marines who died on the helicopter crash.

Watersbey's father angrily blamed President Bush for his son's death.
"George Bush, take a good look at this man, cause you took my only son away from me," Michael Watersbey said, holding up a picture of his son.

iJon

[G4scott]

Just to let everybody know, this war is already beginning to show good for some. The Iraqi people are happy that the US is doing what they're doing. They are tired of the pain and destruction saddam has caused, and are thanking coalition troops for what they are doing- removing saddam. Take it from the people who are affected the most- this war will have its advantages. It will free the people of Iraq, and will let the rest of the world know that tyrants will not be tolerated.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.safwan/index.html

[G4scott]

While it is sad that that man's son died, the man shouldn't be angry with Bush. His son died for a good cause. He didn't die in a gang fight, he didn't die of old age, he died fighting for our country. While his loss is sad, he must realize that war does not come without casualties, and we must accecpt them, not blame people for them (unless there is a cause for blame, unlike in this case).

Here are some ideas to chew on:

Young Americans will die in battle. _
--> Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured. _
--> That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now.
_ _ _(Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed?)


Death is nothing to be happy about, and is very sad indeed, but we must look beyond the death of one person, or a few people, and see the full scope of what they died for, to appreciate what they had done for their country, and to help the lives of complete strangers in another.

May the lives lost during this conflict not be lost in vain.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
Having an open mind means that one looks at all the evidence and reaches conclusions based on that evidence. Having a mind like that in "a beautiful mind" means taking all the evidence and reaching the conclusions that most satifies one's fears and prejudices.

point taken. but i've reached no conclusions on what caused that crash. i'm merely pointing out to those that have reached a conclusion that doing so may be premature.

i think we've talked the copter downing thing enough.


Media coverage has a huge impact on public perception, and managing media coverage is critical to any strategy that involves promoting a particular policy, without regard for whether the policy is a good policy or not. Working to frame issues in the media is an important element for anyone who wants to promote a particular policy. The efforts to frame an issue on the part of particular stakeholders should not be taken as evidence that all there is to an issue is a marketing campaign.

well put.

[iJon]

Originally posted by G4scott
While it is sad that that man's son died, the man shouldn't be angry with Bush. His son died for a good cause. He didn't die in a gang fight, he didn't die of old age, he died fighting for our country. While his loss is sad, he must realize that war does not come without casualties, and we must accecpt them, not blame people for them (unless there is a cause for blame, unlike in this case).

Here are some ideas to chew on:

Young Americans will die in battle. _
--> Would you prefer they die in skyscrapers?

Thousands of innocents will be killed or injured. _
--> That's a lot less than Hussein is killing right now.
_ _ _(Of course, there's only one man that needs to be killed?)


Death is nothing to be happy about, and is very sad indeed, but we must look beyond the death of one person, or a few people, and see the full scope of what they died for, to appreciate what they had done for their country, and to help the lives of complete strangers in another.

May the lives lost during this conflict not be lost in vain.
well so far all ive seen is thousands of innocents surrendering.

iJon

[iJon]

7 people just died when two british helicopters collided. sad event.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott
I know that in the past, US supported leaders (saddam himself) have gone on to kill innocent civilians, but how did the US know that those actions were going to happen?


during the reagan and bush I administrations, the US was officially neutral wrt the Iran/Iraq war. but in actuality, the US (including Rumsfeld and Cheney) was supplying the Iraqis w/ intelligence, satellite photos, and weapons -- including chemical and biological (anthrax).

also supplied were technologies that allowed the iraqis to build better artillery.

the US supplied Iranian troop positions which the iraqis used to direct chemical weapons.

when the iraqis gassed civilians, the US not only stood by, but said nothing when the iraqis blamed the iranians.

it's a long, sad, sordid tale. but i dispute that the administration didn't know what was happening. indeed, they enabled it.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

We tried diplomacy for 12 years on Saddam. Only for six on Hitler! (1933-1939). Saddam was never going to comply with the UN.

we likely disagree on how well-contained hussein was (up until 2 day ago, anyway).

i hope we would agree that hitler's army in the early 40s was incredibly strong, and on the move, whereas iraq's army today is obviously pretty weak, especially when compared to the US's.

i don't think the situations are comparable. hitler had already conquered most of europe, the iraqi army was confined to a portion of its own country.

[iJon]

HAHA, the Iraqi information minister is having a press conferene right now and is saying the war is still on and they will win. My ass, this was was over before it started, we own that country now.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by iJon
we own that country now.


is that a good thing or bad thing, i wonder. time will tell.

you know what would rock? that i'm wrong about everything. democracy is put into place in iraq, the iraqis love us, one by one the mideast autocracies go democratic, muslims around the world embrace the US citizens and values. that would rock. i sound sarcastic, yes, but it truly would rock. until then, i won't hold my breath.

you know what would suck? billions of dollars of war later, despite all best intentions, the muslim world still hates the US and we live in constant fear of terror attacks and we have to watch what we say. that would suck.

[iJon]

Originally posted by zimv20
is that a good thing or bad thing, i wonder. time will tell.

you know what would rock? that i'm wrong about everything. democracy is put into place in iraq, the iraqis love us, one by one the mideast autocracies go democratic, muslims around the world embrace the US citizens and values. that would rock. i sound sarcastic, yes, but it truly would rock. until then, i won't hold my breath.

you know what would suck? billions of dollars of war later, despite all best intentions, the muslim world still hates the US and we live in constant fear of terror attacks and we have to watch what we say. that would suck.
when i said we own i meant more in in terms of saddam. there regime is falling. and from the looks the iraqis are partying with us in the humvees as they tear down saddam posters.

iJon

[G4scott]

Originally posted by zimv20
is that a good thing or bad thing, i wonder. time will tell.

you know what would rock? that i'm wrong about everything. democracy is put into place in iraq, the iraqis love us, one by one the mideast autocracies go democratic, muslims around the world embrace the US citizens and values. that would rock. i sound sarcastic, yes, but it truly would rock. until then, i won't hold my breath.

you know what would suck? billions of dollars of war later, despite all best intentions, the muslim world still hates the US and we live in constant fear of terror attacks and we have to watch what we say. that would suck.

I believe the greed and jealousy of some in the muslim world will be a major hindrance in bringing democracy and freedom to this part of the world.

What I believe the US is doing now is making an example. If you were Kim Jong Il (or whatever his name is) and you knew the US wouldn't hesitate to do to him what we did to saddam, would you change your mind? We are showing tyrants that we will not tolerate them while they oppress their own people, and we are showing the oppressed that they don't have to live under such tyrannical leaders.

[macfan]

Originally posted by zimv20
we likely disagree on how well-contained hussein was (up until 2 day ago, anyway).

i hope we would agree that hitler's army in the early 40s was incredibly strong, and on the move, whereas iraq's army today is obviously pretty weak, especially when compared to the US's.

i don't think the situations are comparable. hitler had already conquered most of europe, the iraqi army was confined to a portion of its own country.

We don't need to think about Hitler's army in the 1940s. Think of his army in the 1930s. It wasn't such a great threat then. As Winston Churchill said:

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

The news conference with the Iraqi info minister was pretty good for comic relief. "We are driving them back etc. etc." Somehow it just doesn't seem very likely.

[iJon]

Originally posted by macfan
The news conference with the Iraqi info minister was pretty good for comic relief. "We are driving them back etc. etc." Somehow it just doesn't seem very likely.
no kidding, they said we are retreating. anyways, does anyone know where this guy was talking from.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott
If you were Kim Jong Il (or whatever his name is) and you knew the US wouldn't hesitate to do to him what we did to saddam, would you change your mind?

i truly believe that guy's insane. i live in chicago, a place where he threatened do drop a nuke if bush shows any sign of aggression. you know, i would half expect Kim to do it.

i would have MUCH preferred bush had paid attention to NK, especially when relations went south last fall, than his (what i call) obsession w/ iraq.

hey, if i get nuked, will you guys say, "hey, maybe that zim guy was right after all" ? :-)

[pseudobrit]

Comparing Saddam to Hitler is BS.

The UN works.

Containment works.

Hell, these two worked against a powerful enemy like the Soviet Union -- we contained their threat and it friggin' worked, even though they were a match for our military strength or (more likely) superior.

The UN has been used to avert nuclear war in the past. But neither side wanted war. It doesn't work if either side is hellbent on peace failing.

If we would have had the UN in 1918, Hitler would have never come to power in 1933 (for quite a variety of reasons, not least of which would have been a strategy of containment).

Hell, if we'd have had the UN in 1914, the Great War might never have happened.

[G4scott]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Comparing Saddam to Hitler is BS.

The UN works.


yeah, for 11 years, it's worked beautifully...


Originally posted by pseudobrit
Containment works.

Hell, these two worked against a powerful enemy like the Soviet Union -- we contained their threat and it friggin' worked, even though they were a match for our military strength or (more likely) superior.

The UN has been used to avert nuclear war in the past. But neither side wanted war. It doesn't work if either side is hellbent on peace failing.

If we would have had the UN in 1918, Hitler would have never come to power in 1933 (for quite a variety of reasons, not least of which would have been a strategy of containment).

Hell, if we'd have had the UN in 1914, the Great War might never have happened.

We assume this because we also assume that hitler would've obeyed every UN resolution sent his way. Unfortunately, saddam is not like that. As respected as the UN may have been, they are not as respected as the US military...

Or if you want it to seem as if the UN wins here, you can look at it like this:

President George Bush has made an announcement that we will not attack Iraq. The President has announced that as of today he is agreeing to additional inspectors to be deployed throughout the country of Iraq.
_
We will be sending 250,000 additional inspectors into Iraq.
_
The additional inspectors will include:
_
24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
_
15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division
_
5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "
_
M1-A1 all terrain vehicles"
_
Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from
the:
_
USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln, USS Enterprise, USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Harry S. Truman, and USS Kitty-Hawk.
_
The President stated: "with these additional inspectors the inspections should be completed in a few weeks."

[pseudobrit]

UN inspectors don't blow up population centres though...

[G4scott]

Originally posted by zimv20
i truly believe that guy's insane. i live in chicago, a place where he threatened do drop a nuke if bush shows any sign of aggression. you know, i would half expect Kim to do it.

i would have MUCH preferred bush had paid attention to NK, especially when relations went south last fall, than his (what i call) obsession w/ iraq.

hey, if i get nuked, will you guys say, "hey, maybe that zim guy was right after all" ? :-)

Kim Jong Il (or whatever the ***** his name is) is an interesting person. He is like saddam in some aspects, but unlike him in many others. I believe that his reason for having nukes is to get attention in the national community. He probably wants to hold the world randsome until he gets what he wants. In this case, it would be unlikely for him to use his nukes.

Of course, this war with Iraq may do one of two things to him. 1: he will see that he stands no chance against the US, and agrees to peaceful disarmament (not the UN again :rolleyes:) or 2: he realizes he stands no chance against a US led invasion, and decides to do as much damage to the US before we take him out, which would mean for certain he dies.

I believe he would only take option #2 if he feels his life is threatened. This would only happen if we threaten to hold him accountable for war crimes or other things like that. Or, if we decide to free the people of North Korea like we are doing in Iraq. The only problem is that N. Korea has shut out the outside world entirely. They brainwash their people to think that their leaders are gods with special powers. They do a poor job at it, but it's enough to have almost their entire impoverished population support their leader onto their death. There were grown men sobbing over the death of their last leader, even TV reporters crying. It's sad that people are brainwashed like so, because there isn't much we can do to peacefully free them.

Either way, I believe that if Kim Jong Il actually fires nukes our way, I think we have missile defense systems that can take it down, and you never know if a missile as primitive as his (compared to ours) would actually make it across the ocean... Meaning he would probably choose a target much closer, like china, Japan , or South Korea...

[G4scott]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
UN inspectors don't blow up population centres though...

and neither does the US.

If you're referring to this article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/22/sprj.irq.war.casualties/index.html), you don't have much to base your claims on. Matter of fact, you have even less evidence to base your claims on than Bush has evidence that Iraq has WMD's and biological and chemical weapons....

That report was from the same iraqi's who claim that coalition forces are retreating, that they will behead the invaders, and that the thousands of surrendering troops are civilians the US captured and is claiming to be troops.

I'll tell you who does target population centers- terrorists, and saddam (just ask the kurds.)

[job]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The UN works.

Hell, these two worked against a powerful enemy like the Soviet Union -- we contained their threat and it friggin' worked, even though they were a match for our military strength or (more likely) superior.

Tell me one thing the UN did to contain the Soviet Union.

Last time I checked American stood alone to contain the USSR.

If we would have had the UN in 1918, Hitler would have never come to power in 1933 (for quite a variety of reasons, not least of which would have been a strategy of containment).

Do you even realize what containment means? It entails the threat of massive retaliation, it means going to the brink of war to deter one. Do you realize that containment was one of America's excuses for the Vietnam War? Containment would not have effected Hitler's domestic rise to power, only his quest for territory.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Comparing Saddam to Hitler is BS.

The UN works.

Containment works.

Lets assess your statements, and then decide ok?


Hell, these two worked against a powerful enemy like the Soviet Union -- we contained their threat and it friggin' worked, even though they were a match for our military strength or (more likely) superior.

What detered the Soviet Union? Was it, UN sanctions? Powerless statements from members of the UN? Wait, I know, was it the thousands of nuclear weapons that the UN had, wait, they had NONE! Was it Reagan's policies that the UN opposed? I know, it was Reagan's policies, and the roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons that we pointed down their throats that contained them. You point is negated.


The UN has been used to avert nuclear war in the past. But neither side wanted war. It doesn't work if either side is hellbent on peace failing.

WHAT! How, with what? They, the UN had no deterence. The French did not want us there. The Germans did not want us there. They did not want a nuclear protected Europe! Do a little research, and then come back.


If we would have had the UN in 1918, Hitler would have never come to power in 1933 (for quite a variety of reasons, not least of which would have been a strategy of containment).

Hell, if we'd have had the UN in 1914, the Great War might never have happened.
This is the most absurd statement that I have ever heard. Do you know the history of WWII and WWI? Let me teach you. HAD the international community actually done something other than TRY to contain Hitler, the millions that died in WWII could have been avoided. See, we know for a fact that when he rearmed the Rhineland, it was a test for the world. When they did nothing, he moved on parts on the Chechs. When we did nothing, he continued to move. Containment doesn't work. Had the UN been around in 1933, Hitler would have wiped his butt with UN resoultions. you see, the UN is powerless, and means nothin because they do not back up what they say with force. You can threaten all day, but if you don't back it up, then it means nothing.

As for the war in 1914. That was a disaster that was caused by secret treaties throughout Europe. It was a war that should have never been fought but was. The French fought with honor, and dignity. That war may, and I mean this is a really big stretch may have been avoided through diplomacy. But I think it was unavoidable. The Germans and French were on a course that would have ended in war one way or another.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by G4scott
Just to let everybody know, this war is already beginning to show good for some. The Iraqi people are happy that the US is doing what they're doing. They are tired of the pain and destruction saddam has caused, and are thanking coalition troops for what they are doing- removing saddam. Take it from the people who are affected the most- this war will have its advantages. It will free the people of Iraq, and will let the rest of the world know that tyrants will not be tolerated.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/21/sprj.irq.safwan/index.html

keep in mind (even the US media is admitting this) that these people are the most oppressed, and therefore the most likely to be supportive of the US. don't get me wrong, for them it is great, but don't let yourself think that ALL iraqis feel that way... we'll see what happens in baghdad itself.... let's hope it's not a blackhawk down type city battle... that would get ugly.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott

Of course, this war with Iraq may do one of two things to him. 1: he will see that he stands no chance against the US, and agrees to peaceful disarmament (not the UN again :rolleyes:) or 2: he realizes he stands no chance against a US led invasion, and decides to do as much damage to the US before we take him out, which would mean for certain he dies.

i hope you're right. i still think he's insane.


I believe that if Kim Jong Il actually fires nukes our way, I think we have missile defense systems that can take it down, and you never know if a missile as primitive as his (compared to ours) would actually make it across the ocean...

the US has no such defensive capability. bush wants to build one, but it doesn't exist today (indeed, many experts think it'll never work).

NK has ICBMs, though the longest range ones are untested. still, their technology is not as primitive as you think.

hoping that those missiles can't reach us, or hoping that the patriots can catch them (they can't, not designed for such incoming missiles) is suicidal diplomacy.

i don't know how to cool down the NK situation. we've already seen, thank to bush, how to raise the stakes.

would bush have gone too far, in incompetency, if NK nukes us?

i'll respect a "no" answer more from someone who lives in NYC, DC, Chicago, SF, or LA (NK's most likely nuke targets).

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

What detered the Soviet Union? [snip] the roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons that we pointed down their throats that contained them.


agreed. MAD is a good deterrent as long as both sides can agree life is worth living.

that's my fear w/ NK right now. i think Kim's insane.


The French did not want us there. The Germans did not want us there. They did not want a nuclear protected Europe!


true. most europeans figured, correctly, in a nuclear exchange the US missiles would be targeted. of course, in a nuclear exchange that big, i don't think anyone would have survived.


As for the war in 1914. That was a disaster that was caused by secret treaties throughout Europe.


true again. everyone was heavily militarized, and there were treaties that had a domino effect of bringing everyone into the war.

once franz ferdinand, an austrio-hungarian archduke, was assasinated in sarajevo, and the response was to invade the balkans, that tipped the scales. instant world war in europe.

i found it fascinating that an assassination in the balkans preceded this war, too.

regarding WWII, i don't think anything could have avoided that. in a way, it was an extension of WWI. and hitler wanted his war. once someone w/ an army like that wants war, you get war.

[zimv20]

it's good to see that there's been no use of chemical or bio weapons (to this point).

let me ask this: once hussein is defeated (seems inevitable), and the US goes on its hunt for WMD, what is the percentage chance the administration would say, "we didn't find any" and what's the percentage chance they wouldn't find any?

my answers, respectively: zero and twenty percent.

second set: amend second question to "chances of not finding significant stockpiles of WMD"

my answers, respectively: zero and seventy percent.

[macfan]

zimv20,
"Significant" is not a measurable term. Iraq is not being attacked because of massive stockpiles of WMDs, they are being attacked because they haven't complied with the disarmament process for those WMDs which they were known to have. It is interesting how you are seeking to move the goalpoasts, and change the terms of the debate on WMDs, even as the war continues. It seems likely that no amount of WMDs or evidence of WMD programs would make you believe that this action was justified.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
zimv20,
"Significant" is not a measurable term. Iraq is not being attacked because of massive stockpiles of WMDs, they are being attacked because they haven't complied with the disarmament process for those WMDs which they were known to have. It is interesting how you are seeking to move the goalpoasts, and change the terms of the debate on WMDs, even as the war continues. It seems likely that no amount of WMDs or evidence of WMD programs would make you believe that this action was justified.

what i'm getting at is: there is NO WAY the bush administration will ever say, "wow, you know what -- we weren't able to find anything. huh. we were wrong."

iow, even if iraq did destroy all its stocks, the administration would _never_ admit it.

"significant" is a bit subjective, yes. if you recall, a few months ago, there was a big stink about some empty shells found. shells which could have contained chemical weapons, or perhaps there were even traces, i forget. i would not call that significant.

if there were a dozen 55 gallon drums filled with chem or bioweapons, i would call that significant.

so there's at least the beginning of a goalpost.

in terms of the justification of the war, what's important to me is intent, not the inventory of weapons. the US, russia, et. al. have WMD.

my whole deal w/ this war is: if this is a war on terror, there are other fish to fry. i think bush is invading iraq for different reasons. and i don't like being lied to.

[G4scott]

I'm getting confused on what side people are on now...

The reasons we know this war is happening is to free the Iraqi people, to remove saddam, and to search for WMD's and biological and chemical weapons.

There are probably other less significant motives behind this war.

I can say, though, that Bush is probably trying to show the world that we will not let tyrants oppress their own people while their leaders live in luxury. We will not let sadistic tyrants have WMD's and chemical and biological weapons and threaten their own people and their neighbors.

The only problem with N. Korea is that if we attacked, or even threatened him, he would probably use his nukes. We know that if we leave him alone for now, and take care of current business, he won't attack us... The only thing is that he will have to be dealth with sooner or later, and hopefully sooner, so he doesn't have the chance to develop more weapons. We know that N. Korea could cause serious problems for us now if we try to do anything, so we're waiting to find a way to take care of him without causing much damage. With Iraq, it's pretty easy, because he can't attack anyone past any countries bordering Iraq, and that he is relatively weak. N. Korea is another story, and nobody knows what the outcome of disarming Kim Jong Il would be. I don't even know if the UN has done anything to try to control him. Unfortunately, if they did, I doubt it would work. Lets just not give him 11 years to mass WMD's and other horrible weapons...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G4scott

The reasons we know this war is happening is to free the Iraqi people, to remove saddam, and to search for WMD's and biological and chemical weapons.


gee, i thought it was to fight terrorism. or was it to procure cheap oil? or was it to make some $$ off water rights?

the truth is, the reason has been changing steadily over the last year. you know, trying to find a way to market the war.

it surprises me that so many people have latched onto the plight of the iraqi people. come on, most americans don't give a **** how others live. "oh, they're being ruled by a dictator? it's their own damn fault!" i've head that one a thousand times.

in gulf war I -- and no one remembers this -- bush I said we have to go to war to protect our national interest: oil. that didn't fly at all, public opinion-wise, so it was quickly withdrawn and replaced with, "we must free our freedom-loving kuwaiti friends and allies."

you know, our long-standing ally Kuwait. the ones who helped us nearly as much as our long-standing ally Eritrea.

[iJon]

Originally posted by zimv20
what i'm getting at is: there is NO WAY the bush administration will ever say, "wow, you know what -- we weren't able to find anything. huh. we were wrong."

iow, even if iraq did destroy all its stocks, the administration would _never_ admit it.

"significant" is a bit subjective, yes. if you recall, a few months ago, there was a big stink about some empty shells found. shells which could have contained chemical weapons, or perhaps there were even traces, i forget. i would not call that significant.

if there were a dozen 55 gallon drums filled with chem or bioweapons, i would call that significant.

so there's at least the beginning of a goalpost.

in terms of the justification of the war, what's important to me is intent, not the inventory of weapons. the US, russia, et. al. have WMD.

my whole deal w/ this war is: if this is a war on terror, there are other fish to fry. i think bush is invading iraq for different reasons. and i don't like being lied to.
if i rememer right the navy pulled over a boat and boarded it and found may weapons on it, cant remember it there was any biological in it. ill try to dig up a link.

iJon

[Dont Hurt Me]

please dont ignore the scuds,Saddam said he had none.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
please dont ignore the scuds,Saddam said he had none.

dude, calm down about the scuds. there were missiles fired, yes, but the type of missile hasn't been determined yet.

on NPR yesterday, they said the israelis claim the missiles were _not_ scuds, but rather a shorter range missile that is allowed under the UN sanctions.

if they're confirmed as scuds, then you can continue your argument :-)

[job]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
we'll see what happens in baghdad itself.... let's hope it's not a blackhawk down type city battle... that would get ugly.

What happened in Somalia is different than what will happen in Baghdad if American troops do go in.

The fire fight in Mog and the casualties we sustained were due to the limitations of the mission. Our primary objective in Mog was to search for and extract select individuals. After several helicopters went down, the mission changed to a search and rescue. We were limited by the amount of troops and military hardware we could put on the ground, as well as certain political moves. There are not such limitations in the current war. Those types of missions are thus far different than the types of missions American and British troops will be assigned if we do go into Baghdad. Search and destroy is far different than search and rescue.

[jelloshotsrule]

i know what the objectives were. i saw the movie. that doesn't mean it can't be ugly....


as for the scuds. the general who was just speaking from the joint chiefs of staffs just said that they have not fired any scuds, nor have the troops found any scuds, scud launchers, or signs of other long range missiles or wmds.

so, don't hurt me, that beat on your war drum won't work for now.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Lets assess your statements, and then decide ok?

[/b]
What detered the Soviet Union? Was it, UN sanctions? Powerless statements from members of the UN? Wait, I know, was it the thousands of nuclear weapons that the UN had, wait, they had NONE! Was it Reagan's policies that the UN opposed? I know, it was Reagan's policies, and the roughly 13,000 nuclear weapons that we pointed down their throats that contained them. You point is negated.

[/b]
WHAT! How, with what? They, the UN had no deterence. The French did not want us there. The Germans did not want us there. They did not want a nuclear protected Europe! Do a little research, and then come back.


This is the most absurd statement that I have ever heard. Do you know the history of WWII and WWI? Let me teach you. HAD the international community actually done something other than TRY to contain Hitler, the millions that died in WWII could have been avoided. See, we know for a fact that when he rearmed the Rhineland, it was a test for the world. When they did nothing, he moved on parts on the Chechs. When we did nothing, he continued to move. Containment doesn't work. Had the UN been around in 1933, Hitler would have wiped his butt with UN resoultions. you see, the UN is powerless, and means nothin because they do not back up what they say with force. You can threaten all day, but if you don't back it up, then it means nothing.

As for the war in 1914. That was a disaster that was caused by secret treaties throughout Europe. It was a war that should have never been fought but was. The French fought with honor, and dignity. That war may, and I mean this is a really big stretch may have been avoided through diplomacy. But I think it was unavoidable. The Germans and French were on a course that would have ended in war one way or another. [/B]

What averted war in 1963?

What body provided the forum for the Soviets to be shamed enough to stand down?

If the UN existed in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles would never have happened. One nation would never have been allowed to punish another so horribly as the French did the Germans. Without that punishment, the condition would never have existed for Hitler to rise to power.

If the UN existed in 1914, it would have prevented all the secret treaties and provided a forum for Russia and Germany to work out their differences.

My question to you is: do you know the history of WWI, other than what you learned in a college level survey history class?

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What averted war in 1963?

What body provided the forum for the Soviets to be shamed enough to stand down?

If the UN existed in 1918, the Treaty of Versailles would never have happened. One nation would never have been allowed to punish another so horribly as the French did the Germans. Without that punishment, the condition would never have existed for Hitler to rise to power.

If the UN existed in 1914, it would have prevented all the secret treaties and provided a forum for Russia and Germany to work out their differences.

My question to you is: do you know the history of WWI, other than what you learned in a college level survey history class?

Ok few things. One, JFK averted war in 1963. Period. Any other statement is a lie. The decision had nothing to do with the UN. To SPECULATE as to what would have happened at the end of WWI is just that. Specualtion. The League of Nations conviened on the treaty of Versailles remember. You probably would have had the same result. The condition would have still existed for Hitler to come to power. The world economic condition was just as important as the Treaty of Versailles. Don't forget that. 1914, and Russia and Germany? It was the French and the Germans that were the problems. And since when did the UN become a haven for solving differences? Please link me to some!

As for your last statement. That is the type of flamebair personal attack that everyone here is SICK OF! To inform you sir, I have a degree in Military History. So, before you start to throw uninformed personal insults, take the time to learn a little bit about the person that you are insulting. You may be supprised at what you learn about then. So, to finish, I have quite more than a survey class in history. Try 16 classes of history in college.

If all you can do is start personal attacks, and throw around personal insults, you will end up getting banned. Calm down, take a breath, and please refrain from the personal insults!

[job]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
One nation would never have been allowed to punish another so horribly as the French did the Germans.

And yet the UN mandated sanctions on Iraq continue...sanctions which are ineffective at best, harming the average Iraqi citizen more so than Saddam Hussein.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
As for your last statement. That is the type of flamebair personal attack that everyone here is SICK OF! To inform you sir, I have a degree in Military History. So, before you start to throw uninformed personal insults, take the time to learn a little bit about the person that you are insulting. You may be supprised at what you learn about then. So, to finish, I have quite more than a survey class in history. Try 16 classes of history in college.

If all you can do is start personal attacks, and throw around personal insults, you will end up getting banned. Calm down, take a breath, and please refrain from the personal insults!

Sorry, I was responding in kind to your condescending rudeness in this statement:
Do you know the history of WWII and WWI? Let me teach you.

I should have just reported it.

[iJon]

looks like we accidently shot down our own jet. details are scarce though. damn ive never been in the military or a war so i really dont know why im talking about but it seems like most of our causualties are comign from our own guys throwing gernades in tents, shooting down our own plance and helicopters crashing. seems like we ahve only had a few who have acutally died in combat. i wonder how easy it would be to have had these accidents prevented.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by iJon
i wonder how easy it would be to have had these accidents prevented.


given how incredibly complex modern war is, and how confusing a battlefield can be, i'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.

[iJon]

Originally posted by zimv20
given how incredibly complex modern war is, and how confusing a battlefield can be, i'm surprised it doesn't happen more often.
good point, are you watching fox, this information minister is a hoot. he cracks me the hell up.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by iJon
good point, are you watching fox, this information minister is a hoot. he cracks me the hell up.

nah, my tv only goes to 11. :-)

(that's the public tv station in chicago, which is strangely carrying CNN lately)

[iJon]

looks like the captured some of our soldiers. and al jazeera or whatever is showing it on tv. hopefully we will get some seals in there by early dawn and get our men back.

iJon

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by iJon
looks like we accidently shot down our own jet. details are scarce though. damn ive never been in the military or a war so i really dont know why im talking about but it seems like most of our causualties are comign from our own guys throwing gernades in tents, shooting down our own plance and helicopters crashing. seems like we ahve only had a few who have acutally died in combat. i wonder how easy it would be to have had these accidents prevented.

iJon

Indeed. Even in the first Gulf War, the casualties amassed by accidents and training mishaps (including friendly fire) were greater than those inflicted in actual battle. We very well may have the same circumstances this time around.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Sorry, I was responding in kind to your condescending rudeness in this statement:


I should have just reported it.

Personal insults do not equate to a question being asked. If you would have asked me do you know the history of WWI? let me teach you, I would have not been insulted. There is a big difference between that, and what you said. I asked a question of you, and then gave a logical statement. You however, just threw an insult without any legitamacy.

So, report me if you wish, that is fine. All I did was ask a question, and then state facts.

[pseudobrit]

I apologise again if I misunderstood your intent.

"Let me teach you" is a statement that would imply that you are the teacher and I am the subordinate student. I took offence to such an implication.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I apologise again if I misunderstood your intent.

"Let me teach you" is a statement that would imply that you are the teacher and I am the subordinate student. I took offence to such an implication.

I am sorry if you took it that way. But, I am considered an expert on the subject. No insult was aimed at you, or your intelligence.

Sorry if it came across that way.

[iJon]

well we just found a 100 acre chemical weapons facility. hopefull that will smack some sense into the people who think we shouldnt be there.

iJon

[zimv20]

Originally posted by iJon
well we just found a 100 acre chemical weapons facility. hopefull that will smack some sense into the people who think we shouldnt be there.

as with many things, i shall reserve judgement until things are confirmed.

in a related note, i was watching the Mclaughlin Group tonight. the always-amusing host made a crack about how important it was for such weapons to be found, and the CIA better get busy to make sure they're found "one way or another."

there were knowing chuckles from all the guests.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by zimv20
as with many things, i shall reserve judgement until things are confirmed.

in a related note, i was watching the Mclaughlin Group tonight. the always-amusing host made a crack about how important it was for such weapons to be found, and the CIA better get busy to make sure they're found "one way or another."

there were knowing chuckles from all the guests.

Yeah. I read one response to the headline "No WMD found in Iraq yet" that said "the shipment got delayed in New York."

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by iJon
well we just found a 100 acre chemical weapons facility. hopefull that will smack some sense into the people who think we shouldnt be there.


my dad works at a fort in maryland where we have a ton of anthrax and other stuff liek that


so, when do we start bombing maryland?


now granted, i am not dumb enough to simplify it down to that.... but basically my point is that iraq is not the only folks with such weapons, and not even the only folks with them that use them in such a negative way (not that there's a positive use of them), and yet iraq's the only one we have a problem with...

[pseudobrit]

Keep in mind too that the only bio-weapon attack on the USA came from...

the USA!

From the Dept. of Defense, no less. Where's the biggest liability of a chemical weapons attack? Iraq, who has never attacked the USA in any way, or from our own weapons stockpiles, from which the Senate was attacked previously?

[macfan]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
my dad works at a fort in maryland where we have a ton of anthrax and other stuff liek that


so, when do we start bombing maryland?


now granted, i am not dumb enough to simplify it down to that.... but basically my point is that iraq is not the only folks with such weapons, and not even the only folks with them that use them in such a negative way (not that there's a positive use of them), and yet iraq's the only one we have a problem with...

Keep in mind that Iraq is the only contry with which we have fought a war where the conditions of cease-fire there of included disarming themselves from WMDs.

Pseudobrit,
Unless you have some kind of security clearance you haven't told us about, I don't think you can rightly say what the proximate source of the anthrax was. Anthrax is a natural organism, and the US has shipped it's own stocks to many labs around the world for scientific research.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
my dad works at a fort in maryland where we have a ton of anthrax and other stuff liek that


so, when do we start bombing maryland?


now granted, i am not dumb enough to simplify it down to that.... but basically my point is that iraq is not the only folks with such weapons, and not even the only folks with them that use them in such a negative way (not that there's a positive use of them), and yet iraq's the only one we have a problem with...

Jello, come on. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world to use Chemical weapons in the last what 40 years? Yes, we have them, and actually, are destroying most of them. Fact is that we don't have ties with terrorist organizations, and we don't target civilians.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Jello, come on. Iraq is the ONLY country in the world to use Chemical weapons in the last what 40 years?

this link (http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html) details secret experiments conducted by various US agencies from the 1930s to at least 1990.

if you recall the chechyan rebel takeover of a moscow theater last year, many people describe russia's use of a knockout gas as a chemical weapon deployment (i won't argue the pros/cons of it, since it probably saved lives, but it is an interesting case).

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by macfan
Keep in mind that Iraq is the only contry with which we have fought a war where the conditions of cease-fire there of included disarming themselves from WMDs.

Then why has this administration not mentioned the cease-fire agreement a single time during this course to war?

[zimv20]

hey b2tm

you seem to be a staunch supporter of bush and this military action. i'd like to ask you what _you_ think bush would have to do to make you think, "bush has gone too far."

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
hey b2tm

you seem to be a staunch supporter of bush and this military action. i'd like to ask you what _you_ think bush would have to do to make you think, "bush has gone too far."

Carpet bomb Bagdad. Switch to a doctrine where the lives of Iraqi civilians were targeted.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Then why has this administration not mentioned the cease-fire agreement a single time during this course to war?

Rower, I personally have heard Dr Rice, Rummy, and President Bush, as well as Tommy Franks say this in TV interviews.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
this link (http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html) details secret experiments conducted by various US agencies from the 1930s to at least 1990.

if you recall the chechyan rebel takeover of a moscow theater last year, many people describe russia's use of a knockout gas as a chemical weapon deployment (i won't argue the pros/cons of it, since it probably saved lives, but it is an interesting case).

Hey, I am not saying that we have a perfect past. Some of these quoted are bogus. Some are trying to link Gulf war syndrome to Depleated Uranium rounds. Big stretch. Much more likely that Saddam used biological agents in the Gulf War I.

As for the Russians. They "claim" that they did not know that the results would be that bad. Police forces us Tear Gas every day remember. The Russian gas was a tragedy, but did save lives. Now, there is a difference between that, and dropping chemicals on civilians for the EXPRESS purpose of killing as many as possible, don't you think.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Carpet bomb Bagdad. Switch to a doctrine where the lives of Iraqi civilians were targeted.

thank you

is there a certain number of iraqi civilian casualties which would, in effect, indicate a line had been crossed even w/o a doctrine change?

iow, how many iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable? 100? 1000? 10k?

and if you would indulge me, is there anything on the domestic front that would give you pause? e.g. suspending elections, excessive war cost, suspending parts of the constitution, mass arrests? just curious.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Now, there is a difference between that, and dropping chemicals on civilians for the EXPRESS purpose of killing as many as possible, don't you think.

agreed. i'm continually fascinated by the grey areas in which morality/ethics must function. it's a complicated world.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by zimv20
thank you

is there a certain number of iraqi civilian casualties which would, in effect, indicate a line had been crossed even w/o a doctrine change?

iow, how many iraqi civilian casualties are acceptable? 100? 1000? 10k?

and if you would indulge me, is there anything on the domestic front that would give you pause? e.g. suspending elections, excessive war cost, suspending parts of the constitution, mass arrests? just curious.

You would know if the line had been crossed. If B-52's were dropping dumb bombs on Bagdad. you would know. That would show the doctrine change. Look, even Iraq is saying that there are only 38 dead civlians so far. And we know that when factored through the propoganda calculator that means 3.

I have been a planner. Not a moral judge. To me, I look at the overall mission goal, the strategy, and the methods by which it is carried out. To me, I want 0 civlian casualties. Reality is there will be more. The mission should be to minimize those losses. That is what they are doing. You have to understand that that doctrine puts our troops in harms way. Makes it much more difficult for their mission objectives to be reached. Yet we still do it.

Domestically. I have not seen anything that has been even close to the line being crossed. I personally would like to see a few things done, but they have not been. I would say the line domestically would be establishing Marshal law for no reason.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I would say the line domestically would be establishing Marshal law for no reason.

i'm sure there would be a reason given, and then we'd all spend a lot of time discussing how valid that reason is :-)

and it would be preceded by moving the alert colors up and down a few times, get us all nice and jumpy.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by macfan
Pseudobrit,
Unless you have some kind of security clearance you haven't told us about, I don't think you can rightly say what the proximate source of the anthrax was. Anthrax is a natural organism, and the US has shipped it's own stocks to many labs around the world for scientific research.

The strain of anthax (as an organism it has a DNA to ID it) was identical to the one in our weapons research stocks. The spores were "militarized" too, which is a highly complex task. AFAIK, there are only two nations in the world that can do it at that level: the USA and the Soviets (Russia now).

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Rower, I personally have heard Dr Rice, Rummy, and President Bush, as well as Tommy Franks say this in TV interviews.

If they have there's no mention of it on the White House web site, which catalogs all speeches made by the President and other staff members.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=%22cease+fire%22

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
If they have there's no mention of it on the White House web site, which catalogs all speeches made by the President and other staff members.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=%22cease+fire%22

I think the quote was that it violated resolution 686? or 687 that called for an end to combat in the first gulf war. Not the term "cease fire" persay.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I think the quote was that it violated resolution 686? or 687 that called for an end to combat in the first gulf war. Not the term "cease fire" persay.

Is that a UN resolution? ;) :p

[mischief]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The strain of anthax (as an organism it has a DNA to ID it) was identical to the one in our weapons research stocks. The spores were "militarized" too, which is a highly complex task. AFAIK, there are only two nations in the world that can do it at that level: the USA and the Soviets (Russia now).

The truly scary thing about biological weapons is that although the USA and Russia are the only 2 governments that have facilities capable of making finely granularized, protien-encapsulated Anthrax of guaranteed potency the facilities and equipment neccessary are readily available on the open market.

I would think that all you'd need is a collegiate title and billing address other than appropriate $$$ to get the toys. After that it's all just getting the right people and taking the time. Bio-science that doesn't involve computer-aided recombinant engineering is rather simple at it's core and even fairly crude facilities could yield VERY nasty strains with just time, $$$ and the right talent.

Hell.... just think of all the lovely things one could sample and tweak <just so> from a flocculation pond at a sewage treatment plant.

:eek:

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by macfan
Pseudobrit,
Unless you have some kind of security clearance you haven't told us about, I don't think you can rightly say what the proximate source of the anthrax was. Anthrax is a natural organism, and the US has shipped it's own stocks to many labs around the world for scientific research.

my dad works at ft. detrick, md. the place where our anthrax work is done. and the place where that scientist guy worked.... and while my dad doesn't work with the stuff himself, as someone who has more knowledge about the matter than most of us here, he was pretty convinced that guy did it. granted, that's not fact. that's not proof. just shedding my own light on it.

[wdlove]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Is that a UN resolution? ;) :p

The US should not return to the UN for any resolution in the future. They have showed themselves to be what they are impotent.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
my dad works at ft. detrick, md. the place where our anthrax work is done. and the place where that scientist guy worked.... and while my dad doesn't work with the stuff himself, as someone who has more knowledge about the matter than most of us here, he was pretty convinced that guy did it. granted, that's not fact. that's not proof. just shedding my own light on it.

I have not seen enough evidence against the guy. If he did do it, he should be tried for treason. Motive is the key there. If he has it and there is proof, fry him.

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I have not seen enough evidence against the guy. If he did do it, he should be tried for treason. Motive is the key there. If he has it and there is proof, fry him.

right. but where's the evidence against anyone else??? and yet we're so quick to conclude it's some muslim or another......

[iJon]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I have not seen enough evidence against the guy. If he did do it, he should be tried for treason. Motive is the key there. If he has it and there is proof, fry him.
he has already admitted to doing it.

iJon

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by iJon
he has already admitted to doing it.

iJon

wow. i'm behind the times....

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
wow. i'm behind the times....

Me too...anyone have a link?

[iJon]

well i cant really prove it because there are so many sites and i didnt hear this on the internet. i was watching the news. i know half of you think the news is the devil and dont believe anything they say but i wil tell you what happened. basically it happened and the found him in his tent an hour later when he didnt show up for role call. he admitted to doing it and they feel the motive is that he had resentment because they didnt let him go with his brigade into iraq. troops also heard him talking a couple of times saying that we (americans) were goign into his country to kill people and rape their women. basically this guy had mental problems. currently the fbi is checking out his house. his mom said that this is odd becasue he always talked about him being in the army with great pride. i think something just over came this guy goign into these muslim countries.

iJon

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by iJon
well i cant really prove it because there are so many sites and i didnt hear this on the internet. i was watching the news. i know half of you think the news is the devil and dont believe anything they say but i wil tell you what happened. basically it happened and the found him in his tent an hour later when he didnt show up for role call. he admitted to doing it and they feel the motive is that he had resentment because they didnt let him go with his brigade into iraq. troops also heard him talking a couple of times saying that we (americans) were goign into his country to kill people and rape their women. basically this guy had mental problems. currently the fbi is checking out his house. his mom said that this is odd becasue he always talked about him being in the army with great pride. i think something just over came this guy goign into these muslim countries.


jonny boy... we're talking about another guy... the guy who supposedly released the antrhax in the mail..... ;)

at least i was...... hmm......

[iJon]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
jonny boy... we're talking about another guy... the guy who supposedly released the antrhax in the mail..... ;)

at least i was...... hmm......
haha oops, well to tell you the truth i have posted on to many war threads and i keep checking my emails and i have so many windows up no telling what i am posting. sorry guys.

iJon

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by iJon
haha oops, well to tell you the truth i have posted on to many war threads and i keep checking my emails and i have so many windows up no telling what i am posting. sorry guys.

iJon

no problem.... honest mistake. or so you say.... ha