Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Community' started by jefhatfield, Jan 14, 2003.
What do you mean will? We've been bombing weekly for the past twelve years.
I bet the US will be invading Iraq by April, if not sooner. Rumsfeld & his cronies have been trying to invade Iraq since they got in office, the 40% of Americans who think Iraqis were among the 9/11 highjackers (they weren't) will back them all the way.
after admitting there was no real reason for bombing iraq, bush admitted it was all because he felt anatomically short-changed.
a picture from the press conference:
another reason why some people have huge trucks so i hear!
anyways... yeah the U.S. will attack the Iraqi government.
its in the air.
Of course they will. Bush is looking for laurels to rest on to coast through the rest of his term and (hopefully for him) into the next. War's good for that kind of thing. I don't think he, or any of his advisors realize the mess they're about to get the government into. Evidently we no longer need learn from past mistakes; it's okay to repeat them over and over.
If we would stay out of things, we'd reduce greatly the reasons to get involved with future 'conflicts'. If we hadn't riled the kurds up and promised our support, we might not be able to use the defense that he killed them all. He may have ordered the killing, but it's our fault.
But this thread isn't about whether or not they should, it's about whether they will. I say yes, definitely. After we've made a spectacle of the war-preparations, that is. Have to pretend to try the diplomatic way, first... makes us seem like less of agressors.
Do you think?!?
Let's be realistic - of course they will. George "Dubya" would love a good war...
I suppose it's because the Americans were late for the last 2 World Wars, that they're trying to be really punctual this time 'round...
Of course, It's the only way to distract from the absolutly horrible domestic policy of this adminstration.
No, the US just mobilizes hunders of thousands of troops, calls up the National guard, sends war ships and carriers to that region, get Turkey approval for thier airbases and the extends the stay of current military personel just 'in case'.
Yes the US will step up its low level bombing of Iraq into a full scale invasion whether there is justification, support, legal mandate, reason, or not. It was decided a long time ago, some say even before 9/11/01. In case anyone's interested there are large scale demonstrations against the war planned for the 18th in DC, SF, and smaller marches in other cities and communities.
Another irony I saw this morning on http://www.thismodernworld.com/ is that bush has declared a "National Sanctity of Human Life Day"
more irony: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030109/ap_wo_en_po/un_gen_un_aids_africa_1
While we're talking things militairy and government...Krossfyter, the helicopter you show on your 'tar is not a US government helicopter at all. It's a Eurocopter AS350, formerly Aerospatiale, aka the A-star. A slightly used model will go for around a mil, older ones even less. Nice machine actually, especially in the mountains where I've had the pleasure of a few drops with them, but they're just not used by anyone in the US govt. The unmarked black helicopters to which you refer are usually updated versions of the old Hughes 500 used in Vietnam. If you've seen Blackhawk Down, then you know what I'm talking about, the "Little Birds". Maneuverable, quieter, smaller. They'd also be using the SAR version of the Blackhawk that can be refueled in the air, but hey who uses helicopters anymore anyway? It's all about unmanned drones these days.
A little comic relief, a catchy toon "Bomb Iraq." Not my original find, but borrowed for your enjoyment!
I thought you were all for bombing Iraq?
You did notice that the song is making fun of your dear leader, didn't you? And that it points out that the whole war on Iraq is a smoke screen for a failed domestic policy and a failing "war on terror"?
Sometimes I am ashamed to be a Mac user. The amount of propoganda that some of you people believe is unreal.
I won't say that I am ashamed to be a Mac user, but I will say that sometimes I could swear I am the only conservative Mac user... I am sure that is not the case.. but some of these clowns make me wonder.
Re: Do you think?!?
It's such a waste to remind our chaps on the British Islands and all of Europe that would we have not shown up at all, they would be either speaking Russian or German... yet I do it.
Also to remind our UK friends, the countless wars and colonies that you once held, were acts of kindness??? Whatever...
My thought was that it's a nice tune. Don't really see it as negative. I do back George Bush, hoping that he will make a strong case to the American people for war. So far he has not.
I happen to be a Mac user, conservative, and consider myself to be of slightly above average intelligence. Hope you mean clowns as those that are trying to make lite of the situation!
Originally posted by wdlove:
"I happen to be a Mac user, conservative, and consider myself to be of slightly above average intelligence... "
Originally posted by wdlove:
"My thought was that it's a nice tune. Don't really see it as negative. I do back George Bush..."
I rest my case.
Re: Re: Do you think?!?
Wasn't that a case of Nations coming together to fight against unprovoked aggression?
If we're going to bring up past misdeeds, then maybe we should still be bombing the Brits over the revolution we started back in 1776.
How about the UN comes in and takes over the USA in defense of the native americans we've wiped out over the past few hundred years?
Maybe Japan should retaliate against our use of weapons of mass destruction against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of these things are no more ridiculous than the premise that Europe owes us for world war II and should back bush's plans without thinking.
I was referring to the song that wdlove, a staunch bush supporter, posted a link to. Check it out, it is kind of funny, but it is absolutely anti war and anti bush.
If you really want to know, I am not 100% anti war. I think that there are cases in which it is justified and necessary. This war however has not been shown to be that yet. There are some good reasons for going in and ousting Saddam Hussein and his regime, but even the best case scenarios aren't very good for stability, security of our interests, human rights, and our economy. I'm still hoping for the best.
Re: Re: Re: Do you think?!?
In your zeal you are putting words in my mouth. I never said EU should back the USA without thinking. I also don't think your comparisons hold water... The US is the most powerful democracy which serves as a template for a free and democratic government all around the developing world. The USA is part of the UN, so I don't think your suggestion of a UN attack on the USA is even close to half baked. And the Japanese retaliation on the US for nuking them - I am just dumbfounded that you actually wrote those words down, reread them, and didn't shake your head in disbelief.
The war against Iraq began when they invaded Kuwait. That war was never truly finished - very much like the WWI. It created tension over Iraq being crippled, the westerners invading the middle east, yada, yada, yada. But instead of waiting for Saddam to make his move, the US feels it's necessary to act proactively. I am NOT for the war, but I stand by the president and the thousands of soldiers who are already in the area.
that's almost a quadruple contradiction he he
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you think?!?
Shake your own head and maybe it'll work this time. The whole point was to make a ridiculous statement to show how ridiculous it is to even mention world war I and II in this context.
So the reasons that we didn't go into Iraq when they did have chemical weapons were what? We didn't want a regime change? We didn't want to get bogged down in a quagmire? We didn't think it was legal? We didn't think we could win? We didn't want to piss off the entire middle east? How come none of these questions are valid now?
I am not for the war without these questions being seriously addressed. I support our troops in that I don't want to see them or any civilians get killed for questionable reasons and then to set the stage for what? A long term involvement in Iraq? Thousands more troops having to stay in Iraq for the next 20 years dealing with pissed off radicals taking shots at them? We need to take a good long look at what the future might bring before we go charging in with the guns blazing.
So what that we have thousands of troops poised for attack. They can more easily continue to work on their tans and then come back then to fight it out with the Iraqis.
Nobody has offered any alternatives to full scale invasion.
BTW, the invasion of Kuwait was all but sanctioned by the United States before it happened when our ambassador told the Iraqis that the US has little concern for their border dispute with Kuwait and that they should be able to take care of it themselves without US intervention. There were other statements made to the same effect when Iraq was hinting that they were going to invade Kuwait.
SPG are you will to give Bush a chance when he makes a case to the American people?