Official War Thread

[mymemory]

This war is gonna take some time, many news, casualties, information, etc. I can tell there are multiple threads about basictly the same topic, in that case I rather open this space before macrumors turns in to something different.

This war won't be as easy as the Gulf War. In that ocation the alies were defending a proprety and kicking out the agressors. This time the alies are getting in by force to the enemy's land, that mean that Irak is going to be very agresive.

It is not the same mentality of some one that knows is doing something wrong and surrender than some one that feels violated.

At list the media is covering everything very well I think.

 

[beatle888]

so you want all war topics to be discussed HERE?

uhg, wouldnt that be unbearable when theres like five topics being discussed at once? you would have to scroll through and weed out the topics that you WANT to discuss.

 

[NavyIntel007]

great, just what we needed. More bla bla bla by Beattle888 and ilovejelloshots.

 

[G4scott]

You're right NavyIntel007.

They can BS all they want, but in the end, it's still BS, and someone else with enough sense has already gone out to take care of the dirty work...

Conservatives- cutting through the BS one misconception at a time...

I know this is going to bring up some interesting replies...

 

[NavyIntel007]

What's funny is that all these people who are against this war will probably run out and buy the Ghost Recon 2: Dessert Assault when it comes out for macs next year... you watch.

 

[G4scott]

Bush says f*ck Saddam!

This is an interestig tidbit I found from the DrudgeReport...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashrt.htm

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DISCUSSED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER AS FAR BACK AS MARCH 2002, TIME REPORTS
Sun Mar 23 2003 10:51:36 ET

New York ? TIME offers the inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush?s agenda ? and why outcome there may foreshadow a different world order. TIME?s Michael Elliott and James Carney profile key Bush administration members who were involved in the decision to go to war. TIME?s special double issue will be on newsstands Monday, March 24th.

"F?k Saddam. We?re taking him out," said President George W. Bush in March 2002, after poking his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, TIME reports.

TIME?s story focuses on Paul Wolfowitz, a senior advisor to President Bush, a neoconservative ? someone who thinks that the world is a dangerous place where civilization and democracy hang by a thread. Neoconservatives, report Elliott and Carney, also believe that the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if only it will take the risks of leadership to do so.

In January 1998, Wolfowitz joined other neo-conservatives in signing a letter to President Clinton arguing that "containment" of Saddam had failed and asserting that "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power?needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Vice President Dick Cheney, another high-ranking neoconservative, agreed. The Vice President told a campaign aide in 2000 "we have swept that problem [Iraq] under the rug for too long. We have a festering problem there." Cheney, who had been instrumental in the ceasefire of the first Gulf War, was outraged by Hussein?s attempted assassination of former President George Bush. He was also, as Wolfowitz put it, "transformed by Sept. 11 ? by the recognition of the danger posed by the connection between terrorists and WMDS [Weapons of Mass Destruction] and by the growing evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

As one former senior Administration official puts it: "The eureka moment was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists?] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned. So we must act pre-emptively to ensure that those that have the capability aren?t allowed to proliferate it." One advisor to the president, report Elliott and Carney, went as far as to say that Bush thinks Saddam is insane. "If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman. Depending on the sanity of Saddam is not an option."

Developing...

So, for everyone wondering "Why saddam?" this is why...

 

[NavyIntel007]

Hey does anyone think that if Gore made it into office and declared war on Iraq would anyone be saying anything??

I wouldn't, Saddam's a bastard.

 

[NavyIntel007]

My memory fails me but did Clinton have the UN security backing when he bombed Iraq in 98(?). Was Hollywood this vocal against it?

I think, and again forgive me, I was a dumb highschool student at the time that the answer to both of those questions is NO.

Hollywood is playing partisan politics again? RUH ROH.

 

[G4scott]

 

[NavyIntel007]

NICE ... How true that is!

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
My memory fails me but did Clinton have the UN security backing when he bombed Iraq in 98(?). Was Hollywood this vocal against it?

I think, and again forgive me, I was a dumb highschool student at the time that the answer to both of those questions is NO.

Hollywood is playing partisan politics again? RUH ROH.

Clinton did not invade and occupy a sovereign nation in 1998.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Clinton did not invade and occupy a sovereign nation in 1998.

He bombed Iraq. Killed Civilians. What's the difference?

We invaded Germany in WW2 when Hitler was invading his neighbors and killing his own people. Should we not have done that?

Oh wait, a democrat was the president... well that's different.

 

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Hey does anyone think that if Gore made it into office and declared war on Iraq would anyone be saying anything??

I wouldn't, Saddam's a bastard.

Well, gee, that's funny. I remember particularly clearly that the right in Congress gave Clinton flak for committing troops to Kosovo.

I also remember him coming under fire for launching Tomahawks at Afghanistan during the Monica Lewinsky affair and Rush Limbaugh making a point of degrading Clinton for accidentally hitting an "aspirin factory" in the Sudan. None of these actions involved invasion or occupation forces either.

So, yeah, I'd say at least someone would be complaining. What do you know? There is a double standard at work here!

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
He bombed Iraq. Killed Civilians. What's the difference?

We invaded Germany in WW2 when Hitler was invading his neighbors and killing his own people. Should we not have done that?

Oh wait, a democrat was the president... well that's different.

It is when your Hollywood or a member of liberal group who is trying to get their agenda passed. If only we Had a Democrat in office this would all be different, who knows, even that wino Chiroc may have been on our side.

 

[lmalave]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
My memory fails me but did Clinton have the UN security backing when he bombed Iraq in 98(?). Was Hollywood this vocal against it?

I think, and again forgive me, I was a dumb highschool student at the time that the answer to both of those questions is NO.

Hollywood is playing partisan politics again? RUH ROH.

No, but at least he always actively enganged the world, and gained NATO backing for things like Kosovo. Clinton had the trust of the world, Bush does not. It's all about attitude: Clinton was respectful to the rest of the world, Bush has scorned the world from the start.

 

[lmalave]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Hey does anyone think that if Gore made it into office and declared war on Iraq would anyone be saying anything??

I wouldn't, Saddam's a bastard.

If Gore decided that attacking Iraq was the only option, he would have been much more skillful at rallying the world's support. Even before 9/11 Bush was alienating the world. Even our allies are scared of Bush and his administration. I mean, c'mon, even though Blair supports the Iraq action, he thinks Bush is cuckoo and I'm sure he would rather be dealing with Gore.

 

[mymemory]

Lets make some memory with Bush

Back in 1998 my mind was so far away from this issues, sorry. But..

When Bush took the power his first mission was to eliminate the guerrilla from colombia and all the cartels. I remember that so well because Venezuela didn't allow US troops in our territory or even let them fly over. Personally I didn't care about the US flying over our territoryu to eliminate guerrilla but our president is comunist and you know the rest.

That was until September 11th when the US went to get Bin Laden and he was never found.

Now, for some reason Bush is not attacking but invading Irak.

Next year what does he gonna do? What is he looking for?

I buy the war agains guerrilla and narcotrafic, I do too with Bin Laden but now with Irak without finishing the others 2.

That is why the rest of the politicians of the world are so pissed! Bush came to declare war to anybody and he is resulting pretty mediocre btw.

To invade a country is not as simple as trowing some bombs, you are getting in to some one house by force and skipping some instances (UN) and what are you gonna do next?

This Irak thing it is not worth it. Now, I want to ble clear than I'm not defending Hussein but there are way to do things. Bush looks like is in a rush, desperate for combat.

I just know that if every body is telling you something different of what you are saying there is somethinmg there to check out.

BTW, I'm not pacifist, in my country I'm the first person that want the military to take over the goverment and literally kill our president, not jail, kill him, death, in to pieces. That is the only way I want to see a communist like him.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, gee, that's funny. I remember particularly clearly that the right in Congress gave Clinton flak for committing troops to Kosovo.

I also remember him coming under fire for launching Tomahawks at Afghanistan during the Monica Lewinsky affair and Rush Limbaugh making a point of degrading Clinton for accidentally hitting an "aspirin factory" in the Sudan. None of these actions involved invasion or occupation forces either.

So, yeah, I'd say at least someone would be complaining. What do you know? There is a double standard at work here!

Hey I'm independent buddy, no party here.

 

[NavyIntel007]

Partisan BS aside, the protesters and Hollywood said nothing during Kosovo and Operation Desert Fox. Regardless of what party dissed who the bottom line is that Hollywood is Partisan when the nation generally wants good.