God Bless America

partybarge_pilot

Well-Known Member
Anybody who needs a breakdown on how goverments work, go listen to the Dead Kennedy's song "kinky sex makes the world go round". And remeber, this was recorded in the early 80's, way before Quait.


" We need that oil!"
 

Timberwlf

Well-Known Member
I dont want to go off on a rant here......................

I think Saddam and Iraq should stick their heads between their leggs and kiss their sorry terrioist supporting as$es goodbye. Hell if saudi dosent strighten up their act we should mow right through them too.

as for Catawampus's Statments...
"1.The Unites States violated the integrity of the UN inspections and used the information to identify new targets. The UN Inspectors were told by the U.S. that bombing would resume in two days. There is little wonder why Iraq does not trust the UN inspectors."

........(Iraq dosent trust the UN inspectors cause they dont want their seceret weapons destoyed).....


"2. You can't be serious? Iraq has weapons "pointed at us"; they could barely get a scud to Israel."

......(And what the hell is stopping them from giving the weapons to alkida or other terrosit groups??Saddams word that they wont beacuse they dont have them?? Hahhahahahahhhhaaaa


"3. Are you saying that you don’t need evidence and your statements are unfounded?"

.....(The evidence is all over the place..just look at the last 11 years..As for a smoking gun I belive the goverment has one but due to security reasons I FULLY understand why they cannot be made public)


"4. Lets-see, humm . . . what country has the reputation of invading and bombing other countries????"

........( ahhh Lets see here...Germany, Iraq, Iran, Russa, China...Shall I go on??? Name 1 country that we with out reason invaded for the hell of it??)


Reason???


Thats Just my opinion I could be wrong..

Brandon

94 Ranger X-Cab 4x4 5.0 H.O. v-8 Pre-Runner/ Chase Truck
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Must I remind you that some amoung Bush's camp don't support war. They have the same access to the information the President has, if not more. Some one who is extremely insightful and informed on the issues/cost of war with Iraq in Bush's camp that doesn't support war is Colin Powwell (SP?) If I remember right, didn't he have something to do with the first war against Iraq?

Just because the President supports war, doesn't mean its right. There are many larger issues at stake than just a simple war with Iraq.

See ya in the dirt!
 

Bryan_D

Well-Known Member
Bush Jr. and Sr. are badasses in my eyes and they know whats up. Do you want to sit around and wait for another 9-11 to happen? Remember California is on th coast the closest to a missle shot. I say make someplace to put the trade centers scrap metal and blow Iraq back to hell where they belong. Maybe the fallout will hit osama and we'll get lucky. Sorry no sorrow or pitty for those in iraq, they had there chance and they let it go by now its time to pay the piper!!!!
 

drtdevil93

Well-Known Member
its sad how so many people are supportive of going in and destroying a country, and sacrifice many lives of people they know for something they dont understand, or know hardly anything about. stand behind what the president wants us to do? that is the opposite of what this country was founded on. so many people say they "just know" iraq has these weapons. you dont know [censored] about iraq. most people are surprised to find out they arent a dictatorship. they are run by a parliament. maybe it is corrupt, but who clames our government isnt corrupt. the point im getting too, is war has become fashionable, something people can brag about, even if they had nothing to do with it (WE wiped them out, or WE won). people that make comments like that most likely have never lost someone close to them in war, and dont have to face how pointless it all seems. why must people be so gungho to go slaughter someone? does it make you feel better because your country can kick the crap out of another country? is it worth the loss of american lives just to settle some politicians BS political agenda (im not saying this is, but it might be). how many othere coutries are there in the area with governments we dont approve of with KNOWN weapons of mass destruction that we do nothing about? (india, pakistan, china to name a few). it seems the media has very successfully painted iraq as this evil country, and whenever it suits the US, we can go attack them, for whatever reason. and like sheep, we all feel relieved after our little attacks and raids. my generation has been lucky to not have a real major war in our time, but it has made us ignorant to the harsh realities of war. i wonder what would be going through their heads the night before they are to be shipped out. when they are telling their families goodbye. would they still be happy to go fight a war they really cant understand much about?
sorry for ranting...

erik
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
It is the opinion of some that Iraq had something to do with the 9-11 incident. The U.S. government has not presented any evidence that Iraq had any connection with 9-11 and I have not read or heard any evidence of the sort. If the U. S. government did have evidence, you know they would be fully exploiting it by now. It is important to understand that the Iraqi people live under a government that they have no control over. They are the ones caught in the middle, and they are the one who will suffer the most and do most of the dieing. I have read and heard numerous stories from Americans, upon return visits from Iraq, how the Iraqi people admire Americans and their culture, but hate our government’s foreign policies - I feel for very good reason.
As far as some of you who have no compassion for other peoples’ of the world, then I pity you for your absence of humanity.
If it is terrorism that bothers you – then I feel American’s better start getting used to it, because for some strange reason people hate bombs being dropped on them. Watching families and friends get blown to pieces only creates dead bodies and more terrorists. We live in the 21st century – I would think by now our “leader” would be wise enough to come-up with better solutions to world problems then war.
Could it be that Bush’s war motivation is the fact that Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world? Estimated to be worth a trillion dollars . . .

Kim
 

Bryan_D

Well-Known Member
I do have friends that are over there right now. One of them is in the special forces as was some of the first to be over there. They told me that they were going to the phillipiens (sp?) in september and iraq in october or Novermber, and this was known at the beginning of the summer all he said was watch the tv and youll be amazed!! he lost several men in his platoon but you know what he also was the first person to say he was going to go back and get the job finished. They landed a heli in the front yard or one of the head al-queda guys and took out many many people in the resistance but as stated they lost a few also. So needless to say yes I have had friends die in war. And I see the aftermath of war directly every time I see family, an uncle was in Desert storm on my fiance side and my uncle was a vietnam stud that still has trauma and guilt for being the lone survivor in several occasions. But the point is is they both are all for taking care of what needs to be done in the east and else where in the world. There are many things that we are not allowed to talk about, but there is a reason that stuff needs to happen and the press is really only giving us bits and pieces of the whole story. Keep your ears and eyes open and your mind as well, there is more truth and reasons that should be out soon.
 

Dillon

Well-Known Member
Okay, I'm not gonna go nuts on anybody here, but some facts should be cleared up from a bunch of posts.

First of all, the Minuteman II launch at Vandenberg had nothing to do w/ ICBMs, just cuz we launched the platform doesn't mean it was ICBM related. Trust me, we have the nuke thing down, we don't need practice.

Okay, next, about our troops going over to Iraq or anywhere, I can guess a greater majority of frontline (or anybody directly involved in fighting the war) military would give their left nut to be over there when the fireworks start. I fly on AWACS (Air Force recon aircraft) out of Oklahoma and I hope to hell I'm done training before it starts. Its our job, we don't question our leadership, we weren't drafted, this isn't Vietnam, we all volunteered knowing what we were expected to do. We don't have to agree, that is not our job. Our job is to trust the Constitution enough to believe, in the end, the right thing will be done. I went to survival school recently (read: the ending of GI Jane, more or less...) becasue I'm aircrew, and some the lengths our government goes to save a single person is alot more then anybody can understand (classified, sorry...but trust me). Bush is demanding from Baghdad to know the whearabouts of a pilot that went down a few days after the Gulf War kicked off, its a major issue for the administration is resolving the Iraqi war that never finished (since our media thinks its not very important, would you know we engage Iraqi AAA several times per months). Anybody hear we had the one of the largest conventional airstrikes against Iraq since the '91 war a few weeks ago?

There is no political agenda, Iraq is not stupid and Iraq IS crazy. Not a dictatorship? So what, neither was Nazi Germany, at least Hitler was voted in....If we go there again and the leadership thinks its going down, they WILL use NBC on us because if they are willing to gas Iran and its own people (not even Kurds...Iraqis) they won't mind gassing us on the battelfield, thats for damn sure.

Now, I'm not super-hawk tho either. We have too much to do in Afghanistan as it is, that is far from over. Our military is tiny since after Clinton butchered it, maybe pre-Clinton we could pull it off but I doubt we could now without everybody being gone 180 straight days (our rotations our up to 90 days from 45). I think if anybody is close enough and has the highest probability of nuking us or Israel, its definitely Iraq. That is a huge reason why we need to go in.

Last but not least, we won the last war, we should be allowed to do as we please IN Iraq till we are satisfied they can't do anything crazy (UN resolutions back this up). Its Saddam's fault his people are starving, just do what we want, you can stay alive AND sell your oil, pretty damn simple and it keeps everybody happy, but Saddam is a stubborn ass with too big an ego for his own good. You'd be surprised how much the Iraqis would love to see our tanks rolling through the streets on the way to Baghdad. We captured a crapload of them (to the tune of at least half a mil) and treated them better then our own guys were getting, and you know some of them went back and told their families we aren't that bad.

Well, no solution I guess, lol

Dillon Poole
 

Waldo

Safehouse
Re: "at least Hitler was voted in..."

I heard on the radio that Saddam is expected to be or just recently was re-elected with over 99% of the votes in his favor. That is another 10 years for him at the helm.

BRAAAAAAAAP!
 

Tom_Willis

Well-Known Member
I recently read Colin Powell's book, "my American journey". He was there in Vietnam as a young man, with a young family, who saw lots of casualties on both sides, came back to help redesign the post-Vietnam Armed Forces while at the Pentagon, promoted to General, then worked directly under presidents Reagan, Bush, what's his name, and now G. W. His opinion of military involvement is straightforward and common sense. If you go in, for Christ's sake, go in BIG. Don't match your enemy, overwhelm them. Give them the option to surrender, and a really compelling reason to as well. In Haiti, he went with Carter and others to convince their government to step down, leave, and end a civil war that had cost thousands of innocent lives. The president and his military advisors wouldn't budge. Powell explained to them that two aircraft carriers, a hundred jets, 20,000 troops and 150 M-1 Abrams tanks were offshore, ready to hunt him down and convinced them that there was nothing to do but surrender. It worked and it avoided bloodshed. This is what a superpower nation does. When there is a crisis, you amass an overwhelming force of highly trained, motivated, unf%cking stoppable troops, the most lethal fighter jets, bombers, artillery, tanks and support vehicles on Earth, and let your enemy choose the next move. Hussien can even save face with his own people by saying he had no choice but to comply. 12 years ago he was given the choice to leave Kuwait, and keep Iraq under his thumb without punishment. He had half a year to make a decision, and he made the wrong one. After poisoning his own citizens, he invaded a sovereign nation without provocation, held American civilian hostages, (including children), defied the nations of the entire world, then fired rockets into civilian areas in Israel, killing American troops. In defeat he set hundreds of refineries on fire, creating the worst environmental catastrophy of the century, which American civilians had to extinguish. We are his greatest enemy. And that makes him ours.
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
I would say Powell is the only “calm head” in the Bush administration. He is not ranting for war, and lately, somewhat reluctantly, has “jumped on the war wagon” with the others – I suppose fearing for his job. I believe his extensive war experience, and his exposure to the horrors of war gives him the only realistic perspective amongst the clan on what our troops may be getting into.

Kim
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Just for clarification, amassing a huge military force does not always work, just look what happened in Vietnam. You can burn down a village, but you can't change the way it thinks. It takes a lot more than that to kill a philosophy/way of life. With that said, I do have a great amount of respect for Powell and as Kim said, I think he is the only sane one among blood thirsty war mongrols. (Okay that may be a little extreme) I just hope Powell is not beginning to cave into pressure as he and Rumsfeld used to be the most cautious when it came to war. Although, I think Rumsfeld caved in a while ago. We will just have to wait and see.

Personally, I don't really know enough information yet to make an educated decision regarding if we should go to war. I don't think any of us really do. I read all the latest article consult with my Poly Sci professors and even they concede there really is no evidence linking Iraq to either 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. However, I am starting to see, first with Tony Blair in England, and now in the U.S., signs that the powers at be are starting to show us what they know. I think we will all know what evidence is out there soon enough. I think then and only then would it be appropriate to make an educated decision on war. We need to stop basing our opinions on hearsay/speculation and wait to we have all the facts as this war could prove much larger and have much more severe ramifications than any of us could have anticipated.

See ya in the dirt!
 

Catawampus

Well-Known Member
I am sure we will start hearing all sorts of “evidence” very soon. Tony Blair (Bushes Lap Dog) did recently announce something about having evidence. Not much of a surprise to me. The government has its way of producing evidence when it needs it. I agree with you 100% JrSyko - it is important to have the facts and have the evidence substantiated before reacting on it. Our government is just as guilty generating propaganda as anyone. For example, remember the “babies being thrown out of the incubators” story daddy Bush announced to further motivate the American public for Desert Storm? Totally made-up, and a lie. Like father - like son?

“Think – It’s Patriotic”

Kim
 

Bryan_D

Well-Known Member
IF you are so anti-war why dont you move to Australia where you wont have to worry about what the big bad bully America is supposed to do coming up against Iraq. And who did you vote for if you think Bush senior and junior are so bad move, no one will miss someone that all they do is critisize the president. Even if you dont fully respect the pres you should back him in atleast some things. It seems that everything he does you gripe about. Why dont you run for president? You seem to have all of the correct answeres for everything.
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
First of all, if you are going to try and have an educated discussion, please post in complete sentences so that we can all understand you. Also, use spell check, Klaus provides it for a reason.

Secondly, NOWHERE in my post did I say that I was against going to war. I simply stated that one should learn ALL the facts before making huge assumptions and formulating opinions that are based on something that somebody else says.

Additionally, I can say with the utmost confidence that if say Gore were President, you would be critical of his every decision. It is human nature to be critical of somebody who you did not vote for. In fact, you are critical of Gore and he isn't even President (You have been in other posts). So following your logic, does this mean that you should move too?

Finally, I would love to run for President, however I have not yet met the age requirement.

On a side note, I don't understand how you can be so critical of people who are hesitant to go to war, when people in Bush's own camp don't want to go to war, i.e. Powell among others. Bear in mind Bush selected Powell and the rest of his staff. Supporting the President, doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he does.

See ya in the dirt!
 

Waldo

Safehouse
Re: "one should learn ALL the facts before making huge assumptions and formulating opinions that are based on something that somebody else says."

Also, please do not rely on the media to inform you of the facts that are of interest to you (except for RDC).

I agree these "discussions" (even when the topic is sensitive) should be civil and not attacking anyone's character with snide remarks just because they don't agree with a particuluar point of view.

P.S. Eye tooder on the syde if ekneewon needz help with thayre speling...Fortee dollers un our!!! J/K

BRAAAAAAAAP!
 

Tom_Willis

Well-Known Member
The Iraq situation is definitely complicated. In 1990, if the U S had not intervened in Kuwait, who would have? Probably no one. The fall of the Soviet Union as a superpower created a new problem. When a rogue state like Iraq invades another country, no other country is willing to step up to the plate and DO SOMETHING. Hussein knew that by invading Kuwait his only opponent would be the United States, in defense of Saudi Arabia, and he gambled that we would not intervene, that Arab countries would stick together. He certainly did not think that a coalition of over 350,000 troops, ranging from the Ethiopian Army to the Norwegian Air Force would be formed. It worked because there was a consensus to drive him out of the country he invaded. Later, in Bosnia, a situation occured where there was mass genocide for the first time since WWII.... Different cultures and religions, centuries of fighting, a disputed border, starving citizens, refugees fleeing with the clothes on their backs, but NO ONE in Europe was willing to act. NATO did not have the overwhelming manpower needed to do the job. The U S armed forces got dragged into it because Clinton and his staff felt we should do something. Why not tell the European nations to create their own coalition and stop the massacre in their own backyard? There was NO threat to Americans, NO reason to risk US troops. The combined nations of Europe, which had a lot more at risk, could have set a precedent by enforcing a ceasefire, and occupying the country for as long as necessary. There would be less young men taught to hate Americans today.
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Sorry Tom, but what is your opinion. I'm not sure if you are for or against going into Iraq?

See ya in the dirt!
 
Top