Interesting info on our leadership and those who oppose them

[Guest Want aZ]

ok, Just want to get a few things off of my chest.

 

1. I AM A SOLDIER, FIGHTING IN THE FORCES WHICH GUARD OUR COUNTRY AND ITS WAY OF LIFE, IF NECESSARY I WILL GIVE MY LIFE IN ITS DEFENSE.

 

2. As for the FRENCH, GERMANS, and the RUSSIANS, its very simple...just follow the money. The french were the ones that built the breeder reactor that the Israelies destroyed. The same mission that was lead by the Isreali astronaut that perished in the Columbia...

 

3. I currently have close friends who are currently deployed in the Theater of Operations, as it is referred to...Most are in the 101st, My old unit. But I also have close friends in the 3rd ID. You see the Engineer Corps is Rather small and you get to make lasting Friendships.

 

4. Yes I was there the first time around and was in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, Personally I think that part of the world rather $ucks...Nothing much really there but if you look at the Strategic Importance of the real estate....Priceless...

 

5. Unfortunately this conflict will probably see the use of Chemical Weapons...Very Bad Stuff, there is something that has the potential to kill you within minutes of contact that can really ruin your day. Our doctrine dictates that if we are attacked with Chem/Bio Weapons, that we take it up a notch...Lets see.... Sand, which is basiclly Silica and Extreme heat = Glass...Can we turn Bagdhad into a sheet of Glass??? I think that we can, as I know they ( Nukes) were in theater the first time around.

 

6. After all is said and done we will be there for several years in a nation building capacity...which that is fine, of course all should be paid for with Iraqi Oil...as they do have enough of if....Can you say the 2nd largest supply in the world???

 

Anyway just a few things I wanted to get off of my chest...

[Dave240Z]

I feel the need to step in here just a bit. This is a great thread BTW, I am really enjoying it. Let's keep it civil though so it doesn't get locked.

 

That said, I have a few comments....

 

Response to #1

I agree for the most part but we live in a Republic, not a democracy. In a true democracy you would be able to vote on every single thing. In the US, we have elected certain people in the hopes that they hold our best views and interests in mind and will voice them when necessary. Of course this isn't perfect, but it is practical. As having the citizens vote on every single action of Gov't will cause the Gov't to slowdown to a crawl, things would take even longer than they do today if you could imagine that!!

 

Response to #2, #3

Agreed.

 

Response to #4

I disagree a bit here. True, being a citizen is certainly part of the equation, but that alone does not make you "American". There are many people whom I would consider very "UnAmerican" even though they are certainly citizens. Being American is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

Response to #5, #6

I see what you are saying, but it's a bit off target. We, as citizens, are not completely in charge. Did you vote to go to war? I know I didn't since there was never a vote by the "people". The fact that we can't simply remove "bad apples" on a whim is also very true. The system simply doesn't allow that kind of control for the people. It relies more on your ability to pick an individual who represents your views and beliefs. The problem is that 100% of the time, you will never find someone who holds 100% of the same views and beliefs as you. Hence there is disagreement, but also why the system is setup for you to vote for more than one person to represent your views. It really boils down to a balance of power. The people don't have all the power, but neither does the Gov't, or one individual.

 

Something else to consider, there is a big difference between voicing your opinion and causing trouble. The protestors are supposedly doing what they are doing to get attention; that they have succeeded in. However, their actions are not constructive to solving the bigger situation at hand. Civil disobedience simply causes more problems without fixing the ones that already exist. Why peaceful protests or rallies can't be done without sitting in crosswalks I have no idea. Most of these people appear to simply be anarchists anyway so it really doesn't surprise me that they are selective in the laws they choose to obey.

 

Response to #7, #8

So how do we draw a distinction between "absolutely necessary" and "should be done"? If we don't do something that should be done, doesn't that eventually make it necessary? I don't think there are many people out there, both regular citizens and those in the armed forces, who really believe war is good. However, most also recognize that these rights and privileges which we all enjoy today in the comfort of our homes is paid for in the blood of many an American. Someone has to defend those rights, sometimes it is with words, other times it is with weapons.

 

Saddam Hussein may not be capable of launching a direct assault on American soil, heck there aren't many nations that could even try but that doesn't mean he is not a threat to you and I. To believe otherwise is akin to believing that Hitler was not a threat to the US. Over 6M people died because the world was not "preemptive" in stopping him. By the time we did, it was late in the game and we (the world) paid a heavy price for our inaction earlier on. Think about it.

 

Saddam has links to supporting terrorism (either outright or secretly), committing numerous crimes against humanity including his own people, is a constant threat to his neighbors (Iran, Kuwait, Israel,etc...) and has downright lied about everything. He is, in my opinion, the modern day Stalin. And that is certainly not a compliment and is certainly a threat to both my way of life as an American and those of other people in the world and for that reason I believe it is important to strip him of his power and truly let the people of Iraq choose their own leader. If you are at all familiar with Iraq history, you would know that Hussein was never elected. He took his position by brute force alone, and it seems he will lose it by brute force also although that force will come at the hand of a heavy American fist (assisted by the Brits of course)

 

As the old saying goes...."Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." I for one, am proud to be a citizen in a nation where we are not doing nothing. (sorry for the double negative)

 

Response to #9

I used to work for a French company (Schlumberger) and I can tell you without doubt that the French are truly a different people. Not ethnically or anything, but with regard to politics they are quite socialist in their views. Most believe the gov't should supply most everything and control most everything. Even the price of a baguette is regulated by the gov't if you can believe that. My opinion on the French is that they will always act in their best interest, not that of someone else. Unless there is something to be gained, they usually want nothing to do with it. Granted, this is viewing things from my American perspective, but then again...it's the only perspective I've got.

[Mikelly]

I agree with all statements. However, I would LOVE to deal with protesters who know the facts. Unfortunately most of the protestors I have encountered in my days have known ZERO REAL facts about what it is they are protesting and why. It is based mainly on emotion and not Reason or fact. I agree that we all should comment on our beliefs, and I also am a fan of free speech. However, I do have problems when people allow common sense and logic to escape them and that is when protestors and their causes go down the tubes.

 

Mike

[Guest bang847]

Support our Troops' date=' but more importantly Support our President and the Cause!

 

We should let these actors and peace protestors go to Iraq to live. I served a little over four years in the Army from 86-91 ((called back to duty after I got out, for Desert Storm)) I am proud of our military and our will to fight.

 

This country that we live in has a lot of spoiled brats running around talking about our president. Why aren't they talking about Saddam and how terrible he has treated his people over the years? You guys heard about the "rape chamber"? Supposedly Sadaam will use this when he wants information from someone. He will subject a man's wife to brutal rapes and if the man still refuses to give information his children will be forced to have sex with Sadaam's goons until the man finally talks!

 

Yes we live in a very bad place I guess.[/quote']

 

I agree with what you're saying, but I disagree with the tact being taken by the White House.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom".....let's be real!! There are other countries doing far worse than Iraq......but they don't have any oil reserves.

"Weapons of mass destruction".....again let's be real!!! Many other countires pose a much greater threat of using nuclear or other such weapons.....

 

China, Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, etc etc. What's the missing link: Oil!!

 

Just my opinion......

I don't make a stand either way because I am just not informed enough to make such a stand. I just watch the $h1T fly and hope everything turns out for the best.

 

Tim

 

Tim, see my thread about my homework.

http://hybridz.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19568

 

I'm sure that lots of countries have nukes but if you look at their track record then you'll know what they are all about.

Saddam was given alot of chances for peace but did he take them?

 

Overall I think it is shameful that the ignorant american public values leftist media hogs so much.

 

As for lots of automotive forums being conservative i think that is due to the mechanical nature of the people posting. Being that we heavily consider causes and effects.

 

I know lots of people want to call this a war for oil so does that mean any country with precious natural resources are never at fault?

 

I mean lets look at some history with our presidents and their dealings with Saddam

 

Bush Sr. ---> Bombed Iraq

Saddam ----> didn't cooperate

Clinton 1st term -------> Bombed Iraq

Saddam ----> didn't cooperate

Clinton 2nd term ------> Bombed Iraq

Saddam ----> didn't cooperate

Bush Jr. -------> Bombed Iraq

Saddam -----> did't cooperate

 

What can we conclude??

[jeromio]

Well put, Strotter.

[Guest ProfessorRog]

Well, to play devil's advocate for you mike; I think the one point intelligent peace protestors should be harking on is the fact that Iraq is indeed a sovereign nation. Our attack on them sets a precedent for other nations that your righteousness is in direct proportion to your military strength. So if we were to fall apart sometime in the future, much like the Roman Empire collapsed in debauchery and self-indulgence, then our present action makes it okay for the next great world power to act unilaterally, and if the next great world power were to be communist China there would be much anger here. Or maybe they decide that a certain faction within our state(e.g. Socialists) is justified in their demand of government reform and decide to expediate their cause. You have to ask yourself if you were on the other side of the fence how you would respond if somebody were threatening your sovereignty.

 

In essence they shouldn't be protesting the war, but rather protesting the implementation of war. Actions always speak louder than words and we must ask what our actions are communicating. This "blood for oil" and "we are killing Iraqis" hullaballoo is something that lends no rational support to their cause, since it either is based on information they don't have or on emotions clouding rational judgement. They should rather be fighting about the precedent we are setting in our position of world superpower.

 

 

 

What I believe needs to be done is the construction and implementation of an arbitrary council comprised of philosophers as described by Plato in his "Republic." One that has no personal stake in dealings of sovereign states and most importantly one that has the ability to enforce its decision. Somewhat Orwellian in theory but perhaps in practice it would help disengage these terrible situations.

 

 

 

Ya know, sometimes I wish we would find extra terrestrial intelligence just so there would be some unifying factor among us to conquer the stars. Perhaps a believable creation of other worldly life by our government would work? . . . . boy, that would be an interesting situation indeed.

[denny411]

 

"What I believe needs to be done is the construction and implementation of an arbitrary council comprised of philosophers as described by Plato in his "Republic." One that has no personal stake in dealings of sovereign states and most importantly one that has the ability to enforce its decision. Somewhat Orwellian in theory but perhaps in practice it would help disengage these terrible situations."

 

I think this was the basic intention in the creation of the UN. It is next to impossible to get that many people to be truely objective. Inevitably someone will see what can be gained for their own personal intrest and jump ship. This is what happened to France,Germany,and Russia.(they have $$$`s in their eyes)

[Guest livewire23]

Right on strotter, I wanted to say it myself, but I couldnt put it any better than that.

 

mike: that's exactly why I'm not a protester. Believe me, people have asked. I simply don't know enough about the situation to be out taking a stand.

 

dave: i think maybe with decisions as big as these, perhaps a national vote would be a good idea. At the very least it should reduce the issues with people claiming we're all against/for this war. Then again americans never have been very good about exercising the right to vote.

also, If being a citizen doesnt make you american, then what are you? Seems to me that if you're not american, then you're nothin.

 

bang: most of the leftist people i know, think the media's way far right. strange. the right thinks its leftist, the left thinks their conservative. very strange. I conclude that the sound of bombs must deafen saddam.

 

rog: interesting point in the beginning. That's one of my main issues with this war. Recently I've discovered the importance of precedents. Im worried this'll lead to truman doctrine all over again. Then again, I'm sure some people liked truman doctrine. mike, care to speak on truman doctrine? I personally believe it built a mole hill into a mountain.

 

denny: I think only time will tell whats goin on with the motivation. For those of us without special insight into world politics, its kinda hard to see whose got $$ in their eyes and who doesnt. from where i stand, it appears practically everyone's got their own personal interests in their minds. I wonder if anyone actually cares about iraqi interests. It seems that we dont, the french probably dont, and saddam sure doesnt. Clearly, they need a new govn't. One that'll stand up for the people.

[DavyZ]

What is just a hoot is seeing the protesters in San Francisco urinate, deficate, march, etc. on the City and the majority of the people there by tying up traffic, etc, in order to stop "business as usual." Don't those idiots know that the MAJORITY of San Franciscans already agree with them?!? They act like self indulgent children who have temper tantrums and break things until they get what they want. Pitiful.

 

That sends me into absolutely priceless, euphoric, hysterical fits of laughter--what idiots! Sure, club the ones who already agree that there should not be a war. Stop them from working; stop them from getting to work, or home, or wherever. Why not? lol Those people have far too much time on their hands...the land of the unemployed...must be...they have jobs?

 

Sometimes I think that I work in the strangest city on the face of the earth, filled with some of the most clueless people there are.

 

Davy

[Guest bang847]

I think we should focus on the positive precendent that the US has set. The UN for quite a while has been a lame attempt at justice. The rules and regulations that the UN set has been repeatdly and flagrantly ignore by Saddam and his goverment. In a sense the UN has been castrated of its governing powers.

As much as people want to believe the UN is a just formation of nations it lacks much when put into comparison to other systems of goverments.

Example being that the US has a house of reps and also a senate.

I really think that France's ability to veto destroyed the effectiveness of the UN. IMHO France abused their power by rejecting things faster than Iraq could reject them.

 

 

Empire collapsed in debauchery and self-indulgence, then our present action makes it okay for the next great world power to act unilaterally, and if the next great world power were to be communist China there would be much anger here.

 

Last time I checked it wasn't unilateral.

 

Being in the age information I don't think "communist" even means anything anymore.

I think "capatilist" might be worst.

I fear the day when I have to pay to drink water!!

Oops...

[Guest livewire23]

haha, bang, you better watch out. You're starting to sound liberal.

 

while we're on the topic, anyone see the footage of the sandstors where the soldiers are pulling what appears to be a V12 from some kind of army vehicle? Did you see the size of the turbo on that bad boy? I wonder how much NOS it takes to spool that baby up.

[Guest bang847]

bang: most of the leftist people i know' date=' think the media's way far right. strange. the right thinks its leftist, the left thinks their conservative. very strange. I conclude that the sound of bombs must deafen saddam.

[/quote']

 

I think the media is actually neither

when i watch PBS during the night they seem conservative when i watch them late night they seem a little liberal.

When I said media hogs I meant celebrities that exploit thier television time. Especially Michael Moore.

What was that time set for? Did he pay for the time? NO!!!

You wanna protest. Go ahead.. but if you wanna unjustly profit at another's expense that is a tort of wrongful interference.

[Pop N Wood]

bang847 wrote

 

Being that we heavily consider causes and effects.

 

Well put. A+ from me.

 

ProfessorRog wrote

 

They should rather be fighting about the precedent we are setting in our position of world superpower.

 

I think this is exactly George W's point. The UN, for many different reasons, was unwilling to act. Iraq has lived under a state of near military occupation for the last 12 years. You can hardly consider them a "sovereign nation" when they are getting bombed on a weekly (if not daily) basis, being told where in their own country they can and can't fly airplanes and living under mandates, enforced by military force, dictating what they can and can't export. Time to $hit or get off the pot.

 

People arguing for the "status quo" of continued weapon inspections and sanctions seem to forget the above points. The sanctions didn't hurt Saddam, because he has deflected all of the pain to his people. What was the first things rebuilt after the first gulf war? Palaces.

 

I understand there is great disagreement about our methods. But people need to give us credit for having the courage to try and do what is right. And to think we are some how going to profit financially from this is ludicrous! People need to be honest and look at the whole picture.

 

Ever hear of the Treaty of Versailles? Did you realize they had weapons inspectors in pre WWII Germany? Ever wonder what the world would be like if the French and British had enforced the treaty with force before the Nazi’s fully gained power and rebuilt their military? How many lives would have been saved? 30 million? 40 million? More?

 

Ignoring Saddam will not make him go away. As the saying goes, lead, follow or get out of the way. I think the precedent being set is a good one.

[Guest livewire23]

the treaty of versailles was the reason that WWII came about. had it not been for the extremely strict snctions we slapped on the germans after WWI, and those nasty war debts, they never would have been in such horrible shape in the early 30s. Had their economy not been so much trash, and their government such a joke, they would not have been receptive to the extremism of hitler. notice that after WWII we were much more careful about the treaty we wrote.

Interestingly enough, ther were several arms limitations treaties that the french knocked down, because the french were so scared of being beat by the germans again. They refused to shrink their own army, and therefore allowed the germans to expand their army.

[Pop N Wood]

the treaty of versailles was the reason that WWII came about. had it not been for the extremely strict snctions we slapped on the germans after WWI' date=' and those nasty war debts, they never would have been in such horrible shape in the early 30s. Had their economy not been so much trash, and their government such a joke, they would not have been receptive to the extremism of hitler. notice that after WWII we were much more careful about the treaty we wrote.

Interestingly enough, ther were several arms limitations treaties that the french knocked down, because the french were so scared of being beat by the germans again. They refused to shrink their own army, and therefore allowed the germans to expand their army.[/quote']

 

Yes. Had a lot to do with it. In fact, some historians have considered WWII to be a continuation of WWI. One of the reasons for Hitler’s initial popularity was he was one of the first to come out and publicly state "to hell with the treaty of Versailles". And yes, after this war is over we will have the equivalent of the Marshall plan (the Bush plan?) to rebuild rather than beat down Iraq. We have learned from our past mistakes.

 

However you are missing my point. Weapon inspections and treaty limitations don't work unless they are backed up by something substantial. And trying to placate a mad man carrying a grudge from a past war is a sure fire recipe for greater pain. Saddam is showing the same contempt for the UN restrictions as Hitler did for his restrictions. (I have seen one weapons inspection document where the Germans claimed flame throwers were needed for “vermin control”.) The parallels to WWII are real. Hopefully we won’t make the same mistakes again.

[Guest Aaron]

I have been refraining from posting in this discussion, however, I would like to make a few points that I think pertain to the topic.

 

Dustin Hoffman: "For me as an American, the most painful aspect of this is that I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible." "I don't think, like many of us, that the reasons we have been given for going to war are the honest reasons." "I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".

 

While I do not really agree with Dustin's opinion, I can respect him because his opinion is somewhat well thought out, and intelligently stated. Just as I can respect those on this forum who choose to make intelligent comments both for and against current world events.

 

What I find most disturbing with most of the protesters and most of the war supporters is the “us against them†attitude. Too many protesters continue to bring up the “stolen†election of 2000. It is evident that they are only protesting because their team is not currently in charge. A similar charge can be made for a large number of war supporters. The simply support the war because their team is in charge and wants it.

 

I am not a member of any political party, union, or political action organization, nor do I plan to join one. I tend toward conservative policies because of my particular belief structure. I see danger in following, voting, or believing in a particular idea or action simply because organization X says it is right. It distresses me that my own father and stepmother simply pull the Republican ticket every time they vote. At the same time my father- and mother-in-law pull the Democratic ticket when they vote. It is important that we all study current events, investigate issues, and examine the candidates that we vote for so that our personal views and opinions are reflected in our leadership on the basis of majority rule. In the last election, I voted for mostly republican candidates, but my vote was based on the research I was able to do. Some of the candidates I voted for I truly believed in their position. Others I voted for simply because I considered them the lesser of two evils.

 

George Washington gave a resounding warning about parties and their dangers.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

 

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with illfounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

 

The problems with party allegiance existed in 1796 and they continue to this day. I urge everyone to think before you act. I am a Christian, I try to look to God for my direction, and the stands He wants me to make (though I often fail). I try to avoid blindly following the doctrine of any church, preacher, denomination, party, organization, or other man-made thing. For me, God is the only absolute truth I have, and therefore is the only source on which I can base my decisions. These are my ideals. Examine your own faith and ideals and stand on them.

[Guest livewire23]

there are any differences between this and WWII though. for one, sadda has been in power long before the sanctions were ever here. anyways, i'll speak on that at some other time. Everyone needs to read this for info on what to do in case of a terrorist attack though. Very informative.

 

http://titaniumcounter.com/temp/emergency/

[denny411]

Here`s a little info for those who think this is about occupation or colonization.

I got this from a friend at Ogihara.

The incident is a real one that happened a few months ago.

 

Powell Quote

 

 

 

When in England at a fairly large conference,

Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury

if our plans for Iraq were just an example of

empire building by George Bush.

 

He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the

United States has sent many of its fine young men

and women into great peril to fight for freedom

beyond our borders. The only amount of land we

have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those

that did not return."

 

It became very quiet in the room.

[Guest livewire23]

a very somber statement indeed, but not entirely true. There were several incidents in S. America and the philipines that were an exception to this rule. And there was also a lot of debate at the turn of the last century as to whether we should have demanded more out of S. America.

 

I also remember bush saying at some point that the US and Japan have had good relations for 75 years. It seems like we only remember the parts of history that we like. Japan/US relations were practically non-existent before 1905, and extremely strained from the end of the russo-japanes war all the way through 1942. And we all know what they were like from 1942-1945... Perhaps it was just a slip of the tongue.

[Pop N Wood]

There were several incidents in S. America and the philipines that were an exception to this rule.

 

 

What land holdings do we currently have in either South America or the Philippines? We had bases in the Philippines for quite a number of years but gave them back when the lease ran out. The Subic Bay Naval Base is now a FedEX hub and major shipyard thanks to all of the improvements we left in place. What do we currently have in South America besides embassies?