| Author | Message | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1869 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sean: Marine in peacetime? big time difference between that and war time. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing the consequences of this type of behavior (war casualties), and I didn't like it one bit. That's the experience that I'm talking about. As to the lying, I was referring to the current administration. It is becoming more and more apparent that they lied to us about the reasons for the war. Yet, despite that, everyone seems to think its ok. There is a long history of government's lying to its citizens, and yet in this instance, there is no huge outcry over such behavior. I think that is a direct result of the failure of the US populace's moral basis. It's all about me in this world, not about what's right and wrong. I find that very, very sad. When people start to say that even if they did lie, the war was justified, I ask this question: what are you comparing this to? Since, although we do have the Iraqi casualties figures, the government hasn't complied them, keeping us from knowning just how many people we killed, so literally there is nothing to weigh the war against, is there? No outcry, no sense of moral outrage, just anger at those who wouldn't go along with the program. I'm sorry, but that's crap, and folks who haven't thought their way through this issue are directly responsible. Art | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 169 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art "If I had to bet, if push came to shove, you couldn't be counted on personally, if the consequences were severe to you and yours. " I was in the Marines. I was willing to fight and die for my country. Any more questions? "We have waay to many people like you, willing to risk people's lives over your own idology, and who are willing to lie to achieve their goals." A lawyer preaching about lying. Now that is sarcasm. Where did I lie? Jon, I see your point, lets just agree to disagree. While we may not see any 'proof' Iraq was a threat, at some point we have to trust the people in charge. We have to say, "Bush says Iraq is a threat so lets go get them." I think to much of the negativity from the press is simply that they will look for anything at all that is negative about him. I don't really understand the hate, but it's obvious. I'm also all for preemptive strikes. If you see a strange man outside your window in the middle of the night, do you call the police, or wait until he breaks in? | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 691 Registered: 8-2001 |
Sean, Your test theory is correct but in the real world of eliminating threats to our country I don't think the analogy makes sense. Iraq had little or nothing to do with 9/11. Iran and Saudi Arabia did. We are not talking about eliminating easy test questions....we are talking about eliminating dangerous threats to our country and it's people. Easy isn't always the right choice. Your point about the Middle East being glad he is gone is valid though that is not a reason for us to get rid of him because it makes our other enemies happy. I studied some "geo-politics" in grad school and am fully aware of this administrations and the past one's efforts to let the process in Iran take it course with Kahtami (SP?). But the initial optimism of his ability to weaken the power of the council has proved inaccurate. At this rate it will take 10-20 years for that to take place. Iran is no less brutal than Iraq. Instead of one psychopath madman you have a council of 12-13 radical Muslims who are no different. We followed the same policy with Iraq thinking we could cause the crumbling of that regime from inside. Would have nver happened and won't happen in Iran either or at least not in the next decade. I also know that it may seem like a third graders statement to say we ought to bomb the hell out of Saudi Arabia but after 9/11 the time for diplomacy is over. Although I didn't and still don't support Bush's policy of attacking Iraq I will at least give him credit for saying the hell with you we are coming after you and we are going to eliminate you. We have the largest, best trained military in the world and it's time we start threatening other states that harbor those responsible for 9/11 with something other than hollow words. I don't have a problem with Bush's Cowboy attitude. We should park a few Nuclear class submarines off the coast of North Korea and say go ahead fire something in our direction...what do you think we will do. Same with SA, we should start threatening them. Bush showed the world that we didn't need NATO or the UN. My biggest problem with Iraq is that we took pre-emptive action and attacked a sovereign country that did not attack us or threaten us (or out interests). This sets a dangerous precedent for others. The example of nuclear subs off the coast of North Korea could give them the excuse to fire on us (though I doubt they would do it...we would anihlate them). I can see China using that excuse to attack us for arming Taiwan with more missles. India going after Pakistan for setting off another nuclear bomb in their dessert. We can be sure that right now we are the strongest power and any attempt to attack us will result in far worse consequences for the other side. North Korean could use pre-emptive excuse if we moved those subs off their coast but in reality they might get one missle to reach our shores while we could get 5 missles to wipe them all out. Waht happend when someone else becomes the stronger power. Or in my other example other countries attack each other and not the US. China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq etc.. We shouldn't have attacked Serbia or Iraq. Neither threatened us and neither attacked us. We got involved in someone else's domestic problems and that opens up a can or worms. We should ahve gone and attacked or sever'y threatened those who had and STILL DO have a bigger role in Al Qaeda's attack on us. Just my .02 worth. Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1861 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sean: Taking your comments about tests: I've never had a problem completing them. I've always finished them is about 1/2 or less than the time allocated, with what I think reasonable scores (99.9% in just about every test I've taken). As to your comments about our behavior: I'll willing to be serious money, you've never seen the consequences of our behavior up close and personal. It's always the armchair warrior who seems to be willing to risk other human beings lives. If I had to bet, if push came to shove, you couldn't be counted on personally, if the consequences were severe to you and yours. We have waay to many people like you, willing to risk people's lives over your own idology, and who are willing to lie to achieve their goals. Make no doubt about it, what is coming out is that these people lied to get what they wanted, and people died as direct result thereof. The spin is now going go to confuse the great unwashed. I have absolutely no respect for people who would do that, no respect for those who would condone it. Anyway you spell it, its murder. Art | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 167 Registered: 2-2003 |
"As for the Iraqi people, who gives a flying sh*t, if they weren't willing to fight for their own freedom that is their loss. Freedom ain't free and if you won't fight for it you don't deserve it." They tried several times and were brutally crushed by Saddam and his sons, including the use of chemical weapons on them (read some history). Just because there are not camps in Iraq it does not mean there is not link (read $$). I've read several articles from more credible news sources than iraqibodycount.com (for Art) that show a financial link b/w Al Qaeda and Saddam (no I don't have a link, it was a few months back). Oh, and last I heard, we still had military personal in the hills of Afghanistan pursuing Bin Laden. Iran, why go after Iran. The people would do better to earn their own freedom (as you just pointed out) than having us do it for them. They are already extremely restless and the mullah's will not be in charge long. Why do Iraq first? B/c it was easy and there would have been A LOT more criticism of the US had we gone after one of the others. While the "case for Iraq" was somewhat weak, not to many in the middle east are really going to be that upset Saddam is gone. Are you? I also recall reading that many in the middle east were surprised that our victory was so easy. The thought the Muslims in Iraq would put up a much better fight. That in and of itself is worth something. Sometimes I think people think to much about right now, and not enough about the big picture. Iraq is a small piece of that picture, and the easiest one to start with. Ever taken day a long professional type test (profile indicates probably so). Which problems do you do first? The easy ones. Get those out of the way and get full credit, then do the hard ones that you may not get full credit on (at least, that's how I took and past the Professional Engineers exam). | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 685 Registered: 8-2001 |
Sean, If you look back over the archives on this subject, which generated some lenghty, well thought out debates by both sides before, during and after the war you will see that those trying to tie Saddam to 9/11 failed to do so. There are an estimated 500 or so Al Qaeda fighters and most likely Bin Laden himself in the tribal border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There were at last count nearly 25 terror camps in Iran some of which were used extensively by Al Qaeda operatives. Three months ago US inteligence intercepted a phone call from Bin Laden's son who was using a cell phone deep within Iran's capital. Just this week we find out their are a dozen or so Al Qaeda folks in Iran (claimed to be held) that likely planned and gave the go ahead for the attack in Saudi Arabia afeww weeks ago. Nearly all the hijackers from 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The State department has clear and convincing evidence that one of the Saudi prince's daughters contributed somewhere in the region of $2 million US to an organization that fund two of the hijackers who had set up shop in Hamburg Germany. The 9/11 tie to Saddam is the most ludicrous and weak point of Bush's arguement. We have evidence of one Al Qaeda operative in Iraq last year for medical treatment and that's it. Even the meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and an Al Qaeda operative meeting in the Czech Republic a few years ago has now been proven inaccurate. No way you can argue that we should have attacked Iraq before we went after Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We fried the wrong fish so Bush Sr. could be happy. As for the Iraqi people, who gives a flying sh*t, if they weren't willing to fight for their own freedom that is their loss. Freedom ain't free and if you won't fight for it you don't deserve it. Regards, Jon | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Junior Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 164 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jon, et all, I always fealt the WMD reason for war was weak and Bush was going about it wrong. IMO he should have gone at it from the free the Iraqi poeople perspective and Iraqi ties to terrorism (of which there is little doubt about). However, to get UN support and world support he sort of HAD to use the WMD angle on things. In addition, it has made the UN look weak and that is not such a bad thing. The UN is all but usless anyway and unless things really change (they won't) it wouldn't bother me a bit to see the US leave the UN in the next 3-5 yrs. | ||
| JRV (Jrvall)
Intermediate Member Username: Jrvall Post Number: 1640 Registered: 11-2002 |
Fair enough Art, ;-) JRV says- MAKE LOVE NOT WAR !!!! ;^j | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1858 Registered: 6-2001 |
JVR: I haven't tried, looks like its too small (I'm over 6 feet, and not as skinny as I was when younger. If I'd been able to afford one in my 20s, the answer would have been yes. Art | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 682 Registered: 8-2001 |
Art, Art, I saw the artice first thing this AM and figured you'd hear the news as well. No relation as far as I know. The last name of "Kofod" is similar in frequency of use in Denmark as "Smith" and "Jones" are in the US. To early to tell but you guys might need to start eating some humble pie about why the hell we went to war. I don't agree with the "get our troops out of Saudi Arabia" theory. I think Bush and his folk are now trying to cover the ass*s if they can't soon find something more important than two abandoned dump trucks. I stil think it was about oil, daddy Bush, and his re-election. Art and I might turn out to be right for different reasons but the bottom line is that we fried the wrong fish. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 FLATOUT RACING Website: http://neverlift.homestead.com/flatout.html | ||
| JRV (Jrvall)
Intermediate Member Username: Jrvall Post Number: 1635 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art, we're trying to discuss important issues here! have you had sex in your Ferrari or not? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1852 Registered: 6-2001 |
Looks like the truth is starting to come out: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030530/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc_2 Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1850 Registered: 6-2001 |
The point was that the reason to do this was so that we could remove our troops from Saudi Arabia, where they were being used as a recruiting device for Bin Laden. If there is any truth whatsoever about this, what do we intend to do about it? Looks like murder, straight up to me. Art | ||
| Robin Overcash (Robin)
Junior Member Username: Robin Post Number: 98 Registered: 1-2003 |
That's all well and good Arlie, but it's not really the point, is it? Our intelligence souces proclaimed unequivocally that Iraq had WMD of all kinds, and now we can't seem to find any of them. I think everyone can agree that Saddam was a problem and that he had to go. However, is this not a massive intelligence failure? Based on Powell's speech at the UN, one would think we'd go right to all of our sources and dig up all kinds of illegal weapons. Now we seem to be saying "well we weren't so sure about that.. maybe they got rid of them before we went in.. we'll find them eventually..." What happened to the bold statements made 4-5 months ago that declared with absolute certainty that Iraq had WMD and that we knew enough about them to declare war because of it? I have no problem with the fact that we booted Saddam out. However, I do have a problem with the intelligence community which seems to be racking up a lot of big misses lately... -R | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Advanced Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 3815 Registered: 9-2001 |
they are waiting to find it closer to the election - it will be better for Bush  | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Intermediate Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 1190 Registered: 5-2002 |
So far, they haven't found much evidence of WEAPONS of mass destruction. However, they have found plenty of ACTUAL MASS DESTRUCTION in the form of hundreds/thousands of graves of Saddam's murder victims as well as records of thousands of other missing people who will probably never be found. Of course the "authorities" probably walked right past that innocent looking meat grinder in a looted out basement. Of course that same meat grinder was a weapon of mass destruction for any person whose body was forced into it. (See Barbara Walter's interview with Iraqi women and their references to those "meat grinders". | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1848 Registered: 6-2001 |
See this: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=7&u=/ap/20030530/ap_on_re_eu/wolfowitz_iraq_8 My question is: is the Danish foreign minister related to Jon on this site? Art |