kmcguffee 0 #76 December 10, 2003 Quote>Ultimately, we are responsible for the security of our nation, not >the rest of the world. Yet we invade places like Iraq to liberate the people. Interesting. You misunderstand my post. Let me rephrase. Ultimately, we are solely responsible for the security of our nation. The rest of the world is not responsible for the security of the US. They may aid in our security but they are not ultimately responsible. My statement had nothing to do with liberating other countries. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #77 December 10, 2003 QuoteDo you think that situation would get better/worse if the operation would be under UN mandate with international UN troops? LOL, worse. Syrian, Iranian, and Lybian troops would make things better? Come on now. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #78 December 10, 2003 Syrian and Iranian troops wouldn't be welcome by the Iraqi authority as they are neighbouring countries. As you may recall this was why there was a problem with turkish troops. I strongly doubt Libya would send troops anyway. Why not have the UN take over the rebuilding/running of Iraq fom Bremner? They do have lots of experience rebuilding other countries and could provide valuable experience. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sducoach 0 #79 December 10, 2003 Na, not trouble "parsing" Quade. Now you are falling back on your "left coast" camouflage. Stick with the facts brother. Good point was, who is qualified? How about France, Germany, Canada? Why don't you ask the soldiers that work with them??? Blues, J.E.James 4:8 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #80 December 10, 2003 Quote Now you are falling back on your "left coast" camouflage. That phrase alone speaks volumes about about the general intolerance people have for anyone outside their immediate geographical area. Please don't condemn the entire "left coast" simply because you disagree with my opinions on this. After all, didn't the President that is routinely held up as one of the greatest Presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, come from California? If you can't see both the good and bad within your own country, what hope do I have of showing you any good in any other country? Tell me, what the hell did Canada do to piss you off?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meltdown 0 #81 December 10, 2003 Quote ----------------------------------------------- We are a nation of great strength, but with that strength comes the responsibility to use it in constructive ways for the betterment of all people, everywhere. ------------------------------------------------------- This is the read world, Quade, not Never Never Land. - Jim ------------------------------------------------------- You mean Michael Jackson's ranch? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,678 #82 December 10, 2003 Quote__ Would Bremer feel comfortable walking around without a flack jacket outside of the "Green Zone" in Baghdad? _____________________________________________________ reply: Not yet. Would Roosevelt feel comfortable walking around Berlin 7 months after WW2 ? reply] ____________________________________________________ reply: How much more would you like? 1. Roosevelt would be happy walking anywhere, since he was wheelchair bound. 2. I expect he would be far happier to be walking in Berlin 7 months after WWII than where he actually was 7 months after WWII.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,678 #83 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteYet we invade places like Iraq to liberate the people. Interesting. So you think we have INVADED Iraq? You do not think him gassing millions of his own people justified action? What part of "invade" don't you understand?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #84 December 10, 2003 >anyone who beleived that iraq was going to be easy should put there >heads back in the sand From the BBC: Any war with Iraq would be swift and not require a full US mobilisation, says US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. . . . Mr Rumsfeld is in Europe to try to gain backing for possible military action against Iraq. "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #85 December 10, 2003 >Because we did that last time allowing Sadham to slaughter ten's of >thousands of IRaqi's... We must finish the job and not let the Iraqi >people down.. I think that's the post of the day. So far we've killed around 8000 Iraqis; how long before we finish the job Saddam started? (I know, it's not what you _really_ meant, but it came off sounding that way.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #86 December 10, 2003 >So you think we have INVADED Iraq? Uh, yeah. Weren't you wondering where all those other marines went? >You do not think him gassing millions of his own people justified > action? A while back we took action as he gassed millions - we sold him more WMD's. Even sold him helicopters and gave him military intelligence. Good thing he had those helicopters, or gassing people would have been a LOT tougher. There's a picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand shortly after the UN report on his use of chemical weapons came out. Now we invade to keep him from using nonexistent chemical weapons. We're about twenty years too late to save anyone from his weapons of mass destruction. What's next? Will we invade Uzbekistan to stop the cold war? Perhaps we can invade Yugoslavia to stop Milosevic's genocide. I'm sure that war would be quick and easy, we'd find Milosevic in a jiffy, and the Serbs would greet us as liberators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #87 December 10, 2003 QuoteWhat part of "invade" don't you understand? What part of GENOCIDE and LIBERATE don't you understand? You know.. Sadham was attempting quit successfully what a man named HITLER tried to do. That probably doesn't strike a cord with you? Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #88 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhat part of "invade" don't you understand? What part of GENOCIDE and LIBERATE don't you understand? You know.. Sadham was attempting quit successfully what a man named HITLER tried to do. That probably doesn't strike a cord with you? Rhino The US never aided Hitler. Doesn't that strike a chord with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,678 #89 December 10, 2003 QuoteQuoteWhat part of "invade" don't you understand? What part of GENOCIDE and LIBERATE don't you understand? You know.. Sadham was attempting quit successfully what a man named HITLER tried to do. That probably doesn't strike a cord with you? Rhino I haven't questioned "genocide" or "liberate". You questioned "invade". When foreign troops cross your borders, that IS an invasion. I understand very well how the white settlers liberated the Sioux and the Iroquois and the Cherokee, and spread smallpox among the tribes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #90 December 10, 2003 I was grinning ear-to-ear when I heard about Wolfowitz's memo. While I keep hearing about Halliburton, I love how nobody tries to quantify the value of these "huge" contracts. There are no "huge" news releases and despite this, the company continues to float bonds and loans of over $1B. So, let's see, sharing in the contracts will be counties like: UK, Spain, Italy, Japan, Poland, plus about 30 others. Oh my God!! This is terrible!! (tongue in cheek) Like we didn't see this coming. I'm 100% for it.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #91 December 10, 2003 Iraq contracts list stuns world Some notable quotes: Quote CNN's Moscow Bureau Chief Jill Dougherty said that Ivanov's negative response was based on the fact that in Soviet times Russia was a major player in Iraq. It built much of the country's infrastructure and over the years had $40 billion in oil contracts with Baghdad. Russia was still owed $8 billion by Iraq and "now wanted a piece of the pie" in reconstruction contracts, Dougherty added. Quote France -- along with the European Commission -- said it was studying the legality of the decision. "We're studying the compatibility of these decisions with the international laws of competition, together with our concerned partners, especially the European Union and the European Commission," a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Quote In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because Canada had already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also had troops in Afghanistan. "I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien. "There's a huge amount of suffering going on there, and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [Iraq.] As I said before, yet another reason for people around the world to hate the U.S.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skreamer 1 #92 December 10, 2003 Kallend - 2 : Gravitymaster - 0 Check out the prof! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #93 December 10, 2003 QuoteLatest from CNN Some notable quotes: QuoteRussia was still owed $8 billion by Iraq and "now wanted a piece of the pie" in reconstruction contracts, Dougherty added. Russia will get it's investment back over time, just not as a primary contractor. Judging their performance with Iran, I think they should work damn hard to justify any further work in the region. QuoteQuote France -- along with the European Commission -- said it was studying the legality of the decision. I could see Spain, Italy and most of eastern Europe foregoing involvement in the EU in light of France's bullying in the venture. Given France's track record in Northern Africa, policy of appeasement in the middle east, I shan't cry for them, and neither should you. QuoteQuote In Ottawa, incoming Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin said the decision was difficult to understand because Canada had already spent $300 million to support Iraq and also had troops in Afghanistan. "I find it really very difficult to fathom," said Martin, who will take the helm of Canada's government Friday from outgoing Prime Minister Jean Chretien. "There's a huge amount of suffering going on there, and I think it is the responsibility of every country to participate in developing [Iraq.] Canada will get a piece in the end I bet. They don't have the military infrastructure to maintain and engage deployments the way we do. With NAFTA there will be plenty of money crossing the border. Canada's government is at least a willing neighbor/ally. QuoteAs I said before, yet another reason for people around the world to hate the U.S. Don't you dare feel guilty about this! The "hate" that was spewing out of western Europe's governments (before the war even started) is coming 'round to bite them in the @ss.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #94 December 10, 2003 QuoteRussia was still owed $8 billion by Iraq and "now wanted a piece of the pie" in reconstruction contracts, Dougherty added. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Russia will get it's investment back over time, just not as a primary contractor. Judging their performance with Iran, I think they should work damn hard to justify any further work in the region. Really? Even though were asking them to forgive Iraq's prior debt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #95 December 10, 2003 QuoteYou know.. Sadham was attempting quit successfully what a man named HITLER tried to do. That probably doesn't strike a cord with you? How does Godwin's law/rule apply here? I never bought the Hitler '39 analogies for several reasons but the two main ones were. 1. Hitler militarised the Rhineland without opposition. SH tried to act in the no fly zones and was bombed 2. Hitler annexed Austria and was appeased. SH annexed Kuwait and was bombed. 3. Little international exposure when Hitler was building up his military. SH and Iraq were constantly monitored/spied upon had inspections etc. They are two very different cases and should be treated as such. The Hitler argument was and still is the weakest argument I've heard for the military action that took place. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,470 #96 December 10, 2003 >How does Godwin's law/rule apply here? By the strict definition? He 'loses' the argument and the thread ends. For that to happen, everyone has to stop posting to it, and that's unlikely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shark 0 #97 December 10, 2003 QuoteThey are two very different cases and should be treated as such. Exactly. Hitler killed jews, and Saddam killed muslims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #98 December 10, 2003 Ouch... True.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #99 December 10, 2003 Hitler also killed Germans, Poles, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Untermenschen, Jehovahs witnesses, communists, criminals and "undesirables" etc. If anything the origins of Nazi Genocide started with mandatory sterilisation for the disabled and retarded in 33 (i think I'd have to reread the book to make sure) and euthenasia of the old. Then progressed to killing retarded infants and the "Final solution". About the most common theme between SH and Hitler is the moustache (similar types of ethnic cleansing/genocide happened in Rwanda and Bosnia). As I said previously I think linking SH and Hitler is the weakest argument I've heard for the military action that happened. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #100 December 10, 2003 TheAnvil returns. I find all of these arguments odd. Bill, with regards to the post to which I'm replying, you of all people know well that the paradigm of foreign policy at the time we sold Saddam Hussein WMD's was vastly different than that of today. Yep, we sold them to him - for a reason. Most folks wouldn't know SAVAK from Slovak, couldn't find Iran on a map without help, and wouldn't know the Shah from straw or cole slaw. Therefore that 'we sold him WMD's' garbage of an argument works on the ignorant to cast doubt about the foreign policy avenue Bush chose to pursue. I too question it, but don't rely on the ignorance of others to make my point. Shame on you. I find it interesting that much of the argumetn on this topic still centers around 'we went there for the wrong reasons' and 'we never should have invaded' themes vice folks presenting reasonable alternatives to the foreign policies Bush has put forward. It seems all of the banter focuses around slamming Bush and such vice finding the optimal solution to any problems.Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
