Discussion in 'Politics' started by candletrader, Mar 4, 2003.

  1. #11     Mar 4, 2003
  2. rs7


    Fine reasoning:confused:

    So because we have 200k troops ready, and a President that has a family feud to settle, war is inevitable?

    And if we don't go to war, this will somehow make our "leadership throughout the world" diminished?

    I do not oppose this apparently imminent war if it is the only way to accomplish our goal. To rid the world of the threat of Saddam. A very real threat. (I do not, however, believe this to be the best solution, and certainly not the best approach.....a massive invasion).

    You, Arba Trader, believe that we need to go to war for economic reasons? For what you believe are "image" issues? Because Bush "is strong"? BTW, while "wont" is indeed a word, (but unlikely one you would use in a sentence), it in no way fits into your context.....maybe your language skills explain why you can look up to Dubya.... a more literate guy than you....you are in the minority.

    So let's get this straight. If war is good for the economy, we should always be at war. Is that what you think?

    If a President is "strong", then he should use his "strength" to find excuses to send our kids to fight so GE and LMT and a thousand other corporations (forgetting about the oil companies for the moment) and their shareholders can get richer? We can force the price of oil to drop. That would help the economy for sure. Who cares if we trade blood for oil. Makes perfect sense for some. Just not the rational people.

    As for "voting" on an issue the world at large wishes did not exist. Candle, why so many polls? Candle, sometimes I agree with what you say. Sometimes I don't. But I can't understand why you feel compelled to poll us all on everything. From "spanking the monkey" (entertaining, but silly) to this whole Iraq war thing (which, ultimately is completely out of our hands, so why vote?)

    As a practical matter, why even put the summer months into the poll as a choice? Imagine wearing body armor, helmets, gas masks, (or possibly even "hazmat" suits), carrying weapons and survival equipment in 125 degree heat. This will NOT be a part of any pre-planned attack. It happens now, or it happens next winter. Or it happens without ground troops. And it's hard to target one guy with even the smartest of "smart bombs".

    How to win if we must engage the enemy? Let the guys that know how to do it take care of business.

    Ask the Israelis...how much money do you need? What kinds of weapons? Which of our troops can you use? Let them plan it. Like we should have when we committed the debacle that was the rescue attempt of the hostages in Iran. Like the Germans should have at the '72 Munich Olympics. They have the intel. We don't even have Arabic speaking agents for the most part. We can't infiltrate their culture. We are the most self absorbed political culture on the planet. We should be proud of what we have created here. But not so arrogant as to believe we are capable of doing what we are not.

    Go with the undefeated team. Israel. Iraq is a far greater threat to them than to us. What do we know about fighting in the desert? What do we know about finesse? Anyone remember the raid on Entebbe? Let the experts take charge. They have the know how. They even have the experience of bombing Baghdad. We just have the money and the manpower. But not the ability to fight in the streets, as we know from Somalia and Vietnam. Or the desert (Somalia and Iran). Or, more generally speaking regarding overall strategy, Vietnam, where we used tactics from a war that ended 25 years earlier. And tried to defeat an enemy that was fighting for their beliefs on their own soil. Like we did against the British over 200 years ago.

    I am proud to be an American. Don't take my words as meaning anything to the contrary. But we are good at some things, and not so good at others. We "saved" Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion. But what did we actually save? The "democracy" that was threatened in Kuwait? Please!!! An environmental disaster? Again, it couldn't have been worse if we intentionally dreamed up a bad ending!!

    We are NOT qualified to fight this war in the proper manner. There is absolutely no reason to commit 200k troops to topple a leader who is despised by his constituents. And his army that is motivated by fear alone. Not conviction, as were the Viet Cong. Or the American Revolutionaries. This is an enemy that should be easy to defeat. Know how, in this case, is far more effective than overwhelming force.

    My son is going into the Navy. I am really very proud of him. But the truth is, if he were on a carrier in the Gulf (he is not...he is going to the nuclear propulsion school), I would not be concerned about his safety as far as Iraq is concerned. If the kids on the carriers are in danger at all, it would be more from Al Qaeda and their tactics of sneaking in under our noses (USS Cole, bombing of embassies all over the globe, and the Marine Barracks in Beirut come to mind). Not the Iraqi army.

    So you are right. It's about the economy. I thought we were a better and more moral county than that.

    I say give Saddam something to really fear. A handful of highly trained and motivated commandos. Not a massive invasion in which he can and will get lost in the chaos that is sure to ensue.

    Meanwhile, our economy will recover one way or the other. Hell of a lot safer to elect a competent executive than to indulge a "dry drunk".

    No one in their right mind WANTS a war. Any diplomatic solution would be preferable. Even now, as we are poised to strike, efforts go on to avoid war. Thankfully Arba Trader isn't making the decisions. And thankfully, even Dubya hasn't the power to just say "let's go get 'em right now". And that is as it should be.

    IMO, heads of state should not wear army uniforms (Castro, Quadaffi, Saddam, etc.) or cowboy hats. (Dubya, Reagan, Johnson come to mind). Nor should they wear crowns. Or whatever that thing Arafat wears is called. Or turbans. Or hairpieces. At least our guys didn't walk around with sidearms. (as far as I know.... Ashcroft maybe, but he's gotta think of himself as a "super cop", and besides, not a head of state. Bet Al Haig kept a piece...bet Powell doesn't). But Castro and those arab maniacs? Love thier guns. Love making a show of them.

    So we got that going for us, which is nice, I guess.

    Peace (as long and whenever possible)
    #12     Mar 4, 2003
  3. We are slowly getting his crew, aren't we?

    We should never bow to world opinion, if we are convinced within our own borders that we are right and just.

    If no one supports us, so be it. We get the oil all for ourselves.
    #13     Mar 4, 2003
  4. Finally, a war monger comes clean about the real motives...
    #14     Mar 5, 2003
  5. ElCubano


    "The United States has offered Turkey a $15 billion aid package if parliament approves the deployment of 62,000 troops."

    Are we getting gouged???? thats roughly 240k a piece......cono
    #15     Mar 5, 2003
  6. bobcathy1

    bobcathy1 Guest

    Yes, it has always been all about the oil.
    Korea has no oil, but they are far more dangerous. So we ignore them.
    Makes me sick.
    This country needs to get cracking on alternative fuels.
    I am trading in my 2 vehicles for one tiny fuel effecient one.
    I live in a fuel efficent trawler.
    But these all require petroleum. Got to fire up these engines with corn, wheat or water!
    #16     Mar 5, 2003
  7. Babak


    candle, don't tell me that you don't know that Russia, France and China have currently some very sweet deals with Saddam to develop oil fields and would be doing so right now were it not for the embargo.

    If the friendly neighbourhood dictator is toppled, those countries will be heartbroken as they had to wine and dine Saddam to get those juicy contracts. As well Germany is very friendly to Iraq's current regime because they export heavy machinery to them. Oh and don't forget that France and Russia are just tripping over themselves to sell Iraq nuclear reactors. For energy production of course.

    Does it all start to make sense now?

    Everybody is in it for the oil. The only thing is that the US is the only party that is not in it just for the oil. They are interested in strangling Saddam, getting a foothold in the ME, blowing the brains out of OPEC and getting the oil.
    #17     Mar 5, 2003
  8. I agree with everything in your post... so regard my reply as simply a continuation in agreement of what you have said... your post neatly outlines the complete reality of the geopolitical situation... another difference between the USA and the others (that I am sure you are aware of) is that the USA is about to kill thousands of Iraqis to obtain its objectives... that's the part I don't like... you know, if the USA could somehow fulfill its objectives without the deaths of thousands of innocent people, I genuinely would have no problem with the USA taking effective oil control away from the Ruskies, Frogs and Reds...
    #18     Mar 5, 2003
  9. Bush is not in it for the oil. Not unless he is willing to risk a second term for oil.

    He is taking an enormous political risk at the moment, and unless things go extremely well, he will not be re-elected.

    He is a man on a mission, and it aint about oil.
    #19     Mar 5, 2003
  10. Babak


    Yes, I agree. The action of the US will cause innocent (by that I mean civilian and those who are not in Saddam's retinue) deaths. I abhor the thought of that.

    But you know what? I was watching a 'townhall' meeting on ABC (or maybe it was CBS) where at the end a very emotional birkenstock wearing woman got up and held two black and white pictures of dead babies in her hands. She said, I want you all to see what war does. This is what happens to children.

    I thought, yes that is absolutely correct, and you know what lady? Talk to any Iraqi and they will tell you stories that will turn your stomach. Stories about the realities of living under Saddam's rule, about the filth in the streets, the oppression of the Iraqi secret police where you go into their custody and are never heard of again, of babies lying in hospitals dying while Saddam is sipping lemonade in his upteenth palace with gold trim and marble.....

    It reminds of a scene in Macbeth where the protagonist (or antagonist, depending on your point of view) says:

    "I am in blood, stepp’d in so far, that should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er."

    And another thing....for those that keep bringing up the whole 'who much will it cost?' question. I would like to point out that on average the US spends $22 Billion/year enforcing the South and North No-Fly Zones in Iraq. How many years will the US continue to do that if nothing changes in Iraq?

    5 years? 6 years? Add it up. It is simply not financially wise to do that. Go in, get the cancer out and get it over with. The other option is much, much worse. No matter what angle you look at it.
    #20     Mar 5, 2003