Since we are suppose to be a government for the people, by the people, where does government get off saying trained civilians are given too much power? Aren't police just trained civilians?
I know the military is just trained civilians, cause I were one.
This is the kind of crapola coming out of the government that bothers me.

I don't see anything unreasonable in there. If someone is going to have police authority over me I'd like them to be trained and sworn as police officers, thank you. I'd rather not have any schmuck who wanted to be a cop but couldn't make the cut strutting around with authorit-ah.

Well maybe you missed the part about be trained by the POLICE DEPARTMENT (actually at their academy). Now if it was someone arresting people, or reacting to threats, yes, a police officer, but directing traffic?????

No, I didn't miss that part; I think you're reading too much into the quote. You're assuming that the union president believes that directing traffic is too much power in the hands of civilians. But he doesn't explicitely say that; you don't know for sure. The article itself states that he's not opposed to the idea but wants to know the details. I get the impression that he's concerned about exactly what powers will go along with directing traffic.

In Illinois we have a department called ESDA (Emergency Services Disaster Agency). ESDA employees are basically volunteers who are occasionally called out to assist the police with certain duties on large scenes. These people - in general - are the motliest crew of police-officer-wanna-be geeky cretins you'll find anywhere. If they want to be at an incident and put up police tape and tell people where not to go, fine. But I would have a serious problem if someone decided these people should be able to, for example, detain me.

See the whole problem I have with that is that government thinks like that. We can't give the people to much power. For instance, letting someone make their own mind up to get an abortion or not. Wheather you can be married because you like the same sex. Wheather you need to wear a seat belt or not. Way too much power for the average citizen.

See the whole problem I have with that is that government thinks like that. We can't give the people to much power. For instance, letting someone make their own mind up to get an abortion or not. Wheather you can be married because you like the same sex. Wheather you need to wear a seat belt or not. Way too much power for the average citizen.

I agree with you on all points except the seatbelt on. I love the fact there is a law for that. I hate that my isurance premiums keep going up because of idots that refuse to wear one, and then cause accidents.

I feel that abortion is a choice that people should have. I don't believe in abortion, but feel the government shouldn't take that right away from a woman.

I believe that if you are in love, you should be able to marry whom you want, no matter the sex.

That's just my two cents, for what it's worth.

I guess I'm somewhat of a liberal Republician eh!

I agree with you on all points except the seatbelt on. I love the fact there is a law for that. I hate that my isurance premiums keep going up because of idots that refuse to wear one, and then cause accidents.


Suprised that you didn't mention the real benefit of belting up, the drastic reduction in deaths and serious injury:confused:

Suprised that you didn't mention the real benefit of belting up, the drastic reduction in deaths and serious injury:confused:

That too, but the people that don't wear one actually don't care about their life. If they did, they would wear a seat belt and there wouldn't be a law that required people to wear one.

So why worry about their life if they don't.

I guess, I'm just in a mood today. Not very compassionate today. I'm sorry guys. :(

See the whole problem I have with that is that government thinks like that. We can't give the people to much power. For instance, letting someone make their own mind up to get an abortion or not. Wheather you can be married because you like the same sex. Wheather you need to wear a seat belt or not. Way too much power for the average citizen.
I don't see what this has to do with granting police powers to people other than the police. :confused:

That too, but the people that don't wear one actually don't care about their life. If they did, they would wear a seat belt and there wouldn't be a law that required people to wear one.

So why worry about their life if they don't.


Well now you've opened up a new can of worms, you see as a nation you allow the authorities to take draconian measures to protect you from a miniscule terrorist threat and yet you wont allow it to protect you from a real and known threat?:confused:

Well now you've opened up a new can of worms, you see as a nation you allow the authorities to take draconian measures to protect you from a miniscule terrorist threat and yet you wont allow it to protect you from a real and known threat?:confused:

I don't see it as a miniscule terrorist threat. I'm thankful for all the measures they are taking.

I don't see it as a miniscule terrorist threat. I'm thankful for all the measures they are taking.
Then compare the figures for those killed by terrorists in the States in the last five years with those of road deaths through lack of wearing a seatbelt or wearing crash helmets;)

Then compare the figures for those killed by terrorists in the States in the last five years with those of road deaths through lack of wearing a seatbelt or wearing crash helmets;)

Well when you look at numbers yeah! :rolleyes:

I don't see what this has to do with granting police powers to people other than the police. :confused:
It doesn't, the issue is the government thinking people should not have too much power.

Suprised that you didn't mention the real benefit of belting up, the drastic reduction in deaths and serious injury:confused:
That is why I wear them , law or not. Same with a motorcycle helmet. But how does the government say I should not have the power to make that choice myself?

But how does the government say I should not have the power to make that choice myself?

The same right that allows them to listen in on your phone calls, the same right that insists children attend school, the same right that forces you to stop at a red traffic light, do you really want me to continue?

The same right that allows them to listen in on your phone calls, the same right that insists children attend school, the same right that forces you to stop at a red traffic light, do you really want me to continue?

Why would children not attend school. Are you advocating children not being educated??

Red lights are common sense. Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue on the roads with out traffic signals, and signs?

Phones...well I'm not keen on that. That is too much like big brother, but at the same time; If it can help determin sleeper cells and terrorist among us, then do it. I have nothing to hide in my phone conversations. They may get a few surprises if they listen in. :o but that is on them if they choose to do that.
However from my understanding, they aren't listening. They are simply looking for patterns. I'm do not have all the facts, so I can only tell you how I understand it.

Are you advocating children not being educated??



No of course I'm not, however it wasn't that long ago that children went to work at a very early age.
Government legislation changed that.


Red lights are common sense. Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue on the roads with out traffic signals, and signs?


Their use is enforced by law, again introduced by government, whether we like it or not sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves

It doesn't, the issue is the government thinking people should not have too much power.
That's an issue based on your opinion (which is fine) not the article. The article you posted is in regards to the mayor of Houston granting certain powers to civilians which are normally reserved for the police. The union president's comments are expressing a concern over that practice. Period. That's it. End of story.

Add in the fact that the underlined quote that outraged you was not spoken by a government official, but rather by the president of the police union, and this article has nothing to do whatsoever with "the government thinking people should not have too much power". In fact, it would indicate the exact opposite is true since the only government official referred to (ie., the mayor) wants to put more power in the hands of civilians.

No of course I'm not, however it wasn't that long ago that children went to work at a very early age.
Government legislation changed that.
Exactly, the realized that kids needed to be kids instead of little slave workers. The child labor laws are great, and very much needed.




Their use is enforced by law, again introduced by government, whether we like it or not sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves
Exactly, we do have to be protected from ourselves. If there was no laws and regulations and people did as they pleased, this world never would have evolved into what it is today. We would still be staring into the fires in amazment and hunting our food with sticks.

Exactly, the realized that kids needed to be kids instead of little slave workers. The child labor laws are great, and very much needed.
Glad the law works so well:cool:
The traditional picture of child labor is of something that takes place in poverty-stricken less developed countries. But the United Farm Workers union estimates that at least 800,000 children work in the fields of the U.S. And when the urban sweatshops of the garment and other industries are accounted for, the total number of child laborers in the U.S. runs even higher.

In the richest country in the world, these children will never know a childhood that doesn’t include the stress, fatigue and cruelty of work.

ref (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/500Supp/500S_20000707_ChildLabor.shtml)

Glad the law works so well:cool:


ref (http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-2/500Supp/500S_20000707_ChildLabor.shtml)



They're either all immigrant children or it's further evidence that Americans feel they can simply ignore the law of the land.
I believe it's something to do with their constitution, for the people, by the people etc., kids obviously don't count as people:rolleyes:

I don't see it as a miniscule terrorist threat. I'm thankful for all the measures they are taking.
So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?

How about Colonel Gadaffi? Your country has recently said he's a really good bloke - yet he was responsible for the Pan Am 103 blowing up. Do you think restoring diplomatic links with a known terrorist is good or bad?

Col

kids obviously don't count as people:rolleyes:
Not if they're Mexican or Hispanic.

Col

So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?

How about Colonel Gadaffi? Your country has recently said he's a really good bloke - yet he was responsible for the Pan Am 103 blowing up. Do you think restoring diplomatic links with a known terrorist is good or bad?

Col

I don't think it is a good idea no! But I'm not in office, so I can't make those decisions.

As for Iraq, yup. I agree with it. :eek: Did you think I wouldn't??

I don't think it is a good idea no! But I'm not in office, so I can't make those decisions.

As for Iraq, yup. I agree with it. :eek: Did you think I wouldn't??

Why........?

Why........?

Why what j? Why I can't make the decision, or why I feel the invasion is ok?

After 9/11....I'm shocked you don't agree. I'm sure you are about to try and speak over my head and try to make me look unintelligent wth your gargantuan word vocabulary, but I have my views on that and I am not changing them. So take your best shot! :eek:

I feel that if we sit back and take it and not do anything about it, then they will continue to walk all over us and attack us in such cowardly ways.

So do you agree with the Iraq invasion and the subsequent killings?
Yes and war leads to killing, so you really are over exagerating the point.

Why........?
Well we have not had any ships blowed up (aka Cole) or barracks in non war areas blowed up, that kind of thing since the invasions. And I hear a lot of B. S. over Iraq, but what about Afganistan (sp)? Shoot, any more I am thinking, they do something to us, lets take another country! What I can't figure out is why England didn't do that after the London bombings. Would have a been a prime time to stand up and say, PISS OFF YOU BUGGERS!
:D

I feel that if we sit back and take it and not do anything about it, then they will continue to walk all over us and attack us in such cowardly ways.
I couldn't agree more. Which is why I completely agree with a.) replacing the regime in Afghanistan and b.) hunting down Bin Laden and dismantling Al Queda. Iraq has/had nothing to do with either of those goals and has actually impeded the success of both.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I completely agree with a.) replacing the regime in Afghanistan and b.) hunting down Bin Laden and dismantling Al Queda. Iraq has/had nothing to do with either of those goals and has actually impeded the success of both.


Explain please!! Obviously I don’t understand then. I was under the belief it was all for the same reason. Please, in a nice way, not a belittling way explain to me.


PSssttt..Kraj....empty your basket. ;)

PSssttt..Kraj....empty your basket. ;)
Why are you looking at my basket? ;)

Explain please!! Obviously I don’t understand then. I was under the belief it was all for the same reason. Please, in a nice way, not a belittling way explain to me.
Wow, you must really trust me if you automatically assume you're wrong when I disagree with you. This could be fun... :p :D

To seriously respond to your inquiry, though:

As you know the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by Al Queda with Bin Laden at the helm. Al Queda's major base of operations was located in Afghanistan and they received political and financial support from individuals and nations from all over the world.

After 9/11 Bush sent the military and CIA into Afghanistan. That was a good move. They trashed Al Queda's operations and overthrew the Taliban. Bin Laden went into hiding, which is the best outcome other than capturing or killing him. They've had a fair amount of success with capturing many key members of Al Queda. These are all good things for fighting terrorism.

Then there's Iraq. Bush gave the following reasons for invading Iraq, in chronological order (I put them in chronological order because he started with one, and then changed he reasons as he went along):

1. Iraq harbored and supported terrorists.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN mandates.
4. Saddam Hussein was a despot who terrorised his citizens.
5. Saddam was "a threat".

1. In a supreme stroke of irony, it turns out Iraq is one of the only countries in the middle east without any ties to terrorism. There has been not one single shred of evidence to link Saddam to terrorism in the past 10 years or so. The last thing he could be accused of being involved in was the foiled assassination attempt on Bush senior in the 90s. There are no financial links, and there are no significant social links between Saddam and terrorists. No known terrorists were being sheltered in Iraq, no training camps. Nothing.

2. This was true during the Gulf War. It wasn't true after. Not only have they not found anything that resembles a functional weapon (as far as I'm aware, they've found a few parts here and there) or any evidence of a weapons program, but there was never any intelligence that said there were any in the first place. Bush's claim that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq was based entirely on a report from a single informant. Ignoring the fact that the informant was considered unreliable in the first place, the CIA always gets confirmation from multiple sources before they consider any information "intelligence".

3. This had been an ongoing issue with Saddam since the Gulf War (before it, really). The funny thing about it is that Saddam actually did comply shortly before the invasion occurred.

4. This is the only true, real, and good reason for getting rid of the bastard. I have a feeling that if Bush had given this reason from the start, he would have met more resistance initially but he'd be in much better shape today.

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.

Am I glad he's gone? Yes. Do I think it was worth it, or that the world is a safer place because of it, or that the Iraq invasion hurt Al Queda in the slightest? No, not really. In fact, I believe (but I'm not an expert so I can't say for sure) that the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terror' by expending resources that could be used to search for Bin Laden/Al Queda or to deal with other nations that actually do have strong terrorist ties like Syria, Lebbanon, Iran and (our so-called ally) Saudi Arabia.

I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for, love. :)

Why are you looking at my basket? ;)

Cuz I can. :D


Wow, you must really trust me if you automatically assume you're wrong when I disagree with you. This could be fun... :p :D

You know I do. Just becareful with your power, don't use it for evil, use it for good. :o

To seriously respond to your inquiry, though:

As you know the events of 9/11 were planned and carried out by Al Queda with Bin Laden at the helm. Al Queda's major base of operations was located in Afghanistan and they received political and financial support from individuals and nations from all over the world.

After 9/11 Bush sent the military and CIA into Afghanistan. That was a good move. They trashed Al Queda's operations and overthrew the Taliban. Bin Laden went into hiding, which is the best outcome other than capturing or killing him. They've had a fair amount of success with capturing many key members of Al Queda. These are all good things for fighting terrorism.

Then there's Iraq. Bush gave the following reasons for invading Iraq, in chronological order (I put them in chronological order because he started with one, and then changed he reasons as he went along):

1. Iraq harbored and supported terrorists.
2. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
3. Saddam Hussein refused to comply with UN mandates.
4. Saddam Hussein was a despot who terrorised his citizens.
5. Saddam was "a threat".

1. In a supreme stroke of irony, it turns out Iraq is one of the only countries in the middle east without any ties to terrorism. There has been not one single shred of evidence to link Saddam to terrorism in the past 10 years or so. The last thing he could be accused of being involved in was the foiled assassination attempt on Bush senior in the 90s. There are no financial links, and there are no significant social links between Saddam and terrorists. No known terrorists were being sheltered in Iraq, no training camps. Nothing.

2. This was true during the Gulf War. It wasn't true after. Not only have they not found anything that resembles a functional weapon (as far as I'm aware, they've found a few parts here and there) or any evidence of a weapons program, but there was never any intelligence that said there were any in the first place. Bush's claim that there was evidence of WMDs in Iraq was based entirely on a report from a single informant. Ignoring the fact that the informant was considered unreliable in the first place, the CIA always gets confirmation from multiple sources before they consider any information "intelligence".

3. This had been an ongoing issue with Saddam since the Gulf War (before it, really). The funny thing about it is that Saddam actually did comply shortly before the invasion occurred.

4. This is the only true, real, and good reason for getting rid of the bastard. I have a feeling that if Bush had given this reason from the start, he would have met more resistance initially but he'd be in much better shape today.

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.

Am I glad he's gone? Yes. Do I think it was worth it, or that the world is a safer place because of it, or that the Iraq invasion hurt Al Queda in the slightest? No, not really. In fact, I believe (but I'm not an expert so I can't say for sure) that the Iraq war has hurt the 'war on terror' by expending resources that could be used to search for Bin Laden/Al Queda or to deal with other nations that actually do have strong terrorist ties like Syria, Lebbanon, Iran and (our so-called ally) Saudi Arabia.

I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for, love. :)

Yes it is, thank you. It has all been put into perpective for me. Thank you honey!

Terrorist ties to Iraq (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)

Iraq WMD (http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php)
OK, this one is contriversial, but you can't ignore some of these just because it serves your view on "I hate Bush".

Saddam Hussein Did Not Commit Genocide (http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2497)
And just to throw a wrinkle into the works

Terrorist ties to Iraq (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)
Hasn't the good ol' US of A funded terrorist groups when it suited them? :rolleyes:

5. This one is so vague it's hard to say it's not true (which I'm conviced is the intention), but I'll go ahead and say it anyway. The man was a bat-shit-crazy murdering sonofabitch, but the only people he had the power to theaten were his own citizens. I'm pretty sure he knew darn well that if he did anything to provoke the U.S. he'd be crushed like a bug, so he focused on maintaining control of Iraq.
Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran. What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?

Hasn't the good ol' US of A funded terrorist groups when it suited them? :rolleyes:
THATS OK, it's US, but it isn't ok for THEM.
As long as we can kick their arsh, too bad so sad. :p

Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran. What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?
Oops, couple of slight mistakes there old bean, the Alliance prevented any further attempt at Kuwait and the US was hoping he'd win against Iran anyway

Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran.
Based on what, exactly?

What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?
Nothing. I've also never suggested he be left to his own devices.

OK, this one is contriversial, but you can't ignore some of these just because it serves your view on "I hate Bush".
The entire topic is controversial. I do ignore absurdly biased crap like that first link you posted, but I don't ignore information that may contradict my viewpoint. Case in point:

Normally, when I find information that supports someone else's position I keep it to myself. Why? Because I'm not in the habit of doing other people's work for them. But in this case I'm feeling charitable, as well as a sense of responsibility to Selena. That first website lists all sorts of sources (which is nice of them, since you can then see for yourself how they chop-shopped real journalism into their tabloid-esque crapfest), one of which I followed to the Wall Street Journal. Hooray! A real source. Unfortunately, it was an OpEd piece, which is not valid as a source. The article did, however, cite another source which actually is an interesting read. Here you go. (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2) The article still is rather suspect, but at least it's believable. The first page is crap, but the second page actually appears to discuss some honest-to-God information about links between Saddam and Al Queda.

That actually makes me happy, for a couple reasons. The notion that Saddam had no ties whatsoever is almost absurd, so I'm glad to be relieved of arguing the truth of it. Also, the thought that perhaps the Iraq war did actually hurt Al Queda in some way is rather encouraging. Ultimately, I'd love to be completely proven wrong. It would mean that all the time, money, and human lives spent in Iraq wouldn't have been a waste.

However... even if I completely change my viewpoint on Iraq's link to terrorism based on the new evidence, there are still two problems with using that as a justifaction of the Iraq war. 1.) Even if Saddam did have terrorist ties and did support Al Queda, that doesn't mean he was the best target. The same reasources could very well have been spent in a more effective operation. 2.) These links between Saddam and terrorism are based entirely on documents discovered after the Iraq invasion. Bush couldn't have possibly had such evidence before, so his claim was still based on nothing. He made it up (even if he was ultimately correct).

.
That's $48,000,000 for each dead person, and the majority of them were the wrong ones.

Who exactly would be the right ones?:confused:

Well we have not had any ships blowed up (aka Cole) or barracks in non war areas blowed up, that kind of thing since the invasions. And I hear a lot of B. S. over Iraq, but what about Afganistan (sp)? Shoot, any more I am thinking, they do something to us, lets take another country! What I can't figure out is why England didn't do that after the London bombings. Would have a been a prime time to stand up and say, PISS OFF YOU BUGGERS!
:D


I’ve said this before, war is not the answer.
Oh don’t get me wrong, a lot of people need to die, but war is too costly.

The only long term solution to terrorism is goon squads, and bounties.

For a tenth of the cost, of that family feud between Bush and Hussein, I could've had terrorist heads stuck on the top on pikes from here to Baghdad.

Please; defending a war that cost $1,200,000,000,000.

Where’s your sense of value?

That's $48,000,000 for each dead person, and the majority of them were the wrong ones.

War according to GAAP. Creepy.

War according to GAAP. Creepy.



We should have an auction...
"I can kill those terrorist for 1.5 million each."
"No wait I can do it for 1.4"

Assassination by the lowest bidder.

Ain’t democracy great?

Seemed like he was a threat to Kuwait, and even Iran. What would make you say he wouldn't again be a threat if left to his own devices after a time?

So why not assasinate him and his leadership?
Why put our children in dept for life to support this feud?

We have satellites that can burn holes in concrete and steel from 150 miles out in space. And with a fraction of $1,200,000,000,000 we could have built a whole lot more of them and propelled American technology 20 more years ahead of the rest of the world.

I thought the USA has been looking for Bin Liner since 9/11:rolleyes: old Donny Rumsey said it'll take 6 weeks to find him - that was just after 9/11

A war in Afghanistan will only provide yet another base for insurgents to attack the US troops and kill civilians as it has done in Iraq. It gives any terrorist group an ideal opportunity to have a go at the US and kill US people without having the problem of going to the USA

If Iraq is an example of how the US smoothly changes regimes in another country then stand by for another 3 or 4 thousand US soldiers to die and another 20 or 30 thousand innocent people to be killed.

It must make the US people feel great that so much money is spent on war and killing, with very little (comparatively) being spent on averting "New Orleans" type disasters:rolleyes:

We have satellites that can burn holes in concrete and steel from 150 miles out in space.
Lets hope their accuracy is better than the US 'smart' missiles that blew up and killed British troops and totalled a red cross hospital:rolleyes: I suppose the missile saw a big red cross on the roof and thought that was the target

Col

Oops, couple of slight mistakes there old bean, the Alliance prevented any further attempt at Kuwait and the US was hoping he'd win against Iran anyway
Ah, but it was stated he was not a threat, not, he was not a threat any longer.

I’ve said this before, war is not the answer.
Oh don’t get me wrong, a lot of people need to die, but war is too costly.

The only long term solution to terrorism is goon squads, and bounties.

For a tenth of the cost, of that family feud between Bush and Hussein, I could've had terrorist heads stuck on the top on pikes from here to Baghdad.

Well an interesting tidbit that I actually agree with. But it aint gonna happen, and there is the problem. From the liberal on the west coast up through the UN, they would never sanction such a thing as that. So what are you left with? Diplomacy? Yea, that worked real good, and the option we took after years of nothing else really working.

So why not assasinate him and his leadership?
Why put our children in dept for life to support this feud?
It is against our law, I think back in the 60's congress said we can't do that. The only legal way is with military might.
Now I am not saying one way or the other, just it is what it is.

Cost of listening in to a cell phone conversation.............................$5.40
Cost of a 50 caliber round ………………………………………...$10.60
Saving 1,200,000,000,000 on a bullshit war……………………..Priceless.

Cost of listening in to a cell phone conversation.............................$5.40
Cost of a 50 caliber round ………………………………………...$10.60
Saving 1,200,000,000,000 on a bullshit war……………………..Priceless.
I still don't get where you are saving (like a google of people by your number) or why it is a BS war. So far I have not seen any proof of that. OH you say this and that, but I see no proof. You may take someone elses word over the gov. and hence call them liers, but maybe it is the source you are listening to that is lying :rolleyes: Lack of evidence is your proof. How ever the lack of action by terrorist against use as in the past, is not proof all of a sudden. Seems like you straddle a two sided argument with you trying to have it all your way. i will only pay attention to the things I want to beleive in, and ignore the rest.
When the Gov. thinks you have too much power, where will you be then?

I still don't get where you are saving (like a google of people by your number) or why it is a BS war. So far I have not seen any proof of that. OH you say this and that, but I see no proof. You may take someone elses word over the gov. and hence call them liers, but maybe it is the source you are listening to that is lying :rolleyes: Lack of evidence is your proof. How ever the lack of action by terrorist against use as in the past, is not proof all of a sudden. Seems like you straddle a two sided argument with you trying to have it all your way. i will only pay attention to the things I want to beleive in, and ignore the rest.
When the Gov. thinks you have too much power, where will you be then?

Do you honestly think the war in Iraq is the cause of the lack of terrorism?

It's the tracking of their finacial info that is leading to their demise.

The war is a vehicle for the wealth building of the Texas billionaires.

What evidence is there that the war in Iraq has had any benifit to the US.

But it is going to cost 1.2 trillion dollars. that is a fact.

So what are you left with? Diplomacy? Yea, that worked real good, and the option we took after years of nothing else really working.
In what way do you see diplomacy as a failure in this case, do you mean because the US couldn't get it's own way?:confused:

But it is going to cost 1.2 trillion dollars. that is a fact.
Thats pennies compared to what it'll cost you when you invade Iran.

Col

Thats pennies compared to what it'll cost you when you invade Iran.

Col


First off there is no such thing a pennies measured against trillions. There are only 15 with a annual GDP of more than the cost of the war in Iraq.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

Second an invasion into Iran will not be costly because it will be a surgical air strike to disable their enrichment capabilities.

Which, by the way, should have already happened.

15000 lb Daisy Cutters, and who gives a damn about collateral damage.

an invasion into Iran will not be costly because it will be a surgical air strike to disable their enrichment capabilities.

ok, if you say so


15000 lb Daisy Cutters, and who gives a damn about collateral damage.
Apparently not the Americans thats for sure:rolleyes:

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.

Col

In what way do you see diplomacy as a failure in this case, do you mean because the US couldn't get it's own way?:confused:
IMO if diplomacy doesn't work in a two year time frame (give or take a little depending on the circumstance), it is a failure.

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.
Wasting their nuclear weapons development facility is not world domination.
Taking over the UK and forcing you to eat McDonalds instead of bubble and squeak is:eek:

IMO if diplomacy doesn't work in a two year time frame (give or take a little depending on the circumstance), it is a failure.
Again, what's you're criteria for saying diplomacy wasn't working against Iraq? Did they invade someone in 2003 and I missed it? :confused:

ok, if you say so


Apparently not the Americans thats for sure:rolleyes:

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.

Col

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.:D :D :D

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.:D :D :D
Well I do so hate to be pedantic but unless we're there holding your hand, you've a tendancy to loose :p

of bubble and squeak is:eek:
ah real food, whatever happened to it:(

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you.:D :D :D
I find it extremely odd that on one thread you profess to be a christian and all that goes with it - yet on another thread you actively dribble at the prospect of Americans bombing another country and have no apparent care who gets killed.

Just think for each person you kill - thats a father,brother,mother,sister of someone. Americans sure got upset when the reality of killing came to the twin towers.

If you're giving an example of how christianity works, I'm glad I didn't fall for it.

As an aside, I was reading in the paper a while ago about some of the people who's spouses were killed in the towers.
Some admitted it was a godsend and perfect timing in that they hated their spouses anyway, were already having affairs and marriages were at an end - then the spouse gets killed and they collect $3million compo. So no mucky divorce, no alimony to pay and $3 million better off.

Col

I find it extremely odd that on one thread you profess to be a christian and all that goes with it - yet on another thread you actively dribble at the prospect of Americans bombing another country and have no apparent care who gets killed.

Just think for each person you kill - thats a father,brother,mother,sister of someone. Americans sure got upset when the reality of killing came to the twin towers.

If you're giving an example of how christianity works, I'm glad I didn't fall for it.

As an aside, I was reading in the paper a while ago about some of the people who's spouses were killed in the towers.
Some admitted it was a godsend and perfect timing in that they hated their spouses anyway, were already having affairs and marriages were at an end - then the spouse gets killed and they collect $3million compo. So no mucky divorce, no alimony to pay and $3 million better off.


Col

So we shouldn't use war to deter terrorist. And you say we shouldn't kill them with goon squads. And we can’t bomb the plutonium enrichment facilities.

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?

Again, what's you're criteria for saying diplomacy wasn't working against Iraq? Did they invade someone in 2003 and I missed it? :confused:
Well, the UN said they were not following their directives as yall' pointed out in other threads. And it was way more than 2 years between desert storm and the current conflict. So yes, it was not working.

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?
There you go, that would be new, sounds like Col has been in France too long :p

Well, the UN said they were not following their directives as yall' pointed out in other threads. And it was way more than 2 years between desert storm and the current conflict. So yes, it was not working.
I don't think anyone pointed that out. As far as I'm aware, the only UN directive Iraq wasn't following was to give weapons inspectors full access to everything. Now that we have full access, we're finding that Saddam didn't have the weapons he was told not to have.

Yes, Saddam was a pain in the ass and he even had the appearance of hiding something. Hell, I'd even be willing to admit his behavior was provoking an attack. But the reality is that the diplomatic/economic tatics and precision military strikes were perfectly effective in keeping Saddam in check.

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.

So we shouldn't use war to deter terrorist. And you say we should kill them with goon squads. And we can’t bomb the plutonium enrichment facilities.

So what can we do Col? Play opossum?
I was referring to you Josie. You claim to be a christian yet your posts show no compassion for any innocent people who may be killed. 15000 lb Daisy Cutters, and who gives a damn about collateral damage

I have no idea what a "goon squad" is:confused:

and no you shouldn't bomb the Iranian plants - whats the point? you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.

Col

I don't think anyone pointed that out. As far as I'm aware, the only UN directive Iraq wasn't following was to give weapons inspectors full access to everything. Now that we have full access, we're finding that Saddam didn't have the weapons he was told not to have.

Yes, Saddam was a pain in the ass and he even had the appearance of hiding something. Hell, I'd even be willing to admit his behavior was provoking an attack. But the reality is that the diplomatic/economic tatics and precision military strikes were perfectly effective in keeping Saddam in check.

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.


This war was not in the interest of the US. Period.
The failure of diplomacy was not with Iraq, but with the rest of our Allies.

The United States has to step down as the global police. We cannot afford it any longer.

What supporters of the war effort fail to realize is that the US economy can not sustain this level of war machine any longer. We’re actually spending a larger portion of our economy on containing upstart dictators than we did containing the Soviet Union.

The cost of “projection of power” must be shared equally by ALL of the Westernized Countries.

you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.
Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too. :rolleyes:

I was going to say the difference between Iran and the nations you listed is that Iran has a stated agenda of wiping another country off the map, whereas thos countries don't. But then I remembered that Pakistan is rather vocal about their willingness to nuke India but we're not all axis-of-evil about them. So... I guess it all just boils down to who's the biggest kid on the block and who does that kid not want to have any toys. :o

Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too. :rolleyes:

I was going to say the difference between Iran and the nations you listed is that Iran has a stated agenda of wiping another country off the map, whereas thos countries don't. But then I remembered that Pakistan is rather vocal about their willingness to nuke India but we're not all axis-of-evil about them. So... I guess it all just boils down to who's the biggest kid on the block and who does that kid not want to have any toys. :o


And why should we allow any rogue nations to threaten our sovereignty.

The very cultures that are threatening, do not respond to diplomacy, it is interpreted as weakness and weakness needs to be destroyed.

And to take it a setp further... even if you could justify the war (and that's a big "if"), I don't think a war should be waged when it is justified, I think a war should be waged when it is neccessary. There is no basis whatsoever to claim the war in Iraq was neccessary.
Yep, and since diplomacy wasn't working, war became neccessary :)

And why should we allow any rogue nations to threaten our sovereignty.
We shouldn't. ("sovereignty" is in interesting word choice, by the way) However... the term "rogue nation" has little real meaning and is more a convenient label than anything else. Furthermore, no "rogue" nation has displayed any real threat toward the security of the U.S. Sure, they talk tough but when's the last time a nation presented a clear danger to the United States?

The very cultures that are threatening, do not respond to diplomacy,
Especially considering the current administration, the same thing could easily be said about us. Bush has displayed aggression and bravado while ignoring diplomacy. Would it be fair for other nations to consider the U.S. a "rogue nation" at this point?

it is interpreted as weakness and weakness needs to be destroyed.
And how's that strategy been working for them?

Yep, and since diplomacy wasn't working, war became neccessary :)
Sorry, that makes no sense whatseover. I explained how diplomacy did, in fact, work. You pretty much just said "Nuh uh".

and no you shouldn't bomb the Iranian plants - whats the point? you have nuclear weapons, so have we, and the Chinese, Russians, Isralies, French. So why bomb the crap out of Iran? They said they're not making weapons.Col
You don't have to make weapons. What if those bombs that went off in London contained their by products that are not being used for weapons? Dirty bombs are more a reality than atomic weapons. And I could see Iran giving some to "terrorist" for use.
Not really advocating bombing them, just pointing out atomic weapons are not the only reason to create weapons grade by products. No you don't have to have weapons grade, but it is also nice to have the option of atomic weapons when the eyes are turned else where :rolleyes:

Well that's what they say but it's not neccessarily true. I'm willing to believe they do intend to build weapons, since apparently there's evidence of such, but then again we were told there was evidence Saddam had WMDs too.
Actually lack of proof is not proof he didn't. What do you want, to invade Sudan to prove it?
I hate Bush so I am going to continue with this retoric even if it is not true!

Sorry, that makes no sense whatseover. I explained how diplomacy did, in fact, work. You pretty much just said "Nuh uh".
Sorry, I explained how it didn't work, and you pretty much said "Nuh uh".

Actually lack of proof is not proof he didn't.
It mystifies me how strongly you hold onto this terrible logic. Bush made claims about Iraq and used them to justify a war. The burden of proof lies in proving the claims are true. Lack of any evidence to suggest the claims are true is proof enough that they are false.

To parallel your logic in the justice system, your way goes something like this:

Your neighbor calls the police and says you killed someone. The police investigate, find no evidence whatsoever that you did so, but you are tired, foudn guilty, and sent to prison because... they couldn't prove you didn't kill someone.

What do you want, to invade Sudan to prove it?
What does invading the Sudan have to do with anything?

I hate Bush so I am going to continue with this retoric even if it is not true!
Would you care to direct me to where I said that? Nevermind. A simple search of the forums reveals that I've never said that, even in jest.

Pulling that kind of crap is unacceptable.

Sorry, I explained how it didn't work, and you pretty much said "Nuh uh".
Actually, you didn't explain how, you just said it didn't and gave a vague reference to UN directives. I didn't "pretty much say 'Nuh uh'", I said you were wrong and gave reasons. If you could show why my reasons were wrong, then we have a discussion. But you didn't, you just contradicted without anything to back it up.

Your neighbor calls the police and says you killed someone. The police investigate, find no evidence whatsoever that you did so, but you are tired, foudn guilty, and sent to prison because... they couldn't prove you didn't kill someone.
Or they find a spent case, blood splatter, but no gun or body, so you didn't kill someone?
What does invading the Sudan have to do with anything?
Isn't that the country that Iraqie said they sent the WMD before the invasion?
Would you care to direct me to where I said that?
It's quoted, so it must be true, using your thinking and biased opinions. :p
Actually, you didn't explain how, you just said it didn't and gave a vague reference to UN directives. I didn't "pretty much say 'Nuh uh'", I said you were wrong and gave reasons. If you could show why my reasons were wrong, then we have a discussion. But you didn't, you just contradicted without anything to back it up.
I did explain, just because you choose to not listen, does not make it less. But as I explained, your reasoning was flawed.

OK, I'm done. Continuing this is a waste of time. Just do me one favor, will ya? If you observe someone being anti-war/anti-Bush and ignoring anything that might challenge their point of view, keep it to yourself. Don't call them out on it like it's a character flaw and don't argue with them. Because you are pro-war/pro-Bush and completely ignore anything that might challenge your point of view. If that's how you wanna be, then fine. Live and let live. But stop being such a hypocrite.

War according to GAAP. Creepy.

Doing a bit of catch up reading in this thread, and I just had to chuckle when I came across this tidbit. :D You sure have a way with words sometimes...

Thank you! :)

OK, I'm done. Continuing this is a waste of time.
Because of alternate point of view instead of the rest of these liberals that just march in time and spew the same?
Just do me one favor, will ya? If you observe someone being anti-war/anti-Bush and ignoring anything that might challenge their point of view, keep it to yourself. Don't call them out on it like it's a character flaw and don't argue with them. Because you are pro-war/pro-Bush and completely ignore anything that might challenge your point of view.
Wrong oh, not pro-war. Only pro-Bush cause we aint got nothing better.
I am open for resonable pro/con on the war, other than the same 3 or 4 things that the news keeps spouting, and pretty much has been shown to not be the complete truth, or overlooking other things that disagree or do not support those statements is all. Where you want to place me as a hypocrite, I am more "there are two sides to every story", and when you present only one, I have a tendency to want to present the other. I know that makes me look one sided also, but since you give zero on any of the alternatives, why should I?
Besides, why take it so personal? Me thinks you need to investigate some of the alternatives yourself, instead of just spewing the same news media crapola. And just for the record, I never said Bush didn't lie, he would not be a politician if he didn't.

Because of alternate point of view instead of the rest of these liberals that just march in time and spew the same?

Wrong oh, not pro-war. Only pro-Bush cause we aint got nothing better.
I am open for resonable pro/con on the war, other than the same 3 or 4 things that the news keeps spouting, and pretty much has been shown to not be the complete truth, or overlooking other things that disagree or do not support those statements is all. Where you want to place me as a hypocrite, I am more "there are two sides to every story", and when you present only one, I have a tendency to want to present the other. I know that makes me look one sided also, but since you give zero on any of the alternatives, why should I?
Besides, why take it so personal? Me thinks you need to investigate some of the alternatives yourself, instead of just spewing the same news media crapola. And just for the record, I never said Bush didn't lie, he would not be a politician if he didn't.

Actually Fofa you have yet to backup your claim that this way is in any way reducing our risk of terrorist attacks.

Actually Fofa you have yet to backup your claim that this way is in any way reducing our risk of terrorist attacks.
Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?
That is as much proof as there were not any WMD in Iraq that we can find so therefore there was not any.
How bout this, since we can'[t find Bin Laden, maybe he really doesn't exist. I bet Bush is lying about him too.

Thank you! :)

Your welcome. And the more I think about it, isn't it better that we have a high ratio of money spent versus people who have been killed? Or are people thinking that we aren't "getting our money's worth" because more people haven't been killed? If it were only 48,000 per person killed instead then that would mean a lot more people would have died. Would that justify the cost? It's really kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. ;)

Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?
I'm sure you'll happily dismiss any examples that could be provided, but since you asked:

May 12, 2003: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
December 6, 2004: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five local employees.

Not to mention the major attacks against our allies in the war, Britain and Spain, as well as a multitude of lesser attacks that may not have been specifically targeted against the U.S. but westerners in general.

(I also find it hilarious that you are adamant that not finding WMDs isn't proof that they're not there but consider a lack of major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil proof that terrorists are on the run. You point out the flaws in a certain line of logic, and then turn around and use the exact same logic to support your own position.)

Have there been any, not in Iraq, against us, since this started?
That is as much proof as there were not any WMD in Iraq that we can find so therefore there was not any.
How bout this, since we can'[t find Bin Laden, maybe he really doesn't exist. I bet Bush is lying about him too.


Lack of evidence of terrorist activities is in no way a reflection of the effectiveness of the conflict in Iraq.

Don’t you remember the scientific method?

You must confine your experiment to one variable at a time. Since we have implemented multiple remedies simultaneously; we have no way to judge the effectiveness of any of them

Lack of evidence of terrorist activities is in no way a reflection of the effectiveness of the conflict in Iraq.
Well... it could be. We just don't know for sure and it's not anywhere near "proof".

Well... it could be. We just don't know for sure and it's not anywhere near "proof".

Did you just take that out of context?

After reading the past few pages, I can't help but think of the "Bear Patrol" scene in The Simpsons:


Later, a full-force Bear Patrol is on watch. Homer watches proudly.

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a
charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

After reading the past few pages, I can't help but think of the "Bear Patrol" scene in The Simpsons:

.

.

.

:D

May 12, 2003: Bombings of United States expatriate housing compounds in Saudi Arabia kill 26 and injure 160 in the Riyadh Compound Bombings. Al-Qaeda blamed.
December 6, 2004: Suspected al Qaeda-linked group attacks U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, killing five local employees.

Yes I forgot about those, how ever does show what I meant in that they havn't enough power to move outside their their current little relm.

Not to mention the major attacks against our allies in the war, Britain and Spain, as well as a multitude of lesser attacks that may not have been specifically targeted against the U.S. but westerners in general.

I thought about those, but they were not targeted at the U.S., and I think Spain was targeted because of the political situation there at the time and the extra press it would receive. Location and timing.
And we not the London bombings all done by people living in London? I don'[t actually remember an Al-Quida tie, buit I am sure Col or Rich could enlighten us more.
I also find it hilarious that you are adamant that not finding WMDs isn't proof that they're not there but consider a lack of major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil proof that terrorists are on the run. You point out the flaws in a certain line of logic, and then turn around and use the exact same logic to support your own position.
That was my whole point in doing it. I may not necessarily agree, but using your logic makes it harder for you to disagree without being hypocritical now doesn't it? What I really mean is you need to look a little deeper and I bet you find it is not all black and white as you appear to be painting the picture. I fear you are letting your dislike for Bush cloud your judgement. You keep saying Bush lied about the WMD, but the evidence points to there were in fact some thing along those lines there, in the least places that made parts of WMD. We know he had SCUD missles, that in part is part of the WMD picture. Also both Bush and the UK said at the time, they thought there were WMD there, they had bad information. Doesn't mean he out right lied about it. Now it was right after Desert storm Suddam used airial chemical weapons against the Kurds (wasn't it the Kurds) killing many of them. So we know he had them at that point in time. Honestly now, do you think someone who would do that would just get rid of his stuff? "Oh the UN is threatning me, I better comply." Now does that sound like something coming out of Suddams mouth.

Now it was right after Desert storm Suddam used airial chemical weapons against the Kurds (wasn't it the Kurds) killing many of them.

No it wasn't, he attacked the Kurds before Desert Storm, in fact the Kurds have had virtual autonomy for the past fifteen years, the events you're referring too was when the US encouraged the Shites to rise up againt Saddam and then buggered off home to leave them to it.:rolleyes:
As for this nonsense you and the liars Bush and Bliar use to justify the invasion, it was just an excuse to try and get the UN on it's side.
Bush wanted a regime change in Iraq before he even got elected, there was no mention of WMD in any of his pre-election speeches, he was simply pandering to the "defending America" clap trap.
He was the biggest threat to world peace not Hussein:mad:

Matty.... you said it all.

Also both Bush and the UK said at the time, they thought there were WMD there, they had bad information. Doesn't mean he out right lied about it.
Actually, I've said on many occassions that I don't beleive Bush lied that he thought Iraq had MWDs. What he did lie about was the fact that he had evidence. He didn't. It's a fact. He had one testimony from one source - who was known to be unreliable - and that's what he chose to listen to. He ignored the CIA's policy of verifying information via several sources before considering it reliable intelligence. He ignored any dissenting opinions on the subject. He had little more than a hunch, yet the picture he painted was one of certainty.

And your assumption that my dislike for Bush clouds my judgement is false, and here's why: I've disliked Bush from the first moment I saw him on TV. Still, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan. When he pitched the war in Iraq, I believed it was a bad idea and I was very skeptical but I at least gave him the benefit of the doubt. He said Iraq had or could easily have WMDs; I was willing to believe that. It was only after the war progressed - and everyone under the sun who wasn't directly involved with Bush churned out piles of evidence that contradicted everything Bush said - that I became certain the man is, has and always will be completely full of crap.

Oh, and to paraphrase Rich in a manner a reasonable human being would, the post-Gulf War massacre of the Kurds was carried out by Saddam's elite military force, not via chemical weapons/WMDs.

Matty.... you said it all.

I've believed for a while now that nearly every topic could relate to some part of The Simpsons. :D

I've believed for a while now that nearly every topic could relate to some part of The Simpsons. :D

I think they've covered just about everything. I find myself constantly being reminded of Simpsons episodes when I see things occurring in real life around me. :D

Your welcome. And the more I think about it, isn't it better that we have a high ratio of money spent versus people who have been killed? Or are people thinking that we aren't "getting our money's worth" because more people haven't been killed? If it were only 48,000 per person killed instead then that would mean a lot more people would have died. Would that justify the cost? It's really kind of a silly argument, when you think about it. ;)

My point was not that the cost of killing was so high it’s that we didn’t need to go to war (the most expensive endeavor in which mankind participates) in order to visit destruction on terrorism.

In fact, the cost was so high that we are now facing conditions that we are grossly unprepared for.

The military is in a near recruiting crisis and two of our most ardent enemies are developing nuclear weapons.

As Fofa so apply stated, the terrorism that has continued since Iraq is being cultivated within the borders of the intended targets, making a conventional war moot.

and two of our most ardent enemies are developing nuclear weapons.


Yes those pesky Russians and Chinese, have you seen their invasion plans for the US? :rolleyes:

The military is in a near recruiting crisis and two of our most ardent enemies are developing nuclear weapons.


What do you think they're going to do then Josie?:confused: Actually, I'm not sure who you're referring to as you once again avoid any specifics

Remind me how many countries have used a nuclear weapon on another country:rolleyes:

Col

What do you think they're going to do then Josie?:confused: Actually, I'm not sure who you're referring to as you once again avoid any specifics

Remind me how many countries have used a nuclear weapon on another country:rolleyes:

Col

Do you get the news where you live?

North Korea, and Iran

Yes those pesky Russians and Chinese, have you seen their invasion plans for the US? :rolleyes:

That's funny, like there was never any real Soviet threat.
That's not to say it was not over sold mind you.

Remind me how many countries have used a nuclear weapon on another country
Do you get the news where you live?

North Korea, and Iran
Odd that the BBC didn't pick up that:confused: are you absolutely sure??

Col

My point was not that the cost of killing was so high it’s that we didn’t need to go to war (the most expensive endeavor in which mankind participates) in order to visit destruction on terrorism.

In fact, the cost was so high that we are now facing conditions that we are grossly unprepared for.

The military is in a near recruiting crisis and two of our most ardent enemies are developing nuclear weapons.

As Fofa so apply stated, the terrorism that has continued since Iraq is being cultivated within the borders of the intended targets, making a conventional war moot.

I understood your original point that the war has been and will continue to be expensive. I just thought that taking that monetary amount and dividing it out by the number of people killed didn't make a lot of sense...

15000 lb Daisy Cutters, and who gives a damn about collateral damage.

and thanks again for confirming our thoughts that the Americans don't give a toss about anyone who gets in the way of their continuing world domination programme.

No worries, and stay the hell out of our way, if you know what's good for you

Unfortunately these civilians didn't heed your warning quickly enough:rolleyes:

Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/26/afghanistan.deaths/)

Col

Unfortunately these civilians didn't heed your warning quickly enough:rolleyes:

Link (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/05/26/afghanistan.deaths/)

Col

I didn’t see the link, nor am I going to. The honor less "soldiers” of that part of the world use civilians as shields.

If you knew anything about it you would be ashamed to continue ranting about it.

Anti American propaganda is so in fashion now days. Mostly I imagine to mask feelings of inferiority.

I didn’t see the link, nor am I going to. The honor less "soldiers” of that part of the world use civilians as shields.

If you knew anything about it you would be ashamed to continue ranting about it.

Anti American propaganda is so in fashion now days. Mostly I imagine to mask feelings of inferiority.
Let me just see if I've got your thinking right, you illegally invade a country against the wishes of the majority of the world, innocent civilians get killed, your government and Bush says it's their own fault and you expect everybody else to swallow it too.
Jesus Christ, no wonder so many hate the US., silly me, they just feel inferior:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let me just see if I've got your thinking right, you illegally invade a country against the wishes of the majority of the world, innocent civilians get killed, your government and Bush says it's their own fault and you expect everybody else to swallow it too.
Jesus Christ, no wonder so many hate the US., silly me, they just feel inferior:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


How we got there and why are not part of the equation. What to do now is the only rational line of thinking.

A continuance to allow insurgence to multiply serves no one. This must be won at all cost, it’s too late to turn back. So if insurgence use human shield THEY are the culprit not us. If they don’t have respect for the lives of their women and children it is their honor that is defective not ours.

Too many times on this discussion forum too many people say that it was wrong to go there and yet have no concept what-so-ever as to how it should be rectified.

It’s just more of the same whiny ranting, about big bad Americans.

If ever you would offer a solution, of any kind, your ravings would have a modicum of validity.

If ever you would offer a solution, of any kind, your ravings would have a modicum of validity.
It's too simple for you to comprehend, Joesy, put the politicians who started this war on trial for war crimes and incompetence to start with.
Then put Hussein back in charge.
As for the term "insurgency", you've misspelt civil war and Bush and Bliar started it:rolleyes:

I didn’t see the link, nor am I going to. The honor less "soldiers” of that part of the world use civilians as shields.
You don't need to see it, its about the US soldiers killing civilians

If you knew anything about it you would be ashamed to continue ranting about it.
I don't 'rant' or (what was that other word??) oh, 'rile' (:confused: ) Its you Josephine that has the gung ho attitude with your "who gives a damn about collateral damage', 'stay the hell out of our way if you know whats good for you' I'm half expecting the classic "nuke the bast**ds" from you.
You give the impression you love war and killing and the US can do no wrong, then you go on about your 'christian' ways??
Then you've got the bloody cheek to critisise Me and Rich???
You Josie, have no idea how the things you say actually confirm the 'propoganda' (as you call it) as being correct.
We read how [some] US people love the war and have this "we're the USA, we're the greatest, get the hell out of our way" attitude. I didn't believe it - till I read your posts.
I merely highlighted it [the link] because there were Taliban fighters killed also, but they were armed if you recall by the USA to fight against the ruskies. Now they are fighting the US.

Anti American propaganda is so in fashion now days. Mostly I imagine to mask feelings of inferiority.
Its not propoganda, its a fact that the USA is the most hated country in the world and as I said before its a very long downward slope from the huge worldwide sympathy and concern and love you had on 9/11 - a slope it'll take decades to climb back up. Christ, in the UK the media is still knocking the US for napalming children in Vietnam.

Col

As opposed to the war as I was at the beginning and still am. The primary reason is that the impression I got was Bush/Blair seemed to be looking for a reason to go to war rather than having a reason, and their did not seem to be an understanding of the cost i.e that it would all be over in a couple of years, besides throwing petrol on hot embers is not always the best way to put them out.

However we are now faced with the fact that we are there, we have two basic choices.

1) Pull out. As much as I like this option events in Iraq are so stoked up that if we did this even over a period of 18 months to two years. Iraq would collapse and we would have a civil war which would probably end up with Iraq being a Islamic state like Iran.

2) Stay in take the deaths of British/American soldiers try to involve other countries in “peacekeeping roles” ( although none will join in) for the next 5 to 10 years and after 2000- 3000 British deaths 10,000 to 20,000 US deaths Iraq may be a stable democracy. Of course there are major hurdles to overcome before Iraq can be classed as a democracy.

Basically because of the simplistic attitudes we had at the beginning we are now slipping into a war of attrition and will have to pay a very high price in th next few years..

As opposed to the war as I was at the beginning and still am. The primary reason is that the impression I got was Bush/Blair seemed to be looking for a reason to go to war rather than having a reason, and their did not seem to be an understanding of the cost i.e that it would all be over in a couple of years, besides throwing petrol on hot embers is not always the best way to put them out.

However we are now faced with the fact that we are there, we have two basic choices.

1) Pull out. As much as I like this option events in Iraq are so stoked up that if we did this even over a period of 18 months to two years. Iraq would collapse and we would have a civil war which would probably end up with Iraq being a Islamic state like Iran.

2) Stay in take the deaths of British/American soldiers try to involve other countries in “peacekeeping roles” ( although none will join in) for the next 5 to 10 years and after 2000- 3000 British deaths 10,000 to 20,000 US deaths Iraq may be a stable democracy. Of course there are major hurdles to overcome before Iraq can be classed as a democracy.

Basically because of the simplistic attitudes we had at the beginning we are now slipping into a war of attrition and will have to pay a very high price in th next few years..

That about sums it up.