|
|
|
World Opinion
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. April 2004 @ 12:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
i love my country, despise my government....
nough said...
i disagree w/our foreign policy and how we view our status in the world...
but i do like our freedoms and all..
peace
jimmy
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. April 2004 @ 12:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
DarkmanX, there has been absolutely no proof of any kind (especially on the nuclear issue) that Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction since the 1st gulf war. We all know about his earlier use of chemical weapons against the Iranians and his own people, but if we couldn't find the moral ground to take him down when he was dangerous, then why do we now after we've pulled all of his teeth choose to attack him (oil). Sure we found a couple of old rockets lying around but that's all. The UN sanctions and inspectors had him contained because he knew that if he wnet to far he would have to face an internationally sanctioned coalition. Husseins not a young man and in a few short years he would have drifted away into memory and history. I would like anyone to show me where its been documented that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Clinton made a few mistakes in his personal life but he is George Bush's superior in every way. By the way Bush made mistake in his personal life too, such as a DUI.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. April 2004 @ 12:51
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
25. April 2004 @ 13:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good points, but I would hardly say that the U.N. had Hussein contained. If memory serves me, I believe he didn't even allow them free access, per the agreement from the Gulf War. I don't believe that he feared any reprisals from the U.N. at all. Look at all of the U.N. resolutions he violated!
I am in NOOOO way a Bush fan! I do like the fact that he sticks to his guns and if he says he's going to do something, he does it.
I hate that we think we have to bare the burden of "policing" the world, but we are in the thick of a hornets nest right now! Right or wrong, I believe we have to stay the course or it will only encourage more acts against us, because they believe Americans are all talk and no fight!
I was involved in the first Gulf War and I have observed some of the living conditions that the middle eastern people deal with. I do agree that we get a little full of ourselves, because we try to push our way of thinking on other cultures.
Silent Assasin |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
25. April 2004 @ 13:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's true that the UN inspections were constantly be thwarted by Hussein but he was still in fact contained. Hans Blix's last report before he left Iraq was virtually disregarded by the Bush administration but in the end his final report turned out to be completely accurate, in that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If we want to look for weapons of mass destruction then why not go after the North Koreans who've confessed to the possession of nuclear weapons. Evem more terrifying, missiles that can travel more than the 135 mile range of Husseins missiles, they are intercontinental ballistic missiles, they can hit us directly. Why aren't we after them? Didn't Bush identify them as part of the "Axis of Evil" just as he did Hussein. Korea is of no long term economic interest to us like Iraq is. How are we ever going to continue to remain a free people if we buy into every political lie our leaders tell us? Trust me Dark, we aren't policing the world, only those nations that have what we want.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Run4two
Junior Member
|
25. April 2004 @ 15:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am an American. I don't want anyone to underestimate or belittle our convictions as a people in what we are trying to do. You may not agree with the means in which we are going about it, but as a nation, we are determined and supportive of our course of action. This isn't a "powerplay for oil". We are determined to fight and defeat terrorism. Can we win this war? No, but we will continue and progress in diminishing its effects worldwide.
I've read plenty of threads on this forum about Americans always using up such a high percentage of the world's resources, yet we are only a small percentage of the people worldwide. It's true. I hope to see our lifestyles change and become more efficient and economical. I also want to state that many Americans are dying abroad to better the lives of others. We consider our people our greatest resource and cherish life dearly. These lives are not given easily, but willingly. We are willing to die for our beliefs.
Please don't flame me for my beliefs and convictions, but debate them in a possitive and productive way. I have such great respect for the people of this forum and the knowledge they share with others. Let's continue in learning from each other with dignity.
Jim
|
|
Buik
Member
|
25. April 2004 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles
North Korea is being given a different kind of attention. Direct military action there would involve the ChiComs. Just as it did 50 years ago. Yes, the "Puk Hans" have ICBM's and maybe a few nukes. Not enough to bring the USA down militarily. Enough to harm the world. Just like the two towers had a ripple effect on the U.S. and the world economy. If we wanted to, we could end the threat from North Korea. Might take only a couple of MIRV's to do so. It is the aftermath and unsuing actions from other nations that we have to worry about. Hence the different tack.
Now, as for OIL, we all (as a world community) want & need it. Without it we grind to a halt. The progress the world has made to date has been because of the utilization of "Fossil Fuels". Without them, we would not be having this conversation. We would be hunter/gather's.
As for terrorism today. Much of it is being spawned by a religion that once was known for its enlighted status and a center of civilisation. That religion has imploded and seeks to drag us backwards technologically. Never mind the fact that the perps seek to use every technological advance made, to destroy those who developed the technology. If the technology was so bad and corrupted society, why use it your self? As far as I'm concerned this is a resumption of the muslim conquest of the world. Peaceful religion my ***.
Bill Clinton turned me into a voting Republican.
Proud to be an American (USAF Retired)
TC
PS: Flame me. What does not kill us only makes us stronger. Yee Haa
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
25. April 2004 @ 17:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
That was very well articulated and I couldn't agree with you more Jim! I am so greatful that this site exists, not just for the trivial ?'s but as a conduit to share ideas in a respectful manner with citizens of the world.
As far as Korea goes, our forces are spread thin as it is. We still are dealing with Afghanistan as well as Iraq. We cannot address Korea until we finish what we've started in these regions. Besides, how come the U.N. isn't proactively addressing Korea in it's attempts to blackmail the world with nukes they aren't suppose to have?
_
Silent Assasin
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. April 2004 @ 17:40
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. April 2004 @ 02:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
North Korea was used as an example but the truth is we will never send our military to North Korea because we would only end up infuriating the Chinese and isolate a major trading partner, South Korea. Suppose the North Koreans decide that they should have nuclear weapons and that we should give ours up? If you want to truly understand US policy then all you have to do is follow the dollar.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
deadcat
Senior Member
|
26. April 2004 @ 04:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think the fact that north korea has the worlds largest army, is nuclear cabable, and has no oil fields would have more of a deterrent than upsetting trading partners. Since when has america cared about that?
Im australian and proud of it, weve just celebrated ANZAC day. My father was in Vietnam, americas war, and he marched yestersday, however even he beleives we shouldnt have gone there, shouldnt have gone to iraq now or before and that America in all honesty should open its eyes because its only going to get worse, and i agree. America actually believes it can win the war on terrorism? How? Fight everyone apart from england and australia??
Antec Plus View Case w 5 fans, Asus A8N Sli, Athlon 64 3500, 2gig PC3200, 7600GS x 2 graphics, 2x 120gb Sata2 Raid0, 2x 320gb Sata 2, 2x 250gb USB External, Aopen Com4824,Pioneer A08, Polyview 17' lcd x2
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. April 2004 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
During the first Gulf war Saddam Hussein also had one of the worlds largest armies, just under a half million and he was routed in very little time because like the Koreans the Iraqi army was under equipted. The North Koreans have a large body count but no way to transport them, and they have nuclear weapons, but not enough for an assault. The Chinese however are well equipted, have enoguh nuclear weapons for an assault, and able to transport an army and theirs is enormous. If the North Koreans had 40% of the worlds estimated remaining oil supply then they too might have something to worry about. Your point on fighting terroism is well stated. How can one fight an enemy one can't even identify. It could be a neighbor or a person that one passes while walking in the park, going to a concert, or taking a cruise there just isn't any clear way to know who the enemy is. Perhaps it's time to stop making enemies.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
26. April 2004 @ 15:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
I see on the news that the U.S. will be sending food and medicine to North Korea to help in the tragedy that has befallen their people. See, we do contribute to some good in the world.
As far as fighting a losing battle, it is true that the enemy could wear different faces, not just middle eastern, and we will never know what's in the hearts of people until they strike, but should we lay down and do nothing?
Should we succumb to being black mailed like the Italian citizens who will be executed unless the Italian govenrment gives in to the demands of these animals!
The war on terrorist is akin to the war against evil. We probably will never truly defeat evil, because it's a part of this world, but should we not strive to abolish it and be better individuals.
Silent Assasin
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. April 2004 @ 16:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yes Darkman we do some good. If we could just stay on that course we might find ourselves with fewer enemies and more allies. In spite of every economic and political wrong our country has committed against less fortunate nations, we've also done a lot of good and the world is overall a better place for it. My biggest fear isn't the terrorist lurking in the shadows waiting to strike, its blind patriotism that causes our people to agree with everything our government tells them. Our forefathers had more faith in us then that but we aren't rising to their expectations. we've been divided into two political camps, republicans and Democrats, and an election is seen as little more than another kind of super bowl. The concern to them isn't the importance of voting but who's team will win. If we gave every American voter a simple test before voting that asked them to name the three braches of the government, voter turnout would be even less than it is now. we aren't going to loose our freedom from terroist attacks we're going to loose it through ignorance.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
26. April 2004 @ 17:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
The executive, judicial and legislative branchs. I guess I can vote!
As far as the forefathers, I believe that we need to understand the spirit of the constitution as opposed to what's actually been interpreted! And the interpretation is based on what party has the power to select supreme court judges.
The 1st amendment gave the right to speech, but has been interpreted not to give the freedom to yell bomb in an airport, or the second amendment which gave the right to have a well regulated militia, which was interpreted that citizens have the right to bear arms. Certainly the constitution was written when there were no policemen and you needed weapons to defend your home or to hunt for food. Our fore fathers could not fathom the types of weapons that exist today.... but I'm getting off of the topic!!!
Silent Assasin
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
26. April 2004 @ 17:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually many if not most constituional interpretations are derived from the Federalist Notes. The notes were taken during the framing of the constitution and they are still used as a tool to try to understand the original intent of the framers (our forefathers)as well as detailing the complexities of a constitutional goverment. They are mostly the collected notes of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, amd John Jay. Unfortunately the Judiciary has been given enourmous power in the interpretation of modern law expecially Bills that are written and ratified by the congress. Many including myself believe that it is time to stop the appointment of Supreme Court judges in favor of their being elected. It's nuts to give that much power to an unelected branch of the government. Many of my student often view freedom of speech to broadly and I use the "yelling fire," in a theater analogy to help them realize that freedom of speech just as bearing arms comes with responsiblity.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. April 2004 @ 17:52
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
26. April 2004 @ 18:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Aaahhh, so you're a teacher! Actually, I never thought about electing Supreme Court Judges-what an interesting notion. Of course we're back to the selection pool being limited to the rich.
Silent Assasin
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. April 2004 @ 02:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
" A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."
I don't mind if they earned the money and not inherited it. John Edwards would be an example.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
ken0042
Senior Member
|
27. April 2004 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not that I'm pro-American or pro-war, but here's something I've been thinking about:
Ask people in Poland when WWII started, they'll tell you 1936.
Ask Canadians or Brits when it started, they'll tell you 1939.
Ask Americans when it started, they'll tell you 1941.
Now growing up my Canadian (read: pro British) history books critisized America for sitting on the sidelines too long.
Today we critisize them for not sitting on the sidelines enough.
Just some food for thought.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. April 2004 @ 08:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
27. April 2004 @ 09:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hey Guys, sorry ive been away a bit, some great points made a long the way, though i havent had a chance to read them all (tonnes of coursework for uni at the min).
Just on our good friends Kens point, America was criticised about leaving it very late. The reason they did that was that they didnt see the need for them to intervene in a war that really had nothing to do with them. What then happened was that America realised if Germany was to win the war and dominate Europe, their freedom and stability could be affected (ie: they could be next on the list). It is well documented that America couldve have known about an attack on Pearl Harbour prior to it actually happening, but did nothing to use it as an excuse to the American people to join the war.
Theres more food for thought....
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
27. April 2004 @ 12:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think a few words from our freind Bill Maher will help us understand America. Enjoy.
"If it weren?t for California, there?s be almost no TV, and you?d have to come home at night and actually talk to your family.
You know, the rest of America feels about California the way the rest of the world feels about America. They hate us because we do what we want. They think we?re too blessed and too free, and it makes them nuts in the dreary hovels of Kabul and Tikrit and Lubbock, Texas.
They pray to their threadbare gods that we?ll get what we deserve. But it won?t happen. Because you never know what we?re going to do here next. We elected Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown.
We?re home to Disney and Hustler, the Partridge Family and the Manson Family. We can drink a Mudslide and a Sex on the Beach during an actual mudslide while having sex on the beach!
Our farms feed the world, and Calista Flockhart lives here.
We have bears and great white sharks. And even our washed-up actors are allowed to kill one blonde chick.
We invented surfing and cyber-porn and LSD and the boob job. And if we didn?t, we would haven.
We have oranges, free oranges, everywhere. What grows on the trees in Scranton, fucker?!
We have a real hockey team named after a hockey team in a movie!
Our Indian casinos could kick your Indian casinos? ass.
We give our illegal aliens driver?s licenses. And we have a guy running for governor who digs group sex."
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
Moderator
|
27. April 2004 @ 12:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
It is well documented that America couldve have known about an attack on Pearl Harbour
It's actually well documented that America did know about Pearl Harbor well before it happened. Gen. Billy Mitchell had spent quite awhile in Japan before the war (being sent there because he was too outspoken and critical of those in power, they wanted him far away) and when he came back he flat out told everyone that they would attack Pearl Harbor on a Sunday then attack the Phillipines the next week. Exactly as it happened.
It was more a case of obstinate entrenched brass deliberately dismissing Gen. Mitchell's waring because they hated him than an excuse to go to war.
Many nations dismissed Hitler's agressive actions prior to 1936. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain kept negotiating with Hitler despite obvious sign's of Hitler's intentions. Stalin signed a nonagression pact with Hitler and when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa it took Stalin 3-4 days to even issue retaliatory orders, not to mention a German defector had given the Russians critical details of the invasion beforehand (even the exact time of the initial offensive) and they did nothing. Many nations were in denial of the obvious.
I don't think any nation realized how fast Europe would fall to the Wermacht until it was too late. The Germans introduced a totally new method of warfare combining mechanized units integrated with infantry all supported by the Luftwaffe - Blitzkrieg. Everyone was caught with their pants down.
I can accept that some may feel America waited too long to get involved in WW2 but keep in mind the monumental efforts we made and the losses we suffered in helping to bring about the end of the war. Every nation made mistakes and could've done some things better.
Just my .02 and not aimed at anyone :)
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 27. April 2004 @ 13:04
|
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
27. April 2004 @ 19:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Great discussion guys! (Not tryin to be sexist if a female has been involved) I totally agree that the U.S. will never be able to please everyone. If we don't act swiftly enough, we come across as arrogant and full of ourselves, we act to fast and we are power mongers.
I was listening to a radio talk host today and he made a valid point. Why are we having a discussion with these terrorists at all? It's already proven that they are not honoring the ceasefire and in fact maybe using the ceasefire as a diversion to stockpile weapons in mosques.
They will have to reconsider their tactics if they don't get what they want. By disrupting the region close to the deadline, they are attempting to force the U.S. to either keep their word and leave an unstable region that is in no way prepared to take over. The new government fails and the terrorists pick up their stronghold. America stays beyond the deadline to stabalize the region and we are labeled invaders who want to take over!
This is basic psychology. If we reward a certain act, the learned act will be performed to achieve the desired stimulus. (Pavlov's dog) By giving in to terrorist demands, we encourage more terorist acts, not prevent them. It's interesting how we ask ourselves how can we fight an enemy who is willing to die for their cause, but consider this, who are the ones dying for the cause? The poor citizens and the under privileged are the ones dying for the cause, Bin Laden doesn't seem willing to die, Arafat doesn't seem willing to die. Known of the heads of any of these factions are the ones willing to die, they are brain washing young followers to die for the cause with the reward of virgins awaiting in the afterlife. We need to go after these people directly, not the followers and then lets see if they are willing to die for the cause.
Silent Assasin
|
|
Bitcount
Account closed as per user's own request
|
27. April 2004 @ 21:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
As i recall the original idea was to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, because that's where Al Qaeda was. But the US went about it all wrong, I gotta say Afghanistan was a war done on the cheap. Basically the US got (paid, bribed) the northern alliance to do much of the ground the fighting, while they (the US) bombed from planes. The US allowed the Northern alliance way too much leeway, and just let them do whatever they wanted to as long as they said they were killing the Taliban, and now that's why Hamid Karzai is the "mayor" of Kabul and not the president.
There are some 15000 US troops in Afghanistan in addition to the thousands from other countries including France and Germany, I want to know why there are 130000 US troops in Iraq when bin Laden was in another country. It pisses me off even more that troops were probably not deployed to Afghanistan because of preparations to go into Iraq (not to mention that diverted 700 million from the Afghan war to Iraq) especially since there were no actual links between Hussein and Bin Laden.
I mean they hated each other, just before Gulf War 1 Bin Laden was preparing to wage a terrorist campaign against Saddam the "infidel" because of the possible threat to Saudi Arabia (made up by the US to get troop deployments, I might add)
And, and, and, (almost done i promise) the WMDs that weren't. Now it is entirely possible that Saddam would try to get WMDs down the line, long after the worlds attention would have faded. But the case for war was made on the basis that he had them now, that he had hundreds of gallons of anthrax and botchulinem (sp?), and could have nuclear weapons very soon. But of course none of this was even remotely true, as Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and (eventually) David Kay all pointed out.
Sorry i went a little bit off topic, i just needed to say that.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. April 2004 @ 03:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
It was right-on Bitcount.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
DarkmanX
Member
|
28. April 2004 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's true that Bin Laden did not like Hussein, but they did cooperate in ventures together, when it suited both individuals. When I mean go after these people, I'm talking with gloves off! We have special forces and other elite units that conduct covert ops. Why not just send these people end and capture/ kill these people? No, we have to make a huge spectacle of the situation and announce our intentions giving them time to escape. If the police planned a search warrant at your house and they told you the day and time when it would be executed, you'd be pretty dumb not to get rid of any contraband that you may possess and even more stupid if you were present when the warrant was served!
They know that we won't use certain tactics because we always have to be politically correct, like in comics, the bad guy can try and kill the good guy over and over, but when the bad guy is losing he just has to surrender and he knows he won't be harmed. We had several opportunities kill Bin Laden earlier, but we have to post a huge sign to let the world know when and where we will be coming. We allow CNN and other press to cover troop movement and their interaction with the enemy. We are playing by different rules! They can fire on us during ceasefires, and get away with it-it's what's expected of them, but it's inconceivable for us to act in the same manner.
As for the WMD, no one is acknowledging the ruse used to kill Americans the other day where they recovered a cache of chemicals that could take out an entire city-what do you call those items?
Silent Assasin
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. April 2004 @ 03:52
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
28. April 2004 @ 04:44 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
If it weren?t for California, there?s be almost no TV, and you?d have to come home at night and actually talk to your family
Huh? If it wasnt for an Englishman named Edwin Belin who invented television, then there would be no television.....Although the actualy first television was by a man named Philo Farnsworth, another Englishman
|
|
