Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 91 of 91
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
    #81  
    Agreed!!!!! Nailed it right on the head, Mark!!
    I gotta have more cowbell
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by specimen38 View Post
    Yes, the "number of casualties" are important! People, who did not voluteer for armed services lost their lives in the WTC, FLT 93 & Pentagon. Yes human life matters! I believe in fighting and giving my life for a righteous cause. The Iraqis did not have weapons of mass destruction. Osama Bin Laden had them! Of course, you've forgotten him. You've diverted your anger just the way the Republicans wanted you to. Carter is not the issue. The issue is still and always will be - BUSH cannot find OSAMA
    You didn't answer the question. If number of casualties indicates a bad President, how awful were Washington, Lincoln, and FDR? 400,000 Americans died in WWII; 600,000 in the Civil War; and 25,000 in the American Revolution (during which Washington was actually General, not President).

    As for "anger," that's a dumb reason to send our troops to die. Revenge and retribution too. The best justification for going to war is protecting our national security. Eliminating state sponsors of terror reduces the risk of a nuclear or biological attack in the US significantly. However, experts have been saying for 5 years that capturing or killing bin Laden would do little to reduce the terrorist threat to the US.
  3. #83  
    Gotta agree, I (and MOST) would derive immense satisfaction if we caught OBL. MOST also know that that event alone would do very little to help. Even if or when it does happen, the minority (including the media) in this country would downplay it as a 'non-event' anyway.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    The best justification for going to war is protecting our national security. Eliminating state sponsors of terror reduces the risk of a nuclear or biological attack in the US significantly. However, experts have been saying for 5 years that capturing or killing bin Laden would do little to reduce the terrorist threat to the US.
    Right.

    So, are we going to let Iran get nuclear weapons?

    There's a certain irony to the fact that we are now embroiled in a war fought to prevent Hussein from getting WMD, when Iran is more or less bragging about their nuclear development programs, threatening to wipe allies off the face of the earth, testing missiles, submarines and threatening to disperse nuclear technology to third parties (read: terrorists).

    There's an air of "what me worry" here that is pretty scary.
    If it doesn't have a slot for SDHC--I don't want it. Period.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Squires View Post
    Right.

    So, are we going to let Iran get nuclear weapons?

    There's a certain irony to the fact that we are now embroiled in a war fought to prevent Hussein from getting WMD, when Iran is more or less bragging about their nuclear development programs, threatening to wipe allies off the face of the earth, testing missiles, submarines and threatening to disperse nuclear technology to third parties (read: terrorists).

    There's an air of "what me worry" here that is pretty scary.
    There's actually no shortage of worry. What's lacking is an obvious or quick solution. We're doing everything we can, but even sternly-worded UN Resolutions may not be enough. What's at least a little reassuring is that Europe and Israel are as concerned as we are about Iran going nuclear. Even Democrats are worried about Iran.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    There's actually no shortage of worry. What's lacking is an obvious or quick solution. We're doing everything we can, but even sternly-worded UN Resolutions may not be enough. What's at least a little reassuring is that Europe and Israel are as concerned as we are about Iran going nuclear. Even Democrats are worried about Iran.
    Let's take those things in order.

    "Sternly worded UN Resolutions"---uh, which would those be? The fact is that Iran's protectors won't allow them. As always, and as a consequence, the UN remains a joke. An underlying reason for the Iraqi war was that the French, Germans and Russians really didn't care about sanctions or the process. They were happy to turn a blind eye. This time around, you won't get a tough UN resolution even passed. And if you do--it still won't matter. Because ultimately, just about no one in the UN is willing to do anything EXCEPT pass resolutions.

    Europe is concerned--see comments above. Most of Europe really doesn't care, and the portion that does likely won't do anything anyway.

    Democrats--you mean the folks who thought adequate retaliation for bin Laden's group nearly taking out the World Trade Center in 1993 was lobbing a few cruise missiles and then sitting back and watching his group expand? Of course, Republican credibility has been badly damaged by the failure to find WMD in Iraq. Which leaves us with....

    Israel--They might be interested in helping, but realistically without support, this is a tough nut for them alone. I don't expect them to do anything without American or international support.

    I hope we don't look up in ten years, when Iran has missiles capable of reaching American cities, and bemoan the fact that no one was willing to be tougher.
    If it doesn't have a slot for SDHC--I don't want it. Period.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Squires View Post
    Democrats--you mean the folks who thought adequate retaliation for bin Laden's group nearly taking out the World Trade Center in 1993 was lobbing a few cruise missiles and then sitting back and watching his group expand? Of course, Republican credibility has been badly damaged by the failure to find WMD in Iraq. Which leaves us with....
    "Newt and the gang" were against even that. Read what the neo-cons were saying about involvement around the world. The conservatives were dead against any military involvement (think Somalia) and calling it "wag the dog" policy.

    Do you think our nation would have supported an invasion of a country after 1993?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #88  
    You obviously have a problems with reading comprehension. I am not going to repeat myself. "W" has already admitted publicly that this strategy is flawed. He asking for help. He had to fire Rumsfeld, who 30+ years ago had the same "idiological" (new word) affect and outcome on the Vietnam War serving Nixon. He should have followed the Powell doctrine as it was suggested to him in the beginning of this stupid and senseless war. It did not accomplish anything of any great significance, but the removal of a bully from power. At worst, "W" has de-stabilized the Middle East and united Arabs in Jihad. This failed campaign has become a recruiting tool and training ground for border crossing zealots already inclined to hate Americans from Pakistan, Iran, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    You didn't answer the question. If number of casualties indicates a bad President, how awful were Washington, Lincoln, and FDR? 400,000 Americans died in WWII; 600,000 in the Civil War; and 25,000 in the American Revolution (during which Washington was actually General, not President).

    As for "anger," that's a dumb reason to send our troops to die. Revenge and retribution too. The best justification for going to war is protecting our national security. Eliminating state sponsors of terror reduces the risk of a nuclear or biological attack in the US significantly. However, experts have been saying for 5 years that capturing or killing bin Laden would do little to reduce the terrorist threat to the US.
    Last edited by specimen38; 01/02/2007 at 05:49 PM.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by specimen38 View Post
    You obviously have a problems with reading comprehension. I am not going to repeat myself.
    Thanks for not repeating your post. No one wants that. I understood your post fine. Instead of answering the question, you posted a strawman (Yes, the "number of casualties" are important!) and a false statement (Osama Bin Laden had them! ). And now you're making a personal attack, a false one.

    It did not accomplish anything of any great significance, but the removal of a bully from power.
    Yeah, Saddam is like a kid who picks on others in a schoolyard.

    As I said before, Bush has eliminated three state sponsors of terror. But you didn't answer my question about how many were created under Carter.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Squires View Post
    Let's take those things in order.

    "Sternly worded UN Resolutions"---uh, which would those be? The fact is that Iran's protectors won't allow them. As always, and as a consequence, the UN remains a joke. An underlying reason for the Iraqi war was that the French, Germans and Russians really didn't care about sanctions or the process. They were happy to turn a blind eye. This time around, you won't get a tough UN resolution even passed. And if you do--it still won't matter. Because ultimately, just about no one in the UN is willing to do anything EXCEPT pass resolutions.
    I thought my sarcasm was obvious. UN Resolutions are generally worthless for the reasons you cite.

    And I was talking about the sanctions that the UN just passed a week and a half ago.

    Europe is concerned--see comments above. Most of Europe really doesn't care, and the portion that does likely won't do anything anyway.
    The Iran problem is very different from the Iraq problem. With Iraq, France and Russia were its main protectors. With Iran, it's Russia and China. Many European leaders have taken strong positions against Iran because they realize that a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is as likely to be detonated in Europe as it is in the US, though Chirac is wishy-washy as usual.

    Democrats--you mean the folks who thought adequate retaliation for bin Laden's group nearly taking out the World Trade Center in 1993 was lobbing a few cruise missiles and then sitting back and watching his group expand?
    Democratic leaders like Pelosi and Biden are likely to support military action against Iran if the time comes.

    Israel--They might be interested in helping, but realistically without support, this is a tough nut for them alone. I don't expect them to do anything without American or international support.
    You seem to be forgetting Osirak. Israel will act alone if it thinks its survival depends on it. But I have zero doubt that they'll have American support, whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge.

    I hope we don't look up in ten years, when Iran has missiles capable of reaching American cities, and bemoan the fact that no one was willing to be tougher.
    There are worse scenarios than that.
  11. #91  
    EDIT: I just reread your post and I think I misunderstood your point at first. I now see your point is we acted on Iraq so what are we going to do about Iran.......Instead of why didn't we act on Iran instead of Iraq as I first understood it. Sorry for the confusion. I will comment below and keep the original post as some interesting points of interest only.

    I agree that this is a hard situation and have started at least 3 threads on the subject of Iran's dirty deeds and how the the US, UN, Russian, China, etc... are handling it Iran, protecting them, or standing on the sidelines hoping that someone else will fix it so they don't have to.

    ORIGINAL POST:
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Squires View Post
    Right.

    So, are we going to let Iran get nuclear weapons?

    There's a certain irony to the fact that we are now embroiled in a war fought to prevent Hussein from getting WMD, when Iran is more or less bragging about their nuclear development programs, threatening to wipe allies off the face of the earth, testing missiles, submarines and threatening to disperse nuclear technology to third parties (read: terrorists).
    This argument has been brought up several times in these forums. You are looking back at history with knowledge we have now and applying that knowledge to a time before knew about Iran's 20 year hidden nuke program. We didn't even have the first report about their program until 3 months AFTER we invaded Iraq. Here it is in detail when Barye brought this up a year and half ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The neutered Saddam did not present a threat to us -- Iran did, and does.
    It is easy to say that now. But what is often challenging to do is to look at the what we knew at the time the decisions were being made........and not with the knowledge we have now. IMHO, This is where a lot of your argument falls apart.

    I shared with you in one of the first posts the choices of those who we could have gone after at that time, and some thoughts on each.

    You have to look at what we knew at the time. Due to Saddams reluctance to confirm his claims that he no longer had the vast amounts of WMD material that Clinton says was still unaccounted for when he left office,

    We did not even have confirmation about Iran's Nuke program until Dec. 2002 With the help of satellite photos of Natanz and Arak ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8472950/ ). So we did not even know for sure about their Nuke program until 2 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and 1 month after the UN approves Resolution 1441.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team headed by chief Mohamed ElBaradei doesn't even inspect Natanz and Arak until Feb. 2003........5 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution.

    And it is not even until June 2003 that they file their report and July 2003 that Diplomats tell Reuters the IAEA has found traces of weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU) at Natanz....... 8 & 9 months after Congress approves the Iraq Resolution and a 2 & 3 monts AFTER the US Attacks Iraq.

    No matter what your personal political opinions are, you cannot muddle facts we know true today as if they were well known then when decisions had to be made.

    I would have supported going after Iran at the time as well, even though we didn't know about their nuke program at the time. But I have little doubt that we would be in the same boat as we are now in Iraq, but in a worse situation. Iran can only support the insurgence under the table with a low profile. Imagine what it would be like if they were free and open to oppose us in this situation? No matter if it was Iran or Iraq, both have to be dealt with. And since even after we had finish dealing with Iran, I doubt that we would still know for sure or not about Saddam's status with his WMDs that there is no doubt that he DID have. It also would have flipped the coin and offered many HUGE benefits for Iraq, just as Iraq's situation has offered benefits to Iran. In both cases, AQ would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases Syria, would be supporting the insurgency. In both cases, we would be fighting an uphill battle against resistant terrorist fearful of a Dem gov who are going to oppose us every minute that we fight to establish democracy in the mist of them.

    SOURCE: http://discussion.treocentral.com/tc...6&postcount=50
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 01/02/2007 at 06:52 PM.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions