[NPC] War Stories, check these out Options

[SirAndy]

Second, there seems to be a huge number of protesters and complainers
who think the war is over oil. That's silly, you call me when the US is over
there pumping oil into our tankers for free and bringing it here.

of course oil is a factor. don't be silly, it's not about filling up some freaking tankers for free ...

the middle east is THE key supplier for the US (and others) oil consumption.
therefore the US has a strong interest in keeping the region politically stable
to ensure undisturbed oil-flow.
and iraq is considered a threat to that stability.
this is not about terrorism. no iraqi has ever attacked america,
no iraqi missile has ever hit american soil. there was no provocation for this war,
except the conceived threat of destabilizing the middle east.

interestingly enough, for exactly the same reasons, iraq (under saddam) was once a US ally.
(funny that back then no-one here seemed to care about the torturing and killing of his own people).
the US trained, supplied them with weapons (which we're now looking for) and paid iraqi troops to
be a counterweight to iran, which at the time was perceived as the main threat in the middle east.
then iraq attacked iran and the US got cold feet and backed out.
ever since, the US/Iraq relationships are a bit chilly ...

the really interesting point here is that
as long as it was in the interest of the US, no one gave a fucking shit
about dead iraqi civilians or human rights or torture.
no one talked about the need to liberate the iraqi people.

Andy

[silver six]

I'm With Andy He yells too loudly but I'm still with him.

Contradiciton Too much contradiction on the board. Half the time the board is pro-war because we're American and we're number one and fuck everyone else. The other half the time you boys are arguing this is a humanitarian effort and that America is selflessly sacrificing lives to do the right thing. Well, which is it? I suspect more the former than the latter.

Oil Mark says: "Second, there seems to be a huge number of protesters and complainers who think the war is over oil. That's silly . . . ." But if this war is not at least partially about oil then why aren't we liberating other people of the world like the Somali's, the Iranian's, the Columbians, or the Cuban's? Fighting a war to liberate an African nation would be a whole lot cheaper and easier than fighting a war in Iraq. Why don't we do it? Oil, is but one of many reasons why.

TerrorismThis war is absolutely not about terrorism. There is not a single credible link from 9/11 to Iraq. I challenge anyone to link me to a magazine article to the contrary. Now there is a significant link from 9/11 to Saudi Arabia. I ask this question to the pro-war posters: after we've disposed of Iraq would you support a war against the Saudis?

No End in Sight On a related note, everyone who argues that we're in Iraq liberating the people, I ask you, which country would you be in support of invading next? The world is full of dictators. How about the Saudi's? How about China? How about N. Korea? How about all those African nations with horrible human rights records? Now if you would not support invading those countries, I ask you what makes Iraq different?

We Didn't Liberate Kuwait Even After We Liberated Kuwait Is Kuwait better now ten years after we liberated them than they were before? They are not the worst of the worst dictators in the region but they have an abysmal human rights record and America is complicit because we put the emir [say dictator] back in power. We have no reason to belive that Iraq will do any better than Kuwait. Is Afganistan doing any better for that matter? It's a mess out there and America has a horrible record for cleaning up our Middle-Eastern messes.

Iraq is not Germany or Japan If we could turn Iraq into a post WWII Germany or Japan I might actually be for the war but the chances of that happening are infinitely small. Do people on this board really believe that Iraq will look like Japan in the next century?

And these are but some of the reasonsy why I cannot support the war.

Flame on.

Douglas

[Don Wohlfarth]

Andy, respect your views on being anti-war. Too bad you didn't stop there.
You posted:
QUOTE (URY914 @ Mar 27 2003, 01:41 PM)
Haven't we been over this before?
If not the U.S.A., than who will?
If not now, when?
yes, we have
who?
the UN, of course ...
when?
leave that up to the UN ...

The UN had a resolution in Oct? that was a follow up to a resolution at the end of the Gulf War about inspectors. Saddam threw out the inspectors doing their job per the 1st resolution, the follow up resolution put inspectors back into Iraq.
What did the UN do in the 12 years between res 1 and 2?
There are 189 countries that belong to the UN, each members vote counts as much as the next one. Is that relevant? If so, how come 3rd world countries get special treatment such as exemptions for global warming? Why are 5 countries permanent members of the security council?
Granted, Bush became frustrated with the process and announced the US would present another resolution requiring the UN to enforce its early resolutions. France, that well known world power, announced that it would veto ANY resolution that the US submitted. Bush drew a line in the sand and here we are.
***
so, you think because america is #1 you can just go
around and invade other countries whenever you
feel like it? sure, it's not PC, but hey, we're #1, so what?

Understand this completely. World was a "little" more stable when there was another superpower but US went head to head with Russia over missiles in Cuba.
The short version is the US has been forced to become the worlds police man, a job no other country wants or can afford. The US economy drives the world.
***
and what does 9/11 have to do with the war on iraq?

This was a terrorist attack on US homeland that killed around 3,000, most of them Americans. Bush declared war on terrorism and went into Afganistan after the perpetrators, Saddam was next on his list.
The US is the most forgiving country in the world. After WWII the Marshall Plan "loaned" money to devastated countries starting with Japan and Germany. Neither seems to be doing to badly today. BTW not a penny of those loans were ever repaid, just forgiven.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif) Get off your high horse. The US has tried to work with the UN. Yeah, we've got a fucked up attitude when it comes to dealing with outlaw nations but at least we elected our leaders.

[joea9146]

A good thread to add this:

22 March 2003
With one phrase, Lt. Col. Tim Collins, commander of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish, summed up the task in hand for the British forces waiting to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq.
Collins was addressing his 800 men, an arm of Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade, at Fort Blair Maine, a Kuwaiti desert camp 20 miles south of the Iraqi border. Here is as much of his extraordinary speech as has been reported.

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.

"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

"It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

"As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
"Our business now is north."

[Brad Roberts]

Don,

I want to thank you. Good post with good info without "going off"

Your comment about the USA driving the worlds economy is dead on. Porsche wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the US market (I have numbers to back that up) The "world" was doing pretty good before 9/11. Sure some of the US companies where scam artists...

I just want to back US decisions. Good or bad. I dont see any other country stepping up to take action in the world. The attitude seems to be "let the US take care if it"

B

[silver six]

I won't defend the U.N. That debate is a red herring. Their approval wouldn't have made the war right. Their dissapproval does not necessarily make it wrong.

Don Says: World was a "little" more stable when there was another superpower but US went head to head with Russia over missiles in Cuba.

This issue is tremendously off topic. But just for the record the Cuban missle crisis is an example of the most unstable periods in the world's history. There was never a time when we were closer to nuclear armageddon.

Don Says: The short version is the US has been forced to become the worlds police man, a job no other country wants or can afford.

Being the world's police man is not a bad thing if we're doing a good job of it. But up until now the police man has never set out a policy to "pre-emptively" attack any and all nations that we determine to possibly be a threat, maybe not now, but some time in the future. Bush's policy of pre-emption is one of the most destabalizing doctrines ever advanced by an American administration.

Don Says: The US economy drives the world.

Again this is entirely off topic. Whether our economy drives the world or not does not justify (or dejustify) waging war against another country. I've yet to hear no one, except the most crass pro-war protester suggest that because our economy drives the world, we get to invade who ever we want, bomb whoever we want, and drain oil from whomever we want.

Andy asks And what does 9/11 have to do with the war on iraq?

And Don responds: This was a terrorist attack on US homeland that killed around 3,000, most of them Americans. Bush declared war on terrorism and went into Afganistan after the perpetrators, Saddam was next on his list.

Still what does Saddam being on Bush's "list" have to do with 911? Again I challenge anyone to find a credible source linking 9/11 to Iraq. There is no link.

Don Says: The US is the most forgiving country in the world. After WWII the Marshall Plan "loaned" money to devastated countries starting with Japan and Germany. Neither seems to be doing to badly today. BTW not a penny of those loans were ever repaid, just forgiven

Again, totally off topic. We're not loaning Iraq money we're bombing her capital. Rebuilding Iraq after we destroy her will not look like Germany or Japan in ten or twenty or thirty years. See my previous post.

Don Says: Get off your high horse.

I don't have a horse; I drive a 914.

I'm Still With Andy

Douglas

[SirAndy]

He yells too loudly but I'm still with him.

i'm yelling loudly because otherwise my little voice wouldn't be heard (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
no, actually, i'm yelling because i'm tired ...

[airsix]

makes actually sense then that everybody here seems
to think the UN is useless. because the UN was
founded to prevent a single country to do excatly that!
UN = United Nations. does that ring a bell?

if you're above international law you're a THREAT to
the rest of the free world! (and yes, there is more "free world" than just the US)

I want everybody to think about a couple of questions carefully:

1) Should Iraq be disarmed by force? (Unfortunately I think it has come to that.)
2) If so, who should do it? (The UN should. It's their responsibility.)
3) If the body who should do it chooses not to, does that change the fact that it should be done? (Well, if it should be done then it should be done. Find somebody willing to do it)

Here's the deal. UN member nations joined because of the benefits package, not out of a compelling desire to give service to the world. Germany, Russia, China, France, etc. sit on their ass because there is nothing to gain in liberating Iraq - at least the cost is percieved to outweigh the benefit. The US on the other hand feels that the benefits outweigh the cost.

Also, the UN member nations unanumously agreed to act on Iraq if they didn't fully comply by the specified date. Iraq didn't comply and called the UN's bluff. These nations agreed to act and it was a lie. It was just talk. The resoultion said the UN would act but when the clock ran out they all refused. So who's in violation of the UN? The whole UN is.

You can call the US self-serving cowboys, but you have admit that the reality is that the opposing nations are self-serving liars. How can the US and Britain be expexted to follow the UN if the UN won't even honor it's own promises?

I was very on-the-fence when this was all gearing up. I don't know if it's the right thing. But I do know this - Every UN nation agreed action would be taken and when it came to "Go time" very few nations were willing to keep their promise. What point is there in negotiating with a group that will not honor it's agreements? There is none. Now that the choice has been made and our troops are in there being shot at I am 100% committed to this. Whether or not to go in is irrelivant now. We've committed to the task and so we should perform it to the highest degree of sucess possible. Anything short of full support undermines that.

[SirAndy]

The US is the most forgiving country in the world. After WWII the Marshall Plan "loaned" money to devastated countries starting with Japan and Germany.  Neither seems to be doing to badly today. BTW not a penny of those loans were ever repaid, just forgiven.

if i recall the "Marshal Plan" right, it also asked for a strictly "agricultural" germany without any heavy industry, that would never be allowed to have his own armed forces again and would always be under the control of the 4 allys that won the war.
i am sure glad someone didn't follow through on that one ...

[jonwatts]

if i recall the "Marshal Plan" right, it also asked for a strictly "agricultural" germany without any heavy industry, that would never be allowed to have his own armed forces again and would always be under the control of the 4 allys that won the war.
i am sure glad someone didn't follow through on that one ...

No kidding. We'd all be in a tractor club! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

[SirAndy]

Also, the UN member nations unanumously agreed to act on Iraq if they didn't fully comply by the specified date. Iraq didn't comply and called the UN's bluff. These nations agreed to act and it was a lie. It was just talk. The resoultion said the UN would act but when the clock ran out they all refused. So who's in violation of the UN? The whole UN is.

you're mixing things up. the UN's clock hadn't run out yet.
they still had the inspectors in iraq and they were working their way through the mess.

bush set a ultimatum on his own and when his clock ran out, the US attacked.

[SirAndy]

No kidding. We'd all be in a tractor club!

hehe, yeah, the Porsche Tractor Club ...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

[tracks914]

Here is s question, would the US be in a war if the guy with the most votes was President?

[tracks914]

No kidding. We'd all be in a tractor club!

hehe, yeah, the Porsche Tractor Club ...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/driving.gif)

Does that tractor have a 6 or just a flat 4 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mueba.gif)

[bernbomb914]

could it be the lack of action by the UN was because they were recieveing hundreds of millions of dollars brokering the Iraq oil which was supporting the UN. As long as they kept the statis que they were well funded. Bush said that the oil revenue would rebuild their country instead of buying arms etc.
I hate the war but I support out troops and hope it will be over soon.

Bernie (IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)

[SirAndy]

Does that tractor have a 6 or just a flat 4 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mueba.gif)

they came in 1,2,3 or 4 cylinder versions ...
the 1 cylinder were the most famous (the sound is incredible)

http://www.m-schindler.de/hobby_1_pors.htm

[tracks914]

Andy has it all right. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif) I am not anti American but I am not pro war either. I admire almost all the triats Americans have especially their patriotism. But do any of you really stop to ask "why does so much of the world hate us?" I dont mean dislike but really really hate. When I travel abroad I carry a Canadian flag pin and always get Americans asking me for it, why is this?
Why is more than 50% of all US foreign aid go to one country in the Middle East. (so they can arm themselves against car bombs?)
Why are people getting slaughtered in East Timor but Bush doesn't care? (no oil there or just no personal vendetta because someone put a price tag on daddy's head)
Why is the Pacific Fleet not parked outside Korea? (too much $$$ interest in that country right now?)

"If you are not with us you are against us" What the fuck is that.
I heard a quote this week, "The US does not have friends, it only has interests" Let's see how long the friendship last between Tony and George when the trade issues arise. Can you say softwood lumber?

[URY914]

So Andy and Tracks, what would you do if tomorrow you were President of the U.S.? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smlove2.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/barf.gif)

[tracks914]

Saddam is PURE EVIL, there is no disputing that. He MUST be taken out, this is a fact.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ar15.gif) But we have laws, yes, International laws that we must all follow in order to keep some sort of order in this world.
One country cannot go it alone and not expect some sort of backlash. With UN backing Bush would have had double or triple the support he has now. The way International Law is written, right now Iraq(a UN member) can ask the UN to help defend them against an illegal intruder in their country and they would have to consider it. Where would the US be then, yes fighting against the UN. That would look good.
If Bush had just said "fine, if you won't go in with us we won't either and we will leave now. Don't come asking us for help 6 months from now, we won't be here, You can go it alone with France Germany Russia and Canada at that time." and just wlked away.
Then the UN would be begging them to stay and think twice about supporting the cause.
With the UN support as a untited front they can do just about anything, but without it....just get ready for the backlash and be ready to pay the consequences for Bushes actions.
Consequences being more distrust for the US and a greater risk of terrorism against it.

[tracks914]

I would also like to add, Canadian troops are in Iraq fighting with the US troops right now.(its part of an exchange program) I support all the soldiers for their courage and bravery to put their lives on the line for their countries and the policies of the countries leaders. I salute them all and hope no more of them get killed. They are in there now and must finish what they started, it's just too bad they had to start!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)