|
thomasribiere
Feb 17, 2003, 10:31 PM
Post #101 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
"My father is in the military, so I have the very real possibility of feeling the very real consequences of a war."
Here's a story about my mother's family. My mother's family is Italian. My mother's uncle was a pilot for the Italian army. His plane was shot in Spain, during the Civil War. The body never reappeared. Her grand-father was a journalist, covering the Italian invasion in Greece. He was shot there. Her father, an attorney, and fascist like all the members of the family, was executed by Communists just after the end of the war during this period of Civil War in Italy. My mom grew in Torino under allied bombings over Italy.
She lately escaped with her mom to France, in 1946 or 1947.
So feel the very consequences of a war, but let the others feel them too... and tell you THAT WAR STINKS.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 17, 2003, 10:34 PM
Post #102 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
diarmid,
what part should I make clearer?
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Feb 17, 2003, 10:41 PM
Post #103 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
I don't think that there is anyone on this site that does not agree that war stinks. I don't think that there is anyone who doesn't feel bad at theloss of a loved one whether or not it is through war, drunk drivers, or old age.
However, tt happens. So should we be scared and hide from it? Should we try everything possible to avoid it? We can either accept death as a natural part of life and go on or we can hide in our houses scared to cross the street. I'm not saying 'we all die, who cares, lets go kill' I'm simply saying that the possiblity of people losing life isn't a feasable argument for doing or not doing something.
Imagine if Saint-Exupery and the other great French aviators hadn't flown in their rickety planes to deliver mail and explore the mountain routes because they might die. Where would we be today?
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Feb 17, 2003, 10:46 PM
Post #104 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
Im wondering which mistakes our ancestors were the victims of that made them come to America, that we are making with Iraq currently. Or what common properties our current stance on Iraq has in comparison with what our ancestors were going through tha forced them to leave their native countries.
edited to add: I'm asking because by answering those questions it helps strengthen your position. My position is curiosity, not hostility.
[ This Message was edited by: diarmid on 2003-02-17 14:48 ]
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 17, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #105 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
"For instance, I don't scamper. I trudge."
You are a character. You make me think, you make me angry, I disagree wholeheartedly with some of things you say, and at the same time, one cannot help but like you.
If I were your student, we'd both need copius amounts of hypertension meds...
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 17, 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #106 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
Quote:If I were your student, we'd both need copius amounts of hypertension meds...
Ha, ha. Look, something else we can agree on!
|
|
|
|
|
shortfatoldguy
Feb 18, 2003, 12:11 AM
Post #107 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 1694
|
So, danooguy and curt, you two appear to be among the most impassioned and informed supporters of war on Iraq. Let me ask you a question, in good faith, because I'm curious to know your thinking. (Pardon me, please, if this has been addressed already--it's been a long thread--if so, just refer me to the page, if you would.)
I haven't made any claims about what our administration is actually thinking or what concerns motivate them. I can't know these things. And, finally, what their intentions or motivations are won't matter nearly as much as will the effects of their actions. Which, in advance, no one can know.
My big fear has to do with the range of geopolitical effects of a war conducted unilaterally (okay, bilaterally, with Britain, but so what). Whether or not Schwartzkoff was merely saying what he was told to say, what if his statements reflect a real danger--that of alienating an enormous number of Muslims, such that a fragile regime like Pakistan (which, of course, has nukes) falls into extremist hands.
We may, for the sake of argument, have the purest of motives. But how many hundreds of millions of Muslims across the world might nonetheless see nothing, in a US (as opposed to UN) war, but "US imperialism"?
Personally, I do think Iraq's leader is dangerous. But what if there are even worse dangers out there? What if, in ridding the world of a dangerous man and his dangerous regime, we inadvertently create another, perhaps others, even worse? (There's a difference between this situation and the 1930s, right?) Specifically, for instance, what if "destabilization" turns out to mean that Pakistan falls to fundamentalists, who then have possession of a bunch of nukes? What then?
(I always figure that as bad as things can get, they can always get a lot worse. Call me conservative.)
|
|
|
|
|
roark
Feb 18, 2003, 3:28 AM
Post #108 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2003
Posts: 96
|
diarmid-
In reply to: We did not become involved in that war when our interests were thretened. We were able to become involved when we were bombed.
:lol: :?: :lol: (Edit: these things are cheesy)
Being bombed fits into my understanding of having my interests threatened. Maybe I should have put "... threatened to the point that we thought the kind of peace we were after required a little backing."
thomasribiere-
War stinks. Death stinks. Nothing I have said previously would, I hope, lead you to believe I think otherwise. Soldiers and the families of soldiers are the most peace loving of the crew. Only, we think slavery to our fears or the will of others is worse, a kind of living death. We are willing to make sacrifices to retain our freedom. We only ask for the ability to make freedom happen, and we will give our lives to obtain it. (I say 'we' because I have always prepared to defend my country and my freedom, with my life or death if necessary)Every American citizen should understand this idea. The French... well they have their own version of peace.
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Feb 18, 2003, 3:44 AM
Post #109 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
Short - you refuse to tell us what you think our government is thinking (their intentions). I can understand that. But then it seems you are then telling us what everyone else on the globe is thinking / going to think or asking US to tell you that. Or am I misunderstanding?
Roark - That's what I figured, but I needed YOU to state it. I agree that peace and safety are our interests - others may not see it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 18, 2003, 4:33 AM
Post #110 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Then we will by God, have to nuke it out with whomever.
Look at the premise of your question, it is similar to another comment you made earlier...
The premise upon which your question is founded is that we must live in fear of loonies and bricks. That fear is not unfounded. Nonetheless, it is the lifeblood of terrorism.
I studied martial arts for years. Rule number one...you must be willing to fight or you will most certainly die. National defense is founded in rule number one...it is martial.
How can we not react to those that harbor, support, or sponsor acts of terrorism against America?
What other options do we have? Oh we can grant more time, write more resolutions which will also be ignored...but the handwriting is all over the wall.
They are watching. They know that have us cornered with few options. What we do next is critical.
In martial arts we are taught to snatch the leader (not one of his toadies) and kick his ass. But that is only after all options and negotiations have been exhausted. 9/11 ruled out many options. We have negotiated for months and months. All the while, the brick pile grows higher.
Vacillation leads to death.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 18, 2003, 6:53 AM
Post #111 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
shortfatoldguy,
I think this, from a previous post of mine here, sums up my feeling toward any war with Iraq.
In reply to: I think no one believes Saddam is a nice guy, and should not be dealt with. The administration's biggest mistake (in my opinion) has been to claim that we must take out Saddam right now, as part of the war on terrorism. That logic (or lack thereof) has (again in my opinion) led to a lack of credibility on the part of the administration.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mrhardgrit
Feb 18, 2003, 3:10 PM
Post #112 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2001
Posts: 153
|
Hey Dano - what martial art was that you studied?
"Rule number one...you must be willing to fight or you will most certainly die"
Tae Bush Do? I've studied a number of martial arts during my short life and have never heard such sentiments.
"Vacillation leads to death"
I expect that you will find that most vacillation leads to informed decisions. Haven't we to consider both sides equally before coming to a conclusion?
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Feb 18, 2003, 3:21 PM
Post #113 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
Curt-
I'll post this again. AlQueda works guerilla tactics (fourth generation warfare) while our military (and that of Iraq) uses third generation warfare based on Clausewtizian tactical theory of amassing all of your troops and facing all of their troop and having a big decisive battle. We can't do that w/ Al Queda. We have to hunt him with small groups looking for small groups. There is no point in amassing a huge group like we have vs Iraq for it.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 18, 2003, 6:23 PM
Post #114 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Mrhardgrit...
Perhaps you weren't paying attention in class.
Or perhaps your styles didn't include killing blows, speed, or the psychology of confrontation. Mine did.
And stand informed, those are facts, not "sentiments."
Perhaps you are not familiar with the very definition of what you studied:
Main Entry: mar·tial
Pronunciation: 'mär-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin martialis of Mars, from Mart-, Mars
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war : WARLIKE
- mar·tial·ly /-sh&-lE/ adverb
Would you also like to argue the philosophy and semantics of "war?"
Perhaps you too think we should "negotiate" with terrorists?
Just keep pointing the finger at Bush, as though he created the current damned if you do/damned if you don't scenario...our enemies love it.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 18, 2003, 11:16 PM
Post #115 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
diarmid,
In reply to: I'll post this again. AlQueda works guerilla tactics (fourth generation warfare) while our military (and that of Iraq) uses third generation warfare based on Clausewtizian tactical theory of amassing all of your troops and facing all of their troop and having a big decisive battle. We can't do that w/ Al Queda. We have to hunt him with small groups looking for small groups. There is no point in amassing a huge group like we have vs Iraq for it.
I did understand this the first time you posted it. However, most military experts believe that we were very close to capturing or killing bin-Laden at Tora Bora and the only reason he got away was our lack of sizable forces on the ground closing off the numerous escape routes. I fully realize that this is not conventional war, but I also have a hard time believing that fewer resources will find bin-Laden sooner than greater resources would.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
diarmid
Feb 19, 2003, 1:17 AM
Post #116 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 1073
|
Ah ... I think I see what you're saying. In that instance I suppose more ground troops may have made a difference, though with all of the mountian passes and the terrain I think it might not have made much of a difference at all. As is - right now I can't see how having more people over there right now is going to bring us any closer to achieving his incarceration. It would fail, I think, due to the law of diminishing returns. After awhile we would lose too much time and manpower just for support purposes (we'd need more space / food / etc) to be effective at the percentage we're running at right now. It would be like swatting at a wasp with a 2x4...
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 20, 2003, 1:47 AM
Post #117 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
......and in the end, no one was swayed.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Feb 20, 2003, 9:39 AM
Post #118 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Danoguy you said--" By golly, we did hurt some civilians in the Gulf War, so I guess we had it coming, eh?|"
Hurt some civilians in the gulf war?You airbrush away the DEATHS of 250,00 civilians(The medical education foundation in London published this number in a comprehensive study of casualties) with that statement as if they were unworthy victims.
But yet in one of your post's,you repeatadly say that 3,000 die in the WTC attack.5 times in one post.
Then u said
"presuming one is to be so gullible as to swallow that 40% figure of yours). This is good stuff"
That was a USA today poll.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Feb 20, 2003, 9:57 AM
Post #119 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
Danno said--"In reply to: Thomas: You have a lot of balls making a remark like that, but such a comment represents the only kind of balls a Frenchman can afford Hey um Danno,2 million Frenchmen died in ww1 Then u said--"The French are the global society’s pious, arrogant players in these events…doing nothing to help, they throw peanuts from the sidelines… They are world’s self-righteous, indignant derelicts; they contribute only rhetoric like that of your last post. You should be ashamed of yourself and your country." throw penuts from the sideline?? I give high praise to France for speaking for a very large amount of the WORLD'S opinion.As shown by the largest anti-war demonstration ever.Countries like Britan,Spain,Poland,and Hungary where the ppl. are against the war in large numbers,are not being heard because their leaders are pro-war. So I would love to see France veto a SC. resolution for war.(the US. has vetoed more SC. resolutions than any other permanent member of the SC.--many times over.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Feb 20, 2003, 10:21 AM
Post #120 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
This talk of boycoting French and German products is crazy.Just because they will not go to war with us we will take money out of their pockets?
That kind of response is one of many reasons world opinion is against the US.
Should we boycot American privately owned buisness that are anti-war?
Donny Rumsfeld ORDERD pentagon officials to discuss the withdrawl of US. troops from Germany,and also close the bases.Also they are talking about moving the bases eastward in a neverending expansion of American Imperialism.I for one would be glad to see a reduction of US military bases worldwide,I was stationed in Germany in 1981-82 in the army.
The US has had,and still has way more military bases around the world than any other country in the world,including China,and the old Russia.
I think that the US. is the biggest threat to world peace.
|
|
|
|
|
justsendingits
Feb 20, 2003, 10:27 AM
Post #121 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 1070
|
1 billion$$ a day to kill ppl.--What a bargin.
|
|
|
|
|
merlin
Feb 21, 2003, 2:07 AM
Post #122 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 315
|
i saw a great picture of like an 80yr old woman with a gap toothed smile in MX (a free paper over here in oz) saying something like 'George bush is a little man, and John Howard is his little Lapdog", i laughed the whole way home, looking at this lady saying that. it was fantastic... resorting to force hasnt worked with Iraq or Bin Laden in the past, whats to say it will work now??? *cough cough* Oil *Cough cough*
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 21, 2003, 2:34 AM
Post #123 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Hurt some civilians in the gulf war?You airbrush away the DEATHS of 250,00 civilians
I would love to see documentation of that figure...but first, clarify if you mean 250,000 or 25,000. If it is 250,000, it is higher than the highest estimate I've seen anywhere for the Iraqi combatants, let alone civilians. Either way you ignore the difference between combat and terrorism as you attempt to airbrush the two as equal. If you meant 250,000, your source has about as much credibility as a USA Today poll (which is supposed to indicate that the average American is a slobbering club that does not understand the basic facts behind the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history). Perhaps you buy that 40% stuff from a poll. I do not.
Regardless of what figure you meant, Hussein had plenty of time( nearly 6 months if I recall correctly) in the Gulf War to pull back from the attack of another country and avert ALL casualties. He scoffed at the chance for resolution just as he is doing now. And as I recall that was a unilateral effort.... Or did your source trace the caliber of the rounds to ONLY American weapons too?
QUOTE: "This talk of boycoting French and German products is crazy.Just because they will not go to war with us we will take money out of their pockets?"
Agreed.
Quote: "The US has had,and still has way more military bases around the world than any other country in the world,including China,and the old Russia."
Your damn tootin' Skippy. And anyone that finds that as grounds for an apologetic stance is foolish. Peace comes through strength, pal. Maniacs like the unarmed and invalid. We are neither. Count your lucky stars that you are American.
QUOTE: "Hey um Danno,2 million Frenchmen died in ww1."
Perhaps that is when they began to suffer from atrophy of the scrotimus bagimus?
Our mission is a necessity. That necessity is lost on the French and others that would grant quarter and endless time for our enemies to mount against us.
Quote: "I give high praise to France for speaking for a very large amount of the WORLD'S opinion.As shown by the largest anti-war demonstration ever.Countries like Britan,Spain,Poland,and Hungary where the ppl. are against the war in large numbers,are not being heard because their leaders are pro-war."
And for what do you praise America? As to these countries that you claim are "against the war in large numbers"....cite your source. If they "are not being heard," how are you privvy to such information?
"But yet in one of your post's,you repeatadly say that 3,000 die in the WTC attack.5 times in one post."
And I may do it again. It seems a few folks have extremely short memories as to why we are in Afghanistan and why we are headed for Iraq.
Boxcutters and cable-ties, my friend...if they can do that with boxcutters and cable-ties, what will they do with biological and chemical weapons. Does that not bother you even jsut a little?
QUOTE: "That kind of response is one of many reasons world opinion is against the US."
Really? If you believe that then I am sure the Rainbow Coaltion makes you sick to your stomach. Have you really thought that through?
Quote: "Also they are talking about moving the bases eastward in a neverending expansion of American Imperialism."
American Imperialim? Man you've got all the catch-phrases down pat. Give me a break. If we wanted Imperialism, we could simply close our fingers around it. We are THE superpower at present. We have done no such thing. What have we done with Japan and Germany? Did we occupy those countries and enslave the people? How much debt from WWII was forgiven? I could go on and on showing examples of America's generosity...it would be wasted on you.
Imperialism? Talk about the airbrush.....
Hussein should be left alone, because he has done nothing to anyone, least of all us and we are the "American Imperialists." Exquisite thought process.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 21, 2003, 2:44 AM
Post #124 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
I disagree with boycotting France. Others do not:
**France's long "hate America" campaign
>
> Whether it's supporting terrorist-abetting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or
> nosily denouncing U.S. capital punishment, France seldom passes up an
> opportunity to oppose America in the United Nations and elsewhere.
>
> The sad reality is that current French leaders envy and hate America for its
> power and wealth. While America has been prospering, France (along with much
> of western Europe) remains deeply mired in economic stagnation created by a
> failed socialist economy and myopic leaders.
>
> France's new "hate America" campaign is particularly despicable - the history
> of American aid to France.
>
> When Germany threatened France during World War I, American doughboys came to
> the rescue.
>
> Thirty years later, when France was conquered by Nazi Germany and her people
> enslaved, tens of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat their
> German conquerors and free France.
>
> After World War II, France was one of the largest beneficiaries of the U.S.
> Marshall Plan, which saved them from destitution and rebuilt their economy.
>
> Then when the Soviet Union threatened Europe during the Cold War, for over 40
> years American nuclear shield again protected France from Soviet conquest.
>
> Again and again America has saved France from political annihilation and
> slavery. But instead of appreciation, again and again we have received
> sneering derision.
>
> When America went toe-to-toe with Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the
> French said they would not stand with us.
>
> When President Reagan bombed Khadafi's Libya after it sponsored terrorism that
> killed American soldiers, the French refused U.S. bombers to cross its
> airspace.
>
> Today, as Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board,
> observes, "France is no longer the ally it once was. I have long thought that
> there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the
> world."
>
> **'Beneath Contempt'
>
> And it gets even worse. Even Left Coast Democrat Rep. Tom Lantos of
> California, said he was "particularly disgusted by the blind intransigence and
> utter ingratitude" of the "Axis of Weasel" after it gave Saddam the green
> light to attack Turkey.
>
> "If it were not for the heroic efforts of America's military, France, Germany
> and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics," Lantos noted. "The
> failure of these three states to honor their commitments is beneath contempt."
>
> So fanatical is French President Jacques Chirac's jealousy and hatred of
> America that even his fellow Europeans are now expressing outrage at his
> implication that France would block now independent former Soviet satellites
> from joining the European Union because they were too "pro-American."
>
> "They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet," Chirac huffed, and went on to
> claim that those who supported America were "childish and irresponsible."
>
> But what can you expect from politicians from a country that virtually
> surrendered to the Wehrmacht without a fight, and then eagerly collaborated
> with Nazi Germany?
>
> It's no wonder that more and more Americans and others throughout the world
> are sick of France's arrogance and cowardice, and there is a growing global
> movement to boycott French goods.
>
> The time has come to hit ungrateful, cowardly France where it counts: in the
> wallet.
>
> As the war on terrorism heats up, now is the time for all patriotic Americans
> to show their support for our President and our country.
>
> That is why NewsMax is launching our national "Boycott Cowardly France
> Campaign."
>
> If Paris wants to keep profiting from Saddam Hussein, Americans should just
> say NO to French goods.
>
> Boycott all things French: their gooey cheeses, their overpriced wines, their
> rip-off Perrier and Evian water, their crummy automobiles...
>
> This will not only inform millions of Americans, but send a wakeup call to
> France and make them reluctant to obstruct America, Britain and other allies.
>
> We believe France, by not making a united front against terrorism, has put
> America at risk for terrorism. They have also weakened Western resolve as
> American troops are on the line in the sands of the Mid-East.
>
NewsMax.com was the source for this information btw.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Feb 21, 2003, 3:14 AM
Post #125 of 170
(4259 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
I too find opinions like this amazing.
In reply to: Hussein should be left alone, because he has done nothing to anyone, least of all us and we are the "American Imperialists."
If you really think that GWB is the bad guy and Saddam Hussein is being unfairly attacked, I suggest the following......Go live in Iraq for a little while and feel free to express your feelings about the policies of the state--as you do here in America.
Be sure to write us once in a while and let us know how that works out for you.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
|
