Miscellaneous > The Lounge
US/Iraq
choasforages:
did you ever serve in utapo/*i think thats how its spelled*/ thailand?
as for this new war, well, once we go after iraq, ever country over thier is probably giong to jion the attack america bandwagon
voidmain:
No I did not serve in Tailand. I didn't join the AF until 1981. And I am not ready to say that we are going to go to "war" with Iraq. I really hope it doesn't come to this. I almost think it could be a little "Sabre rattling" to try and scare Saddam into letting the inspectors back in unimpeded. Or to hope for a coup but I seriously doubt that will happen or it would have already happened. He must be a little nervous because he already said he would let the inspectors back in "with conditions" (unacceptable conditions of course, typical).
People seem to forget that the Gulf war ended under certain conditions with Iraq as the loser and having agreed to those conditions. They consistently break those conditions and agreements. These conditions and agreements are not peanuts. They *must* be followed for good reason. Now people get all bent out of shape because those conditions need to be enforced. Iraq with a nuke is a very scary thought in my book. They consistenly do not want to play by the rules.
And I certainly hope that the one lesson we have learned is not to go into anything like this without full support. Sure there is harsh talk right now but until something actually happens there is a big gap between bark and bite. There is no doubt that it *could* happen. I just don't think it will, unless there is proof that national security depends on it. And if proof exists that national security depends on it, then the "having support" thing doesn't really matter any more, it will have to be done regardless. It certainly would be better with support but it isn't necessary in the case of seriously threatened national security.
Of course I'm sure I am opening myself up to some more harsh debate here but that's the way I see things...
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Aaron Ni:
Uhm, choasforges, I think that a few of the Mods and regulars on the forum can vouch that I know my stuff when it comes to explosives and the ilk. So let's please end it at that. I'm known for steering threads offtopic like this...
voidmain:
On a related note, I happened to be flipping through the channels and decided to stop on MSNBC to see what the opposition has to say. I happened to catch the Donahue program. Talk about a man who doesn't have two single brain cells to rub together (Donahue). And he even uses a "D" in a diamond for the logo on the show. It certainly has more than one meaning. Donahue of course, and surely Democrat, but most fittingly "Dummy".
I had heard him on a radio talk show as well (not Limbaugh, a non biased news show actually and I don't remember which one it was at the moment) and he just about made me want to puke. And to think I used to watch his talk show when I was a kid and actually liked him. Maybe because at that time I had no clue. He was talking about this precise subject with a republican congressman. The debate went pretty much like our little debate here, scary.
The first thing he brought up was "sending in hundreds of thousands of troops" which I don't believe will be necessary and the congressmen pointed out it could be as simple as strategically taking out a nuclear development center with little or no casualties (as was done by Isreal previously with only one death).
The second thing he brought up is "America doesn't strike first, the big kid in the schoolyard doesn't go around punching people because he is afraid the smaller kids are going to punch him first". Of course if the deranged smaller kid had a nuke those rules might not apply.
Third thing "how are you going to stop them from getting them into the country with the thousands of cargo containers coming in daily? It's like trying to stop drugs from coming into the country". I about fell out of my chair on this one. The congressman replied, "that's precisely my point, and why we must not allow them to get to the stage of having nuclear weapons".
And it isn't just America who should be concerned about this. There are any number of countries this guy could plant one just for thrills. Of course he would have to be extremely insane to do something like this as it would certainly be his demise but I believe he has well proven himself to be insane.
Now I wish the transcripts were available as this surely isn't verbatim but the transcripts are not available yet. Hopefully they will be and I will post a link.
In the mean time, here is a link to an article I found interesting. It seems to slam both the left and the right equally heavy and I don't know the background of the site, whether it is left, right, middle, other:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2138
By the way, my own house seems to be broken down the middle on this left/right thing. My wife and daughter were pulling heavily for Gore in the last election. My son and I were pulling heavily for Bush. Makes life interesting being split among party lines even within the family (actually it's not a problem at all, we're also split along religious lines).
voidmain:
And here is another interesting reader feedback from another article on the same site I linked above. It resembles the view of another post I saw in this thread (near the end). But it is much longer and much more descriptive. Also interesting:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/GoPostal/commentdetail.asp?ID=2637&commentID=11125
Looks like I really need to stay out of the political debates. These people are way outta my league... Linux anyone?
[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version