IPlural IPlural

US is going to war tomarrow... dang...

US is going to war tomarrow... dang...

opps

Powered by SkinBrowser!
250,839 views 1,697 replies
Reply #876 Top
ePOW. That's really great, David.

Yeah, Wombat, I read in some Brit newspaper that EPOW was an "Americanism." Although not widely used that I've seen. It apprently predates 1999, though. Maybe it was an invention of the Gulf War.

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #877 Top
I've been needlessly snide. On reflection perhaps it is a matter of what one considers the definition of 'humane' to be that is the source of conflict here. I was raised to believe in a particular set of ethics. Self doubt, reflection, and restraint are qualities to be valued *before* one undertakes something.

Shakespeare said the same thing in Hamlet:

"Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee."

I don't think that there is any room in warfare for self-doubt or restraint; the time for those things were prior to entering into the conflict. Getting in the middle and saying 'whoa, let's think about this' costs lives on both sides. Nothing that is killed hesitantly is killed humanely, imho.

I liken the conflicts we have seen in the past 40 years with shooting someone 30 or 40 times, hoping each time they will decide to wave the white flag. The result is the same in the end, you simply cause more pain and hardship in the meantime.

That is why I feel so strongly about the opinions I see here concerning Hiroshima. It overlooks the millions, military and civilians alike, that would have been killed in a needless invasion. Why do I say needless? Because there was another more humane, if equally distasteful, option.

Shakespeare also said " Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice".

I have to say I am the worst on this board for bloviating and deriding those I think provoke my nation's impending weakness. If the powers that be here in the US allow world opinion to weaken their resolve, so be it, it is their shame to make. I'll try to be more tolerant of opposing positions. I hope though, that others might try and understand that what they claim to be a hard-on for war, or a bloodthirsty streak, is simply my need to have the whole rotten mess over with as abruptly as possible. I simply refuse to see turning my back on the mess as an option.
Reply #878 Top
bakerstreet, mmm, haven't noticed myself...



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #879 Top
Somebody cares to discuss the after-Saddam now?
I was watching an interesting debate last night; four exiled Iraki (one kurd, one shia, one suni and another one I don't know what he was) were arguing endlessly. I was almost comical. Anyway, one thing all four were agreeing on is that Saddam is a tyran and needs to go. The interesting thing as well is that they were not thankfull to the UK/US, they were saying "They are the ones who put in there in the first place, now it's their responsibility to remove the evil they placed there". One other constant for all of them was thier worry about the after-Saddam. They did not want an American occupation, and they did not want a constitution written by an unelected government. They all said that a true democracy is necessary, and that the future constitution of Irak must be written by a governemnt legally appointed by the Iraki population.

Anyway. I was an interesting debate and it makes you realise that the real challenge will be after. The war part could almost be the easy bit.
Reply #880 Top
after Saddam comes after US corporations and after DC...

how many billions in US corporate contracts are already in the works?



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #881 Top
By the same token, we bombed and left last time, and that wasn't right either.

It's only right to help rebuild, offer aid, and hopefully our presence will maintain stability for awhile at least. Of course
there are no guarantees in anything, because as paxx said, it could well be the real challenge.
Reply #882 Top
The initial plan, I believe, is to put Gen. Tommy Franks in charge of an 'interim' government. The estimate is he would stay there for 1 to 2 years. This obviously involves a fairly large military presence as well. The oil contracts have already been assigned to several companies (mostly American and British). The contracts for rebuilding Iraq have also been assigned already, going to private American companies. The cost has been estimated anywhere from 70 Billion to 200 Billion plus one analyst who says it will be over a Trillion dollars.
Reply #883 Top
Xerrarie very true, just like Afghanistan when Russia was pushed out, cutting and running isn't right, but the UN should deal with the rebuilding, otherwise it looks like the USA did it all for profit in the end...

sad, but that is they way it will be viewed...

so does it set a presidence (spelling?) with this or what? I mean we invade each one on the axis of evil list and then rebuild our economy with the spoils of war how ever you want to describe it?

doesn't seem right and it sure as heck isn't going to be acceptable to the world at large and we can only say go pee up a rope for so long and for so many times ebfore they will say,, mmm no, not this time...



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #884 Top
'precedence'.... Spell checker
Reply #885 Top
Hey Jafo if I had a quarter for every spelling mistake you catch in these threads I would not be lokking for a job right now.
Reply #886 Top
kona...if I had a quarter for all the ones I haven't bothered to catch I'd be richer than Gates himself...
Reply #887 Top


aardvark

without a net! or ieSpell either
wonders never cease


Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #888 Top
ack, 888, have to go back and see who got 666

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #889 Top
@wombat ah, the war over words! Those with the most experience flying through anti-aircraft artillery claimed the right to mongrelize it.
i personally like triple A better than ack-ack.

"then I guess the rest of us lesser mortals in second rate military units will have to conform" where does this overwhelming obsession with conforming come from?
Reply #890 Top
paxx - you're very right about the after-Sadam. it's much too easy to win the war and lose everything gained during "the peace".
Reply #891 Top
OK.

How is it US/UK fault for Saddam being there in the first place?

I don't like many of the US policies that sometime calls 'stabilization' at the cost of the people who live there, but Saddam? I guess they are talking about the Iraq/Iran war and how he was helped by the US.


Anyway, I am surprised no one has talked about the uprising in one city against Saddam army. Now the army is suppossedly shooting at the civilians. I wonder if Al Jezzera is going to show that if it is true?



As far as corperations are concerned, if there is going to be a rebiulding of Iraq they have to work with outside companies. So of course there are contracts already laid out as who will work with what. The problem I have with that is that it is mostly US companies. I also wonder when excatly do they pull out and open it to the free market and Iraqi citizens.



Vote 2004!!! ... cancelled????

As I wrote before, US citizens are not that easiely pushed over. I am not sure if there was any election pushed back because of War. I think what the real problem is that there is no Demacratic voice in any of this and no real leader as of yet.

I am pretty sure there will be a election in 2004.... Hilary Clinton!!!

Reply #892 Top
Joe, I took care of your double post
Reply #893 Top
Joetheblow: http://www.midwestacademy.com/Comment/change.htm

But here is an exerpt:

The Iraqi leader seen as a grave threat in 1963 was Abdel Karim Kassem, a general who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Washington's role in the coup went unreported at the time and has been little noted since. America's anti-Kassem intrigue has been widely substantiated, however, in disclosures by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and in the work of journalists and historians like David Wise, an authority on the C.I.A.

From 1958 to 1960, despite Kassem's harsh repression, the Eisenhower administration abided him as a counter to Washington's Arab nemesis of the era, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt — much as Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would aid Saddam Hussein in the 1980's against the common foe of Iran. By 1961, the Kassem regime had grown more assertive. Seeking new arms rivaling Israel's arsenal, threatening Western oil interests, resuming his country's old quarrel with Kuwait, talking openly of challenging the dominance of America in the Middle East — all steps Saddam Hussein was to repeat in some form — Kassem was regarded by Washington as a dangerous leader who must be removed.

In 1963 Britain and Israel backed American intervention in Iraq, while other United States allies — chiefly France and Germany — resisted. But without significant opposition within the government, Kennedy, like President Bush today, pressed on. In Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Baghdad, American agents marshaled opponents of the Iraqi regime. Washington set up a base of operations in Kuwait, intercepting Iraqi communications and radioing orders to rebels. The United States armed Kurdish insurgents. The C.I.A.'s "Health Alteration Committee," as it was tactfully called, sent Kassem a monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim.

Then, on Feb. 8, 1963, the conspirators staged a coup in Baghdad. For a time the government held out, but eventually Kassem gave up, and after a swift trial was shot; his body was later shown on Baghdad television. Washington immediately befriended the successor regime. "Almost certainly a gain for our side," Robert Komer, a National Security Council aide, wrote to Kennedy the day of the takeover.

Reply #894 Top
Thanks Karma!

Server problems?
This site is to popular. If you guys start making stuff that does not work, then we can have more bandwidth.
Reply #895 Top
hmmmmm....

I guess this would be called a 'lesser of two evils'

Put one you can control or at least work with. I really never liked American forien policy. Support this guy and eliminat that guy.

Funny, US supports Saudi Arabia, and it would seem that the 9/11 hi jackers came from thier mostly... so did Bin Laden right?? Isn't it also true that the people don't like the ruling party of Saudi Arabia?
Reply #896 Top
I guess in some cases it makes sense, but what cases where those?
Reply #897 Top
Joetheblow: Saudi Arabia isn't a party, it's a monarchy, and yes, Ousama is a relative to the royal family. But firmly opposed to it because of its cooperation with the US. His head is wanted back home.
Reply #898 Top
and what is this? History 101? *sigh* all I know about this is that it is aweful to see those Families that happen to be switching the channels on the TV (one was looking for cartoons) and suddenly see their own family member as a POW right there smack in their face while trying to ignore this rediculous war by browsing the TV.

I remember Brad saying somewhere here on the msg board it should be swift maybe 2 weeks? I thought to myself 2 weeks? =/
I'm not into this stuff at all and try to avoid it (though it's all in the air and everywhere you look or breath) but this don't look like a two week deal to me?
Reply #899 Top
Doreen I hardly think anyone with a family member in this war would be trying to ignore it, 'rediculous' or not.
Reply #900 Top
nah some ppl do actually do other things to keep their sanity besides play this little shoot em up cowboy n indians thing.

I know I have a family member involved in this and he does not want us sitting behind the TV or worrying about it (and as you can tell Baker I will tell you straight off this crap is crap) they should have stuck in a special force along time ago and played some friendly game inside and took out that guy not involved innocent ppl to pluck out one sick person... (that's my opinion) all these so called special trained forces and sophisticated weapons and to kill one rotten egg they gotta kill how many?