|
Post by Triyun on Sept 28, 2004 22:21:24 GMT -5
Zorak no offense, but you seem to believe the Republican spin machine as infalliable.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Sept 29, 2004 5:19:07 GMT -5
Actually, you can get yourself medals. Its a matter of filling out the right forms. But someone's got to approve them. So, what, you think Kerry got those medals just so that he could use them to help support a presidential campaign 30 years later?
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 29, 2004 8:21:40 GMT -5
Zorak no offense, but you seem to believe the Republican spin machine as infalliable. Just as you think of the Democrat version is, eh? Although, it seems as though Republicans are more honorable seeing how when they do something they view as wrong, they resign, Democrats, well, they either don't, or they just resign and use it to their advantage. Oh, and Gojira? I think the Klingons would approve more of going over the heads of a weak, and idiotic organization such as the UN. Do we really need a president who can't make up his mind, though?
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 29, 2004 10:56:48 GMT -5
Actually I don't believe all the democratic ones, when shown ample evidence that the charges against Bush's records were false just like Kerry's I admitted it. My best friend happens to be a pretty hard conservative and we both take eachothers opinions on things and often are persuaded by the others ideas on the subject.
As for resigning, I'd say sending troops to Iraq claiming there were WMD's when there weren't. Claiming we couldn't wait for inspectors in a few months to finish up and we haven't found any in a year with tens of thousands of troops is grounds for resignation. With a 1000 americans and many more Iraqi's dead because of this error not to mention America not being able to win a whos the bigger threat to world peace Saddam or Us contest even in traditionally pro-american countries like Britain, you think this isn't grounds for mass resignation like say Cheney, Rice, Rumsfield what is?
I'd say thats a lot bigger a problem then having oral sex.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 29, 2004 12:29:13 GMT -5
I am often reminded of the Shinsengumi code of justice, which translates into "Destroy evil immediately", and that is what we have done, destroyed the evil of Saddam Hussein, and his sons, they may not have had Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they were evil, horded food from their people, and slaughtered many people for their own greed. So, Triyun, tell me, would you have let Hitler run Germany if he was still around? Would you let evil get it's way? Who cares about peace? Evil should be destroyed, no matter the cost.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 29, 2004 12:55:32 GMT -5
Perpetual war is evil. Those who pursue evil with the use of force constantly will inevitably create evil. No Saddam is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. Hitler actually if Britain and France had actually stood up and used containment probably would have been overthrown by his generals. The fact is you go to war when its in the self interest of the nation not in a crusade against evil. We'd be in perpetual war. Ultimately constant war will make us percieved as evil and lead to our downfall. Your idealistic beliefs though moral simply aren't realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 29, 2004 13:24:00 GMT -5
Would you rather have a false peace? Would you rather have more people die if the Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be true? No, what is evil is to stand around, and wait for someone to attack you with WMDs, and given Saddam's track record, it could very well have been true since he violated many UN Resolutions
We had to take Iraq out of there by force.
What's this? A resolution on Iraq's breach of a resolution? Shocking!
Iraq was probably moving their forces for another invasion of Kuwait.
They refused access to certain sites? What? Think they might be trying to build the world's biggest frying pan?
And again....
Well, I don't need to say much more, but then, if the UN were much more strict, then the Iraq War would never have happened, hell, even Clinton authorized them to be bombed.
So in the words of Emeril,
[glow=red,2,300]"BAM!"[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 29, 2004 13:47:16 GMT -5
Ahem, now to actually give things in their proper historical context.
According to both Clark and Clinton (at that time Clark was head of Cent Comm, if the bombing had just continued in 1998 Saddam would have toppled, the fact that they could not provide an alternative government and choas would have insued, as well as possibly expansion by Iran stopped them. Before that during the Gulf War were they had 500, 000 troops to do the job with Schwartzkoff completely outflanked the Iraqi's and his forces could have marched into Baghdad unopposed. Why did he and Bush I stop, because in Bush 1 thought it would be unwise to become an occupier in an Arab country and they weren't prepared to keep the country, this being when Arab forces were actively involved in military action.
As for aggression, even for our woefully small force the regular military of Saddam got annihalated in 3 weeks, and we've found no weapons of mass destruction. So he wasn't really a threat to the region except for funding Palestinian groups, but then again so did most of our "allies". In fact you'd be hardpressed to find an arab country that didn't have funds going into Hamas, even if not its not officially government sanction they haven't taken measures to stop them.
If you want to talk about evil threats to the region and to us, lets look at Iran. They have been developing nuclear weapons and are damn close to having one. There missiles can hit Israel and Turkey as well as US forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and all our naval ports in the region, they have funded hezbollah and been caught in illegal arms traffiking. Their conventional forces also aren't something to fuck with. So lets see, have the most powerful military of any hostile country we have in the region, have control over the most well trained terrorist group in the world, are getting nuclear weapons, have declared their intent to wipe Israel from the map possibly triggering a nuclear exchange, what else? Oh yeah their harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, trying to influence Afghanistan and Iraq, oh and we have Iranian Shiite clerics meeting with Bin Laden on tape! So I think from a realistic point of view you have a much bigger threat here. If you want I can give you North Korea's profile which is just about as bad.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 29, 2004 13:53:23 GMT -5
I believe I already know North Korea's standpoint, and stuff, basically they're just as bad as Saddam, oh, wait, they're a communist nation, which means only this in an equation:
Communism=BAD!
Now, you stated before that the terrorists want Bush to win, right? Why? Other than the so-called isolation, despite British support, and the Russians now deciding that we're doing the right thing, why don't they just roll over and play dead so that Bush can win? Why are they taking more and more hostages? Because they want Bush out, they know that they can get away with a hell of a lot more with the US Troops pulling out, so why not let Bush have his big victory, and play dead? Becuase they know they won't get away with it. Because Kerry has announce his intentions to the terrorists by saying that he will pull US troops out of Iraq, and after that, how many more people will die?
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Sept 29, 2004 14:09:51 GMT -5
Just sort of laughs at Mav.
Wow. So, if Saddam's evil, what's Kim Jong Il? Less evil? Even though he HAS nuclear weapons, and made a threat to the US, among other things...What makes Iraq so special? Oh, wait, nothing, that's right.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 29, 2004 15:17:15 GMT -5
Kerry did not say he would pull out immediatly, a controlled pull out just like Bush only done with a new team that hasn't proven to their own parties collegues in congress, what was the word? Oh yes, incompetant. Blair's government is in really dire straights, the people of Britain aren't behind him. Next year if it wasn't for extremely incompetant internal opposition he'd be out, this is assuming he can stay in control of the labour party. Australia's government is also in really dire straights. And as for the Russian government, at what cost are we getting their support, the cost of Putin becoming dictator. Yes North Korea is communist, that particular form of communism, stalinism is very very bad. No one disputes that, anyone who talks about communism here, is talking about the ideal not how it actually was practiced.
|
|
|
Post by NeoEllis on Sept 29, 2004 19:17:08 GMT -5
Perhaps, Mav, but year after year the Samurai have seen poor numbers at the polls.
Either way, I'm just glad we have a president that's honorable enough to use his connections to avoid an unjust war only to years later send the less enfranchised to fight an equally unjust war. Yes sir, that’s a one way ticket to Valhalla right there.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 29, 2004 19:20:55 GMT -5
Perhaps, Mav, but year after year the Samurai have seen poor numbers at the polls. Either way, I'm just glad we have a president that's honorable enough to use his connections to avoid an unjust war only to years later send the less enfranchised to fight an equally unjust war. Yes sir, that’s a one way ticket to Valhalla right there. An unjust war that he supported, just like Dick Cheney who had "other priorities at the time." I wouldn't fault him if he used his connections to get out of it IF he actually opposed the war, in fact I'd applaud him. A war you fight in that you don't believe in, is basically forcing you to commit murder. Unless you do it to save lives of your comrades.
|
|
|
Post by Tobari Sabbatine on Sept 30, 2004 10:15:01 GMT -5
I am often reminded of the Shinsengumi code of justice, which translates into "Destroy evil immediately", and that is what we have done, destroyed the evil of Saddam Hussein, and his sons, they may not have had Weapons of Mass Destruction, but they were evil, horded food from their people, and slaughtered many people for their own greed. So, Triyun, tell me, would you have let Hitler run Germany if he was still around? Would you let evil get it's way? Who cares about peace? Evil should be destroyed, no matter the cost. yeah I'm glad that WWII happend in the 1940's and not the 1960's or worst right now. I would belive that we would have a ton of people protesting. befor pear harbor they have mass anti-war groups and even US Nazi groups. So if somehing like op: Overlord (D-Day) was to happen in 2004 we would have mass protest become about 5000-10000 mean died that day. So I do see that the US solders that died in Iqar is a shame and sad, but I'm not going to protest becuase of it. All wars have KIA form both sides no matter what. I do hope it ends soon but not by falling back leaving Iqar to go into chaos. Who would you chose to live? A 1000 US solders or 7 million civilans?
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Sept 30, 2004 13:14:43 GMT -5
Perhaps, Mav, but year after year the Samurai have seen poor numbers at the polls. Either way, I'm just glad we have a president that's honorable enough to use his connections to avoid an unjust war only to years later send the less enfranchised to fight an equally unjust war. Yes sir, that’s a one way ticket to Valhalla right there. If I were Kerry, I wouldn't hold my breath for the Klingons either. How can you call it an unjust war? Because you don't support it? Are you that egotistical? A president like Kerry will only get more people killed when he tries peace talks with the terrorists like the politicians did with the guerillas in Vietnam. That's what gets more people killed, the damned politicians trying to make peace in the middle of a war with an enemy that knows it's a weakness so they can use it to regroup, and recover.
|
|