I believe this website is connected to the Matt Maupin MIA situation. Though not directly related.
His Mom & Dad live in Clermont County, Ohio about 2 counties east of me…the other side of Cincinnati, Ohio.
No time now will check it out later.
We should not attack Iraq
-
That is exactly the point. US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid. All they know is un-godly amounts of taxpayer money is leaving the US quick. You agreed with me. Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations. Back to my original point, that’s where most citizens would see it end.
You can bet that besides the US Pentagon, Saddam has also planned long and hard for an invasion. He will make it very difficult for us NOT to hit civilians. Weapons and munitions hidden in schools, hospitals, and homes. I don’t see airstrikes on those. Do you think he has learned nothing from Desert Storm? Fighting will not be in the desert wastes. He’ll have his soldiers in the cities fighting house to house in and around civilians. The locals will hide and protect their soldiers. Saddam has had a long time to prepare.
Picture it. Your marine platoon coming up on Bagdad. Snipers from buildings. People everywhere. Due to this, no air or artillery support. Fighting house to house, street to street. Casualties rising. Your buddy is dead. Days go by mostly under fire. All of a sudden, you see a 13 year old kid stick a gun in your face…
A little dramatic I agree, but a very possible scenario. Do US citizen’s have the stomach for it?
Saddam will make us look as bad as he can. Without UN or Allied support it won’t take much. CC is right. The Iraqi people won’t care why we’re there. All they’ll see is US soldiers with weapons. They’ll put 2 and 2 together. Who are they going to trust, Saddam or the invaders - be realistic. This is the war Saddam will fight. His terf, his rules. We are at a serious disadvantage. The Pentagon had better come up with something good. This is why the Gulf War ended the way and when it did. We need some opposition group to gain support to take over after any invasion. Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…
-
however it’s actions were fairly arbitrary and "muddling
Fair enough, I’ll accept this.
however i can’t think of a better way than to demonstrate that perhaps America had a hand in creating this “monster” that is Iraq.
There is no doubt that America’s actions in the Middle East were not exactly “outward looking.” However, before we jump to any conclusions, there are other factors to consider like Arab Nationalism, the Cold War, and Israel.
but the attack would be much better co-ordinated, and likely run by people who know what they’re doing.
I discussed about this later. So far only broad plans have been leaked from the Pentagon. Don’t expect any significant details until at least Fall/Winter.
Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.This is too much of a generalization, you know that.
Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations.
Actually I do care. Bombs do not come cheap.
US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid.
Be happy then that US citizens don’t run our foreign policy and administration. Americans tend to lose interest too quickly and want to “change the channel,” though I am happy that those in the White House do not follow this pattern.
Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…
Two words: Clinton Administration
-
@F_alk:
Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t Saddam already broken UN Sanctions that were set at the end of Desert Storm? That should be reason enough for punishment.
I think many people are forgetting that by America “taking out” Saddam, we are making it safer for everybody, not just Americans. Saddam has bombed his own civilians, what’s to stop him from doing it to them and others?….America.
@Field:
A little dramatic I agree, but a very possible scenario. Do US citizen’s have the stomach for it?
I think it’s beyond the point whether US citizen’s have a stomache for it. Sure, Bush will have to gain the approval of the American people (to a certain extent) but beyond that, the people who really need the stomache for it are the soldiers that will be fighting there.
-
BTW, that was Deviant:Scripter ^^
-
Marshal, your wrong on 1 point. The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.
“Could of, Would of, Should of”, you cannot fight a war on that. Should we go to war with China because they might be a threat in 20 years? Should we of gone to a nuclear war with Russia in the 1950s and 60s? Should we bomb Canada because a potential alliance with Mexico could be a problem?
You can’t compare this to World War II. We are not at war. We were not attacked by a nation, we were attacked by a group of people. They do not represent their nation.
Saddam is not a stupid man. He is not mad like Hitler was. He will not provoke us in any way. He won’t send a canister of small pox to LA, because he knows he’ll be dead in 6 months if he does. But, if US tanks are on the border of Bagdad, he will use those weapons as a last resort.
Let me remind you, we’ve killed far far more American Indians than Iraq has killed Kurds. Hell, we’ve unleashed dogs on peaceful protesters, while spraying them with fire houses, and denying them rights, 30 years ago.
The Gulf War was provoked. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Korean war was provoked, North Korea invaded South Korea. The Vietnam war was provoked, the Vietcong attacked. I don’t see Iraqi tanks in Kuwait again.
Americans don’t think. All you care about are your stock prices. Think about other people. Think about the death, destruction, starvation, and the consequences of your actions. I do not consider you Americans if you don’t stop and think. We should not just believe what our Goverment tells us. Today its Iraq, tomorrow its Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Iran, then North Korea, then China. We will be forever locked in an endless war, with Geoge Bush leading it all.
-
The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.
LOL. That was a good one Yanny my man. To think that the Media wont cover civilian deaths is to think that the sky isnt blue. If an Iraq civilian gets a hangnail from U.S. bombing CNN will have 24 hour coverage for a week.
And to think that the U.S. Military holds no regard for civilian life is appauling. Did i spell appauling right?
-
The Vaunted US military will not tell the Media when it killed civilians, it won’t hold a press conference like when they take out a key bridge, or a high ranking Iraqi. Like Vietnam.
-
Marshal, your wrong on 1 point. The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.
“Could of, Would of, Should of”, you cannot fight a war on that. Should we go to war with China because they might be a threat in 20 years? Should we of gone to a nuclear war with Russia in the 1950s and 60s? Should we bomb Canada because a potential alliance with Mexico could be a problem?
You can’t compare this to World War II. We are not at war. We were not attacked by a nation, we were attacked by a group of people. They do not represent their nation.
Saddam is not a stupid man. He is not mad like Hitler was. He will not provoke us in any way. He won’t send a canister of small pox to LA, because he knows he’ll be dead in 6 months if he does. But, if US tanks are on the border of Bagdad, he will use those weapons as a last resort.
Let me remind you, we’ve killed far far more American Indians than Iraq has killed Kurds. Hell, we’ve unleashed dogs on peaceful protesters, while spraying them with fire houses, and denying them rights, 30 years ago.
The Gulf War was provoked. Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Korean war was provoked, North Korea invaded South Korea. The Vietnam war was provoked, the Vietcong attacked. I don’t see Iraqi tanks in Kuwait again.
Americans don’t think. All you care about are your stock prices. Think about other people. Think about the death, destruction, starvation, and the consequences of your actions. I do not consider you Americans if you don’t stop and think. We should not just believe what our Goverment tells us. Today its Iraq, tomorrow its Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Iran, then North Korea, then China. We will be forever locked in an endless war, with Geoge Bush leading it all.
Yanny, Saddam was the one who sent Anthrax to the United States and Canada, what is stopping him from sending somethign deadlier? Also, he threatened the Untied States. You cna compare him to Emperor Hirohito of Japan, they are somewhat similar, the only difference being that Hirohito was sane and actually cared about the well being of his people. Saddam will stop at nothing to achieve his dream of the Iraqi flag waving across the entire Middle East. He has to be stopped before he becomes stronger.
-
The Vaunted US military will not tell the Media when it killed civilians, it won’t hold a press conference like when they take out a key bridge, or a high ranking Iraqi. Like Vietnam.
How can we be so sure about this? Without confirmation by the US military – the recording of civilian causalities would be rendered null. Also the US military does not hold “press conferences” for taking out a military bunker or supply – why hold one for taking out a bridge? However, for a high-ranking Iraqi, I’m sure this would at least be mentioned by the US Government. I’m not exactly sure where Vietnam coincides with your statement, as was the most widely covered of all wars with
The US will not be afraid to bomb civilian shields. It just won’t make the news.
The media is libertarian, they’ll report anything like that given the chance.
”Could of, Would of, Should of", you cannot fight a war on that.
The problem is that the “could of” has already happened. Of course when things that “should of” happened do occur, it would’ve already been too late.
You can’t compare this to World War II. We are not at war. We were not attacked by a nation, we were attacked by a group of people. They do not represent their nation.
No, this is much deadlier. It would be fine if these terrorist were simple outcast with a grudge against the world. Instead there are countries that largely finance their operation and provide them with shelter.
He won’t send a canister of small pox to LA, because he knows he’ll be dead in 6 months if he does.
No, but he might be able to get one of his terrorist supporters to. And by the time we find out where it originated from, it will of already been too late. Small canisters of BCs are not that easy to trace.
Let me remind you, we’ve killed far far more American Indians than Iraq has killed Kurds. Hell, we’ve unleashed dogs on peaceful protesters, while spraying them with fire houses, and denying them rights, 30 years ago.
What is this trying to prove? We made mistakes, so it’s okay to allow other people to make mistakes too? We admitted what we did was wrong (or at least I do), the problem with Saddam is that he won’t admit it. In fact, he takes pleasure and relishes it.
Americans don’t think. All you care about are your stock prices. Think about other people. Think about the death, destruction, starvation, and the consequences of your actions.
So why do we even intervene around the rest of the world at all? Again, people (not just Americans) care more about their own well being than they do of others. I would be worried too to see my entire life-savings flushed down the toilet.
I do not consider you Americans if you don’t stop and think.
Behold! The American generation raised by Talk Show Host and Pop Culture without a care in the world! I fear it to be true.
-
Ok, this situation with Iraq reminds me of the same situation during World War II. I hear the main argument against attacking Saddam right now is “lack of proof.” Does anyone remember back in WWII, when we heard bits and pieces of a so-called “holocaust” and that the German army was exterminating Jews? We hesitated because America didn’t actually have “proof” that the Jews were being exterminated, and it’s the same situation now. How long do we have to wait until it’s too late?
If an Iraq civilian gets a hangnail from U.S. bombing CNN will have 24 hour coverage for a week.
(Laughing my ass off!) :lol: :lol:
@TG:
The problem is that the “could of” has already happened. Of course when things that “should of” happened do occur, it would’ve already been too late.
Perfectly said. :wink:
@Yanni:
He will not provoke us in any way.
You’re probably right in one aspect. He will not provoke us directly. But on the same token…he doesn’t have to. Why would he provoke us directly? He can fund terrorist organizations and hand off chemical and biological weapons to them, all while keeping his hands clean of American evidence!
-
Oh yanny, yanny, yanny. I find it quaint that you think there are secrets now adays. You cannot keep civilian deaths a secret. If 3 civilians are killed by bomb, Sadam will say we Bombed a school house killing 20.
If we have to clear out a city (it wont happen, but lets just say for arguments sake) and and the Republican Guard using the human shields they sport get 50 civilians killed. Well Sadam will say that we murdered 300 in cold blood. and CNN will carry that news for weeks, and when it turns out to be a lie, CNN wont wisper a word of it. Like Jennine, we all heard that like 325 people were murder by IDF. And it turned out to be like 50, most of whom just were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
-
would the American people really care if 2 people or 200 were killed? Would they believe the numbers? And if they did would the numbers mean anything to them?
Or would the typical “gung-ho” American attitude of “let’s kick some a**!” prevail?
i’m guessing that a dead child held up in front of the camera would have a lot more impact than that child’s parents, grandparents, village, etc. bombed and mentioned as a by-line. -
Sorry, hate to post twice in a row, but I saw this article and found it interesting.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992654
It talks about a weapon that we might use in Iraq. It fries electronics, think of it as the weapon from the Bond movie “Golden Eye”, just without the nuke.
-
Yanny, Saddam was the one who sent Anthrax to the United States and Canada, what is stopping him from sending somethign deadlier?
There is no proof of that. That is based on questionable information that a mid ranking Iraqi offical met with a known Al-Quada (sp) member in Florida. We live in a society where one is innocent until proven guilty.
The Media never found out the Civilian Casualty figures in Afganistan. The Media never found out about Senator (insert name here, I forget his name)'s experience that he told the nation about in Vietnam, rounding up and killing Civilians in cold blood.
-
And your point is? It’s “random speculation” as you put it. A man/institution, in this case the U.S. military in Vietnam, are innocent until proven guilty Yanny, just like you said. So since there is no proof of these “massacres” you speak of, then why would the media report on them?Also, back in the 1960’s it was not customary to report on suc hthings. For example, until late in the 20th century, nobody knew that President Roosevelt had died in his mistress’ house because his body had been moved quickly to the White House so that people would not know. It did not see right to talk about his personal life. Look at things now after bill Clinton. The media has changed very much since Vietnam.
-
The Media may not find these things. The Goverment has also improved it’s information concealing ways. The Media will not be in Bagdad during the bombings, and the Goverment can easily dismiss any reports from the Iraqi Military. By the time the invasion of Bagdad starts, not only will there be few cameras to see the incoming nerve gas, but the Goverment will be able to hide civilian casualties.
I do not trust President Bush. He has lied, cheated, stolen, and destroyed more of my constitional rights than any President sinde Jackson. He has done Nixon’s crimes without Nixon’s good.
-
@CC:
would the American people really care if 2 people or 200 were killed? Would they believe the numbers? And if they did would the numbers mean anything to them?
Would you, if you knew that almost every single media source was dominated by bleeding heart liberals and vindicrats? Americans would care of the causality list. Of course when you hear accounts of dead, wounded, and missing, day after day, the effect starts to wear off on you. Suddenly those numbers seem like “one more drop in the bucket.” Remember, “When you kill one, it is a tragedy. When you kill one million, it is a statistic.
@CC:
Or would the typical “gung-ho” American attitude of “let’s kick some a**!” prevail?
It’s a damn shame that I don’t see that Yankee confidence of “We can do it” here that much anymore. A damn shame.
There is no proof of that. That is based on questionable information that a mid ranking Iraqi offical met with a known Al-Quada (sp) member in Florida. We live in a society where one is innocent until proven guilty.
Interesting since Czech intelligence claimed that five months before his monstrous attack [9/11], Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague.
The Media never found out the Civilian Casualty figures in Afganistan.
The main reason being that there’s still a war to be faught in Afghanistan. Also (as seen by the dead reporters shot by terrorist), is that the region is still unsafe for much of the media. Give it time, you shouldn’t expect an accurate and precise death toll until at least next year.
The Media never found out about Senator (insert name here, I forget his name)'s experience that he told the nation about in Vietnam, rounding up and killing Civilians in cold blood
Sorry, this is either worded incorrectly or I have no idea what you’re talking about.
@Emu:
The media has changed very much since Vietnam.
Very true. It seems like the media cares more about making slandered and scandalous reamdarks then they do about honor and integrity.
If 3 civilians are killed by bomb, Sadam will say we Bombed a school house killing 20.
Again, this is true. Just remember how the liberal the media was at reporting the civilian death toll in Jenin (as mentioned) and initial estimates of 9/11.
It talks about a weapon that we might use in Iraq. It fries electronics, think of it as the weapon from the Bond movie “Golden Eye”, just without the nuke.
I’m all in favor of using non-lethal incapacitators such as e-bombs and directed energy as a means of reducing civilian deaths, while stiull posing a deadly threat to militants.
Ok, this situation with Iraq reminds me of the same situation during World War II. I hear the main argument against attacking Saddam right now is “lack of proof.” Does anyone remember back in WWII, when we heard bits and pieces of a so-called “holocaust” and that the German army was exterminating Jews?
Agreed. I found this very fulfilling after going over a response to a recent New Yor Times Article. In it, the Times explained that America need only “ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.” The same editorial warned against invading Iraq on the grounds that “there may be no way to deter Iraq from using unconventional weapons against American forces.” Wait, weren’t we easily disarming Saddam of unconventional weapons a couple paragraphs back?
The Times also assured its readers that there is “no reliable evidence” that Saddam is connected to al-Qaida. What liberals mean by “no evidence” is always that there is lots of evidence, but arguably not enough to convince an OJ jury.
In addition, the Times announced that there “appears to be no evidence so far that Baghdad means to share its deadly arsenal with others.” Well, that’s a relief. So the person in the Middle East deadly arsenal is a cruel dictator who gassed his own people, murdered his family members, and passionately yearns for the total annihilation of the United States. And yet, Khidir Hamza, a former member of Iraq’s weapons-building program, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Saddam is actively developing weapons of mass destruction and will have accumulated enough enriched uranium to have three nuclear bombs by 2005.
-
About the senator, here’s what I remember.
A Us Senator, Democrat i think, addressed the news media 2 or 3 years ago. While crying, he related his story of how in Vietnam he was forced to round up civilians in a North Vietnameese village, and shoot anyone suspicious or who resist or not cooperate on the spot.
-
About the senator, here’s what I remember.
A Us Senator, Democrat i think, addressed the news media 2 or 3 years ago. While crying, he related his story of how in Vietnam he was forced to round up civilians in a North Vietnameese village, and shoot anyone suspicious or who resist or not cooperate on the spot.
Intresting. I hope you can provide me with the details and the particular incident on this. I would be happy to research it. The problem with Vietnam [War] was that a lot of malicious and atrocious acts were committed, none we’re particularly proud of. What I will say is that similar acts were committed and those who instigated in it were most likely court mashaled and punished. You can’t control the actions of soldiers in the dead of combat in war, so I’m hopping these acts will be a rarity, and the instigators punished severely. However, it is sometimes hard to bridge the gap between those who are really “innocent” and those who are “guilty”
-
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
And I wish I could remember the Senator’s name. It’s been a long time since I saw that.
Suggested Topics
