They also claim that it's the venue of the first ever baseball game. I'm not sure how they know that though.
Let's Go - It's time to get this done...
- Thread starter Englishman
- Start date
Someone with courage in the White House, now thats funny! The only scenario that would lead me to believe that someone with courage was in the White House is if Colin Powel lwas there by himself, surely you cannot be implying that Bush or Cheney have courage? Cheney is a biatch, this guy has went into hiding whenever he has an opportunity to in his life. What is one thing that Bush has done courageous in his life? He has no military combat experience so that cant be it, so what has he done that ever put his life on the line? Brave, fearless, valiant do not come to mind when I think of Bush or Cheney but perhaps Colin Powell was at the White House alone and Cheney was at his undisclosed location and Bush was back in Crawford on another vacation.
Basically, we need someone with the guts to wipe out our enemies. Bush has moved in that direction, I hope he doesn't let up now.
englishman,
i'm sorry...i should have posted that news article in your thread instead of starting a new one.
my friend gw stated it best : "just curious...should the mullahs in iran be left to their own devices to build such weapons?....
should we turn a blind eye?....."
maybe the u.s. can help with an over throw from within.
i'm sorry...i should have posted that news article in your thread instead of starting a new one.
my friend gw stated it best : "just curious...should the mullahs in iran be left to their own devices to build such weapons?....
should we turn a blind eye?....."
maybe the u.s. can help with an over throw from within.
smurph...thanks for the thoughtful reply to my question......it is appreciated....
it`s so easy for all of us to play partisan poltics with issues that are of the gravest importance....
"liberal"..."neocon"....silly....i agree...
and the dependence on oil is absolutely at the root of the issue...
of course we can`t abandon israel...many here would like us to....but,when this country starts abandoning it`s democratic allies because it is politically expedient to agree with terrorists and/or despots(see europe....they are in bed with radical muslim factions because once again,they fell asleep at the switch....they let their immigration policies lapse and now have such large muslim populations that they are politically wed, to a certain extent,to islamofascism)... and they aren`t happy about...but,it`s almost to late...
europe is fast becoming our enemies...with maybe the exception of a few...
and i agree...the cat is almost out of the bag....
that doesn`t mean we can give up....
maybe surgical strikes....much like israel did in iraq,are the answer....
we can`t have any more wars....that`s for sure...
but,diplomacy is no longer an option....
bill clinton learned this from the koreans....a politically honorable guy,clinton,imo.....the n. koreans?....not so honorable......
"trust but verify".......this adage is obsolete...
we can`t dick around in matters concerning wmd`s....
why doesn`t the rest of world get it?
it`s so easy for all of us to play partisan poltics with issues that are of the gravest importance....
"liberal"..."neocon"....silly....i agree...
and the dependence on oil is absolutely at the root of the issue...
of course we can`t abandon israel...many here would like us to....but,when this country starts abandoning it`s democratic allies because it is politically expedient to agree with terrorists and/or despots(see europe....they are in bed with radical muslim factions because once again,they fell asleep at the switch....they let their immigration policies lapse and now have such large muslim populations that they are politically wed, to a certain extent,to islamofascism)... and they aren`t happy about...but,it`s almost to late...
europe is fast becoming our enemies...with maybe the exception of a few...
and i agree...the cat is almost out of the bag....
that doesn`t mean we can give up....
maybe surgical strikes....much like israel did in iraq,are the answer....
we can`t have any more wars....that`s for sure...
but,diplomacy is no longer an option....
bill clinton learned this from the koreans....a politically honorable guy,clinton,imo.....the n. koreans?....not so honorable......
"trust but verify".......this adage is obsolete...
we can`t dick around in matters concerning wmd`s....
why doesn`t the rest of world get it?
AR - no problem, Gardenweasel: I agree, an energy policy that liberates us from ME oil is desperately needed, but there just seems to be no political will on either side to get this done, or even discuss it - very frustrating.
This debacle in Iraq has severely limited our options in dealing with legitimate threats like Iran and North Korea.
As far as the Clinton/Korea situation, have you seen photos of the sites where we were supposed to have built light-water reactors and have them done in 1998 or so? If not, just go to the nearest construction site and look at the big hole in the ground.
His mistake was not in attempting diplomacy, but it was in not following up on our promises. BTW- what is our fearless leader doing about NK? Just letting them continue their nuclear program unabated, which may or may not already include 2 or 3 crude (but not proven deliverable) nukes?
As far as the Clinton/Korea situation, have you seen photos of the sites where we were supposed to have built light-water reactors and have them done in 1998 or so? If not, just go to the nearest construction site and look at the big hole in the ground.
His mistake was not in attempting diplomacy, but it was in not following up on our promises. BTW- what is our fearless leader doing about NK? Just letting them continue their nuclear program unabated, which may or may not already include 2 or 3 crude (but not proven deliverable) nukes?
Englishman said:
We hear this all the time, but i guess I really don't get it. What in the world does invading Iraq have to do with our reliance on ME oil? We were getting all the oil that we needed, as always, and at very low costs. There were no indications that that was going to change for any reason.
Does it mean that if not for the oil, then we could nuke, or flatten the whole region, or something?
Kosar: Not at all - it just means that it doesn't make sense economically, or for our national security to be so reliant on the ME for our basic energy needs.
I would of thought we would all understand and agree with that. This argument stands by itself, independently of issues of war in the ME. Also, a policy of conservation just makes sense in general.
I would of thought we would all understand and agree with that. This argument stands by itself, independently of issues of war in the ME. Also, a policy of conservation just makes sense in general.
Englishman said:
Englishman,
Yes, of course it would be preferable overall not to have to rely on other countries for something as important as oil. But why has it all of a sudden become 'desperate' and why do these thoughts always seem to be interwined with Iraq issues. As in, our backs were to the wall because of oil, so we just had to go in. Not that you did it exactly, but this sentiment is often used as reason #213 for the occupation.
We go in, bust up Iraq, start paying record money for fuel, and then lament that we're too tied to ME oil. WTF?
The lament that we are too tied to ME oil has been around for a long time. IMO it's just as true today as in the early 70's. Maybe then we wouldn't be so tied to these awful regimes like Saudi Arabia.
That's definitely true, in general. But now, in the current situation that we're in, you have to wonder how much impact taking Saudi Arabia to task for their support of terrorists would have. I mean, what is more important? Cheaper fuel (even though it's extremely high right now already due to our occupation) or fighting terroism in an effective way?
Or are there certain people who owe large parts of their personal wealth to the Saudis and this is the real stumbling block?
And as far as 'conservation' goes, that's a wondeful idea but will always be fought by certain 'elements'.
Or are there certain people who owe large parts of their personal wealth to the Saudis and this is the real stumbling block?
And as far as 'conservation' goes, that's a wondeful idea but will always be fought by certain 'elements'.
let me try and answer kosar`s question....
in the 80`s,saddam tried to build his own nuclear reactor.....osirak....with the expertise and raw materials of germany and france......
the israeli`s...reacting to saddm`s repeated threats to them,took out the site with precision bombing raids before the reactor went hot......i wouldn`t be at all surprised if the u.s. wasn`t involved covertly....
if......saddam had been left alone....he would have gone into kuwait with nuclear weapons in his arsenal....
we all know on his way out of kuwait,he not only burned the kuwaiti oil fields,but lobbed,i believe around 40-odd scuds into israel.....as they sat on their hands.....obviously hoping that israel would respond in kind.....
his hope was that israel would respond so other arab neighbors could be drawn into the fray against their common foe israel...
israel sat on their hands...in large part due to the u.s.`s insistence that they do nothing.....
if saddam had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he might still have kuwait....or,israel might be a memory...as would part of iraq....uninhabitable for maybe 100 years...
or maybe,the threat of nukes would have frozen the world`s option to remove saddam from kuwait...giving him enormous leverage and control over a large portion of invaluable middle eastern oil fields....
these scenarios aren`t far fetched....
saddam was an ongoing threat...he demonstrated it time and again...
i`m not a big proponent of the war...but,saddam was a very dangerous guy...a very loose cannon....irrational...why else would he roll the dice on denying inspectors access to the wmd sites that supposedly never existed?.....
if he had done as south africa had done...submit to u.n. mandates...disarm...or just openly submit to inspections,none of this would have happened....
the parallels of s.africa and iraq are startlingly similar.......two countries in which the minority ruled the majority...both attempting to become nuclear players(in s. africa`s case,they were nuclear players)....
s.africa chose the easy road...saddam didn`t...that,imo,made him dangerous or stupid...or both...
in the 80`s,saddam tried to build his own nuclear reactor.....osirak....with the expertise and raw materials of germany and france......
the israeli`s...reacting to saddm`s repeated threats to them,took out the site with precision bombing raids before the reactor went hot......i wouldn`t be at all surprised if the u.s. wasn`t involved covertly....
if......saddam had been left alone....he would have gone into kuwait with nuclear weapons in his arsenal....
we all know on his way out of kuwait,he not only burned the kuwaiti oil fields,but lobbed,i believe around 40-odd scuds into israel.....as they sat on their hands.....obviously hoping that israel would respond in kind.....
his hope was that israel would respond so other arab neighbors could be drawn into the fray against their common foe israel...
israel sat on their hands...in large part due to the u.s.`s insistence that they do nothing.....
if saddam had nukes when he invaded kuwait,he might still have kuwait....or,israel might be a memory...as would part of iraq....uninhabitable for maybe 100 years...
or maybe,the threat of nukes would have frozen the world`s option to remove saddam from kuwait...giving him enormous leverage and control over a large portion of invaluable middle eastern oil fields....
these scenarios aren`t far fetched....
saddam was an ongoing threat...he demonstrated it time and again...
i`m not a big proponent of the war...but,saddam was a very dangerous guy...a very loose cannon....irrational...why else would he roll the dice on denying inspectors access to the wmd sites that supposedly never existed?.....
if he had done as south africa had done...submit to u.n. mandates...disarm...or just openly submit to inspections,none of this would have happened....
the parallels of s.africa and iraq are startlingly similar.......two countries in which the minority ruled the majority...both attempting to become nuclear players(in s. africa`s case,they were nuclear players)....
s.africa chose the easy road...saddam didn`t...that,imo,made him dangerous or stupid...or both...
GW,
I always appreciate your detailed and mostly factual responses, but that wasn't really my question and although your timeline and facts are correct, I don't agree with some of the conclusions.
Although he was stubborn, and did several times kick out inspectors, for almost all of 1991-2003, there were inspectors on the ground and performing inspections. In fact, *we* told the inspectors to get out a few weeks before we started bombing. These inspectors were consistent all along that there was no evidence of any sort of program since 1991. Our own CIA has subsequently concurred with that.
Saddam was indeed dangerous when it came to using chemical weapons against Iran that were supplied by us and other western nations and with our full support. He was dangerous to tiny Kuwait when he thought he had our assurance that we wouldn't interfere. He was NOT dangerous to anybody since 1991 when we destroyed his army, destroyed his WMD and strangled his country with sanctions.
But you're right, he was friggin' stupid. He could have lived his fancy life as a dictator practically indefinitely if he had done a few things differently and didn't let his ego prevail.
That doesn't change the fact that he was not a threat to us and it doesn't change the fact that Bush had this planned all along and sickeningly took 9/11 as an opportunity to act.
All this while ignoring Saudi Arabia, from which almost all of the hijackers were from and has a long history of state sponsoring terrorists around the world.
Now, we all say and mostly agree that this fight against terror has no country to attack and no home base and it's much broader than any traditional war as it spans the globe. Well, after Afghanistan(which is not close to being under control, still), Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to that.
But they have enormous investments in this country and many ties to our 'courageous' president.
I always appreciate your detailed and mostly factual responses, but that wasn't really my question and although your timeline and facts are correct, I don't agree with some of the conclusions.
Although he was stubborn, and did several times kick out inspectors, for almost all of 1991-2003, there were inspectors on the ground and performing inspections. In fact, *we* told the inspectors to get out a few weeks before we started bombing. These inspectors were consistent all along that there was no evidence of any sort of program since 1991. Our own CIA has subsequently concurred with that.
Saddam was indeed dangerous when it came to using chemical weapons against Iran that were supplied by us and other western nations and with our full support. He was dangerous to tiny Kuwait when he thought he had our assurance that we wouldn't interfere. He was NOT dangerous to anybody since 1991 when we destroyed his army, destroyed his WMD and strangled his country with sanctions.
But you're right, he was friggin' stupid. He could have lived his fancy life as a dictator practically indefinitely if he had done a few things differently and didn't let his ego prevail.
That doesn't change the fact that he was not a threat to us and it doesn't change the fact that Bush had this planned all along and sickeningly took 9/11 as an opportunity to act.
All this while ignoring Saudi Arabia, from which almost all of the hijackers were from and has a long history of state sponsoring terrorists around the world.
Now, we all say and mostly agree that this fight against terror has no country to attack and no home base and it's much broader than any traditional war as it spans the globe. Well, after Afghanistan(which is not close to being under control, still), Saudi Arabia is the closest thing to that.
But they have enormous investments in this country and many ties to our 'courageous' president.
Why doesn't the Bush administration address this at all? Tax breaks for SUV's was kinda running in the other direction.Englishman said:
Problem with strikes in Iran is - the first civilian we kill will be the beginning of yet another war. We have to be extrememly careful here. The young population of Iran is pretty sympathetic with us. There's a good chance that a much better government will be in place there sooner than later. The wrong kind of military action by us could completely ruin any hopes of a good relationship with them.
What has Iran actually done to us? We don't fare well when we attack first. We end up with no moral ground, which makes all the difference in the world in the long run.
Israel had nothing to lose when they hit Iraq. Iraq already hated them. There's hope with Iran. Very real hope.
Chan - I don't get that comparison with Hitler. Is Iran gobbling neigboring countries and exterminating populations? What exactly are we appeasing?
we`ll agree to disagree,kosar...he blocked the inspectors time and time again.......stalled them....never gave complete access...and never provided proof that he destroyed his chemical stockpiles....i`m sure you know this....he chose the spots he wanted to give them access to.....kicked them out when he got pissed....or had areas he preferred they not have access to....
and paid off the u.n....
the u.n. coalition stayed together in terms of liberating kuwait, but then at the end of it all, the big problem was still unresolved... saddam was still in power. ...
from the beginning, there was always a big gap between what the coalition was mandated to do and what the problem was....... the coalition was approved to liberate kuwait, and it did that........ but the problem of security for the vulnerable gulf emirates was really saddam hussein........... a man who came to power in 1979 and had been aggressive for practically the entire time................he engaged in an invasion of iran and an eight-year long war, the bloodiest in modern middle east history, and then, a couple of years later, he invaded kuwait.......not to mention trying to build a nuclear reactor.....
it was clear that as long as he was in power, he was a threat to the region............. and so, at the end of the gulf war, despite the military victory, we still faced the basic root cause of the crisis, and that was saddamm ..............the core problem.....
what do you do?.........that`s when resolution 687 came into being......
resolution 687 was really the centerpiece of the international response to hussein's continued rule in baghdad.....his bloody rule....his aggressive rule............. it tried to basically "de-fang" him by removing his access to weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and, long-range missiles. ..........iit basically said he had to declare all of his weaponry and then allow u.n.. weapons inspectors in to destroy them.
the hope was that the U.N. weapons inspectors would go in and in the matter of a number of weeks get a full list, a disclosure, from baghdad of what it had.......... and then, within a matter of months, all of this weaponry would be destroyed.......like in south africa.......the fundamental flaw, of course, again, was hussein.................... he knew how to stall..............he stalled for years...kicked out inspectors more than once....... and he began a process of what was called cheat and retreat. .........it allowed him to stall the whole process for year after year, and even at the end, when u.n. weapons inspectors were forced out of iraq, they still did not have that basic list of what saddam produced. ...
then.three major members of the security council--china, russia and france, all beginning to call for some kind of easing of sanctions to review the entire process........... they all had economics interests that were more important than the regional security threat......
and remember...inspections in iraq had been going on since 1991!!!!!!...
the absolute opposite of other countries that willingly disarmed.....
in recent years, there have been several examples of countries that have chosen to give up wmd`s, and willingly cooperated with the international community to verify their disarmament........
these countries were:...south africa.....ukraine.....kazakhstan.....
to say that iraq complied with weapons inspectors is utterly absurd...
that was the deal,in a nutshell...
and paid off the u.n....
the u.n. coalition stayed together in terms of liberating kuwait, but then at the end of it all, the big problem was still unresolved... saddam was still in power. ...
from the beginning, there was always a big gap between what the coalition was mandated to do and what the problem was....... the coalition was approved to liberate kuwait, and it did that........ but the problem of security for the vulnerable gulf emirates was really saddam hussein........... a man who came to power in 1979 and had been aggressive for practically the entire time................he engaged in an invasion of iran and an eight-year long war, the bloodiest in modern middle east history, and then, a couple of years later, he invaded kuwait.......not to mention trying to build a nuclear reactor.....
it was clear that as long as he was in power, he was a threat to the region............. and so, at the end of the gulf war, despite the military victory, we still faced the basic root cause of the crisis, and that was saddamm ..............the core problem.....
what do you do?.........that`s when resolution 687 came into being......
resolution 687 was really the centerpiece of the international response to hussein's continued rule in baghdad.....his bloody rule....his aggressive rule............. it tried to basically "de-fang" him by removing his access to weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, nuclear weapons, and, long-range missiles. ..........iit basically said he had to declare all of his weaponry and then allow u.n.. weapons inspectors in to destroy them.
the hope was that the U.N. weapons inspectors would go in and in the matter of a number of weeks get a full list, a disclosure, from baghdad of what it had.......... and then, within a matter of months, all of this weaponry would be destroyed.......like in south africa.......the fundamental flaw, of course, again, was hussein.................... he knew how to stall..............he stalled for years...kicked out inspectors more than once....... and he began a process of what was called cheat and retreat. .........it allowed him to stall the whole process for year after year, and even at the end, when u.n. weapons inspectors were forced out of iraq, they still did not have that basic list of what saddam produced. ...
then.three major members of the security council--china, russia and france, all beginning to call for some kind of easing of sanctions to review the entire process........... they all had economics interests that were more important than the regional security threat......
and remember...inspections in iraq had been going on since 1991!!!!!!...
the absolute opposite of other countries that willingly disarmed.....
in recent years, there have been several examples of countries that have chosen to give up wmd`s, and willingly cooperated with the international community to verify their disarmament........
these countries were:...south africa.....ukraine.....kazakhstan.....
to say that iraq complied with weapons inspectors is utterly absurd...
that was the deal,in a nutshell...
Last edited:
