• Back at the office or school? Still working from home? Need to vent, or just connect with other planner and built environment types? Come join us!

    Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing or masks required.

Traitor or Aiding the Enemy?

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
SkeLeton said:
let's hope this conflict doesn't tear apart the UN

I think it already has...or at least exposed what a frivolous organization it really is.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
Mike D. said:


I think it already has...or at least exposed what a frivolous organization it really is.

Any organization that gives FRANCE veto power over anyone is frivolous by definition... it's like all the bullies on the playground giving the geeky glasses wearing band dork veto power over getting his ass kicked.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
This is totally rhetorical, but here goes anyway...

I was thinking the other day, that a split UN on this is going to be dire. If the US leads a Coalition of the Willing (Love that term!) and France, Germany, Russia, or China use their veto power, that's fine.

But what happens when the mater gets more devisive - like we start to hurt Russion oil contracts and French business interests - and the UN Resolutions become anti-US? We'd veto them, right? Suddenly there is no United Nations commanding a voice of diplomacy. What is the relevancy of the organization in this hypotetical world?

Or worse, the anti-war sentiment could be strong enough for other UN member nations to deploy defensive troops or aid the enemy in other ways... Will G.W. stay the cowboy "with us or against us" mantra and turn the gun sights on former allies.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
fear this

bturk said:
This is totally rhetorical, but here goes anyway...

I was thinking the other day, that a split UN on this is going to be dire. If the US leads a Coalition of the Willing (Love that term!) and France, Germany, Russia, or China use their veto power, that's fine.

But what happens when the mater gets more devisive - like we start to hurt Russion oil contracts and French business interests - and the UN Resolutions become anti-US? We'd veto them, right? Suddenly there is no United Nations commanding a voice of diplomacy. What is the relevancy of the organization in this hypotetical world?

Or worse, the anti-war sentiment could be strong enough for other UN member nations to deploy defensive troops or aid the enemy in other ways... Will G.W. stay the cowboy "with us or against us" mantra and turn the gun sights on former allies.

I have heard from a number of different commentators who live over seas that fear of the US is becomming pervasive.

I still don't understand what the big hangup is with Iraq. With the bin Ladin and his wackos still running around and North Korea and Iran going nuclear, is this really the best time to gut the UN (Effectual or not, its a place to talk) and alienate many of our allies, not even considering probably killing thousands of people and then creating a client state dependent on military occupation. I'm really disappointed in Colin Powell. One thinks that he would be leary of fighting an unpopular war in an unfriendly neighborhood.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Doah! I tried to reply to El Feo and screwed up big time - first I edited his post anf then I deleted it! Arg! Sorry bud.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
I am joining the debate rather late (four day "weekend"), and am not sure that my comments will add anything to the mix. BUT:

First off, I think the proposed war will be a disaster from a foreign policy perspective. Basically, we are throwing a lit match into a powder keg. I am not convinced that this is the time or place for this policy, and I am suspicious of the old line imperialists in the Bush II administration that are behind it.

And, comments about French wimpiness are pretty juvenile and ahistorical. This is a country that conquered Europe, provided much of the intellectual background to our own Revolution, took and help onto a huge empire. We "saved" them only once (World War II), World War I involved rather minimal American casualties in France, the French line held, and it is unfair to use the old "we saved them twice" line. If 15% of our population was barely assimilated Arabs, we would not be too willing to jump into a potentially un-necessary war, either.

On the other hand, I lose patience with anyone who cozies up to the Baathist regime. It is a vile state that should be contained and hopefully removed-through a long, grudgingly obtained World consensus, but still removed. I don't march for the Iraqi babies, Sadaam could solve that starvation problem pretty quickly.

If the war sadly comes to pass, then I have to fall back on innate patriotism and say to heck with the protestors. Once the war starts, those fools, and they are fools should be treated as enemy combatants. A pox on them.

So, bad policy does not justify bad protestors' actions.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
bturk said:
Doah! I tried to reply to El Feo and screwed up big time - first I edited his post anf then I deleted it! Arg! Sorry bud.

Sure, dude...I was screwed by The Man, and that's the best you can come up with!!!

;)

(Please note "no big deal" smiley.)
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
BKM said:
And, comments about French wimpiness are pretty juvenile and ahistorical. This is a country that conquered Europe, provided much of the intellectual background to our own Revolution

Except for the line above, I am generally in agreement with you.

Rousseau was Swiss.
Hobbes was German.
Locke and Mills were British.
Cato, Seneca, et. al. were Roman.

I don't recall any French political philosophers who were influential in the ideas that formed the United States.
 

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
19,337
Points
71
Mastiff said:
Any organization that gives FRANCE veto power over anyone is frivolous by definition...

The UN was founded not as the international body it is today, but rather as an alliance of those who had a role in defeating the Axis powers in World War II. The nations that were considered the dominant powers of the world in the day were given a veto on the Security Council. France was a MAJOR colonial power at the time; consider all their African colonies, and that Algeria was actually a French department then.

Meetings that were the basis of the UN's foundation were held by the United States, Great Britan, the USSR and (Nationalist) China before the end of World War II. Essentially, we gave France veto power. To take away that power would require another Security Council resolution, which of course France has the right to veto.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Off Topic (from the resident Francophile)

But France was a major center of intellectual ferment and debate about the issues concerning the revolutionaries-over the longer term to their own demise (the horrors of the French Revolution). Rousseau may have been born Swiss, but most of his career as a public intellectual was in France and participating in French debates and publishing through the French press. (Off topic: There's a great snippet in one of my stranger albums that goes somethin like: "Florence under the Medici had 50 years of bloodshed, dictatorship, and war. But it produced Michaelangelo and the Renaissance. Switzerland had 500 years of Democracy and Peace. What did that produce? The cuckoo clock!)

I'll give you your Locke and Hobbes, but many of our Founding Fathers were deeply tied to France, and French arms were a big part of why we won the Revolution.

Not that I'm saying that France is pure or anything. They are snivelling and arrogant. And, giving Robert Mugabe a state's welcome limits what respect I do have for their politics.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
BKM said:
And, comments about French wimpiness are pretty juvenile and ahistorical. This is a country that conquered Europe, provided much of the intellectual background to our own Revolution, took and help onto a huge empire. We "saved" them only once (World War II), World War I involved rather minimal American casualties in France, the French line held, and it is unfair to use the old "we saved them twice" line. If 15% of our population was barely assimilated Arabs, we would not be too willing to jump into a potentially un-necessary war, either.

Thanks! I haven't been called juvenile in some time, and I miss it so... I've disliked the French (even though my father came to the U.S. from France) since their choice to not allow the U.S. to fly F-111's over their country to deal with Libya.

For a moment, let's forget that and take a peek at the real history of French "wimpiness", what say? Here's a quick overview.

The French did quite well during medievial times (Hundred Years War), and the Napoleonic Wars (1803 -1815) certainly created a very dominant French influence . It was helpful in the founding of the U.S., but then they didn't exactly get along with the British, especially since they had their butts kicked out of the Americas due to the French & Indian Wars. But, since Waterloo, how have they fared?

In the Franco-Prussian War, Moltke whipped Napoleon III, made them pay a billion dollars, and took Alsace-Lorraine.

In WWI, it wasn't a FRENCH line that held, it was an ALLIED line. If it were just the French, they would have been destroyed. In fact, in 1917, "the French were held up along a 40-mile front and lost 120,000 men - one in ten combatants - in five days. The consequence was a general mutiny by French troops. If the Germans had been aware that the French had downed weapons all along the front line, they could have stepped through to victory." Yeah... real tough guys.

In WWII... well, everyone knows how well things went. The most damning thing about that, however, was what had happened previous to the German invasion of France. How many countries were invaded? Six... Three before France even declared war. Hitler was violating the Treaty of Versailles in 1935, but did anyone do anything? No. Then five years later, the Germans march into Paris. The French response?

enter.jpg


Cry...


After WWII, the French colonial areas began to revolt, and defeat, French troops. Indochina in 1954... Tunisia in 1956... Algeria in 1962...

Being a NATO member should mean that they watch our back, as we have watched theirs, but I suppose with an air force ranked behind the Ukraine, a Navy ranked behind Japan, and a troop size that doesn't rank in the top 10, who cares? Just don't give them power over what we as a country feel we must accomplish.
 
Last edited:

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
Dan said:

Meetings that were the basis of the UN's foundation were held by the United States, Great Britan, the USSR and (Nationalist) China before the end of World War II. Essentially, we gave France veto power. To take away that power would require another Security Council resolution, which of course France has the right to veto.

Can anyone say... Catch-22?

Hey look, I'm all for the countries of the world getting together to hash out differences, but how lame can it get? Resolution after resolution, ad nauseum, which end up doing nothing. Then, the real frightening part... the "U.N. led force". If you ask those who serve in the U.S. military, they'll tell you that being under the command of some other country is downright scary.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Horrible rant

The French didn't hold onto their colonies-maybe their heart was not in it. Were they willing to kill 200,000 civillians like we did in the Phillipines? I guess they didn't drop enough bombs, like we tried in Cambodia (helping to bring Pol Pot to power-thank goodness for realpolitic)

I guess not. I guess that makes them wimps. Oh well.

As for UN Resolutions-How many resolutions is Israel in violation of? Should we be invading them next?

Should we be spending $2 billion per year on a country that wink-wink, nod nod, gives money and support to militant teenage thugs that talk about the need for an Israeli Taliban while solemnly intoning "The Torah says that we have to kill all the Arabs." While their neighbors babble happily about Allah smiling upon their suicide bombings. No wimpiness there. Plenty of men (and boys) with guns "defending" their honor in that part of the world.

A pox on that whole part of the world. No more American lives or money. I would rather have enforced frugality vis-a-vis our oil use than continuing to get dragged into that morass. That's not realistic, I know. Who really cares what a middle aged planner in California thinks anyways.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
BKM - You bring up a good point about Isreal. Does it make a difference if a dictator or a democracy conducts itself inappropriately?
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,837
Points
26
hmm I think that this war shouldn't get pushed, like it is happening now.... mabye cool down a little, go after north korea for a while, and mabye cuba.

BKM has touched quite a delicate spot there with Israel.. in fact more or less Israel has only listened to the UN for the Resolution 181, then they misteriously went deaf... :p
I haven't seen them stand down from the Palestine territories in quite a while...the Israeli invaders.. sorry, "The Jewish Colonies" that go into Palestine territories incentivate Palestine terrorist attacks, and the israeli army goes on and butchers some more Palestines and then another terrorist attack comes and the circle goes on and on....
Now back to Irak... since the sand storm season is coming soon, W wants war now... why not later? after the sand storms...The sand storms could become a problem if the conflict streches too far...
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Middle Eastern weather is seldom good. I spent most of a year there, excepting the worst part of summer. From April into September the daytime temperature is usually around 100 degrees or more. Of course there is no shade. It is a dry heat, though. ;)

In winter it can get cold, which, when you are living in a tent, can be just as bad. Spend a couple of months outside where the temperature never gets warmer than 40 degrees. It is a lot like Canada in summer.

There are a very few weeks of nice temperatures in Spring and Fall. It doesn't last long. As the news reports, this is also when the dust storms can be at their worst. In reality, there is no time when you don't get dust storms. When you come back to your tent in the evening, you find everything covered with a layer of very fine sand. Brush it off, and in the morning it will be covering everything once again.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
Michael Stumpf said:
BKM - You bring up a good point about Isreal. Does it make a difference if a dictator or a democracy conducts itself inappropriately?

Isn't that part of the problem, we're hated because we're seen as being unfair? We condemn Palestine for terrorist behaviour but Isreal does the same and we say nothing. Isreal gets money for weapons and uses the money they had saved to build in an occupied territory but nothing happens to them. Breaking a resolution is breaking a resolution, pull all aide and peace kepping missions until all comply, including the US. (Beyond that I don't agree with politicans like Hillary Clinton pulling that "I'm of Jewish decent" to try and score votes)
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Todays news is interesting. Hans Blix and his team of inspectors apparently knew of Iraqi unmanned drones and rockets designed to distribute chemical weapons, but did not include them in his report to the UN last week. What gives? Should the UN and the world expect integrity from its inspectors, upon whose work we are to decide if Iraq has complied with its obligation to rid itself of weapons of mass distruction. Obviously, the answer is yes. If the inspectors are deliberately leaving out information, though, can they be trusted? Do they have a political agenda of their own? They have certainly undermined themselves with this duplicitous act. I may not yet support going to war, but I will never support a policy of deliberately looking the other way.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Re: Horrible rant

BKM said:
The French didn't hold onto their colonies-maybe their heart was not in it. Were they willing to kill 200,000 civillians like we did in the Phillipines? I guess they didn't drop enough bombs, like we tried in Cambodia (helping to bring Pol Pot to power-thank goodness for realpolitic)

I guess not. I guess that makes them wimps. Oh well.

As for UN Resolutions-How many resolutions is Israel in violation of? Should we be invading them next?

Should we be spending $2 billion per year on a country that wink-wink, nod nod, gives money and support to militant teenage thugs that talk about the need for an Israeli Taliban while solemnly intoning "The Torah says that we have to kill all the Arabs." While their neighbors babble happily about Allah smiling upon their suicide bombings. No wimpiness there. Plenty of men (and boys) with guns "defending" their honor in that part of the world.

A pox on that whole part of the world. No more American lives or money. I would rather have enforced frugality vis-a-vis our oil use than continuing to get dragged into that morass. That's not realistic, I know. Who really cares what a middle aged planner in California thinks anyways.

If this stuff was going down, say, in Rwanda, nothing would happen. Nothing. If it wasn't for oil, nobody would know where these places are. What did Santayana say about repeating the past? I'm convinced that the past is never remembered unless it is in a country's selfish self interest. If, when the OPEC imbargo occurred in 1973, the US would have gone on a comprehensive energy diet based on conservation and renewable sources, a lot of the present problems would not have arisen. You all who are pushing around those monster suvs, better get ready, the price of gas is going to go through the roof, if you will be able to find it. People say that what you drive is your business. True enough. Just don't ask other people to fight and die so you can fill up your 60 gallon tank.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
Horrible rant revisited

BKM said:
The French didn't hold onto their colonies-maybe their heart was not in it. Were they willing to kill 200,000 civillians like we did in the Phillipines? I guess they didn't drop enough bombs, like we tried in Cambodia (helping to bring Pol Pot to power-thank goodness for realpolitic)

I guess not. I guess that makes them wimps. Oh well.

Their hearts weren't in it? Hmmm... So, holding out from 1946 to 1954 in Indochina, 1952 to '56 in Tunisia, and 1954 to 1962 in Algeria was just for show? They lost 15,000 men not wanting to hold on to Algeria...

And listen here, don't try to shift the argument to what the U.S. did... That wasn't my point. You say calling the French a bunch of wimps is incorrect, I say it is not. How is U.S. policy and U.S. action relevant? If you were going to counter in that manner, you should have noted that the U.S. lost in Indochina as well.

BKM said:
As for UN Resolutions-How many resolutions is Israel in violation of? Should we be invading them next?

Changing subjects? Fine... While I have no idea of the number of U.N. violations Isreal has managed, I will note that they are an ally. (I believe this to be a root of our problems in the middle east, but that is another subject.) Why would we invade an ally? I couldn't give a whit about the Iraqi violations, frankly, just that they have made us an enemy, and the regime needs to be squashed like a bug. These jackasses made us their enemy with forethought... does no one remember the U.S.S. Stark and the 37 dead Americans? Ironically, a French built missle fired from a French built aircraft.

BKM said:
Should we be spending $2 billion per year on a country that wink-wink, nod nod, gives money and support to militant teenage thugs that talk about the need for an Israeli Taliban while solemnly intoning "The Torah says that we have to kill all the Arabs." While their neighbors babble happily about Allah smiling upon their suicide bombings. No wimpiness there. Plenty of men (and boys) with guns "defending" their honor in that part of the world.

Personally, I think we need to keep our money at home. I'm as tired as anyone with the constant backing of countries while so many problems exist here. If the jews and arabs want to fight, let 'em fight. However, it seems we're stuck in the middle, and now it is coming home to roost. It's too late to change fifty years of policy, and undo the enemies we've made. So, use the power we have to disarm them and be done with it.

BKM said:
A pox on that whole part of the world. No more American lives or money. I would rather have enforced frugality vis-a-vis our oil use than continuing to get dragged into that morass. That's not realistic, I know. Who really cares what a middle aged planner in California thinks anyways.

If it were that simple. I think in hindsight, many people would go for a more isolationist attitude, but you can't unring a bell. Also, I'm no where near convinced that it's about oil. But, no one really cares what a middle aged planner from Oregon thinks, either.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
I know its not "that simple." I wish it were.

I understand the role of the military and appreciate the sacrifices of servicemen. I just don't like the argument that "I served in the military, so my belief in what the the Bush Administration says is the only legitimate choice" And, that is a theme that I get from some of you. War should always be vociferously debated-especially in a democracy. Especially one this risky and of such questionable value.

As for my French comments, they did stray a little off-target, but not by much. My point was that, faced with determined opposition, they were unable in the end to maintain their colonial holds. Maybe that is a sign of weakness. But, I am not sure that holding on at all costs is a good choice, either-thus my response related to the Phillipines and Cambodia.

As for Israel, the hawks keep bringing up United Nations Resolutions as one reason for attacking Iraq. What about Israel (and I know the Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel-I am an equal opportunity Skeptic). That is my point there. Again, not that far off topic.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Gee it took like 60 posts for this thread to turn against Israel, a democratic Country surrounded by Muslim Nations who do not recognize their existance and have repeatedly vowed to rid the world of the Nation of Israel.

Israel Offered Senior Arafat its own state just a few short years ago. He refused and continues to support homocides against school children.

Its really all about picking sides isn't it.

while many in the forum are choosing Iraq, France, and Palestine...

I choose the United States and Isreal.

i think History will judge me well.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
gkmo62u said:
Gee it took like 60 posts for this thread to turn against Israel, a democratic Country ...

...which goes back to my earlier post. If it is a tyrannical regime oppressing an ethnic minority, we will take action against them (Serbia-Kosovo). The Kosova people are not terrorists, they are rebels. If it is a nation with a powerful military oppressing an ethnic minority, we will ignore it (Russia-Chechnya). We won't comment on Russian claims that the Chechnians are terrorists. If it is a democracy oppressing an ethnic minority, we will support the democratic government (Israel-Palestine). Its enemies are terrorists.

Personally, I am not clear on the distinction.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Israel is not that far from the subject at hand, and it is not the simple us versus them choice that you claim.

I am sorry, gkmo6, but as "democratic" as Israel is, and as racist and intransigent as many of its Arab neighbors are, even the most vigorous supporter of Israel cannot deny that many of its actions against its Palestinian citizens and neighbors are profoundly undemocratic and even tyrannical. Many of the fundamentalist groups leading the charge for more and more settlements are profoundly anti-democratic, indeed secular Israelis are increasingly afraid of the direction their own country is going.

As for the Palestinians, I knew a coworker whose family lost everything when the Israeli government forced them off their land. So, of course his cousin joined Fatah. That is not excusing what the suicide bombers do, or the actions of the Arab regimes surrounding the State. But, when you have lost everything, are you supposed to be a passive victim?

If you were living in the 1860s, I can just imagine you intoning piously "The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian," because after all, the Indians were in the way of the great Capitalist conquest of the continent. They interfered with railroad companies and land speculators-we can't have that! That may be reality, but don't talk to me about morality or democracy.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
I think people's criticisms of the US wanting to go to war over oil are an exaggeration. Our national interest is always a factor, but people present our government as trying to overrun this poor, innocent country for more oil.

Our only true ally in the middle east is Israel - a country without oil. This relationship is at the expense of relations with our oil supplying nations. We risked our troops to liberate Kuwait and didn't stick our flag next to their oil fields. Its the French and other nations who have more trade with Iraq and don't want to see that disrupted. I agree that this country is way too reliant on oil but I don't see us as starting a war over it.

Again, I think that Clinton's ignoring Saddam for 8 years makes it look like we're picking on him all of a sudden.

I think if Rwanda was developing weapons of mass destruction in violation of 12 years of UN agreements, and using chemical weapons on its own people, after trying to invade their neighbors, we would take action especially if they were ideologically linked to Al Qaida.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Seabishop said:
Its the French and other nations who have more trade with Iraq and don't want to see that disrupted. I agree that this country is way too reliant on oil but I don't see us as starting a war over it.


I have felt that way for quite some time now. I feel that "The No Blood for Oil" cry is really just the voice of Iraq's oil-dependent allies.
 

The Irish One

Member
Messages
2,266
Points
25
These jackasses made us their enemy with forethought... does no one remember the U.S.S. Stark and the 37 dead Americans? Ironically, a French built missle fired from a French built aircraft.

So then what would the proper response be for the attack on the USS Liberty? 34 dead 172 injured. This was no mistake, clearly calculated. A way of Israel saying hey USA you may bestrong but we'll go flipping crazy if needed -STAY OUT OF OUR BIZ!!! The US (we) did nothing about this, well besides bend over.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
The Irish one said:


So then what would the proper response be for the attack on the USS Liberty? 34 dead 172 injured. This was no mistake, clearly calculated. A way of Israel saying hey USA you may bestrong but we'll go flipping crazy if needed -STAY OUT OF OUR BIZ!!! The US (we) did nothing about this, well besides bend over.

What do I think would have been the proper response? How about cutting all aid and diplomatic ties with Israel? Seems sensible to me... but then, I'm not a politician counting of a Jewish population to be elected. We had a remarkable opportunity to erase the mistake made in the late 40's, and get the hell out of the Middle East, but let it get away.

I believe LBJ and McNamara were punks for recalling rescue flights to avoid a fight, instead of rescuing our servicemen and splashing any Israeli plane to come within 10 miles of the ship.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
I for one am undecided until I get a little more input from the entertainment community. We know how Martin Sheen stands on the issue but I'm unclear about how others stack up.

For example, does Creed support a pre-emptive strike? Does Martin Lawrence want another UN resolution? Does Sammy Sosa think N. Korea is a bigger theat to our security? Until these questions are answered I think we should just wait and see.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,545
Points
25
I just noticed that ElGuapo hasn't returned since the exchange on here last week. I hope he decides to come back.
 

cyowa

Member
Messages
4
Points
0
Two thoughts:

1. The French et al say over and over that it is for Hans Blix and his crew to tell us when inspections aren't working and not for the US or any other country to make that claim on its own. My question is this: Do they really think that at some point, given the continuous PR manipulations/cooperation of Saddam, Hans Blix will feel comfortable to start a war? I mean, this guy is no foreign policy expert or elected official. He represents no one and he knows it. But, the minute he says inspections are not working and some other action has to be taken, he would be giving the signal for all out war to start since that is the only option left on the table. Does anyone think that this SCIENTIST will EVER feel comfortable, given the current climate, to say that inspections AREN'T working in any stronger language than he has been saying?

2. I think it convenient that the two countries that come out and say they will veto are those with the most $$$ to lose in Iraq. I didn't vote for W and I don't know how much I trust him, but I think there are plenty of other players here that potentially have motives equally as suspect as his may be...not that I've decided that this war is for oil or for anything else other than ridding the world of a madman with nasty toys.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
BKM said:
I understand the role of the military and appreciate the sacrifices of servicemen. I just don't like the argument that "I served in the military, so my belief in what the the Bush Administration says is the only legitimate choice" And, that is a theme that I get from some of you. War should always be vociferously debated-especially in a democracy. Especially one this risky and of such questionable value.

I have not served in the military, therefore, I am not making that argument. We, as a society, can debate as we like. However, our elected representatives will be the people who make the choice. I suppose I don't see this as risky and questionable as you...

BKM said:
As for my French comments, they did stray a little off-target, but not by much. My point was that, faced with determined opposition, they were unable in the end to maintain their colonial holds. Maybe that is a sign of weakness. But, I am not sure that holding on at all costs is a good choice, either-thus my response related to the Phillipines and Cambodia.

Classic misdirection, actually... My post was simply pointing out the French losses. I made the conclusion that French armed conflict in more modern times has been dismall, and I don't think that is a stretch. Is "holding on" to colonies at all costs a good choice? Perhaps... but irrelevant. Does the U.S. policy and actions regarding other countries have any relevance? No...

Losing in armed conflict is an indicator of a country with a weak military. That point is hard to argue. I'd go a step further, this being my own opinion, and say that French policy is constructed with fear of reprisals as a motivating factor.

BKM said:
As for Israel, the hawks keep bringing up United Nations Resolutions as one reason for attacking Iraq. What about Israel (and I know the Arab nations have repeatedly attacked Israel-I am an equal opportunity Skeptic). That is my point there. Again, not that far off topic.

You may not be off topic with "the hawks", but you are with me. I say U.N. resolutions be damned. Iraq is our enemy. You know it, and I know it. The U.N. isn't going to disarm them, and there is only one other people who will... us. You think we'll lose world backing if we wage war without everyone on the planet giving a nod of approval? How much do we lose if we bow to the pressure of a twink nation like France and back away from a fight we know needs fighting?
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
W

One big problem W has is, he sure hasn't suceeded in convincing others . Few countries support him and I believe that his support at home is tenuous at best. And, Sadam knows this very well. It was said in Somalia that to get the US to pull out, just kill a few of them and it worked. Same thing when the Marine barracks was blown up in Beirut. Both were situations where American troops were put in very vulnerable situations. Sadam knows this. A few artillery shells laced with nerve gas resulting in a few hundred casualities, then we'll see how popular W and his war is.

I don't think W will ever win the French over. But I bet you can count the other countries in support of the US on one hand. The same was true of Vietnam, only it took a lot longer to evolve.

W has out this country in one hell of a position. Either we go in and hopefully clean Sadam's clock with virtually no international support and create an occupied client state or back down and give Sadam and every other two bit a**h*** the idea that he can do the same. Thanks W, and the wimp of a Congress for rolling over in support.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Cyowa: You do have some good points. The French are hardly paragons of moral virtue (let alone the Russians, for god's sake).

I guess my problem is in the latter part of your comment: I don't trust 'em-they've been planning the Imperium for 12 years.

Mike: Given our history in the region, your cartoon could easily be changed to show Kurds asking if the US will be screwing them again. The fix will be in if the Turks "democratically" decide to let us use their airfields.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
BKM said:


Mike: Given our history in the region, your cartoon could easily be changed to show Kurds asking if the US will be screwing them again. The fix will be in if the Turks "democratically" decide to let us use their airfields.

We may have a new line of work for you! :)



I just heard this song at lunchtime....



Darryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten"



I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground?
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
They say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start preaching
Let me ask you this my friend

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it every day
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
After 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

CHORUS 1
Have you forgotten how it felt that day
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away?
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside
Going through a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet they remember
Just what they're fighting for

CHORUS 2
Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heroes in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
All the loved ones that we lost
And those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about Bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?
Have you forgotten?
 

Jen

Cyburbian
Messages
1,702
Points
26
From MWAW.org. SIng to the tune of "if your happy and you know it"

"If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.

If the terrorists are the Saudi’s and the murderer’s those Israeli’s and the TV shows are bawdy, bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.

And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.

If the smoking gun ain't smokin' We don't care, and we're not jokin' that Saddam will soon be croakin', Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.

From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.

So to hell with the inspections; Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.

Yay! The clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.

If the ozone hole is growing, some things we prefer not knowing. [Though our ignorance is showing], bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq.

From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.

Saying no! would look like treason, It's the Hussein hunting season. Even if we have no reason, bomb Iraq.

Oh their infants we are slaying, Bomb Iraq.

But the price is worth the payin', Bomb Iraq.

There are human rights abuses, and vaccines that have dual uses, we

ain't makin’ no excuses, bomb Iraq.

Now the sanctions they ain't workin', bomb Iraq.

Collat'ral damage we ain't shirkin, bomb Iraq.

From your duty don't recoil, and lets not forget their oil, Supervilliany to foil, bomb Iraq.

Its our sacred moral duty, bomb Iraq.

And we'll all enjoy the booty, bomb Iraq.

We'll all get to do some shooting, then let Exxon do the lootin' and we'll really p*ss off Putin, bomb Iraq.

He gassed Kurds back in eighty-eight, bomb Iraq.

We object to this only of late, bomb Iraq.

At the time we were quite happy, to do business with the chappy, But for the sake of Bush's pappy, Boooomb Iraaaaaaaaq.

In no way is this poem meant to incite in kind of hatred, it is merely a reality which is put through in a humouros nursery rhyme"
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
Wow - that just goes to show that both sides of the debate should never again use songs to prove their points.
 

Mastiff

Gunfighter
Messages
7,165
Points
30
Re: W

Tom R said:
One big problem W has is, he sure hasn't suceeded in convincing others . Few countries support him and I believe that his support at home is tenuous at best.

Well, not quite. Most countries aren't in "full support" of military action, but I'd say we have a fair share that agree something needs to be done.

As far as at home goes...

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll shows much stability in the public's support for military action against Iraq. The poll, conducted March 3-5, shows 59% of Americans in favor of and 37% opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq attempting to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The "needle" on Iraq has not moved in the past few weeks, after showing a slight uptick following both President Bush's State of the Union address and Colin Powell's February speech before the United Nations. Following the Powell speech, 63% approved of military action, but support has fallen back slightly and has stayed at 59% in recent weeks.

Similarly, there has been little change in the public's assessment of Iraqi compliance with U.N. requirements, even though Iraq has begun to destroy some of its Al Samoud 2 missiles, as the United Nations required. The new poll shows 84% of Americans do not think Iraq is complying with what the United Nations has required it to do; only 11% believe Iraq is complying. This is essentially unchanged from a poll conducted in January, when 13% said Iraq was complying and 81% said it was not.
 

Seabishop

Cyburbian
Messages
3,832
Points
25
Tranplanner said:


So, I guess this offering by George Michael doesn't turn your crank? ;)

George Michael has never, and will never, turn my crank.

Is our response to George Michael really supposed to be "oh, ok . . . war is bad - let's let Saddam, Iran and N. Korea build their arsenals"? His trumpeting of the song assumes Saddam and co. are innocent, peace loving people, who we are bent on destroying. Many protestors really assume that the average person just doesn't know that war is bad. The issue is a lot more complex than peace - good, war - bad.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
I agree with you, Seabishop. I am bothered by protesters who seem to interested in protecting the "poor, Innocent Iraqi people"-and their children who we are responsible for injuring by not trading with Iraq.

I have other reasons for distrusting this war. Touchy-feelie protect the poor Iraqi people is not one of them.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Re: W

Tom R said:
It was said in Somalia that to get the US to pull out, just kill a few of them and it worked. Same thing when the Marine barracks was blown up in Beirut. Both were situations where American troops were put in very vulnerable situations. Sadam knows this. A few artillery shells laced with nerve gas resulting in a few hundred casualities, then we'll see how popular W and his war is.

Of course, Saddam does not have chemical or biological agents, because he already has complied with the UN's demands to disarm. ;)

I would argue that you have read this one very wrong. If Saddam uses these weapons that he does not have, virtually any international opposition to US action will disappear. No doubt, then, many more countires (except for France) would become a part of the "coalition of the willing." Within the United States, most opposition would similarly disappear. Not even Hitler would use chemical agents. What do you think we would do, walk away from a conflict against someone that bad?
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Re: Re: W

Michael Stumpf said:


Of course, Saddam does not have chemical or biological agents, because he already has complied with the UN's demands to disarm. ;)

I would argue that you have read this one very wrong. If Saddam uses these weapons that he does not have, virtually any international opposition to US action will disappear. No doubt, then, many more countires (except for France) would become a part of the "coalition of the willing." Within the United States, most opposition would similarly disappear. Not even Hitler would use chemical agents. What do you think we would do, walk away from a conflict against someone that bad?

We'd probably nuke the B******.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
I reckon I can get about 1.5 million lots outta Baghdad. No open space protection! No wetlands! Nothing!!

So lets start bombing so I can start rebuilding!
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
bomb

Mike D. said:
I reckon I can get about 1.5 million lots outta Baghdad. No open space protection! No wetlands! Nothing!!

So lets start bombing so I can start rebuilding!

One sick puppy.
 
Top