• 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?

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
Mike D. said:
So lets start bombing so I can start rebuilding!

Have you read that the Bush Administration has requested bids from five companies on a $900,000,000 contract to rebuild Iraq? You might get your chance, Mike. I am sure the company that gets that contract will do some hiring.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
WOW!!!

No, I haven't heard that. Actually my war doctrine is in line with the Mongols and other warring factions of that time....

Which is we don't rebuild anything. Yeah, we blow your country to kingdom come, destroy your culture and civilization as you know it, and NO we aren't rebuilding anything or giving you any economic aid, etc. Maybe you'll think twice before you get uppity again.

Just my $0.02 and I'm sure everyone of the bleeding heart liberals here will disagree with it ;)
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Just to set the record straight on which countries are supporting the U.S. position on Iraq. It should dispel any more hysteria with regard to unilateralism:

Great Britain
Spain
Italy
Portugal
Australia
Hungary
Poland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Albania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Kuwait
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Israel
United Arab Emrites
Oman

Obviously there are other fence sitters waitibng for the wind to blow. But, arguements for or against aside, we are not doing this alone.

And please refrain from any condescension regarding these countries which I am sure will follow.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,545
Points
25
Mike D. said:
WOW!!!

No, I haven't heard that. Actually my war doctrine is in line with the Mongols and other warring factions of that time....

Which is we don't rebuild anything. Yeah, we blow your country to kingdom come, destroy your culture and civilization as you know it, and NO we aren't rebuilding anything or giving you any economic aid, etc. Maybe you'll think twice before you get uppity again.

Just my $0.02 and I'm sure everyone of the bleeding heart liberals here will disagree with it ;)

When you think about it, it really makes no sense. Lets spend millions (or billions) bombin the s***t out of everything, then lets spend millions (or billions) fixing the stuff we just destroyed. I am leaning towards agreeing.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
I am wondering why Cyburbia Associates, Inc. (C.A.I.) was not offered the chance to bid on the contract.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
gkmo62u said:
And please refrain from any condescension regarding these countries which I am sure will follow.

Sorry I can't. Leno just had a great UN skit on last night with mock countries like Bumblef*ckia, etc... Half the countries you listed are Bumblef*ckias.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Bumblef%&^%$ia

I read somewhere that the combined armies of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are smaller than the NYC Police Department. :)
 

Wannaplan?

Ready to Learn
Messages
3,237
Points
30
We need mucho $ $ $ first! I still haven't received my first check.

Michael Stumpf said:
I am wondering why Cyburbia Associates, Inc. (C.A.I.) was not offered the chance to bid on the contract.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,837
Points
26
If for any reason Chile doesn't support multilateral action against Saddam and his regime, please be so kind to throw the Free Trade Agreement US/Chile out of the window....'cause anyways with those kind of stupid leaders, we're never going to get nowhere.

I am amazed by the stupidity of many that picture Saddam like a good person or the idiots that don't know that he is a dictator....

Saddam's gotta go... so what are we waitin' for?
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Re: Bumblef%&^%$ia

BKM said:
I read somewhere that the combined armies of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are smaller than the NYC Police Department. :)

These countries are basically here for moral support not military. Except for Canada and Britain there aren't any militaries which could really help us out.

The thing that gets me is Mexico still sitting onthe fence. That country will cease to exist without us. I just don't understand what they are still questioning.
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,937
Points
39
Re: Re: Bumblef%&^%$ia

Mike D. said:


Except for Canada and Britain there aren't any militaries which could really help us out.


I don't think the Canadian military is in much of a position to help much...(other than our special forces). Besides, our government won't let them go until the second resolution passes...maybe. Nobody can really figure out where the government is at, though the PM says you guys have already won. I think they should have used a translator for his interview last Sunday on ABC.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,370
Points
29
Mike im a left leaning lib and im with you, blow their country up and let them clean it up-but then wed get another nut job in there from Iraq or it might destabilize the countries around it.


what a bleep'n mess.

I was reading an Op Ed in the NYT this morning ill have to go back and add the link to here. It was quite good.

PG
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,961
Points
31
I've been following this thread, and reserving comment, but to second TP's comment, the equipment and manpower we have committed won't really make a difference. hell, one of our frigates/destroyers had to return home because one of the 40 year old helicopters on board crashed 3 days out from Halifax.



PS - EG, please come back, while I don't always agree with you, I respect that you are as principled and consistent with your views as you are.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
donk said:
I've been following this thread, and reserving comment, but to second TP's comment, the equipment and manpower we have committed won't really make a difference. hell, one of our frigates/destroyers had to return home because one of the 40 year old helicopters on board crashed 3 days out from Halifax.



All right all right....

I was trying not to piss off the Canucks this early in the morning. Your military is worthless!! We invited them to the party cause they said they would supply the beer.

OK?? Better??
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,961
Points
31
Is that because your ships and bases are dry while ours carry on the British tradition of forced drinking?

On a related note, our artillery will be useless too, because there are no trees to burn. (see recent fires in gagetown and petawawa)
 

sal95

Cyburbian
Messages
65
Points
4
Pro or Con, Support our troops

Agree with it or not, open debate and protesting is one of our greatest freedoms in America. . .as much as it can turn my stomach especially since my brother and husband are over there- I understand this precious right. I just received this quote and I thought I would pass it on.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Re: Pro or Con, Support our troops

sal95 said:
Agree with it or not, open debate and protesting is one of our greatest freedoms in America. . .as much as it can turn my stomach especially since my brother and husband are over there- I understand this precious right. I just received this quote and I thought I would pass it on.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

-Father Dennis Edward O'Brien

Support the troops by all means. The big question and the genesis of the protest is whether the US should send them out there in the first place. If we're going to go, the GO and get it overwith. Just be sure that it all is worthwhile and we know what we are doing before we commit. Probably the only thing worse than war is a senseless war. I sincerely wish you and your loved ones well and a safe return. When they do come back, give them a welcome home for me.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
I just want to refresh everyone's memory here because this will be frsh in mind until all the boys I trained come home....

Our Marines, soldiers, etc are kids. OK?

Most of them do not know why they are there, they were just told to show up. Most of them do not understand the various reasons why protesters protest. To them, they are protesting against them.

There are alot of 2 x 4s that are smarter than some Marines, but they have more heart than most Americans could ever imagine, and they will do what they are called upon to do, and go where they are asked to go without hesitation.

Remember that the next time you "protest the war but support our troops." To most of our troops, there is no difference.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
Well said Mike. I was watching some newsie reporting live from the desert, interviewing a shartshooter high school drop out. I thought, "Jesus I'm glad he's in a structured military environment and not out on the streets."
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,589
Points
34
And from The Onion

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War

WASHINGTON, DC—Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
 

Mastiff

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


the quick road to nuclear war.

Wow! What a leap THAT is... Would you care to expound on why a change in U.S. policy regarding Israel in 1967 would lead to nuclear war?
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,069
Points
34
When I returned from Gulf War I, I was confronted by a protester who wanted me to understand that while he thought the war was wrong, he supported our troops. I was Army, so I was already smarter than a Marine, but I think I am also smart enough to understand why we were there in the first place. With the first-hand knowledge of what Iraq did to Kuwait, I wholly concurred with our being there. I still do not understand how somebody can think a war is wrong, but not the people who wage it.

This time, I am not certain that our path to war is the best way to handle Saddam. There is more than one way to eliminate the guy and his weapons. I will voice my opposition in the hopes that war will be averted. If we do go to war, though, I will support the troops.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,547
Points
24
One Question...

Has there ever been a national debate over US involvement in a war that was as divided as it currently seems, before the war has even started?

I know there was considerable debate in the 1910s prior to World War I about our involvement; many people said it was a European war that we needed to stay out of, but after four years the war stagnated and Woodrow Wilson convinced the nation that our interests were threatened. There was the "America First" movement led by Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s that sought to keep us out of World War II, but Pearl Harbor changed all that.

I guess I'm searching for historical perspective and precedent. Have we ever had such vigorous debate before any US war has started? If not, can we be successful in the war effort (or more importantly, the peace-building) with a divided home front?
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
BKM said:
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.

How can you have a democracy that has no constituion? Israel repeatedly blames Palestines for their woes and lays claim to land they got after the 1858 Land Law passed that stated they had to prove who the owners were. Palestines had typically passed the land down though generations and did not have proof, the Jewish Zionists came in, bought the land from absentee Arab landlords in the name of Jewish National Fund, and made sure it could not be sold or leased to Arabs. They repeadtly break UN resolutions, even those agreed upon when they were admitted to the UN. What about the massacares, lining up men, women, and children and slaughtering them? What about the fact they lay claim to land when historically they only ruled that land for 416 years, the Arabs have ruled for thousands? Israel was not a lnad without people, for a people without land, it was inhabited by 700,000 Arabs! The UN created the state of Isreal, and the Zionist movement wanted only flee to Palestine when the Jews were faced with the Nazis, Zionist Yitzahk Shamir even trying to form an alliance with the Nazis, only to be turned down. (One Zionist, Ben-Gurion, going so far as to say they would rather only half of the Jewish children surive the Nazis to move to Palestine, as opposed to all of them moving to England.)I'd have to say any indeginious people would be pissed off if they were told to leave and were made to leave under British guns (who gained control of Palestine after WWI and then let it go to the UN shortly after the creation of the UN because of mass fighting). I do not believe we should support any nation that breaks UN resolutions, and if the UN cannot pass an act to let us go to war, perhaps we should also back off or been seen as hypocritical of punishing only a select few who break UN resolutions and then doing it ourselves.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,370
Points
29
Pete i was thinking the same thing on the drive in this AM, i cant place a time in US history where there has been such an uproar beforehand

well ok unless you count the revolution ;-)
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Re: One Question...

pete-rock said:


I guess I'm searching for historical perspective and precedent. Have we ever had such vigorous debate before any US war has started? If not, can we be successful in the war effort (or more importantly, the peace-building) with a divided home front?

But would you agree that our country gets a little more "liberal" every year?

There wasn't much dissention after Pearl Harbor, right? I don't see the difference now.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
I think one of the reasons for the uproar is, to a certain extent, the country is very divided on a lot of issues. The whole "red heartland versus blue coasts" thing. George Bush did LOSE the popular vote, after all, by a few hundred thousand votes. The war thing shows a visible crack in the unity of the country.

Plus, you have modern technology that allows the dissemination of political dissent very quickly and very easily. That's one thing that scares me about some recent proposals to allow increased consolidation of media companies and internet service providers-will the possibility for dissent be stifled as the Internet becomes less and less "free"?

As for "How can you oppose the war but support the soliders." That is a difficult question. I think the more rational members of "the left" are simply trying to preempt the right's argument that being anti-war means you hate the soliders.

More fundamentally, though, the answer was given in an earler post: many (not all, by any means) soldiers are very young, not necessarily very politically astute (again, not universally true), and, most importantly of all, are not responsible for the policies that led to their participation in the war. To quote Black Sabbath, its the "War Pigs"(Wolfowitz, Cheney,et al) who are to blame, not the troops in the trenches (who suffer during the war).
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Mike: Do you really think the country is more liberal ever year?

Popular culture is certainly more "corrupt" each year, but look at the countervailing rise in fundamentalist Protestant religions.

I think the country is culturally splintering, if anything.
 

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
The ubiquitousness (if thats a word) of the debate is a great point guys. I chalk it up to a couple of things:

The American people, pacificst to hawk do not take lightly the idea of war, but because of September 11, 2001 the debate is amplified.

The debate is loud because we have become two nations really, exemplified by the Country In Colors (Red and Blue) taken from the 2000 elections. The Country is spilt essentially 50/50 on everything (except the war which is actually 60 for 40 against), from bush haters to Clinton haters etc...

BKM

Although any reasonable person would question some of the actions taken by Israel, particularly the expansion of the settlements on the west bank but they are truely a Country surrounded by people who want to end the NAtion's existance, and I think because of that they get a little slack.

I brush off any references to UN resolutions (in general) with regard to Israel as the UN of recent vintage has clearly shown a pro-palestinean slant.

I'll get personal on this one, but you are an idiot to suggest that the treatment of the American Indian is comparable to the treatment of the Palestinean people. The likelihood is the treatment of the Jews by Europe over the years is more similar.

texas planner

if you don't know that a democracy means free and fair elections by citizens.....and by saying nobody should break UN resolutions suggests that the UN has our best interests at heart is so naive its laughable...

pete-rock

we are not as divided as you actually think--60 percent support the war.
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Re: Re: One Question...

Mike D. said:


But would you agree that our country gets a little more "liberal" every year?

There wasn't much dissention after Pearl Harbor, right? I don't see the difference now.

Nope. Just the opposite. More conservative and red necked. I think part of the "problem" with dissent is that some people remember Viet Nam. Some fools even think of it romantically, Woodstock, etc.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
I won't get personal, but I disagree.

In some ways American treatment of natives was, in its deliberateness, appeal to "manifest destiny" and inherent racism had a some of the same intellectual basis as the Holocaust. The Indians were not "people" to our ancestors, they were an obstacle to be removed for white settlers', to borrow a word, "leibensraum." We were not as coldly organized as the Germans, and, the American state was obviously not the totalitarian nightmare of the Nazi reich. But, destruction of an entire people was a deliberate policy, widely supported by the population at the time as well as the inevitable demographic changes created by immigration. I see this as very similar to the actions of the Zionist project.
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
gkmo62u said:
The ubiquitousness (if thats a word) of the debate is a great point guys. I chalk it up to a couple of things:

The American people, pacificst to hawk do not take lightly the idea of war, but because of September 11, 2001 the debate is amplified.

The debate is loud because we have become two nations really, exemplified by the Country In Colors (Red and Blue) taken from the 2000 elections. The Country is spilt essentially 50/50 on everything (except the war which is actually 60 for 40 against), from bush haters to Clinton haters etc...

BKM

Although any reasonable person would question some of the actions taken by Israel, particularly the expansion of the settlements on the west bank but they are truely a Country surrounded by people who want to end the NAtion's existance, and I think because of that they get a little slack.

I brush off any references to UN resolutions (in general) with regard to Israel as the UN of recent vintage has clearly shown a pro-palestinean slant.

I'll get personal on this one, but you are an idiot to suggest that the treatment of the American Indian is comparable to the treatment of the Palestinean people. The likelihood is the treatment of the Jews by Europe over the years is more similar.

texas planner

if you don't know that a democracy means free and fair elections by citizens.....and by saying nobody should break UN resolutions suggests that the UN has our best interests at heart is so naive its laughable...

pete-rock

we are not as divided as you actually think--60 percent support the war.

What's laughable is your arrogant responses to valid points-
And you're saying Israel is treating citizens free and fair, not just during election? A deomcracy is not just about elections it is also the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
The UN may not be the brightest at all times, however my point was that we should not point fingers at Iraq for beaking UN resolutions just because we don't like them, Israel is also in violation, but we still chose to support them, and their terrorist behaviour. Israel is surronded by a people that want to get rid of Israel because Israel took what was, in their eyes, rightfully theirs! They came in on the Ottoman Empire with the Zionist attitude that all Arabs must leave their rightfull land. How can you take a man's land, tell him he will never get it back because he's Arab, blow his arm off for throwing a rock at you, and act like a victim?

Wasn't this supposed to be the war on terrorism? Aren't we then, to some extent, supporting a nation that has lead terrorist attacks?
 

NHPlanner

A shadow of my former self
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
10,139
Points
45
Repeating PlannerGirl's warning....keep it civil folks....the moderators don't want to have to be deleting personal attacks.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,370
Points
29
Mod Note

NO personal attacks

2 posts by gkmo62u have been deleated-this is fair warning, cool off.

PG
 

Habanero

Cyburbian
Messages
3,217
Points
27
QUOTE:

I find it odd you continue to refer to the issue in terms of:

"Zionist Project"
wtf?

I'm done.


If you don't know what the refrence to the Zionist project was, perhaps you need to read up a bit . The Zionist movement is what pushed the exodus of Jews to Palestine to claim "their land". They showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. They looked forward to a COMPLETE dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be wholly Jewish. Then they complain about anti-Semitism when it wasn't that the Arabs hated the Jews, it's that they were losing what had been their for so long due to a Zionist movement into their land that posed a real and imminent danger to the very existance of Arabs in Palestine-
 
Last edited:

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
BOOOOO!

Oh man, I didn't get a change to answer. OK, I'm guilty. "Redneck" in some circles is a perjorative term, as is "liberal." I shouldn't have used it and I appologize. Rednecks and conservatives are people too, I think. Anyway, call me a liberal. I've been called worse.

Its not really relevant to the discussion though. It is my humble opinion that a country should not go into a war without strong public support and when appropriate, allied support.

There was a lot of discussion before the Spanish-American war. The Maine was pretty much a convenient occurrance that was used as a pretext for war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, however, was an outright lie not all that different than Hitler's pretext for invading Poland.

But as for now, W's "trust me" just isn't enough. If it was Clinton saying it, I'm sure it wouldn't be enough for those of the more conservative political persuasion.
 

Jeff

Cyburbian
Messages
4,159
Points
27
Is the whole war debate really just about who won the Presidential Election??
 

Tranplanner

maudit anglais
Messages
7,937
Points
39
Mike D. said:
Is the whole war debate really just about who won the Presidential Election??

It shouldn't be...but unfortunately it certainly appears to be playing a large part in it.
 

PlannerGirl

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
6,370
Points
29
No I dont think its about just who won the election though even if Bush were to walk on water he will always have that spector over his head. The issue as about as muddy as the Mississippi in the spring melts.
 

BKM

Cyburbian
Messages
6,461
Points
29
Mike has a good point

Not that this changes my opinions necessarily.

Maybe there is a sense of betrayal that the thin mandate won by Bush (a "victory" that is debatable, but for the sake of argument) is being used for some fairly dramatic policy changes-both foreign and domestic. I don't know. Plus, you DO have people who are against any military action whatsoever-or who automatically blame the US for everything. (Believe it or not, I'm not in that class :) )
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
no

Mike D. said:
Is the whole war debate really just about who won the Presidential Election??

Not in my opinion.
I have no idea how Al Gore would have acted after 9/11. In response to that trajedy, I think W did a good job. We went into Afghanistan in a very intelligent manner and it has and I think it will continue to pay off. Some of the civil liberty limitations are kind of scary but was to be expected.

I just think that the "Axis of Evil" speech was very poor diplomacy. The N. Koreans took it to heart and who knows where they are going with it. The Sadam/Iraq problem seemed to come out of nowhere. And with Daddy's history with Iraq and the assination plot, its no wonder that a lot of people are skeptical. I trust Colin Powell more than I do the Prez. I hope we're not being fooled again.
 

RedsFan

BANNED
Messages
9
Points
0
NHPlanner said:
Repeating PlannerGirl's warning....keep it civil folks....the moderators don't want to have to be deleting personal attacks.

I don't think anyone is being out of line. Heated debate yes, but attacks no. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need this heavy handed moderation. You've succeded in chasing one guy off already because of this bs censorship. Mods: relax and let this debate be natural.
 

pete-rock

Cyburbian
Messages
1,547
Points
24
I can't see the whole war debate being simply about who's President now -- red states, blue states, whatever. I have no idea either what a President Gore would've done after 9/11, but I am still in admiration for how President Bush responded that day and immediately afterward.

There was wide support for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. There was wide support for the Gulf War because of the invasion of Kuwait. There was even strong support of other military actions (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.) under the guise of UN backing. But I think support splinters here because of concerns about the US commitment in Iraq after the war.

The Pearl Harbor analogy -- I see some differences. Japan did it, said they did it, and did it because they sought control of the Pacific. After defeating China, and with Russia occupied with Germany, the US was the only remaining challenge to Japanese supremacy in the Pacific. We had to confront their imperialistic spread.

With 9/11, al-Qaeda did it (with Taliban/Afghan support), said they did it, and did it because they wanted to wound us. We had to (and did) confront the threat to us, and the challenge is far from complete. However, if I were to put the Iraq situation in the World War II context, it would be like defeating Japan and then invading and occupying, say, Korea or China (pre-Korean War) to keep an eye on Asia and prevent Pearl Harbor from happening again.

Sure there are huge differences between the two (not the least of which is that Japan's army was far stronger than what Iraq has now), but I would think that if President Truman had argued for invading Korea or China in 1945, the nation would have responded with a no.
 

NHPlanner

A shadow of my former self
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
10,139
Points
45
RedsFan said:


I don't think anyone is being out of line. Heated debate yes, but attacks no. We're all big boys and girls, we don't need this heavy handed moderation. You've succeded in chasing one guy off already because of this bs censorship. Mods: relax and let this debate be natural.

RedsFan: Please check your Private Messages for the moderator's position on moderating personal attacks.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,545
Points
25
Re: no

Tom R said:


Not in my opinion.
I have no idea how Al Gore would have acted after 9/11. In response to that trajedy, I think W did a good job. We went into Afghanistan in a very intelligent manner and it has and I think it will continue to pay off. Some of the civil liberty limitations are kind of scary but was to be expected.

I don't know if anybody has ever seen or heard comedian David Cross, but on his newest CD he makes the point that "even Nader would have bombed Afghanistan." I think he is right. Everybody says Bush did such a good job (and he did) but anybody in that office would have done the same thing.
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,837
Points
26
The Maine was pretty much a convenient occurrance that was used as a pretext for war.
Now that you REMEMBER me of that...AFAIK The Maine exploded not because of Spanish Terrorism, but because the gunpowder was too close to the engine and the heat made the gunpowder ignite and explode. "Remember The Maine" was quite a catch phrase in 1898...
 

Tom R

Cyburbian
Messages
2,274
Points
25
Maine

SkeLeton said:

Now that you REMEMBER me of that...AFAIK The Maine exploded not because of Spanish Terrorism, but because the gunpowder was too close to the engine and the heat made the gunpowder ignite and explode. "Remember The Maine" was quite a catch phrase in 1898...

I've also heard that it could have been coal dust..
The point is that the explosion was used as a pretext for going to war when a sound reason was lacking.
 
Top