unbelievable

[MadamMillie]

so the pressure's heating up in london. "HEATHROW looked more like a military camp than the busiest international airport in the world yesterday after 1,000 police officers and 450 soldiers in light tanks combined in the biggest security operation the airport has seen." "the alert apparently focused on the risk of a ground-to-air missile attack from near the airport boundary"

i have to go there tonight to pick up a friend who's coming to stay w/ me:(

on another note, this came from the (london) times: "The opening days of the war are planned as a massive air assault aimed at collapsing Saddam’s command structure, followed by a “rush for Baghdad†by ground forces." maybe i'm naive, but i think it's absolutely horrendous for information like this to be available/leaked out to the media/public. "AMERICAN war planners believe that they have little more than 48 hours from the start of a ground war to kill President Saddam Hussein if they are to avoid a protracted conflict and a complicated peace." i mean, i know absolutely nothing about war planning, but shouldnt you NOT give away ANY details? this just makes me really really angry

91% of the british people oppose war w/o another UN backing. which is understandable. however i was surprised to learn from a very intelligent, older british person i work with that people here seriously believe that if the US attacks, what's the stop the US from invading other countries as it pleases, just b/c we (the US) thinks its part of the 'axis of evil'? i knew people thought that but i didnt think i'd find that line of thinking among rational people in a US-ally like the UK.

[therunner]

This war is based on the pretense of fighting terrorism. Iraq is not the grand-daddy of terrorism. But look at the map. Think real hard on who has been the world leader of state sponsored terrorism. Afghanistan (were we have troops) on the East, Turkey (where we have troops) to the North West, and after we invade Iraq, we will have troops on the West. And after the middle east is restored to a legitamate rule, I see the Horn of Africa beng the next serious hot spot.

We will never rid the world of all terrorist grups like Al-Queda, November-17, FARC, Hamas, Hezbollah, Red Army, or any other cowardly acting terrorist groups . But we will try like hell. Invading Iraq will not stop terrorism, it will not stop UBL from attacking innocent Americans, French, Polish or whoever he feels like is the next target. It will however deminish thier resources and safe confines. I have a great feeling that terrorist attacks will rise once we invade Iraq, and the American people willl shout at Bush with an "I told you so" But if you are going to fight, chances are you are going to get hit. It's risks, some risks you have to take. We can take a light hit now, and topple them before they get stronger. Or we can sit back, let these guys pump iron in the gym for a few more years and then take a serious hit. Someting that would make WTC look like a car accident. It was like 3000+ people that died at WTC, what do you think 100LBS of VX would do if it was let off in time square, Dupont Circle, Tower Bridge, the Eifle Tower, or at the Kremlin.

[crank47]

Originally posted by therunner

And after the middle east is restored to a legitamate rule, I see the Horn of Africa beng the next serious hot spot.

We have troops in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

[revaluation]

well said Runner.

There is not an easy answer. But backing from the UN? Backing from NATO? Let's not get confused. WE HAVE a super majority in BOTH the UN and NATO, but it's just not unanimous. There are 2 or 3 countries that have reservations. Fine. But that doesn't mean we're going it alone. Not even close. We have a ton of countries that are not just endorsing the cause but giving active military support.

If anyone is "doing it for oil" it's the French. They have the largest food-for-oil alliance with Iraq than any other country. The squeakiest wheel get the grease (or oil) I suppose, but let's consider the source.

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend their country?

A:

Who knows? They never have!

[Kuro]

Originally posted by therunner

And after the middle east is restored to a legitamate rule

What would you consider to be legitimate rule?

[vicman]

yeah the only thing is that even with all the talk bush puts up, the US will not engage in a ground war by itself.

if they want to go after fundamentalist states Saudi Arabia would be on that list, and that beckons the question of what is a "legitimate" government in the eyes of US politicians?

we might also want to think that Pinochet was put up in Chile to get rid of Salvador Allende, and he didn’t exactly end up with a clean record.

reason so many European countries have reservations is because they mostly feel that a lot of those terrorist acts will be taking place on their soil. there is a HUGE Turkish population in Germany, HUGE northern African population in France, large Iraki community in the UK and people there have all the right to be concerned.

shit, I dont know what the fucking answer to this mess is. Saddam is a lunatic but whatever happens when he gets removed will have to have a lot of US involvement, and that does not mean just placing another strong man that suits American interests. Irak is key in that region as they are right smack in the middle of the region, they are the only Muslim country that has a border with Iran and it also has a border with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

whatever is done there has to be done right, if not then 20 years from now it will be the same shit all over again.

it's just interesting how most Americans have stronger feelings after 9/11 about this terrorist mess than they did before. no need remind that America has never fought a war on their territory something that most of the other countries had to endure, something which strongly influences public opinion, and makes some countries more reluctant to cooperate.

a lot of times politics don’t make sense.

q: how many Americans lost their lives in Cuba?

a: zero

q: how many Americans lost their lives in Vietnam?

a: a lot.

q: with who did the US reestablish diplomatic relations a few years ago?

a: Vietnam.

on a final note, I’m not as well versed on this subject because I concluded that I do not like politics, but to those who are into this stuff my only suggestion would be to get all the different opinions and perspectives out there and then weighing things out and forming your own opinion. we are all individual thinkers with the capacity to be leaders and not followers. there is no sin in asking people what they think and just listen to what they have to say, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

we are all relatively young here and we all have a lot to learn (myself included) on whatever we are interested in. there is nothing wrong on being ignorant on something, choosing to remain ignorant, however, is wrong.

I’m done talking this type of stuff for the next 10 years.

[crank47]

Originally posted by vicman

q: how many Americans lost their lives in Cuba?

a: zero

On a side note, it's actually 311 lives lost in Cuba or 571 if you include the sinking of the USS Maine. "Remember the Maine and to hell with Spain!":rolleyes:

[revaluation]

Originally posted by Kuro

What would you consider to be legitimate rule?

A government of the people, for the people, by the people. A government that is accountable to the people who vote for their representatives.

Ya there are a ton of governments who aren't this way, and no, I dont think we should invade them. But I still don't find them to be as legitimate, or to be as respected.

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by MadamMillie

i mean, i know absolutely nothing about war planning, but shouldnt you NOT give away ANY details? this just makes me really really angry

91% of the british people oppose war w/o another UN backing. which is understandable. however i was surprised to learn from a very intelligent, older british person i work with that people here seriously believe that if the US attacks, what's the stop the US from invading other countries as it pleases, just b/c we (the US) thinks its part of the 'axis of evil'? i knew people thought that but i didnt think i'd find that line of thinking among rational people in a US-ally like the UK.

Geez. Are you in Chicken Little mode today? The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

a) those attack details, everyone already knows. You don't think Sadaam knows that the US is gonna bomb the shit out of him and then send in the troops? They've been saying that for months. Sure there are leaks of classified information, but that's not one of them. That's how people have been doing it since they invented air support. Soften them up with airstrikes, then send in the ground troops. I don't think Sadaam's sitting there rubbing his hands together after seeing that newscast and saying "Eureka! We've figured out how they're gonna strike!"

The very intelligent, older limey friend of yours may have been playing devils advocate, but seriously, he's a fucking idiot. Brian's right on. It's a point that seriously gets lost by all the hype. We don't have unanimous support, but we have majority support. If we didn't we'd never think about attacking. It would kill us politically. And he's right on about the oil point, too. We don't get shit from Iraq. France probably get the most, and I believe Russia gets a good deal from them too. So now who's it looking like is solely interested in preserving their oil interests?

[therunner]

Originally posted by crank47

We have troops in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

Yeah I know there are troops in Djibouti, there are troops in other African Countries, we have to get our a Command and control elements established before we can just roll in and start whacking terrorist.

And for legitmate rule; one that doesn't sponsor terrorism - one that allows free trade - one that allows freedom of religion - freedom of speech - allows women to go to school - music to play on the radio - one that is not against the oppression of the human race but one that is for the growth and development of all human beings wether they be white, black, jews, or gentiles, muslims and protestants all together as one.

This war is going to be long. The war on terrorism is going to go on forever. This world has been fighting terror since inception and it will never end. I know it's gloomy to think that we will live in a world of terrorism for as long as we live but it's true. We have been living in a world of terrorism forever and there is no changing it - it just didn't hit us hard until sept 11. Nobody cared about 12-15 even 200-300 americans getting killed overseas, it wasn't at home. Now that it hit the doorsteps of america - americans have noticed - When it came to going to Afghanistan everyone was for it because thats where Al-Queda came from, that was thier HQs, and they killed americans. If we would've gone into AF before sep 11 there would have been a lot of backlash because "they haven't done anything" or at least not to americans (on american soil). We were to late in going into AF, were are too late for going into IZ, but better late than never. 12 years ago IZ was prime for stomping - but 12 years ago that wasn't our mission - we freed a country and then backed out - gave them a chance to rid themselves of terror weapons and they haven't. So we waited until we got punched in the face - got the guys that hit us and now we go after the next guy that can kick us in the balls, and then the next and then the next.

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by vicman

if they want to go after fundamentalist states Saudi Arabia would be on that list, and that beckons the question of what is a "legitimate" government in the eyes of US politicians?

I think the key is an illegitimate government AND one that poses a threat. Sometimes it's a tough call trying to sort it all out, cause there are so many psycho rulers out there. Sometimes the only thing we can be is the Dutch boy plugging up the dike.

Europeans love to ask why we think we have the authority to police the world. It's funny how they forget history. We took a total isolationist position once, and Hitler went unchecked. He wanted to take over Europe, and maybe would have had we not been sucked into the war. Do we want to make that mistake again? Or, while we have the chance and a justification (the war on terrorism), should we try to pick a fight with a potential bully and get him out of there?

The French should just get back to picketing McDonald's, cause they obviously don't understand why they're not speaking German today.

[therunner]

Originally posted by shadygroovedc

Geez. Are you in Chicken Little mode today? The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

a) those attack details, everyone already knows. You don't think Sadaam knows that the US is gonna bomb the shit out of him and then send in the troops? They've been saying that for months. Sure there are leaks of classified information, but that's not one of them. That's how people have been doing it since they invented air support. Soften them up with airstrikes, then send in the ground troops. I don't think Sadaam's sitting there rubbing his hands together after seeing that newscast and saying "Eureka! We've figured out how they're gonna strike!"

The very intelligent, older limey friend of yours may have been playing devils advocate, but seriously, he's a fucking idiot. Brian's right on. It's a point that seriously gets lost by all the hype. We don't have unanimous support, but we have majority support. If we didn't we'd never think about attacking. It would kill us politically. And he's right on about the oil point, too. We don't get shit from Iraq. France probably get the most, and I believe Russia gets a good deal from them too. So now who's it looking like is solely interested in preserving their oil interests?

Right on!!

91 the air campaign started Jan 17th and we didn't hit the ground until feb 25th. So yeah we have to spoften them up.

And the oil - France is they largest supplier of OFF shit to Iraq. Thats where the Escro account for thier OFF program is so you know they are going to get thier oil before they release the money. The french are fucking pansy-ass idiots who are thinking of thier 150dollar a barrel oil prices when the shit hits the fan. I can't blame they really - and for harboring terrorist - well they don't fucking look for em' I hate the French, they have worse of a foriegn policy than we do. If it isn't West africa -they don't care. Free- lovin' french who like thier free oil and diamond mines.

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by therunner

Right on!!

91 the air campaign started Jan 17th and we didn't hit the ground until feb 25th. So yeah we have to spoften them up.

And the oil - France is they largest supplier of OFF shit to Iraq. Thats where the Escro account for thier OFF program is so you know they are going to get thier oil before they release the money. The french are fucking pansy-ass idiots who are thinking of thier 150dollar a barrel oil prices when the shit hits the fan. I can't blame they really - and for harboring terrorist - well they don't fucking look for em' I hate the French, they have worse of a foriegn policy than we do. If it isn't West africa -they don't care. Free- lovin' french who like thier free oil and diamond mines.

And they hate McDonald's. Those fucking Pepe Lepieu (sp?)bitches.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by revaluation

A government of the people, for the people, by the people. A government that is accountable to the people who vote for their representatives.

Ya there are a ton of governments who aren't this way, and no, I dont think we should invade them. But I still don't find them to be as legitimate, or to be as respected.

So what about Saudi Arabia?

[revaluation]

Originally posted by therunner

Yeah I know there are troops in Djibouti,

If I lived in Africa I'd want to live in Djubouti, so that when people asked I could say it like "Ja-BOOTY!!!!"

[revaluation]

Originally posted by Kuro

So what about Saudi Arabia?

What about 'em?

Well, they have a king, I believe...a monarchy anyway. Ya, sure, they're our "allies" and I hear Todd likes it a whole lot. But their system of government isn't anything I'd wanna be a part of....except for the whole women serve men thing, of course.

[revaluation]

While we're on the subject, I thought this was funny...

From George Will, Washington Post:

"In Munich last week, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer impertinently lectured Rumsfeld that America might have to stay in postwar Iraq for several years and wondered whether America has the staying power. Someone should tell Fischer that U.S. troops have been in Fischer's country 58 years -- not quite as long as Rome's legions were, but long enough to prove staying power."

[therunner]

Originally posted by Kuro

So what about Saudi Arabia?

Wht about China, North Korea, Brunei, Cuba, Syria and a shit load of other countries. I must say that Saudi is pretty fucked up. And it's pretty fucked up that they aren't on our shit-list. You don't always have to agree on your allies ways.

Someday, I hope, that all flags of all nations will be able to fly peacefully anywhere in the world.

[therunner]

Originally posted by revaluation

What about 'em?

except for the whole women serve men thing, of course.

Six paces BITCH!! I said "SIX PACES, BITCH"

Women aren't alowed to drive or even RIDE in the front seat of a car. So if you own a truck - Get in the back BITCH!!

[therunner]

Originally posted by revaluation

While we're on the subject, I thought this was funny...

From George Will, Washington Post:

wondered whether America has the staying power.

I've been told I have "staying power"

[shadygroovedc]

Originally posted by therunner

Six paces BITCH!! I said "SIX PACES, BITCH"

Women aren't alowed to drive or even RIDE in the front seat of a car. So if you own a truck - Get in the back BITCH!!

In Korea, women used to have to walk three paces behind their man. In the 1960's, women started walking three paces ahead of their men. When a westerner saw this, he was amazed at the liberation of women. He asked a man about it, and the man said "Liberation? Fuck no. Ever since the North came down, they planted mines everywhere, and we have the women walk in front now in case we run into one."

[Kuro]

Originally posted by therunner

And after the middle east is restored to a legitamate rule,

My point was that no place in the Middle East is going to be restored to any kind of "legitimate rule" anytime soon.

[MadamMillie]

Originally posted by therunner

Someday, I hope, that all flags of all nations will be able to fly peacefully anywhere in the world.

haha.....yeah right

[MadamMillie]

Originally posted by shadygroovedc

Geez. Are you in Chicken Little mode today? The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

a) those attack details, everyone already knows. You don't think Sadaam knows that the US is gonna bomb the shit out of him and then send in the troops? They've been saying that for months. Sure there are leaks of classified information, but that's not one of them. That's how people have been doing it since they invented air support. Soften them up with airstrikes, then send in the ground troops. I don't think Sadaam's sitting there rubbing his hands together after seeing that newscast and saying "Eureka! We've figured out how they're gonna strike!"

The very intelligent, older limey friend of yours may have been playing devils advocate, but seriously, he's a fucking idiot. Brian's right on. It's a point that seriously gets lost by all the hype. We don't have unanimous support, but we have majority support. If we didn't we'd never think about attacking. It would kill us politically. And he's right on about the oil point, too. We don't get shit from Iraq. France probably get the most, and I believe Russia gets a good deal from them too. So now who's it looking like is solely interested in preserving their oil interests?

stfu. of course iraq/sadam/bin laden/everyone has intelligence of some sort. but i dont think papers should be publishing stuff like that before the fact.

and i dont agree w/ you on point b. trust me, he's not an idiot, that's seriously the prevailing thought here. i agree it's a ludicrous train of thought, thats why i posted why i was incredulous about it. and i didnt say anything about oil, read my post again dumbass.

[MadamMillie]

Originally posted by vicman

it's just interesting how most Americans have stronger feelings after 9/11 about this terrorist mess than they did before. no need remind that America has never fought a war on their territory something that most of the other countries had to endure, something which strongly influences public opinion, and makes some countries more reluctant to cooperate.

why is it interesting that people have stronger feelings after 9/11? it's a perfectly reasonable, rational reaction. if people DIDNT have stronger feelings post 9-11, i'd say they're really fucked up people.

Originally posted by vicman

on a final note, I’m not as well versed on this subject because I concluded that I do not like politics, but to those who are into this stuff my only suggestion would be to get all the different opinions and perspectives out there and then weighing things out and forming your own opinion. we are all individual thinkers with the capacity to be leaders and not followers. there is no sin in asking people what they think and just listen to what they have to say, regardless of whether we agree with them or not.

of course...i dont think anyone (here at least) would disagree w/ you there