Americans, get out your draft cards

General chitchat, advertisements for other services, and other non-Cantr-related topics

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:05 am

kroner wrote:I think in actuallity oil only had a very small role in the US entering Iraq. The real reasons were all politics. The US has a number of dangerous enemies around the world, Iraq being one, but not the most dangerous. Why Iraq then? The "war on terror" is what has brought Bush so much of his popularity, but after Afganistan was finished, he needed to keep the "war on terror" going and needed to divert attention from Afganistan as the Taliban began retaking the country side. Iraq is in the Middle East which brings crazy America hating Islamic Fundamentalists to the minds of Americans. Even though Sadam Hussien was a secular dictator and hated Osama bin Laden, voters would still be able to imagine they were fighting terrorists. If the US attacked North Korea, or somewhere else that posed a real threat, Americans would think that we were terribly out of line to do so. North Korea has never attacked us so why attack them? Well Iraq has never attacked us either.

And oil was supposed to pay for all this. The US government overestimated Iraq's infrastructure and underestimeted the resistance that would meet them after the invasion. Instead of using Iraqi oil to pay for their liberation, it's costing the US $87 billion and you can be sure that figure will go up in the future. I say Iraq was a failure because the situation is much worse than anyone involved in it's planning anticapated. Certainly this doesn't mean that it's impossible for things to turn out well in the end, but it is becoming increasingly unlikely. Things will get worse before they get better. We now need more troops than ever and more money to pour in. Most people in Iraq are probably better off then they were under Sadam Hussien, but Iraq is hardly a safe and friendly place to be right now.

Obviously Sadam Hussien was a terrible leader who was terrible to his people, but is it the US's place to go overthrowing governments that pose no direct threat? (No, Iraq did not pose any direct threat.) If so, then what about all the other countries in the world with oppressive governments? There are many as bad as or worse than Iraq was. Many in South and Central America were put into power by the CIA. So did the US invade Iraq because it was right? Of course not. What is right and wrong is never the motivation behind US foreign policy, only what is convenient and what is politically savy.

Now we find ourselves in a quite a spot. We obvioulsy can't just pull out. It looks like the US has no choice but to follow through. But that doesn't mean Bush is off the hook. The decision to go in was stupid and purely politically motivated. Bush plays games with people's live so he can look like a hero. Please, I beg of you, don't vote for him.


Hmmm....didn't Conservative say the same thing about Clinton and many of his foreign ventures. :roll:

Why don't people just come to accept the fact that other people will find evidence to back up their claims?

So I will produce my own evidence package in sort of a satrical way;

If D-Day Had Been Reported On Today

by William A. Mayer

Tragic French Offensive Stalled on Beaches (Normandy, France - June 6, 1944) - Pandemonium, shock and sheer terror predominate today's events in Europe.

In an as yet unfolding apparent fiasco, Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower's troops got a rude awakening this morning at Omaha Beach here in Normandy.

Due to insufficient planning and lack of a workable entrance strategy, soldiers of the 1st and 29th Infantry as well as Army Rangers are now bogged down and sustaining heavy casualties inflicted on them by dug-in insurgent positions located 170 feet above them on cliffs overlooking the beaches which now resemble blood soaked killing fields at the time of this mid-morning filing.

Bodies, parts of bodies, and blood are the order of the day here, the screams of the dying and the stillness of the dead mingle in testament to this terrible event.

Morale can only be described as extremely poor--in some companies all the officers have been either killed or incapacitated, leaving only poorly trained privates to fend for themselves.

Things appear to be going so poorly that Lt. General Omar Bradley has been rumored to be considering breaking off the attack entirely. As we go to press embattled U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
spokesman has not made himself available for comment at all, fueling fires that something has gone disastrously awry.

The government at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in a distinct lock-down mode and the Vice President's location is presently and officially undisclosed.

Whether the second in command should have gone into hiding during such a crisis will have to be answered at some future time, but many agree it does not send a good signal.

Miles behind the beaches and adding to the chaos, U.S. Naval gunships have inflicted many friendly fire casualties, as huge high explosive projectiles rain death and destruction on unsuspecting Allied positions. The lack of training of Naval gunners has been called into question numerous times before and today's demonstration seems to underlie those concerns.

At Utah Beach the situation is also grim, elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne seemed to be in disarray as they missed their primary drop zones behind the area believed to comprise the militant's front lines. Errant paratroopers have been hung up in trees, breaking arms and legs, rendering themselves easy targets for those defending this territory.

On the beach front itself the landing area was missed, catapulting U.S. forces nearly 2,000 yards South of the intended coordinates, thus placing them that much farther away from the German insurgents and unable to direct covering fire or materially add to the operation.

Casualties at day's end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now--with no exit strategy in sight--as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover's depression and its 25% unemployment.

Military spending has skyrocketed the national debt into uncharted regions, lending another cause for concern. When and if the current hostilities finally end it may take generations for the huge debt to be repaid.

On the planning end of things, experts wonder privately if enough troops were committed to the initial offensive and whether at least another 100,000 troops should have been added to the force structure before such an audacious undertaking. Communication problems also have made their presence felt making that an area for further investigation by the appropriate governmental committees.

On the home front, questions and concern have been voiced. A telephone poll has shown dwindling support for the wheel-chair bound Commander In Chief, which might indicate a further erosion of support for his now three year-old global war.

Of course, the President's precarious health has always been a question. He has just recently recovered from pneumonia and speculation persists whether or not he has sufficient stamina to properly sustain the war effort. This remains a topic of furious discussion among those questioning his competency.

Today's costly and chaotic landing compounds the President's already large credibility problem.

More darkly, this phase of the war, commencing less than six months before the next general election, gives some the impression that Roosevelt may be using this offensive simply as a means to secure re-election in the fall.

Underlining the less than effective Allied attack, German casualties--most of them innocent and hapless conscripts--seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that "the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war."

"The news couldn't be better," Adolph Hitler said when he was first informed of the D-Day assault earlier this afternoon.

"As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them."

German minister Goebbels had been told of the Allied airborne landings at 0400 hours.

"Thank God, at last," he said. "This is the final round."
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:08 am

And for shits and giggles;

Berlin Bob
" I can say with no doubt that the American gangsters are being driven back into the sea , leaving their boots and guns behind . They wail inside their burning tanks . Also , the cowardly Canadians and English are surrendering by the thousands now that they know that the villian Churchill and his Jewish cronies have lied to them about this foolish adventure . All praise our fuhrer . The citizens are taking up all arms to aid our heroic defenders against the criminals who have destroyed their homes , burning their women and children . The attack is doomed to failure . You can trust me when I say this . "
Berlin Bob . June 6 1944 .
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:09 am

You can't compare this to WWII. I wish everyone would stop. In WWII Nazis nearly took over the world.

We really stopped those Baathists from taking over the world, didn't we. Yeah right.

I hope you understand the concept of limited war. It doesn't sound like it.
DOOM!
User avatar
ephiroll
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 am
Location: here and there
Contact:

Postby ephiroll » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:20 am

It's not a comparison saying that they would take over the world, but given more time they would have caused more trouble this what we have now by going after them. If some lunatic got ahold of a nuke, just how long do you think it'll be before one of the western powers has a city disappear in a cloud of radioactive ash?

But for comparison, just because:

Saddam-randomly killed his peers to inspire fear and prevent anyone from questioning him, he ordered mass executions of innocent people, he used chemical and biological weapons against his own people, he ordered prisoners tortored as an object lesson so the general populance wouldn't rise against him.

Hitler-randomly killed his peers to inspire fear and prevent anyone from questioning him, he ordered mass executions of innocent people, he allowed medical experiments to be performed on prisoners, he tested chemical and biological weapons on prisoners.

The world is better off without Saddam, and that is worth all this trouble in itself.
Last edited by ephiroll on Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.ephiroll.com
Jeremiah 'Jerry' Donaldson
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:25 am

No, no. You're missing the point.

You see D-Day was a blood bath and if it had happened today in this era then wouldn't the media put a spin like this on it. A person can look on one event and see it one wat but another look on another event and see something totally different.

This was more of a critism of today's media being all hyperbole and all. But I think it can also be used in a way to show another point of view that we wouldn't have thought about.

During the first month of war in Iraq, I remember someone's comment to the affect if you watch CNN we are losing the war, if you watch FOX then we are winning the war, and if you watch MSNBC then no one had a fucking clue as to what was happening except there were some really cool explosions going on. The point was different perspectives and seeing things in a different light. If you are a Liberal minded person than you tend to agree with Democrats and their policies vice versa for Conservatives even if the policies are really the same as the other one except taken in a and from a different perspective.

Are you getting me yet? I am not arguing whether or not Iraq was right or not (you all know by now that I think the Iraq war was good). I am just arguing different prespectives see things differently know matter what one does or say. That is something that I really have learned from this forum and the debates here. And I think we all can learn from these different perspectives if we can get our heads out of arses long enough to see past our own bullshit.

The fact that the D-Day article is about WWII is just coincidence that worked in favor of my argument about different perspectives. Though it is a really good critism of today's media. :wink:
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:27 am

@ephiroll: There are quite a number of leaders like that around, but the US doesn't take action against them. North Korea is even trying to develop nukes right now, while it seems that Sadam Hussien never really was anywhere close.

What I'm trying to say is that the reasons you listed aren't the ones that motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq.

@rkl: Ok, if that's what you're saying then sure, I agree. News coverage now is rediculous. But I also think that context is extremely important.
Last edited by kroner on Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
DOOM!
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:28 am

kroner wrote:You can't compare this to WWII. I wish everyone would stop. In WWII Nazis nearly took over the world.

We really stopped those Baathists from taking over the world, didn't we. Yeah right.

I hope you understand the concept of limited war. It doesn't sound like it.


Oh, were you replying to me or Jerry? Looking back on this now it sounds more like you were replying to Jerry and if so you can disregard my last post (the one before this one). :D
User avatar
kroner
Posts: 1463
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2003 4:39 pm
Location: new jersey...

Postby kroner » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:30 am

heheheh... everything is getting all confused.
DOOM!
User avatar
ephiroll
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 am
Location: here and there
Contact:

Postby ephiroll » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:37 am

I'm not particulary worried about North Korea, they have alot more to loose then the bunch of religous fanatics we're fighting in the middle east. North Korea is like a small USSR, they're going to push the world far as they can, but in the end it's not going to go any farther then that. They aren't the kind of people to strap bombs to their bodies and go walking onto a bus, they're looking for some sort of advantage coming out of it, not to get into their version of heaven.

And why do you say we're in Iraqi? Bottom line I think is we're there to finish old business, the whole war on terror is somewhat separte from it but not entirely so because the radicals always fall back to the same tactics, and have connections to known terriosts groups.
http://www.ephiroll.com
Jeremiah 'Jerry' Donaldson
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:39 am

kroner wrote:@ephiroll: There are quite a number of leaders like that around, but the US doesn't take action against them. North Korea is even trying to develop nukes right now, while it seems that Sadam Hussien never really was anywhere close.

What I'm trying to say is that the reasons you listed aren't the ones that motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq.


Not trying. They are developing Nukes right now. They even have a few already.

The problem with North Korea is that China would never allow and attack on a fellow Communist nation. We learned that in the Korean War and was one reason why we enver invaded North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Saddam did come close to developing Nukes. Israel just set that plan way far back when they bombed his nuclear plants in the 1980's.

Plus, Saddam was in direct violation of the UN. And that has been proven. The only thing has been proven yet are the large stockpiles of WMDs as reported not only be the CIA but by the UN and the UN Weapons Inspectors. We have found small stockpiles of WMDs most of them redating Persian Gulf War and probably just forgotten.

What makes me afraid is that these stockpiles did exist at one time. If Saddam had destroyed them why didn't he just cough that up before the US invaded. He still got to thumb his nose at the rest of the world and still stayed in power. Which makes me believe that maybe he doesn't even know where they are or he did something to them that we wouldn't like.
User avatar
ephiroll
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 am
Location: here and there
Contact:

Postby ephiroll » Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:47 am

Yeah, I don't believe for a second that the sockpiles were destroyed. There's alot of desert to bury something in, and it would take alot of time or alot of luck to find them depending on where they are. It's easy enough to go out to the middle of nowhere with a GPS receiver and burying something without there being a single trace. Some may have been done away with, but certainly not all. Question is, who knows where?
http://www.ephiroll.com
Jeremiah 'Jerry' Donaldson
User avatar
Pirog
Posts: 2046
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2003 8:36 am
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden

Postby Pirog » Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:32 pm

I find it really strange that so many Americans use the idea of other countries having nukes or other WMDs as reasons for waging war on them.

You are sitting on the largest amount of nukes, biological and chemical weapons on this planet, have a history of using them, and even your greatest allies have you on their top lists of the greatest risk for world peace.

You have such a one-sided view of the world.
Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden are movie crooks in your eyes. You aren't even considering them having motives for their actions that sounds logical and seems good to them...you just write them off as one of those pure evil, world domination crazed criminals that figures like James Bond are fighting.

If Saddam really had WMDs, why didn't he use them?
If Iraq could have posed a threat compared to Nazi Germany within 20 years, how come their army crumbled after a mere week against an attacking force?

Do you people even think before you take a stand in these matters?
If you analyze things you should always try to think about a problem from different perspectives, but you never do that.
You can't even grasp the fact that in a large part of the world YOU are the evil force threatening the world (I'm not talking about my views now), because you are so sure that you, the western world and capitalism stands for the good.
Eat the invisible food, Industrialist...it's delicious!
User avatar
ephiroll
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 am
Location: here and there
Contact:

Postby ephiroll » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:32 am

*sigh* I really wish I knew where you are getting your info, because you're spewing a bunch of conspiracy theory crap.

It isn't the fact that another country has WMD's, it's the fact that certain people are willing to use them with little regard as to who they're shooting at. We aren't worried about Britian shooting nukes at us, or Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or even China. Saddam on the other hand would have and we know it, and we know people he dealt with would have.

What history of using WMD's do we have? Yeah, we nuked Japan, and that was the only time the US has used WMD in actual combat. We have never used chemical or biological weapons against anyone. Europeans on the other hand happily gassed the hell out of each other in WWI and WWII.

Saddam and Osama aren't "crooks", here's a bit of history anyone can look up if they feel like taking the time to do so:

Osama was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian, he went to war in Afghanistan when the Russians invaded that country and fought against them during that entire war. The US supported the fighting against the Russans to prevent the spread of communisim, causing Osama to directly become known by the US government. Once the Russians withdrew Osama became more involved in the radical side of the Muslim faith, becoming convenced that the US was was trying to take over the middle east. From there on he orgainsed and directed terrorists attacks against the US and allies until we get to 9/11, and then the US said enough is enough and went after him. We had every right to and enough proof to back it up, not just for the world trade center, but also the first attack on it, and overseas attacks on our ships in neutral harbours and embassies in non middle eastern countries.

Saddam was born in a backwater town, proverty stricken, beaten everyday by his father, learned to rob people from his father and do other crimes, until his dad was killed by one of his many enemies. Saddam then went to live with his uncle who treated him no better. Saddam worked his way up the criminal ladder, becoming an assasin. He attracted to much attention and went into exile in Egypt. Then things changed and he was able to return home to his uncle, who with other family members, happened to have a high position in the Baath party. Saddam was easilly initiated into things, and then he procceeded to do away with anyone who didn't see things his way and gained an iron grip on control of the Baath party, and therefore the country. He used chemical and biological weapons against Iran, and against his native Shiite muslims and Kurds. Seeing Saddam as the lesser of the two evils, not knowing full well what type of person he was, and responding to his requiest the US backed him in his war until it became apparent that Saddam was a lunatic. He tried taking Kuwait because he didn't think that anyone would stand up to him, which he was wrong and we kicked his ass and should have killed him then and there. Then for years he hide behind the inefficency of the UN playing head games, shooting at our planes patroling the UN no fly areas, harbouring and financing terrorists, trying to buy or develope nukes, and torturing and killing millions of his own people.

They aren't TV crooks, and every American with half a brain knows it, Hollywood can't make this sh*t up.

If Saddam had used WMD in the war then he'd have proven one thing: That he been lieing the entire time to the entire world, and every country in the UN would have come down upon his head. Instead he continues to try to hide behind the UN, despite having kicked them out and no allow them to do weapons inspections for years. He has some, and they're buried in the desert a hundred miles from anything other then sand, I'd bet on it. He though we'd get tired and go home before we caught him, or that we wouldn't have the balls to go after him to begin with. Of course he was wrong on both accounts. And he crumbled so easily because he wasn't give 20 more years to play games and build his arsenal. He went down as easily as Hitler would have if the European powers had wanted to do something about Hitler 5 years before he pushed into Poland.

You're the one making a stand without knowing what is fulling going on, you barely know basic history, and have yet to put what is happening now into any kind of context with what lead up to it. The US is but continuing the path that Europe set it upon beginning with WWI. It took Europe a 1000 years to stop killing each other in droves, way I see it, the US can't screw up anything any worse then what's already been done in the past, and so far there is nothing we done half as bad as some of the things European countries have done in the past. Hell, Middle east up until after WWII was part of the European empires, those empires were the initial seed of the present hate directed at the western powers. The ONLY reason the middle east was allowed to "go free" after WWII is because the european powers were too weak militarily and economically from the war to hang onto them. The middle eastern countries had even been promised freedom for helping in the war, but the powers that be even tried screwing them out of that. Europe gave them a reason to hate the west again, just like the muslims had a reason to hate the west for the crusades of the the middle ages. Now everyone wants to point the finger at the US and scream "it's you, it's you". They do that because they are failing to recognize their own responsibility in the way things have turned out. They dragged the US into the middle of this sh*t, then abandoned ship when the water got rough. And don't forget, most americans aren't very happy with alot of Europe either, but you don't see us shouting it from the rooftops, why? Because it's pointless and a waste of time, instead we're taking the inititive in trying to do something about the problems that are being faced by the world, we're doing something instead of b*tching about what should be done, and yeah that may be flawed, but it's because the people who could help us don't have the guts to do more then sit around complaining about what we're doing.
http://www.ephiroll.com
Jeremiah 'Jerry' Donaldson
rklenseth
Posts: 4736
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 12:46 am

Postby rklenseth » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:51 am

That reminds me of a good movie called Lawerence of Arabia... :wink:
User avatar
ephiroll
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:00 am
Location: here and there
Contact:

Postby ephiroll » Tue Jun 08, 2004 2:02 am

That movie was based on real history :wink: I've never actually watched it myself however. Oddly enough I've watched documentries about it, but never the movie itself :?
http://www.ephiroll.com
Jeremiah 'Jerry' Donaldson

Return to “Non-Cantr-Related Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest