Have the French Forgotten Normandy?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Guest, Mar 1, 2003.

Loading...
  1. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Oh, yeah, I forgot. The French are noted for being polite. Suuuure.... :rolleyes:
     
  2. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    Rich: arrange covert shipments of nukes to Andorra.
     
  3. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Rich, I don't think you have any concept of how evil the Iraqi regime really is. Saddam has used chemical weapons on his own people more than a few times, killing thousands of innocents, children included.

    I was in Kuwait City in 1991. I've seen first-hand what these monsters are capable of doing. They have to be stopped, now.

    I suggest you read the "legacy" of Neville Chamberlain. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.


    Bruce
     
  4. Wes Grady

    Wes Grady New Member

    Funny, I thought we were going to war against them because they had weapons of mass destruction? Are we now saying that the war is because of alleged attrocities? I say alleged because from what I have read it isn't clear who actually did the gas attack, Iraq or Iran. And, it happend during the Presidency of Ronald Regan, not exactly recent history. And there are far worse cases in China, Angola, The Congo, Rwanda, etc.

    but then, even if we are concerned about these WMD, which we aren't really sure he has, wouldn't it be more prudent to go after those who we KNOW have them, like North Korea and Pakistan?

    But then, they didn't try to kill his dad, did they?
     
  5. uncle janko

    uncle janko member

    President Kagame condemned the UN's dithering about Iraq and supported armed intervention.
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    As a retired Air Force officer who served during the Gulf War, I think I have a reasonable insight to the evils of the Iraqi regime. Nothing special, but I'm not ignorant, either. No reasonable person considers the Hussein regime to be anything but evil. But that also goes for the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, Saudis, Libyans, Syrians, etc. There are evil and repressive regimes everywhere. Why Iraq? Because it's personal and it's about oil and American control of it.

    Does anyone really think that the U.S. would project its military might to such a degree if that region was barren of oil? Who would stand for that? The Balkans have been the site of genocide for years, but all we did there was try to keep the peace through the U.N. We didn't send a quarter-million troops.

    Bush himself ran for election promising not to nation-build. And he isn't here, either. Since when did this become a crusade against the Iraqi government instead of a pursuit to secure the world from terrorism?

    Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me naive. I was a career military officer. I just don't happen to be a Republican.
     
  7. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    You served during the Gulf War. Were you actually there? Did you talk to the people who had family members executed in front of them, or just dragged off in the middle of the night? Did you see the mass graves of those Kuwaitis who were deemed political enemies? Did you see the scars of those who were tortured just for the fun of it?

    I've been a police officer for almost 15 years, and anything I've seen during those years pales in comparison to what I saw in Kuwait in 1991.

    No one in the Balkans has an Army that rates in the top 10 either, so we didn't need a quarter-million troops. As far as oil, that's called protecting national interests. Do you want to pay $10 a gallon for gasoline? That would cripple our economy. BTW. I'd like to point out that we could simply invade & take over every oil field in the Middle East if chose to do so. But we won't. Think about it.

    Nor am I (I'm unenrolled). Maybe I see things in black & white, but I see this as a classic struggle of good vs. evil. I'll take the "good" side.


    Bruce
     
  8. timothyrph

    timothyrph New Member

    We are concerned with North Korea, that is why an aircraft carrier is off the coast in preparation for "war games". This war is not about oil. It is about a terrorist state who has not complied with UN resolutions that were signed to stop the last Gulf War. No reasonable person believes he has complied, or will comply. The country with the most to lose with his non-compliance is the US.

    What other country outside of Israel, is as targeted by Muslim extremist and countires? If we seem to be more interested, maybe flying by the NY skyline would explain why. Chile does not seem to stand to lose much if Hussein gets a portable nuke. Neither does a country (France) who sold them the Nuclear reactor that Israel hit with our weapons.

    I will state again this is not pre-emptive. We have been attacked, he is non-compliant. Where was the objection of the UN when the attempt was made on President Bush's life? They don't care. It was not Chirac, Schroeder, or anyone else. The UN was up in arms over Bosnia because of the region. The US was not threatened so they cared. Rwanda, Somalia, same thing.
     
  9. Wes Grady

    Wes Grady New Member

    So, if I read you correctly: Saddam has ignored the UN, so he is bad. The US is about to ignore the UN, so we are good. Right!

    Simple, got it all figured out. Might makes right. End of discussion.

    Just so when it is all over, we understand that there will be no more UN to go running to when Korea, or Somalia, or Angola, or some other country does something we don't like. We just have to cash a few more checks, mount up the carriers and go blast them too.

    I wonder if we will run out of money before the world runs out of people who won't do what we tell them to?

    Wes
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I'm not Rich, but I share his disability.

    Personally, I'm undecided about this war, and profoundly troubled by it.

    In Iraq's case, an argument can be made that a continued and preferrably far more intense and aggressive inspection regime can keep Saddam from firing up a full-scale WMD project and force him to keep his head down and precurser materials well hidden.

    In North Korea's case, the projects obviously exist and have been cranked up full-blast on an industrial scale. The CIA has publicly testified that North Korea is developng an ICBM and may already have a couple of nuclear weapons. More fissionable material is being cooked up as we speak.

    But for some incomprehensible reason, everyone in Washington tells us that Korea (unlike Iraq) is a problem that can be solved by diplomacy.

    Well, I feel next to no danger from Saddam Hussein, but the idea of "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il having nukes aimed at me in the near future gives me the creeps.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2003

Share This Page