H Hour is upon us [Archive] - STEELBEASTS.COM FORUM

imported_Rogue6g

03-06-2003, 07:33 AM

Well Boys and girls, Desert Storm II is upon us. The U2s have been workin overtime today flyin over our favorite parking lot. I'm sure taking last second recon photos of ground and Air Force Objectives before the 1st bombs start a droppin. To all of you who may be going, I'll pray for you as I did for myself when I was Scoutin on the screen line 13 years ago. Maybe I'm being premature, but I think the Caca will be hittin the fan 9 days from now(for some crazy reason).Those of us who have done the time, I wish you Godspeed on your safe return home. I just wish I was with you to help.

Dagger

03-06-2003, 10:19 PM

I think your one day off..but yes DS2 is at hand.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

I also have been praying every night for our President, the United States, and all our Men and Women in the military, especially my friends here in this commuinty and here where i live that are going or are already there. for protection, Guidance,and a speedy return. Never think that We do not appreciate what you are doing for the service of our country. Gods speed and good Hunting!

GsMcAmis

03-06-2003, 10:34 PM

Rgr to all...
I originally had the wr start for March 5th... but since the Turks voted against our landing troops it set that back some. I personally believe you two area correct.

Mpat120

03-07-2003, 04:37 AM

If it does happen, I hope we get to use everything at our disposal. If you get in a tight spot ill re-enlist to come and create some burnin hulks, bad back be damned!

Pakenko

03-07-2003, 09:31 AM

To all guys there, Amerian, British and other as well, please do not hear to the silly pacifists and go and take Saddam all his deadly toys.
Do the job for me as well, because I wish that my children and everybody else do not have to fear any silly anthrax bomb on a ballistic missile from him and his comrades!

GsMcAmis

03-07-2003, 11:21 AM

Pakenko... I couldnt have said it better myself.

With the 4th ID heading to parts unkown because of Turkish waffling... (maybe 4th ID is just coming home to Texas) the north front will probably be the responsibility of the 101st Airborne. The 101st's equipment is enroute and will be on location and unpacked in 6-9 days. With the blunt talk in the Pres Bush's speech tonight you can expect the war to come soon.

Best Quote from the press "I believe the President when he says he hasn't decided on war yet. However, it's obvious that he intends to either capture or kill Saddam Hussien within the next two weeks." (for the life of me I can't remember who said this...Someone on CNBC)

The President wears his emotions on his sleeve. He's human and has flaws... the same types of flaws most everyone else does. His Faith in God is unquestionable. For all those things I respect and believe in him more than I have any other leader this country has had in my lifetime (and... huge statement from me... that includes President Reagan)
I don't believe any other person would judge his choices with any more sense of morality and duty to regular folks than he has.

Terror has had an effect on the US. We're afraid and thats a fact. Thankfully we have a president that has checked those fears as best as he can, and while being afraid himself (anyone who believes he isn't just needs to watch the man in his press conferences) still has the guts to take decisive action and compell this country to meet yet another challenge where we know nothing of the duration of our commitment nor the finacial burden nor the uncountable value of life to be lost by our families over seas.

I've heard some folks say "The US's rhetoric and actions appear to the world to be arrogant." Well fuck them. 'They' don't understand just how profoundly we identify with the civilians of the countries we are planning on fighting in. We are no more enlightened than any other nation in the world. We understand that these people live life, for typical regular folk reasons and want nothing more than this whole shitpot to be over and done with so life can get back to some kind of normal. The fact is we, as american folk, feel the exact same way. And just like them (them meaning every them, everywhere on this rock), we would reach out a hand in mercy to others in need as well as kick the teeth in of the bastard that has threatened our families. And we'll do these things as long as we have the power to do so. Anyone who say's this is arrogant is ignorant of the facts. It isn't arrogance... it's a fact of life and a logical conclusion that you destroy and/or control the thing that would destroy you.

So now, being the arrogant warmonger I say, lets get this shitpot started so we can get it overwith so I can get back to living my life without worrying about people like SgtMcAmis and Bandit-7 since, in point of fact I am the regular person I really am.

Thank God for George Bush!

Sergei

03-07-2003, 08:23 PM

...
Thank God for George Bush!

1) Are you was praying for dirty elections with your Bush?
2) Iraq was yankee's friend sometime and what you USA going to do with your friend now?
3) And where I can read about Gaaga's judge for musulman's brutality in Yugoslavia?
4) Turkey is NATO's member, how can you say that Turkey - country of bastards, if this indepedent country do not want help USA to begin agressor's war?
5) Do you think that USA - country with god's rights?

Just some question.
Are there any answers?

GsMcAmis

03-07-2003, 09:01 PM

Wasn't my intention to start a political rant...

so I will let what I said stand for exactly what it means and leave it at that.

Sergei

03-07-2003, 09:09 PM

Wasn't my intention to start a political rant...

so I will ley what I said stand for exaclt ywhat it means and leave it at that.

It's not political
It's just for me (I think KGB is sleeping this hour :-)
I really want to receive the answers

Mpat120

03-07-2003, 09:58 PM

Sergei, we all make mistakes, frendship with nations that we think are our friends, trying to help those friends, and letting them turn rabid, ring a bell? As for Bush, one politition is as bad as another, does it realy matter? As for every thing else regimes rise and fall, you should know about that, you are in the former USSR arent you?

bad_cayuse

03-08-2003, 03:00 AM

Sergei, I wish you could come to the US and see how it really is here. What my country does right or wrong, it is still my country and I love her . The UN asks for our military might but condems us for the use of force. As for your other post the Lord will be our judge and I hope we will not be found wanting. To all my brothers out, there be carefull we want you back safe good luck annd God speed.

Skip

03-08-2003, 03:53 AM

1. Iraq invaded (raped, pillaged, murdered,....) Kuwait.
2. Iraq got it's collective butt kicked in the GW and wanted a way out of total defeat.
3. Iraq agreed to a set of conditions in order to have a "cease fire" and thus keep from being completely overrun (thus keeping SH in power).
4. Iraq failed to live up to it's agreement (Sadaam and company lied big time).
5a. The U.S. and it's allies DID NOT immediately rush off to resume the war (probably should have left the troops there till Iraq's cease fire commitments were met, but that's now "water under the bridge").
5b. Years passed and the goal (and need) for disarming Iraq of it's WoMD remained unfulfilled.
5c. Acts of terror against U.S. citizens and others around the world continued. The U.S. and it's allies remained patient but still troubled that Iraq was still "thumbing it's nose" at the commitments it made to achieve the cease fire.
6. 09/11/2001 (Yes, this is the pivotal point. The danger of terrorism to the citizens of the U.S. has been brought home with a vengence.) By the way, we were paying attention as certain groups around the world celebrated the deaths of 3,000 innocents!
7. The U.S. is now out to bring justice to the terrorists who attacked us and to those who were involved in providing aid to the terrorists.
8a. Oh, by the way... Iraq has helped terrorists in the past, may well have provided assistance to the 9/11 terrorists, and is likely to help terrorists in the future (at least, as long as SH is there).
8b. In addition, he (SH) could easily make WoMD available to the terrorists (and get his vengence without direct involvement).
8c. He ALSO has never lived up to his commitment regarding the cease fire so, being "hot on the trail" of the terrorists who attacked us, it's also time to bring the GW to an end (since it only could end if Iraq met it's cease fire commitments). SH is not seen here as being very different from OBL. This won't be actually by "GW2", it's really just the official recognition that the cease fire was broken by Iraq (by breaking their commitments) and the resumption (and conclusion) of the GW.

P.S. One other thing, if no one has told OBL yet that coming over here and murdering so many innocent civilians (including Muslims, by the way) was not a good idea, it's probably too late to do him any good.

Have a nice day!

Dagger

03-08-2003, 04:39 AM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/index.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

He has them... the UN and the rest of the world just doesn't want to admit it or they're getting a pay off....and they say the US wants his oil....what do they want?
..I know>>>The UN already has a plan for Iraq after the war(it's the truth..secrect leaked out) and they want the US to hand it over after WE deal with SH! :mad:

chrisotto

03-08-2003, 12:02 PM

Skip: Be careful when bringing facts and assumptions together - Points 1 to 7 are in itself enough to explain the situation, point 8 brings in the assumptions...

Guys like Sergei, asking important questions, do not want assumptions to be the cause of war, i.e. SH MAY have WoMD, SH MIGHT support terrorists.

=> Let us assume the US intelligence community has enough material for a causa bellis.

bewing77

03-08-2003, 12:39 PM

Facts or?

1. Iraq invaded
2. Iraq got kicked in the but
3. Iraqu agreed to a set of conditions
4. Iraq did comply with the conditions. According to the UN inspectors everything went accordign to plan up until late 1998.
5. Saddam does not want the inspectors within his palace or his personal lifeguard regiment. This is understandable since most inspectors where from the UK or US, two nations that where not unlikely to be at war with Iraq again at one time or another. Saddam was willing to let inspectors from other nations in thoug.
6. Without a decision in the security council th UK and US withdraws their inspectors and begins operation desert fox.
7. Saddam closes the door on further inspections.
8. 9-11, Afghanistan and a bag full of lust for vengence.
9. The US want's to attack Iraq again in their war on terror.

GsMcAmis

03-08-2003, 01:42 PM

Facts are what they are in other words things that exist and can not be denied.

The US has never said the war on terror is simply a war on Osama Bin Ladin.
Saddam terrorizes an entire region. It isn't as if he has invaded two countries killing millions of people, using weapons of mass destruction at a whim, already in his riegn or anything. (<--Irony) Even after all this we still give him 12 years to disarm. He hasn't.

The son of a bitch is the head of the biggest most organized terrorist operation in the world. Time for him to die.

And that kids... is a fact.

Sergei

03-08-2003, 02:12 PM

Skip

03-08-2003, 02:46 PM

Skip: Be careful when bringing facts and assumptions together - Points 1 to 7 are in itself enough to explain the situation, point 8 brings in the assumptions...

I'll partially agree.

"8a" begins with fact and ends with extrapolation of that fact (hence I'll partially agree about "assumptions").

"8b" is a fact that has an implicit assumption (so again partial agreement).

"8c" is all fact.

Devil-M

03-08-2003, 08:54 PM

Because I love to usurp 'common sense:' ;)

I am not even replying to the current events nature of this thread, but to an idea of 'facts' in general. 'Facts' in my view are very tricky things, and we rhetoricians don't place too much trust in them.

To say that 'facts are facts' is a tautological claim. In other words, even if this is a necessarily correct identity statement (such as A+B = A+B), it is a trivial claim as it is not at all informative---it simply doesn't reveal anything about them other than a circular form of reasoning. Schools of rhetoric have only loosely defined a fact as something that can be verified. This means that you cannot claim a fact in the future tense: for example, it is problematic to say that it is a fact that if I loosen my grip on a ball from the top of the Empire State Building, that the ball will drop because of gravity. As common sensical as a claim that may seem, it is not a factual claim because it has not happened yet so that I may verify its truth value; the event is indeterminate until it actually happens: perhaps the building collapses first, or the rules of 'nature' suddenly undergoes some dramatic change in the meantime; suffice it to say, I don't think that there is any intrinsic condition in a past event that guarantees that it must happen again. By analogy, it is incorrect to say that it is a fact that Saddam will do such and such if he is attacked; it has not happened yet, so it could not possibly be a fact to be verified.

So at the very least, a fact has to examine a prior history of events. But now here is the rub: unless we are talking about the kind of game where the rules are so overly simplified (such as in mathematics) so as the facts are as simple as a computational operation, this in my view is hardly adequate when made analogous and applied to the human sphere of knowing. For rhetorical situations such as those found in philosophy and politics adds much more complex dynamics than rules of mathematics; being rhetorical situations, they require rhetorical modes of reasoning. We have on the one hand the events, and on the other, an interpretation of them, right or wrong, but what is the independent arbiter that breaks the epistemological circle and informs of us our correct assumptions? And any one of us can someday find themselves on the unfavorable side of the facts. Suppose there would appear to be overwhelming evidence against you in a murder trial. You didn't commit the murder, but the murder weapon was found in your bedroom, with your fingerprints on it. These are facts to the case gentlemen, but by themselves don't yet point he finger in your direction until the prosecutor forms a theory and conjectures from the facts how you committed the murder (even though you did not). However much he claims that he knows of your guilt, and however much the jury has fomented in their minds an intuition that you must be guilty based on the evidence, the facts alone in this case without a strong rebuttal may lead some to convict you if you did not have a presence of mind to show that facts alone are circumstantial without the hypothesis (which may even be entirely wrong in itself) that ties them together.

In my opinion, the biggest scam of all claims to knowledge in human history has been the tendency to 'demonstrate' something as true because a condition has been predicated to a proposition to make it so: for example, I say that all rational beings would try to preserve their own lives. However, such a proposition does not 'prove' at all what it would claim as 'fact,' namely, that all rational beings would try to preserve their own lives, but rather, it merely defines 'rational beings' as doing that. Moreover, such an argument would appear to ignore any precedent where 'rational beings' (whatever subjects that term denotes, it's a highly ambigous value judgement) have acted in ways that contradict the original claim in the first place. Huge bodies of so- called 'knowledge' have been impressed on our psyches this way and we hold to them so conviced that they are so, entirley unaware of the illusory origins of the claims to begin with.

GsMcAmis

03-08-2003, 11:00 PM

Rgr DevilM,
Well said... now lets get this shitpot started and overwith so I can return to my duped, foggy world of simplicity where dublicity doesn't exist except when it comes to bar flies and sex. Besides we got the guy on tape robbing both liquor stores and killing a cashier, a few customers, and trying to leave with the loot.

Really I don't want a war. But since we appear to be heading there I am supporting it. I figure if I support it, just as we all should even if we don't agree with it, then maybe it will be over sooner.

Just a note: I never said it was a fact Saddam would invade another country. I only said it was a fact that it is time for him to die. That's based on the knowledge given to me of his attacks into other countries. Whether I have been duped or not by media or by some other mechanism isn't important. I've been given knowledge of the situation and its the best knowledge I am able to obtain. I haven't made the judgement it's time for war... but being that I have friends and family in the armed services that I wish to see home sooner rather than later... I've hopped on the bandwagon for all I am worth.

Signed,
The Patsy (Not) :D

kniffo

03-09-2003, 01:05 AM

Well ppl, it's _VERY_ difficuilt, to take part in this thread here, but while reading it, it came into my mind to write some words:

I'm not living in the U.S.
I really do not think, that most of you can just bring up the "facts", that you've heard or seen on TV or radio. Do you really trust TV or radio stations????
Of course its hard to have friends in war, but because of that you should never close your eyes for the reality and ask all questions even when the "facts" are that convenient for you...
It's a big game and often, the reason for war is not, what you can see on TV, what they tell you there.

P.S: My I ask, what is your rank GsMcAmis ??

Lone*star49

03-09-2003, 02:26 AM

...

Just as the world is divided by construed facts and events seen by different eyes, so is this forum divided..

However, one fact remains constant..

"A thousand flys cannot be wrong.."

A heartfelt thanks for all Americans past and present, that have and will, make the Sacrifice to make the world a better place for mankind..

God Bless..

LS :thumbup:

GsMcAmis

03-09-2003, 05:15 AM

Kniffo,
I have no rank.
I am not in the service.

Sorry for the confusion ;)

GsMcAmis

03-09-2003, 12:59 PM

http://www.steelbeasts.com/albums/album11/CB0225g.gif

Horse Caca

Pakenko

03-09-2003, 03:38 PM

Dagger

03-09-2003, 10:08 PM

Facts? I have none...I just don't like Iraq and want it's oil! what the Hey! Here in the US we love our gas guzzling SUVs! ( yes i'm the kid that used to find a Hornets nest, takes a stick and stirred it up a bit..just to see what would happen! :P )

Colin Powell's useful facts concerning Iraq

Armando Iannucci offers a collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region...By the way I do not know who Armando Iannucci is, and this is just something that has been floating around the net that I have come accross...

A collection of Colin Powell's useful facts relating to the proposed actions in the Gulf region.

A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

1. On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving al-Qaeda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.

2. Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qaeda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

3. Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German car, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qaeda. Therefore, etc.

4. The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qaeda.

5. The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.

6. Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qaeda.

7. Al-Qaeda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schroeder of Germany. Schroeder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.

B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq.

1. Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.

2. Iraq has 57 kilometres of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 57 kilometres.

3. Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.

4. Iraq has 35,000 square kilometres of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax end to end. So where are they?

5. Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?

C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all.

1. The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.

2. The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.

3. This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.

4. In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.

more..sure. http://www.iol.ie/~forsacosanta/world_needed_proof.htm

mmmm...that enough for me..... bend over SH... Uncle Sam's coming and he has a woody for you!

*****(in all seriousness..This is My counrty..I was born here...I served for Her in the military...now I'm raising a family Here...this is it for me..so I'll stand by Her..no matter What...She was attack on 9-11 and I expect the President to do what's right for Her and Her people...who ever the President is and if not...i have the right to vote in a new one...I would also expect anyone who Loves their country to do the same!)*****

bewing77

03-10-2003, 02:06 AM

Well, it looks like this thread went unintentionally the way of attitude confrontation.

Sergei, you are not bad in the term that a lot of US citizens is depending on the medias in puncto information about the rest of the world. But it is because they simply live their lives and do not try to save or destroy the world. Please do not forget following:
1. The masses in the whole world would like to live the american way, why? - because the living in the U.S. is more worth it than in a lot of other places, that damn capitalist system simply works and that is great.
2. U.S. cares about the same values all around the globe, an thanks to that we do not have Hitler, Stalin and Breznev here anymore.
3. U.S. president is really democratically elected. And no matter who it is, he is there for maximum 8 years, not forever. And you do not get killed if you liked another candidate for the elections.
4. Some people hate the U.S. and the western world and are trying to harm it wit any measures. I do not like to happen that an Anthrax or Dirty bomb or hi-jacked plane lands on NYC, London, Prague or Paris right when me or my children or any other peaceful people are on visit there. Not speaking that I would hate that to see home.
THEREFORE:
If someone, who has the powers and responsibility granted to him from more than 250,000,000 of U.S. Americans thinks that it is necessary to get after comrade Hussein, I believe he knows what he does.

[Edited on 9/3/2003 by Pakenko]

Allow me to replicate.

1. The masses of the world would like to have a better life yes. But when you say they want to live the american way do you mean the way of the rich middleclass, or the way of the hundreds of thousands of homeless that live in your nation?

2. IMO the US cares about imposing their way of life, and their values upon other nations. Maybe it's time to realize that there isn't one optimal way of doing everything, and to accept the fact that other cultures and ideologies are as important as yours.

3. The US president is elected by roughly half of the american population with voting rights. The USA has about 270 million citizens, plus a large number of non citizens living in the nation for an extended, often permanent duration. From the 270 million about 1/5 is to young to vote = 54 million. So 216 million people are allowed to vote, and half of them did = 108 million. So, from the 300+ million people living in the USA only 1/3 did have any part in putting Bush in office. Now who are the ones that where voting? The rich middle class, who where heavily influated by the massive campaigns for both sides. Without a hugh funding you can't become president, however good your ideas are and however good a leader you would be. This means that A) Only a minority of the people directly affected by the results of the election did parttake and B) those that did parttake where heavily influated by campaings, funded by corporations with certain interests in who would win. On top of this the majority of the voters wanted Gore, but because of the awkward voting system he didn't make it into the white house.

4.Why do some people hate the US and the western world? I mean, sure, some are obviously crazy, but the rest? Can it be because the arab world has been, pardon my language, taking crap from Europe and the US for the last 700 years (and even before that if you count the Romans). Can it be because of the US and in some cases Europeans tendency to interfere and play police in matters that don't concern them?
AND
Why should a man, elected by 100 million people (1,7 % of the worlds population) have the authority to disregard the will of the rest of the world, and possibly put the lives of many thousands of people that did't get a say in his election at stake. How can you claim to strive for freedom and democracy when it only applies to your internal affairs? Democracy means that all power derives from the people, and if the people of the world do not want a war, how is it a democratic decision to start one? Going against the UN and starting a war is like going to court to settle a lawsuit, and when you loose you take the other party outside and knock him down saying "I had to defend myself". By going against the UN you basicly tell every would be Saddam that it's perfectly fine to disregard the UN.

Werewolf

03-10-2003, 02:58 AM

Methinks that some moderators are either asleep at the wheel or very, very selective about which political discussions get closed and which don't.

Political discussions - they're either OK or they are not OK. Which is it?

And if they're OK then say so because I so want to wade into this one but as I was so often reminded in the past by locked threads- POLITICAL DISCUSSION IS OFF LIMITS!

Chaplain

03-10-2003, 03:15 AM

Methinks this thread has been allowed to keep running because it has remained a discussion. The reason political discussions have been discouraged was because some people have refused to be civil in the past.

I for one think this discussion should continue. If it gets locked because someone starts ranting, then we will all know who to blame. An intentional rant to get the thread locked, by the way, is the equivalent of censorship. It is the act of intentionally preventing someone else from sharing his point of veiw.

Skip

03-10-2003, 04:52 AM

1. The masses of the world would like to have a better life yes. But when you say they want to live the american way do you mean the way of the rich middleclass, or the way of the hundreds of thousands of homeless that live in your nation?

2. IMO the US cares about imposing their way of life, and their values upon other nations. Maybe it's time to realize that there isn't one optimal way of doing everything, and to accept the fact that other cultures and ideologies are as important as yours.
1. The government being answerable to the people, not in name only, but in actual fact through free and open elections.
2. The freedoms guranteed by out Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yes, some try to misuse their rights and turn them into "license" but this is still preferable to living under some despot without those rights.
3. Among those rights, a free press that is not controlled by the government. A press that continuously tries to find out if our government is lying to us about anything and is protected by our laws as they do so (yes, we generally DO trust our TV and newspapers and this is why).
4. An economic system that rewards those who work hard and come up with new and innovative ways to provide products and services that people want (this is largely where the "rich middle class" comes from).

There's more that could be included and there are both good things and bad things that can be found in the U.S. But this is a pretty fair synopsis of "the American Way". All one has to do is open their eyes to history to see that the only times we've imposed this "way" on any other country is after that country attacked us or declared war on us. A country set up in this way is far less likely to go to war than a despotic government that is not answerable to it's people.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who wouldn't like to live with these rights and freedoms in their own country.

GsMcAmis

03-10-2003, 05:45 AM

Good points all around and its been a good discussion with humor and all.

All the same I am quitting here. Thanks for the discussion!

Gs out

Paul_L

03-10-2003, 09:37 AM

OK the problem I'm having is as follows...

9/11 triggered this whole set of events, but 9/11 was quickly linked to al-Qaeda terrorist group headed by one Osama bin Laden ...which was traced back to the Taliban in Afganistan....

SO the US launched a war on terror by attacking Afganistan...no problem it was there right and the Taliban had been shown to be monsters years before.

OK now Afganistan is in the hands of the NA and Taliban and al-Qaeda are shattered to the four winds while there operatives increasingly are being caught and sooner or later the willy OBL will pay his dues!

SO the war is more or less won, end of story.....but no GWB announces theres an 'axis of evil '[always the kind of rethoric that will get you in trouble]....and links Saddam to Taliban and NK....what on earth does NK have to do with OBL and the there terror net?

If you pay attention to terrorism you'd know that Iran has long been ID as the prime exporter of terrorism and little is from Iraq...why wasn't Iran the next target in the war on terror? If the aim is really to dismantle these networks, your wasting your time until you clean house in Iran?Oh and BTW they have a almost completed Nuke network while Saddams nuclear industry seems to be in more than a bit of a shambles.

You realise that Iraq army has little industry to support it and probably could not function in any real battle situation...they've even started to surrender and the war hasn't even begun yet.realistically they're little threat to any one in the region.

OK Saddam is a bad guy who should die in the pits of hell...but so are the guys in Iran and yes even Pakistan and several other dictatorships in the region...Kuwaite and SA are no havens of democray either ! If you think you can bring Democracy to this region you may be saddly mistaken, this is not post war europe.

The Law of diminishing returns is already reeling its ugly head as opposition mounts through out the world to this campaign, your ripping up old alliances that have served the western world admiralbly for decades over a second rate threat. These are the very foundations on which global trade is built on...if you throw them away you end up shooting your self in the foot along with a lot of your friends. I gather that a number of civil liberties are already being eroded in the states so people can no longer even war a 'peace Tshirt' with out the risk of being arrested?

It seems to this observer that you are doing much more damage to your great country than OBL had ever hoped to do?

bewing77

03-10-2003, 10:54 AM

GsMcAmis

03-10-2003, 11:09 AM

Good points all around and its been a good discussion with humor and all.

All the same I am quitting here. Thanks for the discussion!

Gs out
Ok I lied...

The al-Qaeda were always scattered to the four winds. They are a global operation that had a strong foothold in afgahnistan. It is that cellular nature to them that makes them dangerous. We anounced a war on terror. We never said it was on teh al-Qaeda only and I reiterate Saddam is the biggest terrorist there is. North Korea, they probably already posess a few functioning nukes but their arsenal isn't that say of china. They are a huge threat all the same contiually supporting a military machine that crushes its people with the expense of its up keep. Iran is a regime that will soon fall and it wont have very much to do with the US. Most of the Iranian population is very young... better than 3/4 of their population is under 25 years old. Thier younger generation has a much wider view of the world and maybe the thought of Saddam being gone and no threat to the south will produce some major changes in Iran itself.
So again... we declared war on terrorism and never said it was only on al-Qeada. Then we named 3 countries whose governments must change but we never said we were going to invade them all (because probably we wont have too). I believe it will play out like this... we invade Iraq, Saddam falls... we basically say "See.. we mean it." and this puts pressure on everyone to work out the other areas. Why not this policy now? After all look how well doing nothing has gone in the past.

Once the US proves its willingness to use force these other countries (and their associate countries) will be much more ready to talk about things that work and follow through on them. Everyone will be extremely nervous for awhile but that will be the catalyst for change. As I recall shortlty after the gulf war there was a little burp with North Korea... most of you might not remember but as I recall we were weeks away from fighting. Funny thing though... North Korea suddenly had no stomach for it... they too let in weapons inspectors only they complied with everything... problem is now they are moving backwards.

As far as the peace t-shirts getting you arrested... it isn't happening that way here at all. If a guy in a Peace T-shirt got arrested and made the news it wasnt because of his t-shirt... it was probably because he beened a rock off a cops head or something.
Very little has actually changed in the day to day life of the US except everyone knows someone that is overseas now. As far as civil liberties go... I have personally not witnessed nor heard of a single act anywhere within my region that has been out of what has always been normal or usual. In fact if anything we probably have more freedom now than we did in alot of ways... our national guard units have a very hi ratio of police officers and fire fighters (for their local townships) when those units get called up it really puts a strain on every police force around. Most of the townships I know have began rotating in and out of regular duty their reserve officers. Again... not because of a need here but because so many regular duty cops are guardsmen as well. It's the same with firefighters and paramedics.
Outside of the fact that we are having to fight a war at all... losing those people is the hardest fact to face in day to day life. They're the visible evidence of "who isn't here" but "over there" and they are often the sharpest guys in their fields... which means the vacuum to their respective civilian services is huge.

Your right 9-11 started many things to happen, but the primary thing that is happening is this. Pressure is being apllied directly to areas of the world that have been traditional unstable. Each one of the "Axis of Evil" countries comes to the table... says one thing, then reniggs on the deal as soon as they see weakness. Which is to say most everytime they talk.

Iraq isn't gonna die... Saddam is and many of his republican guards will escort him to hell. Its people will for the first time in ages have a true say in their government. And thank God it will be the US and not a neighboring power that invades... At least they wont be sucking mustard gas that we delivered.

Iran will probably change regimes soon just out of aging.. the religous aspect not as important as it is now and definatly not as militant. Most young Iranians could care less about what happened in the past with the US and Iran. For literally, most are too young, and they all have definate memories of the Iran Iraq war and weapons of mass destruction. I believe 70% of the Iranians are cheering teh US on against Iraq despite what its government broadcasts.

Korea...well... who knows but that, unless the north escalates soon, is a matter for another decade. <-- and I think that scares me most.

Skip

03-10-2003, 03:56 PM

Skip: what you described as the american way are things that exists in may onther countries. Here, in Sweden we have
1. A goverment elected directly by the people. We don't have a president, instead the leader of the goverment is automaticly the leader of the winning political party. There are several different political parties, all with different political ideologies in the palament (7 at the moment).
2. Something called "Grundlagar" wich can be compared to your constitution. They include freedom of speach, freedom of press, freedom of thought.
3. Also free press and TV. Just let me add here that even though the press in our countires are not controled by the goverment, they are controled by corporations that have an interest in making money, wich may have an impact on the news you get to see. In Sweden we have something called public service channels, wich are two TV channels owned by the swedsih people. Theese two channels are not funded by comercials, and everyone that owns a TV must pay for theese. Because of this they are not controlled by economical interests in the same way as other channels.
4. An economic system that also rewards those that work hard, but that does not let those less fortunat live in absolute missery. On our 10 million population we have less then 10,000 homeless.

What I am saying is not that our country is neccesarily better then yours, but that there are other free coutries with a good standard of living, that does not do things your way.
Absolutely. As I was about to go to sleep last night I thought about that I should have included that in what I wrote. The U.S. does NOT have an exclusive claim to any of the things I listed.

However, though the U.S. gets much criticism for the influence it has on one part of the world or another, these are the basic foundations of what makes up that mythical "American Way". The people of many countries recognize these points as valuable, some before the U.S. did and some after. Of course, what is done with those freedoms (and the responsibilities they carry) is up to the people of the country implementing it. As I said earlier, the U.S. has both good and bad here (IMO most if not all of the bad comes from those who try to turn freedom into license). However, criticism of "official" influence that would come as a result of conflict with Iraq is largely criticism of those points, for that is what would be instituted. What's made of this after the presence of the U.S. and it's allies are withdrawn would be up to that country's people.

Ssnake

03-10-2003, 10:37 PM

Hmmm... somewhere down there I had a padlock... let's see... hm, well, hopefully I won't be needing it.

Devil-M

03-11-2003, 12:31 AM

The forumites are becoming unruly. They require more updates or picture sets to pacify them. I fear this site will otherwise implode.

attackrat

03-11-2003, 01:02 AM

Devil, you're forgetting the noble and longstanding tradition of the Steel Beasts forums: hijack threads, debate politely, argue rationally and if that fails, scream 'til you're blue in the face.

GsMcAmis

03-11-2003, 06:20 AM

[quote]The forumites are becoming unruly. They require more updates or picture sets to pacify them. I fear this site will otherwise implode. [/quote

We are an army. An army runs o*n its stomach. Since we live off SB now almost exclusively...

Feed me Seymore... ;)

Pakenko

03-11-2003, 01:01 PM

Hey Bewing77,

I would love to have Sweden peace everywhere on the Earth ( :D not really, we are all different and it is good so), but unfortunatelly, there are some people who do not like that. Those should be stopped, otherwise whole human civilisation stops, and I fear definitelly.

I am Slovak, and experienced 16 yers of communist dictature (although it is was not that long nothing like North Korea or Stalin's USSR). I had nice childhood within the system, but came to its boundaries shortly before it has fallen and that was good so.

If I would be an informed and peaceful Iraqi, I would pray fro the U.S. to come as we did here in 1968. Unfortunatelly, Warsaw pact was faster...

Dagger

03-11-2003, 07:38 PM

well i was thinking (scary, huh) here's a Theory: (I would actualy Love for this to happen! I for one don't like my taxes spent on this stuff or like seeing manufacturing buisnesses going to other countrys while my fellow countrymen go unemployed because of it) The US pulls all troops back to the States, Cut off all Foreign Aid, Cut off all foreign Trade, Shut down the Boarders, Round up all the Illegal aliens and remove them from the US. And gaurd the boarders and let no one in, and let the World deal with their own troubles(kinda sound like what the US did before WW2 huh?) I wonder how long it would take for other countrys to go bankrupt? The UN to collapse or Dictators to get out of control?

Werewolf

03-11-2003, 08:50 PM

by Dagger:

well i was thinking (scary, huh) here's a Theory: (I would actualy Love for this to happen! I for o*ne don't like my taxes spent o*n this stuff or like seeing manufacturing buisnesses going to other countrys while my fellow countrymen go unemployed because of it)

The US pulls all troops back to the States

Good idea... the problem is even though they hate us wherever our troops are they scream bloody murder when ever we threaten to pull them out. Just a few weeks ago someone suggested just that idea to the S. Koreans. They about had a conniption fit.*Just think of all that money the local economies would lose when we left?

Cut off all Foreign Aid,

Damn good idea. Seriously - we could take the billions and billions we send all over the world to feed the hungry and provide medical care to the sick and education to the children and use it to build more schools in the USA, fund a few more scholarships and medical research programs, maybe build a few more interstates. Good idea Dagger!

Cut off all foreign Trade,

Nahhh.... We can't do with out our japanese*stereos, german cars and cameras and french cheese - can we?

Shut down the Boarders, Round up all the Illegal aliens and remove them from the US.

Another good idea -*if they*aren't here legally they don't belong here at all.

And gaurd the boarders and let no o*ne in, and let the World deal with their own troubles(kinda sound like what the US did before WW2 huh?) I wonder how long it would take for other countrys to go bankrupt?

They wouldn't go bankrupt but they sure as heck'd be a lot poorer.

The UN to collapse

The UN's been irrelevant for most of it's 50 year history but at least under your plan we could stop paying for an organization that constantly looks down it's nose at us.

or Dictators to get out of control?

They pretty much are now aren't they? But give 'em a few more years and who knows maybe the contintent that spawned the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Musolinni will bless the world again with their politicaly savvy leadership and make the likes of Saddam quiver in his boots and look like a boy scout. That way we won't have to bother with the likes of him anymore.

I like the way you think Dagger!

bewing77

03-12-2003, 12:23 AM

Actually you, and us, who make up the rich part of the world are consuming almost all of the worlds resources. Our way of life is very much dependant on cheap raw materials and cheap workforce from the poor parts of the world to sustain our way of life. I actually belive that the best way for the poor nations to develop is if we would just stop doing anything. The money sent to theese nations only serve to withold status quo. The truth is that we don't want the rest of the world to develop: we want to keep them exactly where they are because it is beneficial to us.

Mpat120

03-12-2003, 03:26 AM

Werewolf

03-12-2003, 04:26 AM

The world got along for thousands of years w/o the U.S.A, i dont know if it would blow apart at the seams if we pulled out of the picture or not. Id hate to see though, but i do hate cleaning up other peoples messes.

You sure?
Imagine that the Germans in 1917 were smart enough not to sink the Lusitania and send that message to Mexico that pissed the USA off so bad. I wonder what the outcome of WWI (started by the oh so peace loving Europeans) would have been without the USA's involvement.

Now imagine that Germany didn't out and out win WWI (which I think they would have without US intervention) but pulled a draw, no reperations etc. 1939 and Germany does it's thing, France falls (so what else is new - has France ever won a war?), no lend lease, no destroyers turned over to the UK and the US stays 100% out of it. Would the UK have survived the Battle of Britain? Without Lend/Lease is it possible that Operation Sealion might actually have occured and probably succeeded? Without lend lease would the Soviets have survived Operation Barbarossa or fallen to Germany in 1941? Imagine that Britain fell and the US isn't involved and the heavy water production plants in Norway weren't destroyed. Who would have gotten the Atomic Bomb first - it wouldnt' have been the USA that's for sure - they're not involved remember - no point in spending the money to do the research . So now Germany has the A-Bomb and even if the UK and the USSR had held out by the skin of their teeth they wouldn't have for long after Germany got the A-Bomb.

Imagine that the Japanese were actually thinking about the future and the potential power of the USA if it got pissed and then didn't attack Pearl Harbor. Who would control Asia today?

At this point alternate history falls apart but whether the world wants to admit it or not it is a better place today because the USA stepped in and took the actions necessary to preserve freedom. The USA didn't have to fight in Europe it was the Japanese that attacked us not the Germans. Whether we got involved for our own gain or not is really irrelevant - we did it - we made the sacrifices and the world benefited right along with us (not to mention that the USA rebuilt Europe after WWII out of our own pockets - ironic that the USSR is the only european nation to pay it's monetary war debt to the USA off).

Now some more hard choices are being made and when it's all over the world will be a better place for it. Lucky for the world the ghost of Neville Chamberlain has no power over the USA (though he seems to be speaking in the ear of many european leaders).

GsMcAmis

03-12-2003, 07:50 AM

In one hand there exists valid reasons for hoping for (and working towards) peace, after all without noble folks with valid intentions we would have no need for democracy.

In the other hand there is the absolute need for something to be done. Saddam won't shit nor will he get off the pot nor will he do a damned thing but double talk. Honestly can you blame the guy? I mean he is a meglomaniac whose done well for himself using the exact means he is employing now. In a real sense it isnt his fault that he still has power and the ability to use it... its ours because we all thought "He can be contained" 12 years later he's still duping folks and still has weapons prohibited by the UN... this equals Saddam has not ever been contained. (unless you mean in the sense that a hand grenade contains an explosion capable of reaching out and getting your ass)

So now, in the gripping hand (sorry Mr Niven), we have the nation that has carried the brunt of dealing with the hotspots of the world for the better part of 60 years (most everytime because we were asked to by the UN) This country who has been attacked with weapons that can be classified as weapons of mass destruction by an enemy that resulted as much from wars and other interventions the US has participated in (at the behest of the UN almost exclusively). We have an enemy who hasn't complied (for 12 years...12 years... 12 years...) with UN (<--who? ohyea! those guys!) resolutions after they lost the gulf war, a "coalition" effort of which the US armed forces...scratch that... the United States as a whole... risked more than every other country combined (except Kuwait, who had no choice obviously) in fighting the war.... and this country see's a need to do something about Mr "Muhahhaha Mustard gas them in the name of Allah and Iraq" now. But wait!! Not so fast! Who are we to decide against the "world" that Saddam must fall now (cause the Lord knows we are out of our collective democratic minds)? We're no one... we're just those arrogant, warmongering, rich folk that pay out of pocket to expose our sons to hell in the name of the UN... every single time we are asked to do so. But isn't it the US's own fault that so many in the world think we are warmongers... it sure is, Because we fight so many wars in the names of our allies who as often as not support that view in order to gain a favorable "world opinion" for themselves when US might isn't immediatly needed.

Now... heres the big kick... I bet most of anyone outside the US expects the US to pull out of the UN sometime soon... I bet that many believe the US is resentful of these other countries for their waflling. Well the waffling hurts some...sure.. we're all drinking buddies right? You bet. But the world is what it is... and thats a dog eat dog mother of all fuckers where even civilized nations constantly jockey for position and status. Americans understand that and resent no other country for looking after its best interests. As far as pulling out of the UN... the US wont pull out... we're those warmongerring, isolationists who have puppet control of the whole shebang... remember? How else can we get that oil?
Yep... thats us.
And Saddam Hussien will donate all his money to the red cresent and rertire to Russia or someplace too.

And we all lived happily ever after.

Oops... I mean we all (we all means UN members... not forumites) bit at each others heels and sniped each other into naming our foods all over again and imposing trade embargos on one another. Then some REALLY BIG asian country gets the idea that "Ding dong the witch is dead... the witch is dead..." and a certain island (or two) in the pacific are no longer shipping toys and or radios to all us kewl folk... oh chit...wait... that wont happen either cause theres this other country that spends billions on warmongering aircraft carriers, materials, troops, and other nifty, arrogant, gadgets in order to keep the whole pacific stabilized pretty much on our own, (monitarily and millitarily) with the support, best wishes, and lipstick-kiss-printed love letter saying "atta boy Joe!" with a return address from... guess where? The UN!!! ding ding ding... tell 'em what they won Bob!

goddamit I swear I'd dance my life away if some other country had the ability to respond to these threats... if some other country could see the need to give our "rich" asses a break. Imagine what we could do with the money we could divert from defense if it were only so... but it isn't.
The world no doubt fears the consequences of war with Iraq... the consequences to the middle east... the way arabs will view all westerners... the possible use of WMDs. But no country fears these things more profoundly than we do. For crying out loud look at this forum! How many people here are in the service now? How many will eventually go over seas? how many have done so all ready... and will they return? I know we kicked ass the last war... but I mean it... will the people we see here return? Do you know I know these people and many others personally and don't think of them as soldiers at all? I think of them as Scott Cunningham that guy who more often than not kicks my ass in this game and is a source of perpetual stress management for me cause he's funny, intelligent (and occasionally I beat him too).... As the OTHER McAmis here that before he was uber-paramedic-fire-fighter-19kilo-tanker man was my cousin (more like my twin) seperated by only monthes age wise... and we have done and still do ALOT of realy kewl, sometimes childish nonsoldiering type things together.

Their families and friends (even during peacetime but never more so than now) live under the constant threat that a hotspot will flare up, that the UN will see a need to do something about it, and they will be called away perhaps never to return. Friends that hits me center mass with all the implied feelings and emotions. No one in the world would want this but the US people live under this threat daily.

The world could get along without us I think... especially now. I truly believe another threat like those that rose in Europe in the first part of last century won't rise again... at least not for a long long time. But the truth is this... if the world can live without us it has chosen NOT to do so... instead it has chosen the US as it's chief means of dealing with threats that require military intervention.
Now if only the UN could accept our judgement, which we have arrived at via the knowledge gained from years of practicle experience. We aren't warmonegers, we aren't after the oil... we want a situation that has never been resolved to come to a close and we are sick of spending our money to "contain" him perpetually for the sake of a UN that gives us no money, no real aid... to do so.

Enough is enough (despite the cliche) ...and trust me friends... the US has had enough.

Aut Pax Aut Bellum