Is a war on "terror" winnable?

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

How do you call a nation who attacs into 2 countries and kills thousands of people? KILLERS!!!

How do you call a nation who believes that weapons of mass destruction
exist in Iraq, a place where poverty and abjection rules? IDIOTS!!!

want more?

How do you call a nation who has this dump for president?

How do you call a nation who ruins our personal life by let the whole world know that we are under surveillance by his big eye (see echelon)???

the whole civilazed world hates americans!
i am broud not to be an american!

While your general idea came across loud and clear, I think you missed your mark a bit friend.

Welcome to Offtopicz.com BTW.

I've traveled much of the world. Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In my experiance, the civilized world does not hate America. Most people I've had oportunity to speak with actually want to either visit here someday, or send their children to live.

I'm proud to be an American.

 

[dt3]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

How do you call a nation who attacs into 2 countries and kills thousands of people? KILLERS!!!

How do you call a nation who believes that weapons of mass destruction
exist in Iraq, a place where poverty and abjection rules? IDIOTS!!!

want more?

How do you call a nation who has this dump for president?

How do you call a nation who ruins our personal life by let the whole world know that we are under surveillance by his big eye (see echelon)???

the whole civilazed world hates americans!
i am broud not to be an american!

Why did poverty rule in Iraq? Cuz the dictator was keeping all the damn money. Ever seen Saddam's palaces? Tell me poverty ruled him. And that money could have easily gone toward WMDs. What do you call a country that attacks two countries, replaces the dictatorial governments, and puts free governments in their place? I'd call them Liberators. And if you think Iraq doesn't want us over there, just look at the voter turnouts for their elections. They have embraced their new government that doesn't persecute them and let's them have a say. I'm proud to not have to share a country with you. If you don't like us, stay the fuck out.

 

[dt3]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

How do you call a nation who believes that weapons of mass destruction
exist in Iraq, a place where poverty and abjection rules? IDIOTS!!!

Here you go, these are all from democrats by the way.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!




Here's some more from the International side

Mr Blair, speaking to the House of Commons, 18 March:

1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.
It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate... Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is not fully co-operating.
Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
10 April 2002, House of Commons Tony Blair
"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

24 September 2002, House of Commons Tony Blair
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability." The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.




If that's not enough for ya, I'll find more next week. For now I am busy, and don't consider you worth my time.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I wish there was an applause emoticon.


dt3, it brings a tear to my eye to see somebody else out there looks into things before they jump on the bandwagon.

Well done. :rock

 

[lemon]

:agree

 

[dt3]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

I wish there was an applause emoticon.


dt3, it brings a tear to my eye to see somebody else out there looks into things before they jump on the bandwagon.

Well done. :rock

hehe, well I was already on the pro-war bandwagon, I just had to do a little research to shut that guy up

 

[Lotusheaven]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

Great balls of fire, we have some historians amongst us. :banana

Welcome to Offtopicz guys. It's good to have you!!

You've made several great points. Very well thought out and written. Let me start by saying that I understand our country (USA) hasn't been a saint for it's entire history. Phreaked was good enough to point out that we had our imperical time like most of the rest of the world. Nobody can deny the Native American cultures got a raw deal when Westerners arrived.

In our defense though, those days are behind us, and I'd like to think they'll never be back. To compare modern America to the British Empire of yesterday is a stretch I don't see as being fair. The British Empire planed military operations to gain actual control over large areas of land. The occupants of those lands were required to swear allegiance to the King, pay taxes to the King, fight for the King, and provide for the King. The United States does not operate this way.

The stated enemy of the United States is Communism, and governments that control the free will of its citizens. It happens to also be the case that this is in the best interests of the U.S., as our markets are best served by buyers and sellers. I don't think you can fault a people for acting in their best interests. That is a human trait that goes right down to the individual.

You made an excellent choice to concentrate on the history of the region of the past 100 years. Going past that does provide great background information, but isn't really relevant on the ground today.

The Middle East was trapped between competing super powers since the early 1900's (longer I know). During that time, the U.S., the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Great Britton, etc... were far too occupied with each other to really pay much attention to the native people in these locations. I'm sure this was a mistake, but in my humble opinion, a reasonable one. We had bigger things to worry about. Hopefully that's not insulting, but if you're facing great personal loss, the stranger next to you loses importance for a time.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." There is no doubt that the various powers listed above supported their allies in the Middle East. There is also no doubt that the individuals those countries supported didn't always turn out to be good guys. But in almost every instance, the person the U.S. chose changed after they acquired the power we helped them achieve. I'm searching my memory here, so I could be wrong, but I cannot think of an example where we supported a person we knew was going to institute mass killings (of civilians), and close of the country to freedom.

A free and democratic nation is in the best interests of the United States. It also turns out that we feel it's the right thing to do. We've fought all over the world, but has there been a war the U.S. engaged in that was not against a government that would enslave its population? President Teddy Roosevelt came the closest I think. Some of his decisions were a pretty brash, but there was method to much of his madness.

Americans traditionally hate to fight. Generally we wait until one moment before it's too late before we decide to commit troops. (Again, I realize we weren't justified in going after the Indians, and somewhat against the Mexicans). When we do decide to fight though, we don't claim the territory we fought over. We didn't stay in France for example. We don't own South Korea, we gave Germany back to herself, we gave Japan back to herself, we didn't continue south into Central America and claim it as our own, and we have no intention of 'owning' Iraq. We're trying every day to support an Iraqi government of representation. Once they're on their feet, we'll be gone. Allies hopefully, and trading partners, but we won't be calling the shots for them. Don't you think Germany would have been on our side in '03 if we were still running things behind the scenes over there?

There is nothing wrong with treating hostile governments as hostiles. If you don't want to trade with us, or help us with anything, why should we go out of our way to help you? We get demonized for not trading with countries that are our enemies, but do we have some sort of responsibility to support those that would so us harm?

We have stood by and born witness to mass killings. This is true. BUT, every time we try to intervene, we are called imperials. We tried to bring international attention to the needs you spoke of earlier, but how could we get involved again? When we do, we get stuck, and sooner or later, we get blamed. Then shortly after that, we lose face in the world. Sort of like what happens when we do decide to do something, only without the loss of American lives. (There are many example of each)

There is oil in Iraq. Was there oil in Korea or Vietnam? Did we have an interest in those regions? Sure, but only minimally. Strategically we didn't have much to gain from a free Vietnam or Korea. Those countries are so close to the Soviet Union and China, it wouldn't have made much of a difference if we'd been there or not. I've often heard us blamed for arming Bin Laden. It's true, we did. But we did it to help Afghanistan defend itself from losing it's sovereignty to a foe it could not otherwise defend against. The Taliban took over the country, but is that our 'fault?' Should we have gone in right after they beat the Soviets to install a government? Of course not.



I know I'm all over the map here, sorry about that. My mind is going a million miles a second, but I'm too physically tired to sort things out properly. Hopefully I've made some sense though. I look forward very much to hearing more of your opinions and viewpoints. Welcome again to Offtopicz.

"We have stood by and born witness to mass killings. This is true. BUT, every time we try to intervene, we are called imperials. We tried to bring international attention to the needs you spoke of earlier, but how could we get involved again?"
- Only witnessed mass killing? What a joke...
The U.S loves to f*** countries over for resources, to ensure fat american commodity. Are you f-in stupid? Where do you think your all your commodity comes from? A magical genie? Christ...

"We didn't stay in France for example."

- When has the U.S ever invaded france? Maybe you are refering to the second world war. Very inaccurate.

"We've fought all over the world, but has there been a war the U.S. engaged in that was not against a government that would enslave its population?"


- Yes, there has been many. For instance: Nicaragua
My mother is Nicaraguan, my father is an American Marine that was stationed there back then. I don't recall our (Nicaraguan) presidental election back then to be "undemocratical" yet my fatherland sent troopers to tame my motherland. Why? We chose socialism before capitalism, that's why.

I've even checked values of GNP and imports//export evaluations before the war. Nicaragua was back then on it's way to becoming a country with a good economy thanks to our exports for the first time.

Today past war Nicaragua is nothing, the system is rotten to the core.
People are on drugs, kids whore on the streets. All that was welfare is gone. But hey, what does that matter, at least the U.S can buy their bananas and cattle cheap and the entire national income goes straight down our republic presidents pockets. Hurray, feel the ironi?



"we gave Germany back to herself" -
So did the communists, does that make the U.S any better?

"There is nothing wrong with treating hostile governments as hostiles. If you don't want to trade with us, or help us with anything, why should we go out of our way to help you? We get demonized for not trading with countries that are our enemies, but do we have some sort of responsibility to support those that would so us harm? "

- What does the United States have to trade? Electronics? The japs are more advanced and cheaper.
Food? I doubt it since the U.S is currently overconsuming food to the grade that the nation must import cattle from Latin America, check GNP- trade listing for more info.
Cars? The Germans makes better cars, the Japs make cheaper cars.

The only thing the U.S really has to trade is marketing brands that nobody really wants or needs at least, such a mcdonalds or nike.

Doubt me? Once again compare international imports to exports.

Money is flowing out of the U.S and the nation cannot substain itsealf in the long run, forgett democracy it has never existed anyway, if you do even know the true meaning of democracy.

And that is why the U.S must search for cheap or free resources to scavenge from alternate potencialities.

You claimed you are demonized for not trading with your enemies? Can you back that up?

The true fact is that, many countries don't want anything to do with the U.S at all, yet they recieve a trading embargo as soon as it's made official.
Cuba for instance as Iraq and probably Iran pretty soon.

You make many claims yet have no facts or experience to present.
Nearly everthing you've written is inaccurate and based on an opinion.

Would it harm to search for facts before making a judgement?
You just sound like another moron whose never seen the uglyness that the U.S has caused around the world.

But I know, I've read about it and experienced it.

Perhaps you will one day too.
Hopefully.

 

[Lotusheaven]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

Well i'm glad this has turned out to be a mature conversation and no one has been accused of being a communist or a witch yet. This is a reply to IntruderLS1's post. I'm glad that you speak in a very honest and objective way i just have some factual things that i will "argue" with you. I'll quote some stuff you said and write a response. ok first.

"The British Empire planed military operations to gain actual control over large areas of land........The United States does not operate this way."

This is very true. We live in a democratic society who've population would not support the use of troops to hold power under a region unless the population is convinced it is absolutely nessecary. But we've learned from british hostory and trying to directly hold land is incredibly inefficiant and the empire is over extended.

We do a very similar thing in a much more efficient way. The various movements that came out of the 60's (the woman's movement, soliderity movement, peace movement) had forced the government to do any dirty work in a "underground" manner. You can't call in the 82nd airborn without popular support right. This led to the era of "state sponsored terrorism" which means that we fund guerrilla organization so they will fufill our goals. I'm going to use the example of Nicaragua because it is one that cannot be denied by mainstream media due to its scale and sloppiness on the side of our government. The population of Nicaragua was being led by a left wing government that was investing in things like social programs instead of liberalizing there economies so we could buy there health care sysem. Under Reagen a guerrilla organization known as the "Contras" you've probbaly heard of them, where being supported by us with arms, air support and tactical intelligence. They were instructed to attack so called "soft targets" which included things like farms and villages in order to distabilize the society and create a chaotic environment so the government would fall. Well with the arms, intellligence and air support we gave them they abosolutely devestated the country killing thousands of people and sending it into a economic spiral. In order to feed there familes the population of Nicaragua had to turn for our "help" in the form of exploitative labour and capital investment in there social infrastructure. This means that we now control most of the flow of capital from Nicaragua and unlike the british, do not have to waste manpower or risk diplomatic problems by interferring in other nations. The Unites States is a empire built on capital hence capitalism, meaning we do not need to control the people or the land, we just need to control what they invest in, which has to be us. Is this not in there best interests? maybe you'de think so if you haven't travelled to one of these places. The fact is that we create chaos in foreign countries so that they depend on our capital investment and ownership of there enterprises for there society to function.

"A free and democratic nation is in the best interests of the United States"

I would agree with you on that point depending on how you interpret that statement. If "free and democratic" mean that they operate in the best interests of there own populations then i would completly dissagree with you. But if you mean "free" as a liberalized economy you'de be perfectly right. We are not interrested in the development of autonomous states that can provide for themsleves because we have nothng to gain from that. Whenever such a state emerges it is labbeled as a "rogue" and sometimes they are hostile, but in many cases, such as Nicaragua, they are not and only made out to be when it is most convenient. Remember if the business community is in control of our view of the world, then a state that is not open to our capital investment naturally falls under the category of "bad".

"The stated enemy of the United States is Communism, and governments that control the free will of its citizens. It happens to also be the case that this is in the best interests of the U.S., as our markets are best served by buyers and sellers. I don't think you can fault a people for acting in their best interests. That is a human trait that goes right down to the individual."

Capitalism and Communism are opposites in the way that they function but they both result in the same social organization. They both centralize a society and put power in the hands of a small minority resulting in a narrow scope of opinion having any real say in how the society actualy functions. When you speak of free will you probbaly mean that you can work where you want and do most of the things you want and say anything without repremand. But to be a "winner" in a capitalist society you have to conform to what the narrow scope of dominant opinion wants you to be. Or be poor or be an artist and whine about it but have money. In America that means i have to be supportive of the business community and what they represent including promoting a aggressive nature towards the ownership of any public holdings by anyone. This also means that in order to be an "agenda setter" it is my responsibility to promote a business ideal which is inherently unethical and destructive.

"We have stood by and born witness to mass killings. This is true. BUT, every time we try to intervene, we are called imperials."

Actually we usually cause the mass killings we've sat by and witnessed. During the Vietnam war we dropped more bombs per pound on the agricultural land of Cambodia then all of the bombs dropped during the second world war. The bombing of NEUTRAL cambodia directly resulted in the deaths of 400 000 cambodians and sent there country into choas as you could imagine (Cambodia only had a population of 6-8 million at the time). Due to the devestation of the society radical political groups became increasingly popular (just like the nazis rising out of starving Germany). The Khmer Rouge led by pol pot came into power because the population was starving due to the massive destruction we directly incurred them. So not only did we sit by and watch pol pot kill roughly 2-3 million people, we accually were economically responsible, just as you can argue that the greediness of the french after the first world war caused the poverty in germany to give rise to the nazis.

"I cannot think of an example where we supported a person we knew was going to institute mass killings (of civilians), and close of the country to freedom."

I can. In the 1970's the united states signed one of the biggest arms deals in history with the dictator who ran indonesia. In a farely famous video Jimmy Carter is seen at a "official" event with the Indonesian government signing the document and endorsing there legitimacy. The very next day the miltary forces of Indonesia invaded an island by the name of East Timor and over the next decade mounted up a body count that reviled pol pot's massacre in Cambodia, yes that means millions of people. With our arms and political support, not just complacency, but actual support for indonesia they incurred one of the top three massacres of the 20th century. Why would we sell them arms to do such a thing? because we are capitalists and we do business. Business inherently does not contain a code of ethics, people do but businesses, even if they have "nice" people in them, do not. That is why Americans don't understand the rest of the world and the rest of the world do not understand americans. When the rest of the world encounters "Americans", in the form of political relations, they are really just encountering our business community which are both our most powerful driving force, due to the fact we are capitalists, and happen to lack very much in the ways of ethics. And when we see how much the rest of the world dissaproves of our psychopathic behaviour we believe they should be grateful for all we have done for them, which we are told by the business community, is a lot of "good".

But it is very possible that you have never heard of East Timor and the same people who tell you what good we are doing for the world probably haven't either.

"When we do decide to fight though, we don't claim the territory we fought over. We didn't stay in France for example. We don't own South Korea, we gave Germany back to herself, we gave Japan back to herself, we didn't continue south into Central America and claim it as our own, and we have no intention of 'owning' Iraq."

Remember we own capital not land. We own south korea, if we pulled our all of our investment out of south korea there economy would serverily suffer, meaning we can impose our will on them in a more indirect way then holding a gun to someone's head. To a lesser extent the same goes for Germany and France but they have relatively strong economies without us. But Central America is a whole other story. As i mentioned before we are interrested in controlling latin america through capital investment that we've forced upon them out of nessesity for survival, we don't have to invade them to control there doctrines, all we have to do make sure that a small minority of the population is getting rich from our investment so that they will keep the other 98% of the population from being able to set up social programs. In real terms it means we set up our own dictatorships, with murder squads and all, that we call democracy's because they have a liberalized economy.

Why would we want to own any land in Iraq? it is a desert, we only want the oil reserves, well, our business community wants the oil reserves because they can make a lot of money from it and the do not possess a ethical backdrop to stop them from further destroying that nation.

Nic, you are the best, how do you do it?

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

You just sound like another moron whose never seen the uglyness that the U.S has caused around the world.

But I know, I've read about it and experienced it.

Perhaps you will one day too.
Hopefully.

:rofl :rofl

Welcome to Offtipicz friend. It's good to have another voice online.

I can respond to pretty much everything you've said up there, but I don't have the time now.

Not that it's important here at all, but just so you know.... I've traveled all over the world in the past 10 years. Both with the military, and as a civilian. And no, I don't just hang out in tourist havens either.

Do you wanna keep this clean, or do you want to name call? Just so I know how to respond. :dunno

 

[UncleBacon]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

You just sound like another moron whose never seen the uglyness that the U.S has caused around the world.

But I know, I've read about it and experienced it.

Perhaps you will one day too.
Hopefully.

:rofl :rofl

Welcome to Offtipicz friend. It's good to have another voice online.

I can respond to pretty much everything you've said up there, but I don't have the time now.

Not that it's important here at all, but just so you know.... I've traveled all over the world in the past 10 years. Both with the military, and as a civilian. And no, I don't just hang out in tourist havens either.

Do you wanna keep this clean, or do you want to name call? Just so I know how to respond. :dunno

thats pretty cute wat he wrote :rofl :funnah :rofl :funnah

 

[IntruderLS1]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?

A little background information if you please? Where are you from, and how old are you? I can't quite figure out from your writing. You claim both the U.S. and Nicaragua as possessive.

The true fact is that, many countries don't want anything to do with the U.S at all, yet they recieve a trading embargo as soon as it's made official.
Cuba for instance as Iraq and probably Iran pretty soon.

This was my favorite part, so I'll start here. I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Do you know what an embargo is? If a country doesn't want to have anything to do with us, then why would they care if we had an embargo set up? I would think it would be celebrated in the streets.

- When has the U.S ever invaded france? Maybe you are refering to the second world war. Very inaccurate.

Allied forces did indeed invade France during the Second World War. That is accurate in every sense of the word. It would have been a small issue to install a government there if we so chose, but we gave her back to the French. We have already given Iraq back to the Iraqi people. Why that fact pisses liberal off, I have no idea. :dunno

- Yes, there has been many. For instance: Nicaragua. *** I don't recall our (Nicaraguan) presidental election back then to be "undemocratical" yet my fatherland sent troopers to tame my motherland. Why? We chose socialism before capitalism, that's why.

This is why I asked your age. Which elections are you talking about? Nicaragua has been in a state of upheaval for 150 years. America has been involved on and off for a long time, but I must admit to only knowing the highlights about your country. I'll have to look more deeply into it.

"we gave Germany back to herself"
-So did the communists, does that make the U.S any better?

The Soviet Union was in an incredible rate of decay. They would no longer exist just a few years later. It was easier for them to give up East Germany than to hold it. It didn't help that they were under such direct pressure from the rest of the world to let them go. Have you ever been there? Do you know the difference between the two sides as far as quality of life were concerned? You can still see it today.

- What does the United States have to trade? Electronics? The japs are more advanced and cheaper.
Food? I doubt it since the U.S is currently overconsuming food to the grade that the nation must import cattle from Latin America, check GNP- trade listing for more info.
Cars? The Germans makes better cars, the Japs make cheaper cars.

This seems to be based solely on your contempt for the United States. The technological level inside the U.S. is cutting edge. The Japanese are leveraged very heavily in consumer electronics, but that does not make them more technologically advanced that us. Where do you think the internet we're having this discussion on was originated? How many countries have put a man on the moon? Who invented and gave GPS to the world free of charge?

American auto manufactures did not take foreign competition seriously for too long. They have now changed that. American cars took the most awards from Consumer Reports on initial quality last year. I believe the myth that import vehicles are better than American will evaporate steadily over the next 10 years as people are exposed to the next generation American automobile.

I won't even touch reliability issues with German vehicles. LOL

The only thing the U.S really has to trade is marketing brands that nobody really wants or needs at least, such a mcdonalds or nike.

I can't decide if you're joking, or if this is really the way you think. I would recommend you check out your own sources again to find out what the U.S. exports to the world.

Money is flowing out of the U.S and the nation cannot substain itsealf in the long run, ***** *****
And that is why the U.S must search for cheap or free resources to scavenge from alternate potencialities.

I know it's evil to buy other peoples goods and help them grow their business and communities with our dollars. How dare we buy things from the rest of the world? I'm disgusted too. Maybe we should stop buying their products, and watch what happens. Do you think that would be a better idea? Let's fix this together.

You make many claims yet have no facts or experience to present.
Nearly everthing you've written is inaccurate and based on an opinion.

Would it harm to search for facts before making a judgement?
You just sound like another moron whose never seen the uglyness that the U.S has caused around the world.

We've already been over this. Would you like to compare lists of places visited?

The moron comment was just mean. I cried a little when I found out what you thought of me. :funnah :funnah

But I know, I've read about it and experienced it.

Perhaps you will one day too.
Hopefully.

LOL You've made my whole day better. I look forward to hearing more of your views on the world.

Welcome again to Offtopicz. All bullshit aside, I really do enjoy hearing other points of view. Hopefully you'll stick around.

 

[Tim]

I was reading over this post thread today. It's amazing that so much of it still rings true.

 

[White2000GT]

I read most of the previous posts. Some were long-winded. Some were good. Some were totally opinionated crap.
My thoughts... a "War on Terror" can not be won. Period. Like what was stated in some of the previous posts, there have been terrorists for years and years before this was started, and there will be terrorists for years and years after the war ends (whenever that may be).

I don't know if it is a pride thing with Bush, or if in his mind he actually believes that this is a war that can be won, but he is totally reluctant to withdraw our troops from Iraq. He's even publicly stated that he won't withdraw them while he is President. In my opinion, Iraq wasn't about terrorists. I think it was more based on the belief of the existence of WMD's, and possibly even had something to do with oil. I won't say it was a mistake for us to go in there. We did actually do some good by deposing Sadam Hussein and helping to set up a democratic government. But at some point we have to open the cage and let them fly on their own. If they fail then it won't be from a lack of support on our part, but I don't think it requires having tens of thousands of our troops over there to help "keep the peace". We need to worry about protecting our own country and our own citizens so that we never have to experience the horrors of 9/11 ever again.

If our dealings in Iraq are more oil related then I guess that's another situation. But, if the experts are correct in their assumptions, we will totally run out of oil in about 30 years anyway (at our present rate of consumption). So then what type of hold will these Middle Eastern nations have on us? None. They have nothing else to offer that I know of. Of course, the extremist will probably blame that on us and still hate us and want to kill us anyway. It really is a no-win situation with them.

Now, Afganistan is another story as well. As long as we have intelligence that says Bin Laden is alive and in hiding in Afganistan, I think we should have a presence there with the sole intent of finding and killing him. No trial. Just death. It's what he deserves. And as long as there are Taliban there then we should make it our goal to destroy them as well.

Long story short... if we think the War on Terror can be won, then be prepared for a long war. A really long, never ending war.

 

[mazHur]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?



"We have stood by and born witness to mass killings. This is true. BUT, every time we try to intervene, we are called imperials. We tried to bring international attention to the needs you spoke of earlier, but how could we get involved again?"
- Only witnessed mass killing? What a joke...
The U.S loves to f*** countries over for resources, to ensure fat american commodity. Are you f-in stupid? Where do you think your all your commodity comes from? A magical genie? Christ...

"We didn't stay in France for example."

- When has the U.S ever invaded france? Maybe you are refering to the second world war. Very inaccurate.

"We've fought all over the world, but has there been a war the U.S. engaged in that was not against a government that would enslave its population?"


- Yes, there has been many. For instance: Nicaragua
My mother is Nicaraguan, my father is an American Marine that was stationed there back then. I don't recall our (Nicaraguan) presidental election back then to be "undemocratical" yet my fatherland sent troopers to tame my motherland. Why? We chose socialism before capitalism, that's why.

I've even checked values of GNP and imports//export evaluations before the war. Nicaragua was back then on it's way to becoming a country with a good economy thanks to our exports for the first time.

Today past war Nicaragua is nothing, the system is rotten to the core.
People are on drugs, kids whore on the streets. All that was welfare is gone. But hey, what does that matter, at least the U.S can buy their bananas and cattle cheap and the entire national income goes straight down our republic presidents pockets. Hurray, feel the ironi?



"we gave Germany back to herself" -
So did the communists, does that make the U.S any better?

"There is nothing wrong with treating hostile governments as hostiles. If you don't want to trade with us, or help us with anything, why should we go out of our way to help you? We get demonized for not trading with countries that are our enemies, but do we have some sort of responsibility to support those that would so us harm? "

- What does the United States have to trade? Electronics? The japs are more advanced and cheaper.
Food? I doubt it since the U.S is currently overconsuming food to the grade that the nation must import cattle from Latin America, check GNP- trade listing for more info.
Cars? The Germans makes better cars, the Japs make cheaper cars.

The only thing the U.S really has to trade is marketing brands that nobody really wants or needs at least, such a mcdonalds or nike.

Doubt me? Once again compare international imports to exports.

Money is flowing out of the U.S and the nation cannot substain itsealf in the long run, forgett democracy it has never existed anyway, if you do even know the true meaning of democracy.

And that is why the U.S must search for cheap or free resources to scavenge from alternate potencialities.

You claimed you are demonized for not trading with your enemies? Can you back that up?

The true fact is that, many countries don't want anything to do with the U.S at all, yet they recieve a trading embargo as soon as it's made official.
Cuba for instance as Iraq and probably Iran pretty soon.

You make many claims yet have no facts or experience to present.
Nearly everthing you've written is inaccurate and based on an opinion.

Would it harm to search for facts before making a judgement?
You just sound like another moron whose never seen the uglyness that the U.S has caused around the world.

But I know, I've read about it and experienced it.

Perhaps you will one day too.
Hopefully.

The War is NOT winnable. There was NO sense in the War on an abstract thing such as 'terror' or 'terrorism' ... It has already been lost. The terrorist have proved stronger than the warring parties who have only disturbed the world peace.
The recent swapping of an American trooper prisoner against release of 5 hardened Terrorists from Gitmo is a self explanatory evidence that the warring parties have yielded to the terrorists and that so called war has been lost. In fact the so called war has given impetus to terrorism which seems to engulf the whole world ..sooner or later. Bad.

 

[Stone]

The War is NOT winnable. There was NO sense in the War on an abstract thing such as 'terror' or 'terrorism' ... It has already been lost. The terrorist have proved stronger than the warring parties who have only disturbed the world peace.
The recent swapping of an American trooper prisoner against release of 5 hardened Terrorists from Gitmo is a self explanatory evidence that the warring parties have yielded to the terrorists and that so called war has been lost. In fact the so called war has given impetus to terrorism which seems to engulf the whole world ..sooner or later. Bad.

But you do argue for your terrorist interests to win the war.
That's not just being a hypocrite, that being a terrorist supporter.

 

[mazHur]

But you do argue for your terrorist interests to win the war.
That's not just being a hypocrite, that being a terrorist supporter.

If you think so then even the creator of this thread will seem to you as a terrorist or a terrorist supporter or maybe a hypocrite.

I know you are on depression pills and quite deranges since long.

the so called war on terror has fizzled away .....leaving you to keep scratching your balls. Here

 

[mazHur]

Re: RE: Is a war on "terror" winnable?



Here you go, these are all from democrats by the way.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!




Here's some more from the International side

Mr Blair, speaking to the House of Commons, 18 March:

1441 is a very clear resolution. It lays down a final opportunity for Saddam to disarm. It rehearses the fact that he has been for years in material breach of 17 separate UN resolutions.
It says that this time compliance must be full, unconditional and immediate... Iraq has made some concessions to co-operation but no-one disputes it is not fully co-operating.
Iraq continues to deny that it has any WMD, though no serious intelligence service anywhere in the world believes them.


"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
10 April 2002, House of Commons Tony Blair
"Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked.

24 September 2002, House of Commons Tony Blair
"It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: "Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability." The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.




If that's not enough for ya, I'll find more next week. For now I am busy, and don't consider you worth my time.

ha! Fallacious judgment, NO Weapons of Mass Destruction found!

America only needs some excuse to poke its nose in and destroy world peace.

Apart from military show off America could also use better methods to alleviate poverty and bring peace to this world..but no ,,vested interests will seldom let go

 

[The Man]

The war on terror can not be won maz...its an ongoing battle.
The idea is to take out terrorist leaders in an effort to spoil terrorist plots and slow recruits.
Terrorism will not stop...but these people can not just do as they wish as they do in the govt provided reservations in PK that is immune to PK law.

 

[Stone]

If you think so then even the creator of this thread will seem to you as a terrorist or a terrorist supporter or maybe a hypocrite.

I know you are on depression pills and quite deranges since long.

the so called war on terror has fizzled away .....leaving you to keep scratching your balls. Here

...............]

If you think so then even the creator of this thread will seem to you as a terrorist or a terrorist supporter or maybe a hypocrite.

No......Tim was a liberal, but he started this thread in 2005 when Iraq was the problem, not Afg or Pakistan.
Iraq was a different situation. Iraq hadn't invaded or supported aggression against the US, but we now know Pakistan did.
Iraq became a Civil War after Bush tore it up.
The US made a horrible mistake being distracted in Iraq and the real enemies, al Qaeda, the Taliban regrouped and expanded their influence.
There is simply no comparison of the Middle East in 2005 to today.
Terrorists in Pk are inplace to take over the PK nuclear arsenals. Iraq had no WMDs.
I was also one of those that argued Bush's war on terror was futile. It was. We are living the results and it's difficult to correct and correction will not come by the US surrendering.
It will only come with the defeat of al Qaeda and it's ally, the Taliban because of Pk's stupidity of putting it's nuclear arsenal at risk.

You are a pathetic propagandist.

I know you are on depression pills and quite deranges since long.

You know nothing. You are mazHur

the so called war on terror has fizzled away

It could happen.
But.
If those terrorists do get those nukes, you are going to glow....and you will have brought that upon yourselves.

 

[mazHur]

No......Tim was a liberal, but he started this thread in 2005 when Iraq was the problem, not Afg or Pakistan.
Iraq was a different situation. Iraq hadn't invaded or supported aggression against the US, but we now know Pakistan did.
Iraq became a Civil War after Bush tore it up.
The US made a horrible mistake being distracted in Iraq and the real enemies, al Qaeda, the Taliban regrouped and expanded their influence.
There is simply no comparison of the Middle East in 2005 to today.
Terrorists in Pk are inplace to take over the PK nuclear arsenals. Iraq had no WMDs.
I was also one of those that argued Bush's war on terror was futile. It was. We are living the results and it's difficult to correct and correction will not come by the US surrendering.
It will only come with the defeat of al Qaeda and it's ally, the Taliban because of Pk's stupidity of putting it's nuclear arsenal at risk.

You are a pathetic propagandist.


You know nothing. You are mazHur



It could happen.
But.
If those terrorists do get those nukes, you are going to glow....and you will have brought that upon yourselves.

Terrorists are nobody's friends...first of all they will screw you then the others. But in any case you could be their choicest 'fruit cake'!