Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 27 2003, 12:07 AM

Boo-hoo, Al Jazeera hit with DDOS attacks. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1093&e=3&cid=1093&u=/pcworld/20030326/tc_pcworld/110005
I love the idea of a sweaty Iraqi IT guy pulling his hair out.

And here's an article with information on how to send troops email, care packages, and long-distance phone cards:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1093&e=1&cid=1093&u=/pcworld/20030326/tc_pcworld/110009

Posted by: rick 918-S Mar 27 2003, 12:28 AM

Did you hear the Iraqi guy whining to the U.N. today? Then he say's something like, We won't meet the agressors in Baghdad with candies we'll meet them with bullets! Ya, Why would he think we'd expect any different treatment than they dole out to their own citizens? That's ok, our GI's will pass out the candies to your citizens after we kick your old ass!

914 content (914's are coool)

Posted by: vortrex Mar 27 2003, 01:27 AM

that UN guy is really annoying. I like how he said the US had already killed 2000 civilians, yet we've got surgical teams in the field sewing up more iraqi's than coalition forces. that guy needs a tomahawk missle directed to his living room.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 01:39 AM

And people are protesting this war.... I dont get it.


"General: Iraqis hang woman for waving to coalition troops"

The Marine general said that what has surprised him most about the first week of fighting is the extent of war crimes carried out by the Iraqi regime. In addition to the execution of POWs, he said, Iraqis have used civilians as human shields, stored weapons in schools, set up command posts in hospitals and pretended to surrender only to open fire.

In one case, an Iraqi woman was hanged after she waved to coalition forces, Pace said.


Now tell me why we shouldnt be there ???

We have support/food/water being delivered to Iraqi people (who are fighting each other to be fed) and they are SHOOTING US soldiers who are surrending when caught ???

B

Posted by: vortrex Mar 27 2003, 02:07 AM

I especially like how iraqi fighters are now driving vehicles made to look like the red cross. I'm sorry, but the coalition needs to pick up the pace and start making this a little more ugly for them. we are way too nice in all this.

did anyone else see the iraqi fighters with the machine gun mounted in the bed of a PINK late model japanese pickup truck, complete with NYPD bumper sticker and all??

Posted by: campbellcj Mar 27 2003, 02:24 AM

I also heard today that, according to Amnesty International (probably some of the people who are now protesting the war) and other sources, as many as 2 MILLION Iraqi's and Kurdish have gone "missing" in about the last 30 years. In other words, government sanctioned kidnapping, torture and genocide. There are supposedly documented cases where Saddam's people gassed or shot 100K's of their own citizens because they were opposed to his government.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 03:21 AM

Thanks to Digital cable I can watch NON American war reports and feel that I'm getting a different view on this whole thing. So far I have not seen a reason why we shouldnt be there.

I HIGHYLY suggest people reading this thread watch a Discovery channel documentory called: "Searching For". It tracks a US reporter in the middle east after 9/11. He reports on the roots of "Muslim Rage" and why they hate us so bad. Good Good TV.

B

Posted by: AlexO Mar 27 2003, 06:18 AM

I admit that its hard not to pay attention, but iIts nice to see that you are all folowing what we are doing in Iraq. When I was in Sand Deigo I had to walk through war protests every now and then, and that was before it started. I dont know what kind of world these people think we live in that they want us to stand by and watch the injustices happen, not to mention the bio/chem weapons this man has. Its nice to see some support from back home. Just thought I'd let you know that although it wont be over in the short time the media portrayed, it is going well. Thanks again....

LCpl OConnor, USMC
Okinowa Japan

Posted by: Bruce Allert Mar 27 2003, 08:35 AM

Where were all these thousands of protestors during 9/11? You can bet your ass they weren't in there helping find people covered by the rubble.
And what would they do if a terrorist came into their house? Roll over and wave their ass in the air with a sign saying "fuck me please but be gentle"!!! Yes, it is their right to freedom of speech but there's a line that needs to be drawn and, I feel, if they step over it they should be delt with in the most harshest manner. Send them to the sand country to observe the tactics of the Iraqi toward their fellow man. Take out the fire hoses when their protest rallies get un-peaceful and wash 'em down into the gutters where they belong! :gilloutine:
bruce

Posted by: URY914 Mar 27 2003, 09:33 AM

Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and thier own people are fighting each other for the food we are giving them.

WTF?

And the wack jobs on the left are protesting the war which will bring help to these people.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 01:35 PM

Cool. A Marine on the list (I think LB is ARMY) NorCal is making me soft. I have been on the fence about this whole thing until I did what Andy told us all to do: and that was "educate yourself about these people before you comment" I have spent the last several weeks reading and watching as much as I could from outside sources (German TV with subtitles) you name it. I knew the USA coverage would be a little jaded so I went after info from outside sources. Mr. Hussein and sons are worse than I ever thought. We are NO saints by any means, but Busch (who has been called Hitler by some Middle East people) has never GASSED a million Americans. I keep hearing OIL OIL OIL OIL.. we are there for the OIL. Bullshit. The UN and OPEC are going to control the amount of OIL flow out of Iraq after WE rebuild the place. The Iraqi people deserve a little better life whether they know it or not. Oil for food. Yeah.. we are terrible people. They shoot us in the head and we perform surgery on their wounded. How does this work ??

The Discovery channel progem spelled out another piece that I was missing. WHY. Why does the middle east hate us so bad ?? Bottome line: They thought they where the shit and they are no longer the shit. They come here to study and go back with hatred and spread it. So stay FUCKING HOME.

B

Posted by: GWN7 Mar 27 2003, 02:46 PM

You guys missed the one where it is reported that Sadam & his kids have a huge grinder to put their enemies in a grind them up alive. (Think it was BBC)

War protest here last weekend. Some guy drove by with "Support the Troops" signs on the side of his truck. The protesters attacked his truck.

Posted by: seanery Mar 27 2003, 03:04 PM

My brother was telling me about a video he saw where Saddam's meanest son (forgot which) would have parties for the Iraqi "in crowd" then they would have citizens -peasants I'm sure- kill themselves in brutal and inhuman ways. The examples he told me of were a guy shoves a sword through his skull-all the way and then the son would parade him around holding him up by his neck until the guy dropped dead. The other 2 he told me of were two swords in the chest, angled in an x going in around the breast area and the other was a sword on the floor point up and they would have to lower themselves onto the point until they died.

This was supposed to be an honor!
FUCK YOU SADDAM!

This made me sick to my stomach, literally, for a couple days. I can't believe any person would make another do this.

I'd be plenty happy if I were the one to be lucky enough to pull the trigger on that bastard. I know I'd lose sleep over it and I know that I'd probably roast in hell for killing another human, but I think it might just be worth it.


God bless our troops!

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 03:32 PM

blah blah blah ...

people (like me) that are against the war are NOT pro saddam or anything he stands for.
whoever thinks that way has not evolved beyond 2nd grade.

the problem with this war is the way how the US (once again) acts like it is above and beyond everybody else.
bush ignores international law just as saddam did.
what makes him think he is above international law?
in a speech from early january, bush made the point that iraq needs to
be attacked because they didn't comply with the UN resolution.
which is exactly what he (bush) did when he went to war ignoring all UN resolutions.

humanitarian? yeah, sure sounds good. kill them first, then bring food for those that are left.
liberate them. get rid of the "evil". jada jada jada ...
problem is, if the US's interest was strictly humanitarian, why isn't the US
present in so many other countries around the world that have similar problems as iraq?
why is it that US military action (in the name of humanity) always seems to be bundled
with little perks, like control over middle-east oil flow etc. ...
face it, this war is about economics!

and what does 9/11 have to do with the war on iraq?
it's quite a stretch to accuse anti-war protesters to be "pro" terrorist.
in fact, i think that is pretty fucked-up Mr. "Bruce Allert" ...

so, if i understand you guys right,
everybody who is against this war is against america?
and "left"? and pro terrorist? anti-patriot? scum?

are you guys really that naive? can it be?

Posted by: URY914 Mar 27 2003, 03:41 PM

Haven't we been over this before?


If not the U.S.A., than who will?
If not now, when?

Posted by: tmp914 Mar 27 2003, 03:46 PM

I dont think there is anymore "international law" because for the most part the "nations" are only out for themselves ex. france,russia,germany, turkey. like Bush said after 9/11 you are either with us or against us.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 03:51 PM

yes, we have -_-

who?
the UN, of course ...

when?
leave that up to the UN ...

why now? the US has looked away from the
regime in iraq for more than 10 years now.
why all the sudden? why now?
why didn't all you guys go to the streets 2 years ago,
demanding that we invade iraq NOW? where were you?
fact is, none of you was giving a damm shit about iraq and how
they were treating their own people. and none of you gives a damm
shit about how other countries around the world torture and kill their own people.
all your talk about "liberating" and "humanitarian" is damm fucking hypocritical ...

alright, i vented, now flames on ...

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 03:53 PM

this is even more stupid than saying the war on iraq is "humanitarian".

to answer my own question:

are you guys really that naive? can it be?

it very much looks like it can be

Posted by: URY914 Mar 27 2003, 04:03 PM

We get to take care of several problems when we take care of Saddam.
1. We remove the WMD.
2. We allow the oil to flow out of Iraq on to the world markets.
3. We get to do what is right for the people of Iraq.

There are very few countries in the world where you can do all this at once.
Why don't we go into Lower East Bumbly Fuck and free those people from thier goverment? Because we can't do #1 or #2 above.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 04:23 PM

sounds good, actually.
but why ignoring the UN and the rest of the world?

Posted by: James Adams Mar 27 2003, 04:33 PM

You see, Andy, whether or not there are hidden agendas, government conspiracies, aliens from outer space, or whatever, the reality of this war is that US people are putting their butts on the line (literally) for someone else.

Other nations (two come to mind right way) can not comprehend the mentality of US people. We will sacrifice for the good of others.

But you would not understand...

Also, you better do some leg stretches to prepare yourself for your foot entering your mouth when the oil money stays in Iraq. The US does not work that way. If we did, Honda, Porsche and (gee, I can't think of anything profitable from France) would have been products of the USA for the last 50 years.

Posted by: James Adams Mar 27 2003, 04:34 PM

Because the countries that are blocking have economic agendas (GREED) in front of human interests.

Posted by: URY914 Mar 27 2003, 04:35 PM

I have never voted for anyone in the UN.
It's called looking out for #1. And when you are #1, you do what is right for you.
It may not be PC, but it is how we go to be the world power we are now.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 04:39 PM

The UN is a bunch of washed up politicians with nothing left to do in their own government. What exactly do they do ?? They sit around and hold meetings and WISH things to get better. When do we take action ?? Why sit on our ass and do nothing ??

Andy,

How is it we are ignoring the rest of the world ?? GB/Aus/Spain and many others agreed.

Just for fun:

I would like to know what Russia/France/Germany do for other countries ?? I'm probably wrong... but I'm not seeing them coming to the aid of ANY country.

B

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 04:46 PM

I'm happy we have people like Andy around. Otherwise this would get boring with one sided views.

B

Posted by: vortrex Mar 27 2003, 04:50 PM

I love it when US residents support saddam and his actions more than that of bush. haha...screwed up people in this world.

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 27 2003, 04:52 PM

Chistopher Walken on Saturday Night Live as French president Jaque Chirac... "We do not oppose the war because we are Pro-Saddam; we oppose the war to be, how do you say, douche bag."

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 04:55 PM

you are fucking hilarious man.

if it wasn't for all those "saintly" americans the whole world would still be in the dark ages, right?
you get a double for this ...

who do you think you are? Mother Theresa ????

Posted by: vortrex Mar 27 2003, 04:58 PM

I think andy would have a much different view of things if he were iraqi and living in baghdad. then we'd see posts about the US not doing enough for him. LOL.

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 27 2003, 04:58 PM

No, but we'd all be speaking German now.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 04:59 PM

and i love it when people can't even read (and understand) a post. i do NOT support saddam or any of his actions.

i am as disgusted by him, his regime and everything else he has done as everybody else here.

and i am also disgusted by a american president that ignores the UN and international law in favor his own personal agenda ...

got that?

Posted by: vortrex Mar 27 2003, 05:03 PM

where in my post did I mention your name? can you read?

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 05:04 PM

(damm, can i have that smily BIGGER?)

the US didn't give a damm shit about the 2nd world war
and any of the suffering in europe until the japanese attacked pearl harbour.
if your interest would really be "humanitarian" why didn't
the US join the war against germany much, much earlier?
i tell you why. because there was nothing to gain from
doing so. only after being attacked themselfs they decided to
go to war. "humanitarian"? fucking hypocritical ....

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 05:05 PM

who else would you be talking to?
i'm the only one here ....

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 05:09 PM

yeah, and you would have a much different view of things if you had been growing up in europe. so what? i'm not in iraq and neither are you. what's your point? because i'm not iraqi, i either have to love your war or must remain silent? i don't get it ...

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 05:19 PM

so, you think because america is #1 you can just go
around and invade other countries whenever you
feel like it? sure, it's not PC, but hey, we're #1, so what?

makes actually sense then that everybody here seems
to think the UN is useless. because the UN was
founded to prevent a single country to do excatly that!
UN = United Nations. does that ring a bell?

if you're above international law you're a THREAT to
the rest of the free world! (and yes, there is more "free world" than just the US)

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 27 2003, 05:39 PM

This is a really good point. The Euro is the first step towards a united Europe. We need to keep those countries fighting with each other for a few more decades before they can be a threat to us. We should start small by annexing most of Canada and Mexico, then move on from there.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 05:45 PM

hmmmm, you didn't do your homework very well.
let's see, just a few of the things that the US took with
them when they left germany.
(wait, they never really left, they are still there).

what about that moon rocket you guys are so proud of?
a modfied german V2...

and the engineers who built it?
german "imports"...

the atomic bomb?
guess who had the plans for that?
another german "import" ...


you guys were one of four that won WWII,
nothing wrong with taking what you can get.

again, i'm happy we lost WWII because the
alternative would have been much, much worse.
anyone who fought against the nazis has my gratitude,
but don't give me that "The US does not work that way"
BS ...

Posted by: mskala Mar 27 2003, 05:46 PM

OK, I hope I can put some words together without beating up on anybody in
particular.

First, you are not anti-American to be against the war. There are of course
many ways to solve a problem, and only the people in charge get to decide
which way they want to use. Like it or not, that is how governments work.
True pacifists are dufuses, though. If you don't fight for your own interests
then don't complain when you are darwinized out of existence.

Second, there seems to be a huge number of protesters and complainers
who think the war is over oil. That's silly, you call me when the US is over
there pumping oil into our tankers for free and bringing it here. Like we
took Kuwait's oil? Or how Reagan nuked Russia for all it's oil? There is
always some polical motives behind major actions by presidents, but this
is about perceived security and not driving Suburbans.

Third, there is no breaking of international law by finishing what was already
decided by the UN. The last war 'ended' by Iraq agreeing to certain things,
which even the UN knows and officially stated were not done.

Fourth, I think one reason most other countries are not interested in
helping the US is because the terrorist threats are generally against
American interests rather than other western countries. That does NOT
affect the validity of the threats to the US, that just shows who's really
an ally or a fair-weather friend.

Fifth, if you want to protest, go right ahead, that's an american thing
to do. But if you break laws by blocking the streets or otherwise
causing police to have to arrest you, I hope they fine you back to the
stone age, because at least in the east, where cities had record snow
removal costs, big security bills, and low revenues because of state
of the economy, I don't need dumbasses making a 'statement' by giving
us huge extra police costs.

Normally I wouldn't bother with politics on boards, but what can I
say I'm not employed and have a bit of extra time right now.

Mark S.
'70 914-6

Posted by: Bleyseng Mar 27 2003, 05:53 PM

I don't like the fact that Politics in the UN was stopping action against Saddam for years. I still would have prefered if the UN had united to throw him out. Now we have other countries looking at the US as a big bully and will band together against us however they can... That is the big Foreign Policy mistake here, we can't fight the whole world! I think that if Bush had approched the UN another way than "My way or the highway" it would have worked out fine. Wars are fought for economic reasons not just because its right. Andy is right, the US would have never entered WW2 if we hadn't been attacked by Japan. Why did Japan attack us in the first place? Hmmm, we turned off their oil supply!
Geoff

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 06:05 PM

of course oil is a factor. don't be silly, it's not about filling up some freaking tankers for free ...

the middle east is THE key supplier for the US (and others) oil consumption.
therefore the US has a strong interest in keeping the region politically stable
to ensure undisturbed oil-flow.
and iraq is considered a threat to that stability.
this is not about terrorism. no iraqi has ever attacked america,
no iraqi missile has ever hit american soil. there was no provocation for this war,
except the conceived threat of destabilizing the middle east.

interestingly enough, for exactly the same reasons, iraq (under saddam) was once a US ally.
(funny that back then no-one here seemed to care about the torturing and killing of his own people).
the US trained, supplied them with weapons (which we're now looking for) and paid iraqi troops to
be a counterweight to iran, which at the time was perceived as the main threat in the middle east.
then iraq attacked iran and the US got cold feet and backed out.
ever since, the US/Iraq relationships are a bit chilly ...

the really interesting point here is that
as long as it was in the interest of the US, no one gave a fucking shit
about dead iraqi civilians or human rights or torture.
no one talked about the need to liberate the iraqi people.

Andy

Posted by: silver six Mar 27 2003, 06:10 PM

I'm With Andy He yells too loudly but I'm still with him.

Contradiciton Too much contradiction on the board. Half the time the board is pro-war because we're American and we're number one and fuck everyone else. The other half the time you boys are arguing this is a humanitarian effort and that America is selflessly sacrificing lives to do the right thing. Well, which is it? I suspect more the former than the latter.

Oil Mark says: "Second, there seems to be a huge number of protesters and complainers who think the war is over oil. That's silly . . . ." But if this war is not at least partially about oil then why aren't we liberating other people of the world like the Somali's, the Iranian's, the Columbians, or the Cuban's? Fighting a war to liberate an African nation would be a whole lot cheaper and easier than fighting a war in Iraq. Why don't we do it? Oil, is but one of many reasons why.

TerrorismThis war is absolutely not about terrorism. There is not a single credible link from 9/11 to Iraq. I challenge anyone to link me to a magazine article to the contrary. Now there is a significant link from 9/11 to Saudi Arabia. I ask this question to the pro-war posters: after we've disposed of Iraq would you support a war against the Saudis?

No End in Sight On a related note, everyone who argues that we're in Iraq liberating the people, I ask you, which country would you be in support of invading next? The world is full of dictators. How about the Saudi's? How about China? How about N. Korea? How about all those African nations with horrible human rights records? Now if you would not support invading those countries, I ask you what makes Iraq different?

We Didn't Liberate Kuwait Even After We Liberated Kuwait Is Kuwait better now ten years after we liberated them than they were before? They are not the worst of the worst dictators in the region but they have an abysmal human rights record and America is complicit because we put the emir [say dictator] back in power. We have no reason to belive that Iraq will do any better than Kuwait. Is Afganistan doing any better for that matter? It's a mess out there and America has a horrible record for cleaning up our Middle-Eastern messes.

Iraq is not Germany or Japan If we could turn Iraq into a post WWII Germany or Japan I might actually be for the war but the chances of that happening are infinitely small. Do people on this board really believe that Iraq will look like Japan in the next century?

And these are but some of the reasonsy why I cannot support the war.

Flame on.

Douglas

Posted by: Don Wohlfarth Mar 27 2003, 06:12 PM

Andy, respect your views on being anti-war. Too bad you didn't stop there.
You posted:
QUOTE (URY914 @ Mar 27 2003, 01:41 PM)
Haven't we been over this before?
If not the U.S.A., than who will?
If not now, when?
yes, we have
who?
the UN, of course ...
when?
leave that up to the UN ...

The UN had a resolution in Oct? that was a follow up to a resolution at the end of the Gulf War about inspectors. Saddam threw out the inspectors doing their job per the 1st resolution, the follow up resolution put inspectors back into Iraq.
What did the UN do in the 12 years between res 1 and 2?
There are 189 countries that belong to the UN, each members vote counts as much as the next one. Is that relevant? If so, how come 3rd world countries get special treatment such as exemptions for global warming? Why are 5 countries permanent members of the security council?
Granted, Bush became frustrated with the process and announced the US would present another resolution requiring the UN to enforce its early resolutions. France, that well known world power, announced that it would veto ANY resolution that the US submitted. Bush drew a line in the sand and here we are.
***
so, you think because america is #1 you can just go
around and invade other countries whenever you
feel like it? sure, it's not PC, but hey, we're #1, so what?

Understand this completely. World was a "little" more stable when there was another superpower but US went head to head with Russia over missiles in Cuba.
The short version is the US has been forced to become the worlds police man, a job no other country wants or can afford. The US economy drives the world.
***
and what does 9/11 have to do with the war on iraq?

This was a terrorist attack on US homeland that killed around 3,000, most of them Americans. Bush declared war on terrorism and went into Afganistan after the perpetrators, Saddam was next on his list.
The US is the most forgiving country in the world. After WWII the Marshall Plan "loaned" money to devastated countries starting with Japan and Germany. Neither seems to be doing to badly today. BTW not a penny of those loans were ever repaid, just forgiven.
Get off your high horse. The US has tried to work with the UN. Yeah, we've got a fucked up attitude when it comes to dealing with outlaw nations but at least we elected our leaders.

Posted by: joea9146 Mar 27 2003, 06:16 PM

A good thread to add this:

22 March 2003
With one phrase, Lt. Col. Tim Collins, commander of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish, summed up the task in hand for the British forces waiting to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq.
Collins was addressing his 800 men, an arm of Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade, at Fort Blair Maine, a Kuwaiti desert camp 20 miles south of the Iraqi border. Here is as much of his extraordinary speech as has been reported.

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.

"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send. As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.

"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there. You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves.

"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.

"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction. There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam. He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.

"It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly. I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them. If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.

"As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
"Our business now is north."

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 06:20 PM

Don,

I want to thank you. Good post with good info without "going off"

Your comment about the USA driving the worlds economy is dead on. Porsche wouldnt exist if it wasnt for the US market (I have numbers to back that up) The "world" was doing pretty good before 9/11. Sure some of the US companies where scam artists...

I just want to back US decisions. Good or bad. I dont see any other country stepping up to take action in the world. The attitude seems to be "let the US take care if it"

B

Posted by: silver six Mar 27 2003, 06:37 PM

I won't defend the U.N. That debate is a red herring. Their approval wouldn't have made the war right. Their dissapproval does not necessarily make it wrong.

Don Says: World was a "little" more stable when there was another superpower but US went head to head with Russia over missiles in Cuba.

This issue is tremendously off topic. But just for the record the Cuban missle crisis is an example of the most unstable periods in the world's history. There was never a time when we were closer to nuclear armageddon.

Don Says: The short version is the US has been forced to become the worlds police man, a job no other country wants or can afford.

Being the world's police man is not a bad thing if we're doing a good job of it. But up until now the police man has never set out a policy to "pre-emptively" attack any and all nations that we determine to possibly be a threat, maybe not now, but some time in the future. Bush's policy of pre-emption is one of the most destabalizing doctrines ever advanced by an American administration.

Don Says: The US economy drives the world.

Again this is entirely off topic. Whether our economy drives the world or not does not justify (or dejustify) waging war against another country. I've yet to hear no one, except the most crass pro-war protester suggest that because our economy drives the world, we get to invade who ever we want, bomb whoever we want, and drain oil from whomever we want.

Andy asks And what does 9/11 have to do with the war on iraq?

And Don responds: This was a terrorist attack on US homeland that killed around 3,000, most of them Americans. Bush declared war on terrorism and went into Afganistan after the perpetrators, Saddam was next on his list.

Still what does Saddam being on Bush's "list" have to do with 911? Again I challenge anyone to find a credible source linking 9/11 to Iraq. There is no link.

Don Says: The US is the most forgiving country in the world. After WWII the Marshall Plan "loaned" money to devastated countries starting with Japan and Germany. Neither seems to be doing to badly today. BTW not a penny of those loans were ever repaid, just forgiven

Again, totally off topic. We're not loaning Iraq money we're bombing her capital. Rebuilding Iraq after we destroy her will not look like Germany or Japan in ten or twenty or thirty years. See my previous post.

Don Says: Get off your high horse.

I don't have a horse; I drive a 914.

I'm Still With Andy

Douglas

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 06:38 PM

i'm yelling loudly because otherwise my little voice wouldn't be heard
no, actually, i'm yelling because i'm tired ...

Posted by: airsix Mar 27 2003, 06:41 PM

I want everybody to think about a couple of questions carefully:

1) Should Iraq be disarmed by force? (Unfortunately I think it has come to that.)
2) If so, who should do it? (The UN should. It's their responsibility.)
3) If the body who should do it chooses not to, does that change the fact that it should be done? (Well, if it should be done then it should be done. Find somebody willing to do it)

Here's the deal. UN member nations joined because of the benefits package, not out of a compelling desire to give service to the world. Germany, Russia, China, France, etc. sit on their ass because there is nothing to gain in liberating Iraq - at least the cost is percieved to outweigh the benefit. The US on the other hand feels that the benefits outweigh the cost.

Also, the UN member nations unanumously agreed to act on Iraq if they didn't fully comply by the specified date. Iraq didn't comply and called the UN's bluff. These nations agreed to act and it was a lie. It was just talk. The resoultion said the UN would act but when the clock ran out they all refused. So who's in violation of the UN? The whole UN is.

You can call the US self-serving cowboys, but you have admit that the reality is that the opposing nations are self-serving liars. How can the US and Britain be expexted to follow the UN if the UN won't even honor it's own promises?

I was very on-the-fence when this was all gearing up. I don't know if it's the right thing. But I do know this - Every UN nation agreed action would be taken and when it came to "Go time" very few nations were willing to keep their promise. What point is there in negotiating with a group that will not honor it's agreements? There is none. Now that the choice has been made and our troops are in there being shot at I am 100% committed to this. Whether or not to go in is irrelivant now. We've committed to the task and so we should perform it to the highest degree of sucess possible. Anything short of full support undermines that.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 06:46 PM

if i recall the "Marshal Plan" right, it also asked for a strictly "agricultural" germany without any heavy industry, that would never be allowed to have his own armed forces again and would always be under the control of the 4 allys that won the war.
i am sure glad someone didn't follow through on that one ...

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 27 2003, 06:49 PM

No kidding. We'd all be in a tractor club!

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 06:52 PM

you're mixing things up. the UN's clock hadn't run out yet.
they still had the inspectors in iraq and they were working their way through the mess.

bush set a ultimatum on his own and when his clock ran out, the US attacked.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 06:58 PM

hehe, yeah, the Porsche Tractor Club ...

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 07:04 PM

Here is s question, would the US be in a war if the guy with the most votes was President?

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 07:13 PM

Does that tractor have a 6 or just a flat 4

Posted by: bernbomb914 Mar 27 2003, 07:24 PM

could it be the lack of action by the UN was because they were recieveing hundreds of millions of dollars brokering the Iraq oil which was supporting the UN. As long as they kept the statis que they were well funded. Bush said that the oil revenue would rebuild their country instead of buying arms etc.
I hate the war but I support out troops and hope it will be over soon.

Bernie

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 27 2003, 07:29 PM

they came in 1,2,3 or 4 cylinder versions ...
the 1 cylinder were the most famous (the sound is incredible)

http://www.m-schindler.de/hobby_1_pors.htm

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 07:29 PM

Andy has it all right. I am not anti American but I am not pro war either. I admire almost all the triats Americans have especially their patriotism. But do any of you really stop to ask "why does so much of the world hate us?" I dont mean dislike but really really hate. When I travel abroad I carry a Canadian flag pin and always get Americans asking me for it, why is this?
Why is more than 50% of all US foreign aid go to one country in the Middle East. (so they can arm themselves against car bombs?)
Why are people getting slaughtered in East Timor but Bush doesn't care? (no oil there or just no personal vendetta because someone put a price tag on daddy's head)
Why is the Pacific Fleet not parked outside Korea? (too much $$$ interest in that country right now?)

"If you are not with us you are against us" What the fuck is that.
I heard a quote this week, "The US does not have friends, it only has interests" Let's see how long the friendship last between Tony and George when the trade issues arise. Can you say softwood lumber?

Posted by: URY914 Mar 27 2003, 08:31 PM

So Andy and Tracks, what would you do if tomorrow you were President of the U.S.?

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 08:50 PM

Saddam is PURE EVIL, there is no disputing that. He MUST be taken out, this is a fact.
But we have laws, yes, International laws that we must all follow in order to keep some sort of order in this world.
One country cannot go it alone and not expect some sort of backlash. With UN backing Bush would have had double or triple the support he has now. The way International Law is written, right now Iraq(a UN member) can ask the UN to help defend them against an illegal intruder in their country and they would have to consider it. Where would the US be then, yes fighting against the UN. That would look good.
If Bush had just said "fine, if you won't go in with us we won't either and we will leave now. Don't come asking us for help 6 months from now, we won't be here, You can go it alone with France Germany Russia and Canada at that time." and just wlked away.
Then the UN would be begging them to stay and think twice about supporting the cause.
With the UN support as a untited front they can do just about anything, but without it....just get ready for the backlash and be ready to pay the consequences for Bushes actions.
Consequences being more distrust for the US and a greater risk of terrorism against it.

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 08:57 PM

I would also like to add, Canadian troops are in Iraq fighting with the US troops right now.(its part of an exchange program) I support all the soldiers for their courage and bravery to put their lives on the line for their countries and the policies of the countries leaders. I salute them all and hope no more of them get killed. They are in there now and must finish what they started, it's just too bad they had to start!

Posted by: seanery Mar 27 2003, 09:04 PM

The UN has turned into an organization of pansies!

They prolly woulda let one of your countries past rulers do his thing, too.
(flamesuit on)

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 09:07 PM

Pansies yes, but pansies with the majority of world support. They have to be massaged into knowing what they want. That is the job of a good diplomat not a thug.

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 09:11 PM

Does anyone think Al Gore would be at war right now?

Posted by: seanery Mar 27 2003, 09:26 PM

Al Gore?

Who the fuck is Al Gore?
It's a damn good thing he wasn't pres when the 9-11 attacks happened.

AL fucking Gore, HA!

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 27 2003, 09:32 PM

Enlighten me, how would it have turned out any different. Would more plane have hit?

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 27 2003, 09:42 PM

I'm scared. I think when we do make it to Baghdad our soldiers are going to be slaughtered. I cant imagine holding a gun pointing at a Iraqi debating on whether he is civilian or military while he pulls a gun out and shoots me before I shoot him. All because I hesitated.

Fun times.

B

Posted by: Jeroen Mar 27 2003, 10:09 PM

Yep, Vietnam all over again...

Could even be worse because of the much denser population in the city of Baghdad than the jungles of Vietnam

cheers,

Jeroen

Posted by: seanery Mar 27 2003, 10:29 PM

Gore would have hid in a shed in TN, his home state (which he didn't win).
He's not a leader, he's a whiner. Oh, by the way Tipper was the one leading that
whole album labeling bullshit-yes it was the left!

Posted by: mskala Mar 27 2003, 10:29 PM

Not that I was accused, but I certainly don't believe that a
major reason we went into Iraq was to liberate them. Of
course for political reasons it is always good to remind
people that that is one hopefully good result from what is
being done.

Also, I could be wrong, but I don't remember anything
changing in the oil flow in the last decade, didn't seem like
any stability problem from Iraq. Heck, Saddam's been around
longer than most leaders in the area. So I don't believe
the stability of oil is really it. Bush would go drill Alaska if
he really needed oil stability.

I know there is no direct link found between Saddam and
any of the terrorists. I kinda suspect there is one, but a
guy who can hide money as good as he can and hide other
stuff from the world may never be found out. The real
problem we're told is that Iraq is a likely place for terrorists
to acquire stuff to attack us. And I believe that. Maybe
I'm just falling for the line, but hey whatever.

Mark S.
'70 914-6

Posted by: rick 918-S Mar 28 2003, 12:28 AM

Hey! Al Gore invented the internet!(LOL)

Posted by: 74GoKart Mar 28 2003, 03:25 AM

I agree that Saddam is a real fucker and should be taken out!!
He should have been taken out when he used to be best of buddies with our whole White House staff and supporting the world's weapon market.

"Powell condemned Saddam’s “use of mustard and nerve gas against the Kurds in 1988” that killed “Five thousand men, women and children.” True, but he did so with the blessing at the time of many Reaganites who now serve Bush — including Powell. In 1988, “Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security adviser who orchestrated Ronald Reagan’s decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds,” says former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia, Peter Galbraith in the Boston Globe ( http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/1215/coverstory_entire.htm)
Dennis Hans
Let's not forget Reagan’s special emissary to Baghdad, Donald Rumsfeld.

How about:

"Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the past is repeatedly cited by the US and British governments as justification for his removal from power now. But just what was their response to his use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s? Far from condemning his actions, they stepped up their support for Baghdad. One of the most damning revelations to come out of the Scott inquiry into the arms-to-Iraq affair was the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after he shelled the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians and maiming thousands more. Saddam said he had punished the Kurds for "collaboration" after the town had been successfully attacked by Iran. The weapons were produced with German-supplied chemicals.

This cynicism and hypocrisy was matched only by the US. Soon after the attack, Washington approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a $1bn contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. And while the Reagan administration condemned the use of chemical weapons during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war, US officers were secretly supplying Iraqi generals with bomb-damage assessments and detailed information on Iranian troop deployments.
"The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," Walter Lang, a former senior US defense intelligence officer, told the New York Times this week. Washington was worried about the threat of Iran spreading its Islamic revolution to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian

But the war is not about oil? What do all of these people know the most about?

George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her....Saddam sits on the second biggest oilfield in the world. America's economy depends on oil for: generating power to run factories, powering cars to get the workforce to those factories, and transporting goods produced by those workers in those factories We will not take their oil. Instead, we will help them rebuild their oil infrastructure along with their schools and hospitals. Bush has promised that they will be able to use their money from oil sales to pay for their nations reconstruction. The Bush administration has already picked companies to help Iraq do this..in a slightly unusual manner. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq_rebuilding_contract030322.html We will not take their oil, but we will take their oil money...at least some of us will. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653848780.html Is it also possible we will be more likely to get favorable trading for the oil we do need to buy after we go through all the trouble of helping them rebuild their country?

Of course, I would never suggest that anyone would try to use this whole Iraq situation to their advantage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,918742,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,924541,00.html
None of the companies that will benefit the most, or their stockholders, would ever try to influence national policy. (Don't even try to suggest something so ENRON-ish)
None of these people will ever be paid outrageous sums to give speeches or be an adviser later on down the road.

Nor would I suggest that having Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan under new leadership that is US friendly would have ever been on our minds.
http://www.worldpress.org/specials/pp/uzbekistan.htm

It is true that Iraq is in violation of a much older UN resolution. I just think that it is mighty funny that nobody was in a hurry to deal with Iraq until we got the son of the man, who's war brought about the first resolution, in the driver's seat. Of course, it is all about disobeying a UN resolution. If this is true, why do we support Israel both politically and monetarily in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions? Is it about getting rid of an evil dictator? We can't stand evil dictators...except when we need them. Read up on Pakistan and Uzbekistan. For that matter, we killed off the Indians, we blew up nukes near our own troops to test the after effects, but there is no UN resolution for either one of those.

I will say once again..Yes, Saddam is BAD!! He probably has reserved parking in Hell. Just don't tell me how he is doing all this shit, and never show me the proof. Don't tell me that we know he has chemical and biological weapons, but leave out the part about how we helped him acquire them and finance him because he was needed at the time. Don't give me every reason but the truth in a long winded speech. It is in our best interest to have stable, American friendly governments in that area. Fine!

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 12:19 PM

74GoKart

thank you sir!

Posted by: silver six Mar 28 2003, 12:31 PM

It appears this war is not as black and white as the Bush administration would want you to believe. I wish I had an oil tanker named after me.

Now I'm with 74 GoKart and Sir Andy.

Douglas

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 03:05 PM

74GoKart

Some else with knowledge, research and intelligence. Not someone willing to take Bush's word for it that it has to be done for "these reasons".


But what would you do now that we are already in Iraq?

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 28 2003, 03:14 PM

I have tried many times in the past to undo my "mistakes". Thank God I dont have to "fix" them in front of them world.


So.. how do I get into politics ??

Good reading 74.

So... did George Bush have anything to do with this in the past ?(besides the obvious link to oil) which all Texans have (including me)



B

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 03:31 PM

If he was still in a shed, not one American or British soldier would be DEAD from this action.
The price of oil versus the price of human life, if it was your son killed in Iraq you might think different.

By the way, at the cost of this war that the US is forking out,($75B) how long could you have subsudized the price of oil or spent it on exploration in North America so we are not dependants of the Middle East?

Posted by: r_towle Mar 28 2003, 03:49 PM

The scary part to me is that the UN was formed to eliminate the alliances that where in existance for 2000 years previous.

These alliances are what got us into many wars, WW1, WW2 etc...look back and see all the failed attempts at global domination and the alliances that formed because of these wars, and caused the wars.

The UN has just been broken down to a truely powerless entity, when in reality we all need the UN to become more powerful to attain true global peace.

Fuck OPEC, give the UN the power over the oil and then the UN will have real power.

Give the UN the power over the money and the flow of capital and then we will have peace, till then its just a stupid game that no one wins.

I am truely sorry that George Bush stole the election and all the old boys who didnt do it right while with George Senior are now trying to fix there previous mistakes.

It scares me that the right wing of our society, I mean the far right...has such a close relationship with Bush.

The homeland Security office is a Mcarthy-est organisation that will eliminate our civil rights if we let them....

Scary times....

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 03:56 PM

74GoKart,
this is exactly what i meant when i said "educate yourself" before
you come to any final conclusions about something as important as a war. all the info you mentioned plus the stuff i have brought up is publicly available. if you have followed world politics for some 20+ years like i have, all of this info was in the news at one point in time. if you haven't followed world politics closely, you're missing some variables in the equation. go educate yourself. go to your local library and look up news articles from those events mentioned. it's all out there (hmmm, sounds like the x-files, hehe) ...

Andy

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 03:59 PM

good question!
i do not know the answer.
but he smoked pot in the past. does that make a difference?

Posted by: 74GoKart Mar 28 2003, 04:01 PM

I cannot tell you what we should do now. I do not think anyone knows. We are stepping in it big time. There are so many issues that are part of this problem, that we will have to be very careful in how we handle this to not end up in another Vietnam or unknowingly setting in motion the next 9-11.
We are doing exactly that Brad, going in to fix a problem we helped invent. I can only tell you that this is all part of the path our government chose years ago.
We trained freedom fighters in Afghanistan to get rid of the Soviets that were there looking for some beach front property. We helped those guys, which in turn helped us shut down the USSR's chances of getting all that oil and natural gas to a sea port and prevented them from having another money making outlet. Standard Cold War tactics. We helped Iraq because we hated Iran. We dropped them both like a hot rock after we got so far down the road. Now we have people pissed at us all around the world.
I may not think that this was the only way to clean this mess up, but I also do not think that my opinion matters that much to all the limo riding fuckers in DC. I do feel that it was our mess, and now our responsibility. But, like I said earlier, the real reasons have been spelled out in past press conferences, newspapers, and speeches. It would be nice if they would stop trying to play the whole "holier than thou." Some Americans are actually smart enough to understand what is going on, and it really pisses me off that they try to put a good PR spin on it to make it sellable to the dumb, non history knowing, sheep..I mean voters. How helpful to the next campaign would the war be if they told the whole story?

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 04:17 PM

Way up here we still have 90% of our TV is American based. But we do get a different look at the news with CTV, CBC and BBC. I watch CNN all the time but it amazes me with the different coverage of the same story from other sourses. CNN is really good at quick sound bytes of info but can readily gloss over some touchy issues like foreign policy and Israel. It seems that the American media are so closely tied to the government and dare I say the "J" word, that they do not want to offened the government for fear of reprisals?
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart has the best coverage of the war and American politics. He is not affraid to tell it like he sees it. (Rep or Dem)

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 04:32 PM

yeah, i watched FOX news last night and they ripped that actress lady apart like she just had tried to assassinate bush. and all that for just raising her arm at the Oscars and making a peace sign. WTF? she didn't even say a word. (no anti-american, no anti-bush, no anti-anything comment). and they totally accused her of being a national traitor. so much for "freedom of speech".
"pro peace" now means anti-american?
"pro peace" now means anti-patriotic?
"pro peace" now means you forfeit your right for "free speech"?

???

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 28 2003, 04:32 PM

Something else that scares me: While educating myself on this mess... I have to read what somebody else wrote. I absolutely think our media is bending over for the government so my reading is taken with a grain of salt. We dont KNOW 100% that any of the past events or current events are being reported without some kind of slant.

I read the Iraqi military is shooting other Iraqi's as they flee. Is this true ?

I read we bombed a market place. Is this true ? or did Saddam blow it up and blame it on us ?

I question everything.

B

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 04:44 PM

1) altough i do not know, i wouldn't surprise me.
a lot of armys have done that in the past ...

2) again, i do not know for sure, but both possibilities would
not surprise me very much. even with 80% being "smart" bombs,
there's always room for error (intended or not). and it also
could very well be a scam from saddams troops.

i guess, the question is, either way, does it reallly make a difference?

i am more concerned about the fact that the US is now controlling some 75% of the country and they haven't found any WMD yet.
and the iraqis haven't used any mustard gas yet either. does that mean they don't have any? or does it mean they're waiting for the US to get to the capitol to get them all at once? and what if there will be no WMD at the end of the war? can bush afford NOT to find any? and if not, would he go ahead and "plant" some to get international justification for his war?

i suppose we have to wait and see ...

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 28 2003, 04:49 PM

Ha ha.. Of course he will plant some if they dont find any.

My honest gut feeling: they have WMD. Saddam knows damn well if he used them it would justify the whole war (to some extent)

Raises another question:

Did we plant what they have found recently (3000 some od gas masks) ?? Or was the Iraqi military planning something for us.

Nothing we say or do makes a difference... so NO its doesnt.


B

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 28 2003, 04:58 PM

haha, just 3000? you'll find more gas-masks in novato these days ...

and what about those (empty!) grenade shells that "could have been used for mustard gas" ???

i'm actually with you on the gut feeling that they at least
have some mustard gas sitting somewhere. and if they do,
they will use it once it gets ugly ... sure glad i'm not in Baghdad.

Posted by: 74GoKart Mar 28 2003, 05:21 PM

I think that a lot of people should actually pay attention to what is going on. If it sounds like the "X-Files" or "1984," then maybe people should pull their heads out of the mass pacifier (TV) and get back into making this a government of the people, for the people, by the people. Most of the information you need to make informed opinions is readily available just by typing. You can read the news from around the world http://newslink.org/news.html, watch CSPAN to see what they are debating, or read up on the new bills and issues on congressional websites. There are countless ways to get information, but most people are too busy, too lazy, or too trusting to make that effort. We "elected" these people, our opinions are supposedly what they make laws and foreign policy by. When we do not pay attention to what is going on in front of our faces, we really do not have the right to complain later when the bills come due for all the shit they have done in our name.
Has anyone actually watched how much of our freedom has been taken away right in front of our own faces? For our own good of course. I am not talking conspiracies, I am talking about self serving politics.
As far as whether or not there really are WMD in Iraq, I would be willing to bet that there are. What moron would spend all that money, time,and effort only to get rid of the very thing that keeps the surrounding countries on their side of the line. We have all that shit, plus god knows what else...it is called a deterrent

Posted by: Don Wohlfarth Mar 28 2003, 05:46 PM

Brad, understand your concerns about hesitating while trying to figure out friend or foe. Latest papers say that a major concern is just the opposite is happening as solders find out about Iraqi's hiding among civilians. Self preservation is a powerful motivator...for both sides.
This brings up a interesting paradox for the US when they state they will prosecute for crimes against humanity. Does the date Mar 16, 1968, ring a bell? Almost 35 years to the day, My Lai?
Andy, I'm well aware that the US is no knight in shinning armour. Decisions were made that seemed like a good idea at the time. Hindsight always gives us the luxury of asking, what the fuck were you thinking?

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 06:37 PM

How about the lead singer for the Dixie Chicks? You don't get any more American than that but when she spoke out against the war, the radio stations were told to stop playing her music. WTF is this all about? Freedom?
I don't listen to country western music but I will go out and buy her CD now.

Just watching CNN and a misile hit Kuwait city.
Could it be a misfire from the US?
Could the US have marched so fast to Bagdad that they went around critical targets only to have them regroup behind them?
Could the US have sent it into an empty shopping mall at 2AM local time (no casualties) in order to drum up more support for the war? A war that isn't going as easily as they had hoped?

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 06:44 PM

I hate to say this but WAR IS HELL!!!
When fighting for your life you are bound to lose sight of good judgement, to winn at all cost.
What have some of them got to lose? They have watched their comrads slaughtered for questioning authority and don't want to face the same wrath. Just go back and read the first page of this post. Fear does motivate them and fear of humiliation and dying at the hands of their leaders is less honerable than killing civilians as a ru to help defeat the yankee intruders.

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 28 2003, 06:44 PM

They now say it didnt hit the building. It landed in water next to the building. I was surprised about the Dixie Chicks boycott. It really really surprised me considering they are from North Texas and grew up in the area under the Bush's. We will see how their tour does when they reach the USA.

B

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 07:07 PM

Still a good shot if you didn't want to kill anyone.

Posted by: jimtab Mar 28 2003, 07:07 PM

Actually, the oil has been flowing from Iraq for several years, that is how they have been paying for things, the amount has been controlled by the UN, so much for that. If you all want to get to the root of the 911 terrorists, then we should be invading Saudi Arabia, but then we would have no oil for the suvs, if we want to kick ass on some country that has ignored the most un resolutions, lets start with Israel. And, last but not least, don't forget who put this Asshole Saddam and his buddies in business...It was us. We sold him the bulk of any WMDs that he may have(no real proof so far, sorry). Also, if you are young enough to have missed the Vietnam war read up on it. A bogus reason(gulf of tonkin "incicent"). We were there to stop communism, we did'nt, we lost, because we were trying for a political victory with a military tool...it doesn't work and I have several dead friends to prove it, as Andy said just because on opposes the war does not mean they are not "good Americans" or patriots. I think it wood behove some of you to get your information from someone besides CNN, MSN and the other self serving talking heads who frankly need to get off of W"s dick. Jim

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 07:23 PM

What nationality were the pilots on 9/11?
Afgan? NO
Iraqis? NO
Saudis? YES
But the US has an air base there, we can't piss them off, how would we defend Israel?
Why do we have to defend Israel? The US already sends them more than %50 of all foreign aid money, that's right, more $$$ to Israel than all other countries in the world combined.

By the way, this is a 914 site so I would just like to add that my restoration is coming along quite nicely!

Posted by: Brad Roberts Mar 28 2003, 07:26 PM

I'm thinking about adding a temporay WAR ROOM to the Forums.

I just wanted to say this: I dont personally hold any of these comments or "statements" against anybody. We alll know that Andy hates American's. LOL


B

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 07:33 PM

I don't know...deep down inside (like some of us) I think he just wants to be one.LOL

Posted by: tracks914 Mar 28 2003, 07:34 PM

Let's hope that it is just temporary and all the soldiers can come home soon.

Posted by: seanery Mar 29 2003, 12:18 AM

The cost of the war?
$288 for each American. Where do I send the check? I'll send two if it helps!

Damn French....

Posted by: Racer Chris Mar 29 2003, 06:15 AM

I only read the first and last pages of this thread. I hope I didn't miss any thing important.
My position on the war on Iraq is one of ambivalence. Since death is inevitable I can't get too worked up about any of this, people make choices which lead them to their final end. If Iraqis are given weapons and forced to use them, why don't they turn them on their oppressors? After all their life and the lives of their family are effectively over anyway once a fedayeen operative becomes involved.
Some very important literature related to this issue are two things by Michael Moore. You know, the guy who was booed at the Oscars for saying "Shame on you Mr. Bush." His documentary Bowling for Columbine goes a long way toward explaining the fascination that Americans have with guns (and any projectile weapon IMO). And the book Stupid White Men paints an unflattering picture of a good number of us. Mr. Moore is right on with a lot of his commentary. The cliche " I resemble that remark" comes to mind.
Desperate people resort to desperate measures, and one needs to examine the source of their desperation before passing judgement on them. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists. The fact that they choose America as their scapegoat has some validity.
Personally I dislike the favoritism that the US shows for Israel. I have long thought that the Jews choose (unconsciously) to be oppressed by those who surround them, just as the Germans choose to act like they are the master race.
914 content: I hope to paint my race car today.

Posted by: URY914 Mar 29 2003, 06:32 AM

My wife goes to the "General Hospital" website and that have a OT section where they talk about the war.
Now that would be something to read. Women from all over the world going on and and on about Luke, Laura and Saddam.

Now that would make for fun reading.

914 content: Today I'm continuing to work on the f-glass hood and cowl piece. I have to add about 3/8" to one side of the hood to close the gap to the fender. I'm really getting tired of being a body work man. The garage is covered with bondo dust.

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 29 2003, 09:25 AM

damm, he did it again
B, you're having way too much fun with this!

just for the record, no, i don't hate americans or america ...

ADDON 914 content:
My car's done painting. brad and i will pick it up today! yeah!!!
will post pictures later ...

Posted by: jonwatts Mar 29 2003, 09:32 AM

Yes, please post pictures. You did decide to keep it "communist" red, right?

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 29 2003, 09:44 AM

i don't know. good question. i've been here in the US for 5 years now.
never really thought about becoming a citizen.
i'm about to get married to a american girl (the 2nd one ),
but i honestly don't know why i should change my citizenship?
does it make a difference? i like living here,
but i might just move somewhere else some day.
back to germany? new zealand? tonga? france (haha)? who knows ...

Posted by: SirAndy Mar 29 2003, 09:46 AM

are you coming to the breakfast?
we'll have her on the trailer ...

"communist" red? haha, wait, is that why they called it "guards red" !?!?

Posted by: Mark Henry Mar 29 2003, 03:08 PM

My Dad just came home a month early, he winters in Texas. I asked him why he decided to come home early. He said he was sick of hearing about the war everywhere he turned.

For the first time in my life my father had tears in his eyes.

My old man is no wimp, he is a WW2 veteran, tough as nails jarhead, wounded in action, decorated and one of three survivors of his whole regiment. All he said was "they're just kids, fuckin' asshole politicians, they'll never learn."

I quickly changed the subject.

I personally am glad that I live in rural Canada, for now I can shelter my young children from the nastiness going on in the world.

Posted by: grantsfo Dec 26 2006, 10:14 PM

Intersting to read this almost 4 years later.

Posted by: rhodyguy Dec 27 2006, 08:48 AM

no shit. the more things change the more they remain the same.

k