| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
I cannot say I blame you, there has been a shitload of that lately. But, can I share a fear with you? I heard a lot of rumors on the news today about Military Occupation of Iraq after the war. A US Military General would actually be in charge of Iraq for quite a while. On the surface, this makes sense. I thought back during the gulf war that we needed to establish a permanent place in the Middle East, but that was before I was aware of the relationship between the US and Isreal. Whatever the reasoning behind the occupation, it still scares me. What scares me? The fact that we are already broadcasting this intention prior to any military action. 1. Most arab states will/should be outraged and ready to defend Iraq simply because the US should not intend to occupy it. 2. If Hussien begins to realize he is loosing, he will make sure NO ONE can occupy Iraq. Or anywhere around it for quite some time. Of this, I am almost possitive. He did set the Kuwaiti Oil Refineries on fire durring his retreat, did he not??? |
Rumors? It was in the NY Times! What the fuck do you think most of us have been outraged at for months with this banter of going to war? This is only one aspect...the Occupation. OF COURSE there will be an occupation. There will be a guerrilla resistance and we will become bogged down like Israel is bogged down in Palestine (as occupiers mind you). Thousands of American soldiers will die in the progess. Twice as many Iraqi civilians will die in the process. Bush is only making the world more dangerous and here you have been defending his proposals, supporting the war, believing the rhetoric when in fact the only way to ENSURE Saddam is a threat is by going to war. I can assure you the story of occupation is in no way a leak or somehow compromising security. Its pretty much stating the obvious. |
You want my usual response? "Bush is only making the world more dangerous and here you have been defending his proposals, supporting the war, believing the rhetoric when in fact the only way to ENSURE Saddam is a threat is by going to war." How come your response is to demonize Bush and excuse Saddam? Who do you think you can trust more, Bush or Saddam? What, then is your suggestion? And don't bother suggesting the same thing that has been tried for 11 years, because it's not working. |
My suggestion is to work through the UN. Play hard ass with them, press for resolutions demanding immediate compliance. Issues deadlines, list sites that must be inspected. Hardass hardass hardass. Im not entirely against the use of force as a last resort but we are no where near last resort. I would support military force directly against the sites themselves thereby potentially limiting civilian casualties. Bombing the civlian infrastructure only hurts the civilians. of course I realize leaders often use civilians as pawns...so this could be futile. It has not been established he poses a 'clear and present danger' as they like to say up on the hill. Its not proven. He has not threatened us directly nor indirectly. He has only promised to defend his country, which any leader would do. He is better dealt with by deterrance. It is not established that he has worked with al Qaida. Most experts say he is not likely to share his most prized possessions if he indeed has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. He can be dealt with by means of deterrance and containment. Most prominent military leaders not on the Bush payroll admit this lack of threat. If we were so damned concerned about disarming this guy, what the fuck have we been doing for the last 4 years besides sporadically knocking our a SAM or radar site? Nothing. So all of a sudden because Bush says there's an urgency we all go along with it? you can not negate the fact that his father was threatened with assasination as a direct motive for rushing to war now because its gotta be known that he probably wont make a second term. You cannot negate the fact that oil is a huge motivator. We already got caught with out hands in the cookie jar in Venezuala. Now were after secured middle east oil. Oil and Energy men ARE running the country you know. The goal is disarmament not "regime change". That's illegal. Saddam is no threat if he is disarmed. Besides Bush campaigned saying "no nation building". Sounds like "read my lips, no new taxes". So if our goal is disarmament and containment, occupying the place, seizing oil assets, installing a puppet governement.....none of these actions are sanction by the UN or out Constitution. So as to what to do....tell me what the verifyable problem is? Once we all agree on the problem we can deal with the solution. |
Fuck no, we should have been here 11 years ago. |
Nothing other than the fact that our media and government has demonized him for over a decade that, like a Pavlov dog, we bark and shout "death" whenever his name is mentioned. |
Maybe, but we didnt, so lets not talk about what we should have done. Point is, we didnt. So here we are. Where's the threat? Wheres the justification for our imperialism? |
It has been proven, you have chosen to ignore the proof. Did you watch the address this week or not? He has not threatened us directly nor indirectly. He has only promised to defend his country, which any leader would do. He is better dealt with by deterrance. Deterrance is not working, but you have to pay attention to the proof you continue to ignore. It is not established that he has worked with al Qaida. Oh, so letting the senior leaders stay in one of the "Presidential Palaces" this year and giving them medical treatment (what?? I thought all the poor iraqi's did not have medical treatment available to them?) is not working with Al Queda. What about giving "survivor payments" to the Palestinians? Most experts say he is not likely to share his most prized possessions if he indeed has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. He can be dealt with by means of deterrance and containment. Again, has not worked for 11 years. Most prominent military leaders not on the Bush payroll admit this lack of threat. If we were so damned concerned about disarming this guy, what the fuck have we been doing for the last 4 years besides sporadically knocking our a SAM or radar site? That's a question for your buddy willy, don't you think? But that is not what my intent for this thread was, we have argued this to death, and short of leading you, personally patrick, to the proof by your nose is not going to change your mind, so I did not have the intention of arguing that with you. |
We did in 91, 95, and 98. Next please? |
Where? the CIA admits they don't have any new evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. Where, what evidence are you talking about???? Bush's address is NOT evidence. Everything they know if is years old. Biological and chemical weapons have a shelf life. He doesnt have the ability to deliver biological weapons and almost all qualified experts say he is at least 3 years away from going nuclear. WHAT evidence? "Deterrance is not working, but you have to pay attention to the proof you continue to ignore." Do you know what deterrence means? We deterred the might Soviet Union for decades. Has Iraq attacked the US yet? No. So deterrance is working. He doesnt attack or sell weapons to terrorist because he knows we'll nuke his shit six ways from sunday. "Oh, so letting the senior leaders stay in one of the "Presidential Palaces" this year and giving them medical treatment (what?? I thought all the poor iraqi's did not have medical treatment available to them?) is not working with Al Queda. What about giving "survivor payments" to the Palestinians?" So what? We sold him the damn weapons to begin with. We harbor war criminals all the time. We use weapons and cash to pay off people involved with causes we support all the time. This doesnt amount to shit and is a flimsy example of how much he supports terrorism and is not a justification for war. Pakistan is home probably some of the most senior members of al Qaida so clearly this is not the reason. The hypocrisy nullfies this reason spunk. "Again, has not worked for 11 years" Deterrance is proved effective by inaction Spunk!!! Go look the word up man! There is nothing to show for deterrance other than inaction. "We did in 91, 95, and 98" And they destroyed quite a few weapons of mass destruction now didnt they?? Yes, though, you're right. Theres little hope you can change my mind, as no one in our country's leadership has been able to do it so why would I expect that you, of all people could. |
|
|
|
It will be beautiful. I mean the wives might have a problem with it, but other than that it'll be beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
As God fearing,dog loving Americans,its time we stand up as a uninted front,and put an end to his canine mis-adventures! He's finally crossed the line. This will not be tolerated. |
|
Revealing what they did pretty much assures me that there is nothing to be paranoid about. Its those who keep shit a secret that you need to worry about. Its not like its a big shock....N.Korea. they confirmed what we already knew. What is more telling is that bitch Pakistan supposedly sold them the goods. Think about it for a minute.... al Qaida leadership is said to be hiding in Pakistan hillsides Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction Pakistan is SELLING those weapons of mass destruction (or the tools anyway) to "rogue" country's like N. Korea who are considered "evil" And they are a "valuable ally" in this hooky "war" on terrorism???? what the fuck is wrong with this picture? |
That is my professional opinion, seriously. |
See, the Al Queda have been fighting for Kashmire for quite some time. Now that they have a majority in the PAK Gov, they have nuclear missles on thier side...... |
They don't have a majority nor the military. They have 51 of 272 seats. Also, Musharraf did things earlier this year to secure his power. He controls the military. Of course they could always launch a coup against him, but i dont think that will happen. why are you so alarmist? this talk about bomb shelters yesterday and this today? |
I am trying to figure out "why" right now. |
