Bush family values...

[Nemoxs]

You know, we could always go by my grandfathers plan.

Shoot em' all, and let god sort em' out.

[Simpi]

You know, we could always go by my grandfathers plan.

Shoot em' all, and let god sort em' out.

That plan usually fails to work when people reply 'Ok, we will start from you.' It's kind of like those Neo-cons (around 95% of them) who preach war as a solution for everything, but have never set their foot inside a boot camp, never mind actually being in war.

[dethmajor]

legality has nothing to do with something being wrong or right.

This always the one excuse that causes me to laugh my ass off, since it's so easy to counter it. See my earlier comment with Us being in bed with piss pot dictators if it suits them:

Fact: There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, etc. One man was actually boiled to death!

Fact: Us Governent considers the president of Uzbekistan, Islam Kamarov a valuable ally in war against terror. US troops are in Uzbekistan and it's airfields were used in war against Taleban

Fact: US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m, of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture.

Fact: US state department has announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of 'unlawful organisations' is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

From these facts, we can only conclude that United States supports a dangerous dictator and should face sanctions until it ceases to do so or until current US regime steps down/is removed from power. If nothing helps, a multinational coalition should remove them by force.

Or would you like to justify US actions somehow?

Thats some nice research. It also fact. In order to get things done in this world you need some strange bed fellows. Did you know the Taliban were also supported by the US during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? That was payback for the Russians backing the Viet Cong in Viet Nam... Look how the Taliban had turned after the Russians left. Guess what, there is no more Taliban. Ever hear the term: The wheels of justice turn slowly? If my country has to deal with a scumbag for the greater good, so be it. History is full of situations like that, look at Stalin as an ally during WWII. Stalin liquidated half his population! Be realistic, don't be complacent.

[SSJVegita0609]

Dethmajor: Thanks very much for starting an actual respectable debate on the forums without senseless flamming, I really do enjoy these types, and your post shows definate knowledge and effort put into formulating your opinions. So here we go...

Vegita0609, I must say your responses are the only ones worth answering. I love these kinds of discussions because of people like you. You have many good points, but no solutions to the problem... There is a book out, called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I highly suggest you read it. You seem to be passionate about this subject and there fore should have all the facts about history. Why history? If we don't learn from it we are destined to repeat it.

Thanks again for the compliments, I've heard of this book, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet (school's got me booked). Your belief in learning from history is admirable, but you should take into account the situations that the US has been responsible for creating in the past that haven't turned out well for anyone and compare them to Iraq. For example, the military coup we instigated in Bolivia in order to "protect capitalism" and aid the people of that country. Nowadays its still in economic turmoil, and undergoes regime changes every few months. This is all because the US has a habit of not following through in the rebuilding and reconfiguration of other nations after we oust our enemies from power. Hell, look at Afganistan, the Taliban are actually REGAINING support throughout the country, and the US has shifted the majority of its focus on to Iraq.

Lets get started on this: Everybody did not like Hitler at first, when he tried to seize controll in The Beer Hall Putsch he failed and was thrown in jail. It is here where he wrote Mein Campf. (Spelled wrong, the book blows btw). After he got out he managed to wrestle enough seats on the Reichstag (Similar to the senate) to have some power. Some. This was done through intimidation with the Brown Shirts (Hitler fanatics, the muscle.)

I was actually referring to after the Nazis became the MOST powerful party in 1932 by gaining the most seats in the Reichstag and the death of Hindenburg in 1934, which put Hitler into official power. Yes I read Mein Campf, and yes I agree with you in that it did suck. However, it showed Hitler doing what he did best, political propaganda. He could stand at a podium in a stadium filled with thousands upon thousands of German citizens and say anything he wanted and they'd take it in and love it. You can't say Saddam could become anywhere near that influencial with his own people, considering he used only scare tactics with some inefective propaganda that only worked on those whom he treated well enough, mainly his generals and financial supporters. He controlled everything in the country, yes, but the people mainly resented him for it, unlike Hitler.

Saddam came to power in a similar fashion, through scare tactics and murder, thats the first comparison. After Hitler set fire to the Reichstag, he seized control by tricking the last chancellor of Germany, Hindenburg. After that Hitler was both president and chancellor of Germany. In short he had total power, not because people "liked" him, but through trickery, hatred and force. Sounds just like Saddam to me.

Once again, the main difference is that the mass majority of non Jewish Germans LIKED Hitler, whereas Saddam had himself a country that was torn into peices, only a select few of which supported him, while the rest either were forced into it or rebelled.

That wasn't Poland, your thinking of the Anschluss of Austria. Poland was invaded in 1939, starting the damnned war. The country was then split in two between the Germans and the Russians...

You're right, my fault, I was thinking of the pre-WWI partitian of Poland. But the Anschluss of Austria works just as well as an example of the fact that Hitler was pretty damn good at manipulating others to get what he wanted. Plus because he'd earned the favor of the Russians, Poland only took 26 days to take. Thats a pretty hefty political manuver.

Hitler was hated by his people, his country was destroyed and reduced to a level below Iraq after World War I. All the "western powers" thought the same for Hitler's Germany. (He can't invade a country, Germany is weak...)Look what happened. Your complacancy scares me...

Actually, Hilter was widely seen by Germans as a great savior from that horrible mess the country was in after the treaty of Versialles following WWI. He found a scapegoat ("Jewish Greed" ) and rode it to more and more support from the people. And Western powers stopped seeing him as weak the moment they figured out that he'd allied himself with the Russians, and that Germany had the raw materials to produce a massive and powerful army. Saddam on the other hand, was constantly under US and European pressure (Hell we were doing regular airshows on his border), and had many many enemies within the actual Middle East. His army was small and ill-equiped as hell (something like 1/3 of its strength from the Gulf War). How was he exactly a threat? The situations are far too different to compare. Plus Saddam had no means of even transporting an army to any Western power, and if he made another military move against one of his neighbors, Western powers would have justification for an attack, and he'd get massacred.

Your second paragraph amuses me. You say a strong economy and military are key to a nation's survival. I agree with you. But, how strong is a nation's military if never used?

I for one, am of the belief that the military in moderm worldwide society should only be used in defensive wars, or when the need is called upon by an ally in order to help obtain stabilization within their country. IMO, the war on Iraq was completely offensive. The pre-emptive strike policy is foolish beyond belief. Imagine what would happen if India or Pakistan were to adopt such a policy now that they're nuclear powers? Can someone say disaster?

Remember what happend to the "World's most powerful army" the French, during World War II? They had the best equipment and no battle experience minus WWI. The German blitz crushed thier maginot line in days.

That's not exactly what happened... You see the French had plenty of experiance (WWI for example). The reason the maginot line was such a disaster was because it only protected France on the South and the East. The Nazis basically went North through Belgium and thus almost completely AROUND it. They cut off its supplies at the source and forced Paris to surrender. If they'd tried to actually attack the maginot line from Germany, they'd have most certainly had a hell of a lot more trouble winning that battle, and possibly not have won France at all.

Our show of force in Iraq put a lot of countries in line. China for one.

If by in line you mean showed other countries that we can easily get ourselves into military quagmires without adequate preplanning while making fools of ourselves at the UN by asking for help after dismissing them completely, then yep, you're absolutely right.

Please don't blame the economy on Bush, my god do you really think our mighty economy is in termoil? Do you think the reactions of the president are instantanious to the economy. Well they aren't, it often takes a year plus, for the economy to react to a presidential descision. This is proven fact. Blame Clinton for the economy as well as Greenspan.

Oh I don't blame Bush for the economy completely. However, I do blame him for wasting the surplus of the Clinton era on a stupid tax cut that saved a couple thousand people a few hundred and the rest of us about a hundred dollars. I also blame him and his administration (ESPECIALLY Condi Rice and Donald Rummsfeld) for the war on Iraq, and thus all the massive expenses that came with it (Billions upon billions of dollars). Sure the flop isn't fully his fault, thats the basis of a free market economy, but he's made some pretty stupid budget descisions.

I'll skip the rest of the dribble and go to your last paragraph: The war in Iraq is over, the country is liberated and now our army is in "Police Action" More soldiers died in Veit Nam per day then in Iraq, currently.

Okay, what war have you been watching? We're losing more people now then we did before taking Baghdad. Hell, over one third of the Iraqui military still loyal to Saddam is believed to be in operation in Wester Iraq. We just convienently went around them to get to the capital. On top of that, calling the war "Police Action" is insulting to our troops who are currently fighting for their lives every day over there. I still say its a war.

I just asked my self if American's are really safer. Yes, when was the last terrorist attack on American soil? Two years ago? Embassies are not as safe, that is fact, but what foreign embassy is?

And when was the last major terrorist incident that a foreign power was responsible for before 9/11? I can't recall many off the top of my head. I consider American troops to be American citizens, so if their lives are put in danger by an offensive war that our president was responsible for starting, then I say they are NOT safer. On top of that what about the upsurge in hate crimes against Arab-Americans? They're Americans too, and the lack of effort on the governments part to help prevent crimes against Arabs is upsetting to me. Also our foreign embassies are, guess what, full of American citizens, who are now in more and more danger. We now have a color coded alert system in the US, does that tell you we're safer? Hell, the government has even discouraged traveling outside the country. I say this war is making Americans far less safe.

The Source of terrorism is not hatred, that is a byproduct. Jealousy and compacancy are the source of terrorism. Jealousy for our progress and way of life. Complacancy is our fault, people like you will wait untill the bully pushes you against the wall and punches you in the gut before you do somehting about it. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure...

I disagree, people don't blow themselves up over jealousy. Sure the high rollers like Bin Laden are all about greed and expansion of their own power. But the guys who flew the planes into the towers didn't do so because they were jealous of our freedom, they did it because they hated us for one reason or another. Perhaps because we keep fucking around in their countries without benefitting anyone but ourselves? Who knows.

Anyways, this is a good arguement, continue if you wish, but I will hold nothing against you or think any less of you if you don't.

[kthulhu]

Perhaps because we keep fucking around in their countries without benefitting anyone but ourselves? Who knows.

Well, ourselves and the government who helps us . This, I believe, is partly why many Saudis don't like the US - we help keep the Saudi "royal family" in power, and many Saudi citizens view them as a decadent, corrupt US puppet, disconnected from the populace and its needs.

[Simpi]

Thats some nice research. It also fact. In order to get things done in this world you need some strange bed fellows. Did you know the Taliban were also supported by the US during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? That was payback for the Russians backing the Viet Cong in Viet Nam... Look how the Taliban had turned after the Russians left. Guess what, there is no more Taliban. Ever hear the term: The wheels of justice turn slowly? If my country has to deal with a scumbag for the greater good, so be it. History is full of situations like that, look at Stalin as an ally during WWII. Stalin liquidated half his population! Be realistic, don't be complacent. :twisted:

As Vegita said, Taliban are not exactly destroyed. Sorry to rain on your parade. Besides, Taliban militia was established 1994, quite long after soviet withdrawal. I assume you mean Mujahideen, who are warriors of regional warlords/drug lords/northern alliance, only a little less fanatical than Taliban.

US does not need Uzbekistan as military base against Afghanistan. You already have Pakistan (we could start a thread of-not-so-democratically elected-Musarraf). Uzbekistan however is located in a strategic location near Russia and natural resources of Caucasus if you ever need to invade them. Currently US money keeps Karamov in power and in position to be a suitable puppet for BushCo.

But since were are talking about greater good of US, that really does not surprise me. Soviet-Afghan war helped bring down an empire. My sincere wish is that US-Iraq war results in the same thing and current Neo-Con regime is located to trashbin of history.

This may shock you but ends do not always justify the means....

A guerrilla war is not a war of technology versus peasantry. Rather, it is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the greatest moral commitment (ideological, religious or patriotic) will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory can be almost irrelevant, since victory is often determined by morale, obstinacy and survival.

General (Ret) Mohammad Yahya Nawroz, Afghan military

[kthulhu]

But since were are talking about greater good of US, that really does not surprise me. Soviet-Afghan war helped bring down an empire. My sincere wish is that US-Iraq war results in the same thing and current Neo-Con regime is located to trashbin of history.

Don't forget that the Soviet war in Afghanistan lasted for 10 years. The current Iraq war has been going on for less than one. A lot could happen in that span of time...

[dethmajor]

Vegita0609, We'll there is certainly no shortage of people with strong beliefs and ideals here. I had no idea people with so much iron in their wills existed on this forum. It makes me happy to be part of it. We can go back and forth and each one of our responses will just get longer and full of more interesting fact and opinion. I too have my own ideals and am willing to fight for them, as would any red blooded American.

For example, the military coup we instigated in Bolivia in order to "protect capitalism" and aid the people of that country. Nowadays its still in economic turmoil, and undergoes regime changes every few months. This is all because the US has a habit of not following through in the rebuilding and reconfiguration of other nations after we oust our enemies from power. Hell, look at Afganistan, the Taliban are actually REGAINING support throughout the country, and the US has shifted the majority of its focus on to Iraq.

This is undeniable fact. I agree 100%. But why does this happen? Is it possible the US has an achillies heal? Has it anything to do with the fact that our country doesn't have unlimited funds? So what happens when when a coup is instigated in Bolivia and succeeds? Is it our duty to hold the country's hand and lead them through life? I don't think so. After we defeated the British for our Independance, of which the French thankfully helped us, what did they do then? We were on our own. Now look at us. The US is a powerful country not Mother Teresa. It is not our job to tend to the country's growing pains. We have our own worries to take care of. It sux but is fact, we did screw with Bolivia for our interests in capitalism, it's not our fault the people of Bolivia can't get thier act together and run their own country.

As far as Afganistan goes, operation annaconda was initiated the same day as the Iraqi campaign. Now I'm sorry I don't know the details of the operation but it seems that if the manuever doesn't make headlines, it doesn't happen... That is a problem I will say our country has, the media. They always focus on the negative of any situation. Our country Liberated Iraq in record time, with out record losses. Gone is the "saturation" bombing of WWII and Viet Nam. Welcome to the age of the smart bomb, a joint venture between US and Japanese engineers. Has the media reported anything signifigant about this? No they haven't, they'd rather report on how many poor soldiers died in Iraq today. Death is a very sad, wasteful thing, let me ask you, how many people die, or are murdered in the United States every day? I'm willing to bet it is more then the amount of soldiers killed per day in Iraq. Were's your bleeding heart for them?

You can't say Saddam could become anywhere near that influencial with his own people, considering he used only scare tactics with some inefective propaganda that only worked on those whom he treated well enough, mainly his generals and financial supporters. He controlled everything in the country, yes, but the people mainly resented him for it, unlike Hitler.

I don't agree (ofcourse). I beleive Saddam was that influential with his people. Why do you think we destroyed the only tv station they had with a smart bomb? The media is powerful, and Saddam was clever with it. The SOB even had control of the country's internet terminals. Hard to beleive but true. Saddam also modeled himself after Stalin. What a nice guy he was. Please do not make the mistake of underestimating your enemies in life. Saddam was the enemy, there is no arguing that to me. Ask anyone that lives in Kuwait, he invaded them, ask the Saudi's, ask the Isreali's. The answer will be the same.

Once again, the main difference is that the mass majority of non Jewish Germans LIKED Hitler, whereas Saddam had himself a country that was torn into peices, only a select few of which supported him, while the rest either were forced into it or rebelled.

I know you don't mean this, but it sounds like your saying it's ok to take power when the populace is against you? -Or- It's okay to take power when the populace is for you? Power is not something to be "taken" it should be earned. That way you have the discipline to handle it.

Plus because he'd earned the favor of the Russians, Poland only took 26 days to take. Thats a pretty hefty political manuver.

There was nothing political about that. It was a blood bath of hatred. The Russian's hated the poles just as much as the Germans. It's a little known fact that many Polish mass graves were found in the "Russian" occupied territory. Also Stalin had just liquidated half of his officers in a purge. He had to buy time...

Actually, Hilter was widely seen by Germans as a great savior from that horrible mess the country was in after the treaty of Versialles following WWI.

Hitler was a master of propaganda, all the film you've seen about it was created for that means. Read the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, there is a passage where Hitler just came to power, he decided to pose the army in one of the city squares. The public was less then receptive, they didn't want anymore war. Thus Hitler used the propaganda machine to mold their minds. He lied about judism, just like Saddam lied to his own people. They are one in the same, both scum.

Plus Saddam had no means of even transporting an army to any Western power, and if he made another military move against one of his neighbors, Western powers would have justification for an attack, and he'd get massacred.

There we go with complacancy, what scares me is your actually willing to let this guy fire the first shot at you! That's not how you survive. Besides that scumbag did make his move on Kuwait and we kicked his ass. We shoulda went into his country right there and then. But since we waited, we're suddenly making a big mistake by taking him out now? Had this been ten years ago would we have been justified? It's still the same guy, same regime, err, was the same regime. Come on now!

I for one, am of the belief that the military in moderm worldwide society should only be used in defensive wars, or when the need is called upon by an ally in order to help obtain stabilization within their country. IMO, the war on Iraq was completely offensive. The pre-emptive strike policy is foolish beyond belief. Imagine what would happen if India or Pakistan were to adopt such a policy now that they're nuclear powers? Can someone say disaster?

Yet another viewpoint we can not agree upon, on any level of discussion. I say hit them first, because they'll hit you! 9/11 is proof. We didn't win World War II by being "defensive", we kicked ass and took names. Do not be a dove in a world of ravens. As far as India and Pakistan go, its called MAD. MAD was the agreement between the US and Communist Russia, the USSR. MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction. YOu launch, we launch, and we both perish. If their countries are too stupid to see that, then that is natures natural selection when they wipe eachother out. What does suck is the fall out...

The reason the maginot line was such a disaster was because it only protected France on the South and the East. The Nazis basically went North through Belgium and thus almost completely AROUND it. They cut off its supplies at the source and forced Paris to surrender.

Sorry, the main Nazi force went through the Ardennes forest. The Maginot line was crushed with the use of the lufftwaffe and Nazi special forces. The French built a defensive army, something you seem to like, and paid dearly for it...

If by in line you mean showed other countries that we can easily get ourselves into military quagmires without adequate preplanning while making fools of ourselves at the UN by asking for help after dismissing them completely, then yep, you're absolutely right.

I am absolutely right, but not in your meaning. Iraq is not a "quagmire" Viet Nam was a quagmire, Korea was a quagmire. These wars lasted years, not months... The Iraqi army is defeated, I don't care if they have a couple of jeeps and tanks in the north, they are meaningless in the grand sceme of things. We have the country liberated and are policing it. I do not intend to insult any one willing to lay thier life on the line by saying that either. The fact is it is a police action now. Search and Destroy (Good Hellsing episode, btw it has bearing on this...) is wha they are doing, because what is left over there are chicken shit looser terrorists who can not show their face unless they are ready to obliterate them selves and as many as they can take with them...

But the guys who flew the planes into the towers didn't do so because they were jealous of our freedom, they did it because they hated us for one reason or another. Perhaps because we keep fucking around in their countries without benefitting anyone but ourselves? Who knows.

Is that not the seed of jealousy? You mean to tell me they wouldn't do it to us if they could? Only the strong survive, and it is the strong's duty to watch over the weak, not exploit it.

That's all the time I have for tonight, I look forward to your analysis tomorrow. BTW are you really from Finland Sempi? Answer truthfully. Please

[Simpi]

[quote="dethmajor"]

That is a problem I will say our country has, the media. They always focus on the negative of any situation. Our country Liberated Iraq in record time, with out record losses. Gone is the "saturation" bombing of WWII and Viet Nam. Welcome to the age of the smart bomb, a joint venture between US and Japanese engineers. Has the media reported anything signifigant about this?

Well, if you are referring to the fact that YOUR army did no suffer much losses you are right. Then again, according to BBC, more civilians died in this war than in first Gulf conflict: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 223523.stm

Precision bombing is all nice and dandy but most people don't seem to realise that the cruise missile is still going to demolish a good sized area around it, not just the 'military' target it was aimed at.

As for media, here is another interesting article about Fox news: http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters#foxnews

Yes, i'm really from Finland.

Keep up with the bodycount: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

[kthulhu]

The biggest support one can give our troops is hoping for their quick, safe return. Especially the National Guard members, who aren't even full time military.