Should there be a war on terror and how/who should it be fought?

Sorry folks, had to take a break from this one for a bit. Apologies to Brits or anyone I've offended by some of my previous blanket statements.
The first link while not quite a smoking gun, was interesting. It did tell what someone else thought about the issue, but wasn't quite as incriminating as I expected it would be. The second is from wikipedia-which is only as trustworthy as the anonymous soul editing the entries...and that particular entry hardly reads as unbiased "simple facts" reporting, which, I admit, is very hard to find these days regardless of your position.

... just look at all the claims being made about depleted uranium-there are sources all over the internet claiming it causes leukemia brain damage ugly children and everything else. Upon reading the MSDS, DU is listed as mildly radioactive (so are most people's microwaves, TV's, old clocks, all sorts of things) and not listed as a carcinogen unless inhaled or ingested in molten or powdered form (DU rounds are not solid DU, but lead or other solid jacketed over a DU core (for its weight) which can then hopefully have enough inertia to penetrate the hull of a tank, bunker, etc. etc. So while I am not throwing out the leukemia claims (I'm not a doctor) pretty sure most of the people exposed to this form of DU are already dead, unless "old anti-tank round" is a new lollipop flavor in some parts...

The above quote about it tearing up that one individual is a prime example of sensationalist reporting. The condition of the individual mentioned had nothing to do with the round being DU. The individual had been SHOT. Tungsten rounds would have done exactly the same...


BW-First off, I read through your previous posts, and I apologize for the harshness I used, I was getting tired of the "America invented it so they could go commit atrocities" vibe I was getting, and I believe you simply got the brunt of things.
It's quite possible you really do have an American gf, family, or whatever-but when I accused you of this anti-American bias-instead of answering with well-reasoned arguments you instead in protest
-told me about your American gf.

While this seems a bit defensive, interestingly, you never actually denied hating America... Just because one has a Russian gf does not mean he loves RUSSIA....so to speak.

Regardless that was not the point. I rattled you a bit apparently, and the evidence to the contrary you listed? I used the all-too-common tactic here and claimed you made them up. Kind of sucked, didn't it? I could just as well have claimed you were in denial of your hatred, and just "didn't get it"...


Many posts here seem to say "accept any negative reporting about Americans, and reject as propaganda anything which is not". To me this demonstrates a deep-seated hatred of America. Perhaps it is not.
Regardless, it is no way to find the truth... Friends, nothing, especially when it comes to love, war, or politics, is that simple, nothing is black and white.
To claim anyone who believes the opposite side of the argument "doesn't get it" ("drinks the Kool-Aid," "is paid off" etc etc) doesn't actually convince them of the veracity of your own argument, especially when unverifiable sources are being bandied about as they are in this particular thread, no matter what position you take on the war.


Best we can hope for is that some of us will at least *consider* some things that previously we had not.
Am I wrong? feel free to set me right on this one...as obviously right now repeating the "You just don't get it" mantra isn't quite convincing me, and I suspect calling you an "America Hater" doesn't convince you either.
Thoughts?
John P.
edit: isthatu just a heads up, a fully-loaded B-25 is small by modern standards, although had its payload detonated I'm sure the results would have been different. Also you have quite a bit of insight on war, which speaks of experience. Are you a veteran also? or just perhaps consider things a little longer than most....

accepted, with respect

i wont enter into a well reasoned argument with you, as i dont with celinski - there are plenty of others who can do a much better job than me on the forum and i am quite happy to leave it to them. my many years of similar debates with americans has taught me one thing - that many of you just dont get it... and the same applies to me, i just dont get youre mind set.

ive just spent a fantastic new years with my mums cousin and her daughter in new orleans. my mums cousin is in her 60s and has the most evil sense of humour, kinda like mine which is one of the reasons we have so much love for one another.

we take the **** out of eachother constantly - i frequently call her a twisted old woman and her response is to take a swing at me... to which i call her an american and explain that violence is not the answer to problems

withthis anecdote i am trying to illustrate one of the attitudes i have difficulty accepting in american and many of its citizens - the dominance by force, the dictatorial and aggressive bullying. it makes more enemies than friends

whether americans know it or not, and many of them are starting to realise, there has been a hatred growing towards them for years. this hatred isnt without reason. what is your explanation for it?

Interesting point about the dominance by force; honestly it isn't a uniquely American idea but rather, one attributed to any power that seems to be somewhat preeminent at the time. In past centuries it has been the Romans, The French, Germans, Spanish, and for several centuries, the British. I'm convinced nations have been thumbing their noses at each other for long before America or even Poland (as a nation) were even a thought. Unfortunately, sometimes they get away with it, other times they have not.

Rather than a bullying dominance by force, I think the problem with America's military policies is that one administration will let anything and everything go by with nothing done, then things are completely different under the next administration. Very bi-polar if you will. People get tired of war-and elect a government that promises there will be none. The same people then get tired of having Americans and American interests killed and ignored, and then elect a new government willing to use force. Then the process repeats. Due to the very polarized nature of U.S. politics, with Democrats and Republicans willing to sell the country out just to make the other party look bad, there is no happy medium.

I also think America is too slow to use force and too quick to leave a job unfinished.
Had force been used (or had we simply accepted him from our allies) in the 1990's, OBL would not have been an issue. We send a mixed message. On the one hand under one administration it seems ok to shoot at US aircraft, blow up our ships or kill our civilians in various places around the world-it seems to the individuals doing these acts as if they are getting away with it, so they then escalate-leading to the second scenario above-Americans are tired of inaction and elect people they think will punish the nations or groups responsible.

Of course, then when cameras show blood-people then begin to lose their resolve, elect a new group promising to "end the senseless carnage" and we leave-again-before the job is finished, and leaving those who previously relied on us-to die. Vietnam, Iraq in 1991, Somalia...only when we have STAYED have things turned out well (Japan, Germany, etc)

Saddam could have been done in 1991 and Iraq already voting in elections for the past 17 years. But we pulled out before the job was finished, because politicians do not like seeing the reality of war, almost as much as the media enjoys making them see it. A dangerous combination, which IMHO takes the power away from the people and gives it to the networks.

Bush Sr. lost his resolve because he didn't like the political implications of video showing the "highway of death" as portrayed in the media-so thousands of Iraqis prepared to revolt against Saddam-were gunned down like cattle by Saddam's helicopters. Of course strangely the US networks were NOT there to film that part....

Same thing with OBL and of course many others.
We also tend to try all too often to apply civilian rules to warfare. They are not compatible. Someone captured in a machine gun battle is not the same as Joe civilian captured for murdering his wife. They are not the same at all and IMHO we should not keep trying to treat them the same, unless there is no intention to ever WIN a war again.

The hatred? I don't know. Different reasons for different people. If they've watched US networks, well there's the answer-US networks typically for some reason hate their own country as that is apparently popular in that subculture. Pretty sure most of the Middle East's hatred has been generated with the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam, to which we are simply the biggest of the enemy nations.

This is not a new thing. Around the turn of the last century a similar fundamentalist Muslim uprising (with similar tactics- beheadings, etc- being used by the enemy) occurred in the Philippines. There was no peace until the fanatics were made to see that they could not win. They then went back to live-and-let-live, which is better for all of us. There is a rumor that in that conflict Gen. Pershing, tired of harassment and attacks at the hands of the radical Muslims (call them mujahideen if you like), lined up some captured leaders, allowed them to see troops dip the points of their bullets in pig fat (lard) then proceeded to shoot all but one, who they released. The fighting subsided almost overnight. Not saying such tactics would go over well in the media today, but somewhere a line has to be drawn. We did not provoke the bombing of the various embassies around the world (other than by being born "American" and being "non-Muslim") nor did we provoke the attacks on our ships in the gulf, nor the WTC (both times btw-) various hijackings, murders of diplomats and others, or even the bombing of people asleep in their barracks. Various nations in the middle east cheered with glee at each of these events, but only changed their tone when realizing that even Americans won't take it forever. Notice how quiet Libya became after Reagan sent Tomcats (AROUND France who wouldn't allow use of the airspace) and hit Qaddafi's headquarters? We have of late gained the reputation of a cut-and-run friend, and it is unfortunate and an expensive reputation to get rid of.
OF course, the above is just my opinion.

John P.

I think this is the most important lesson... Maybe now with a new President taking over soon things will level off. I hope so. War is a painful part of life. If nothing else I hope every nation see's the USA in a new light. We can only be pushed so far. Warning Grafic content, reminder of the price to USA Britian and Poland.

We can only be pushed so far? B4 what? U started the war, u have to accept the consequences. Don't live in a drama world. These people will not be pushed over, they will fight to keep their oil and their way of life. That's what happens when u invade another country. Why do u think no other major western power like Germany or France went into Iraq first?

French knew some things better probably and they warned US.But you see they were considered p..ssy faggots.

France has nuclear technology and the Foreign Legion, some kick ass stuff. They are not hellbent and sold out on the 'no guts, no glory' idea tho. They are more practical in their approach. There was some potential for escalating conflict between France and Iran but the Iranians were clever enough to see that it was just a hot-headed frog getting ideas above his station and ignored him.

Well,duh :),No ,just using it as an example that similar things have happened,ie a plane smashing into a NYC skyscraper is not just a 21st C phenomenom.

Thank you,that I consider a huge compliment. No,I am not a Veteren in the stricktest of senses,I served a very short time in the reserves untill "real life" comitments got in the way.Most comes from having worked closely with veterens of various conflicts and having a "Screaming Eagle" Vietnam vet as an "uncle"(in case that sounds dodgy,Uncle around here also can mean friend of the family) in my teens.


My whole point behind my stance on this. Hand on heart,I was in a couple of the Stop the war/not in my name marches prior to the 2003 invasion,and my position hasnt changed,I truelly think it was a big mistake to invade ,but,to leap from that to "pull the troops out now" is something I cannot do as I firmly believe this is the sure fire way to guarentee Genocide on a previously unimagined scale in Iraq. In for a Penny,in for a Pound ,as we say.

I would like to think,in many cases this "hatred" is more disapointment. As kids the USA is the shiny shiny wonderland that can do no wrong,as adults this veiw changes,some people take it to an extreme ,others,I hope,are more rational.

Please, Celinski,I dont know about you but many of us will have loved ones serving in Iraq/Afganistan.Those video clips are a bit too much.Those who think only innocent little kids get hurt in war are not going to change their minds,the rest of us dont need reminding what friends and family are going through,thanks.

That was the reason for the warning. I am sorry if I hurt you I am just sick of people insinuating we are enjoying ourself's in Iraq. This was the only way to really show the truth. I truly am sorry.

Not at all Carol,wasnt for me ,you didnt hurt my feelings,its just Im always a little uncomfortable when guys in the scariest moments of their lives get used as examples,if you know what I mean.
Im afraid those who think that way Carol will not be persuaded what ever you show them,and in a way I think I know why,they will just turn round and say "all the allied troops in Iraq are volunteers,not conscripts,they didnt have to join the army......"
Those same peole do ,rather hypocriticaly(and at the risk of sounding like Jack N here) enjoy the fact they live in countries that havnt been invaded for a number of years due to brave men and women with b alls enough to stand on the firing line for the rest of us.

It is possible to support the troops but be against the war.
'I didn't join the British Army to conduct American foreign policy'
URL

The truth is that u created that situation, period!! Which other country was STRONGLY pushing u to go into Iraq? France, Britain, Russia? I think not!! U stole oil contracts from some of their companies. It's just a sad reality that the decisions of the few bring about the suffering of the many. U cannot support a war on terror and expect ur troops to come back unscathed

If I recall saddam was refusing to allow UN inspectors in and screwing with USA at the wrong time. Maybe in the past he was simply ignored, not this time. Bush called his bluff and yes it has provided a place for many to be hurt by terrorist that have no value on human life.

You recall wrong.He allowed inspectors who also presented the results of their inspections having come to the conclusion that there were no WMDs in Iraq.



Why was it wrong time?Did Bush have an erection?



When was he ignored?When the Iraq sky was dominated by USAF and the ground thoroughly scanned by satelites?



Bush tried to get an excuse to start the war.

LOL don't know I didn't look did u?



guess he got it.

How many times do I need to say it? Saddam was at his maddest when he was using biological weapons on his OWN people. Where were America's invasion plans then way back? Screwing with the USA? It was his right to refuse, not everyone has to bow 2 American demands. Called his bluff my ass!! The fact is that Hans Blix came out with no rock solid case. Let me remind u that American troops are killing too. U put urselves in harm's way. Oh, I remember reading the papers in 1992 alright. The images were shocking, Stormin Norman was just a hardliner, a hateful man bent on unleashing frustration. Why not allow inspectors into America? I'm sure u'd find plenty Hiroshima type weapons around. If u r so obsessed with WMD, why not step into North Korea and Iran? Did u see Iraq as the softer touch? Or was it just the chance to prop up an ailing economy through oil control?

Sadam never used biological weapons.Are you sure he would like to start a lethal epidemic in Iraq?

OK so we shall use the word, "Gas" much better huh?

If you have noticed gas is a chemical,not a biological weapon.

worked though, why don't you feel the pain vs arguing cause of death?

Check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm This from a stauch Republican Scott Ritter. A nobody? Hardly, just look at his credentials. I'm sorry, I meant gassing and brutally killing his own people.

Im against all wars on a matter of principle but ,as I said,once the apple carts been tipped up its moraly wrong to just tuck your tail between your legs and scarper and in this instance leave Iraq to the religious nutters who have caused the most civian deaths in country.

Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot


Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot



I will look for them. It reminds me of the helicopters, we were blammed for them also.

Yep,the same cosy period between the US - Saddam

What? They are journalists!! I didn't see Britain's name mentioned much, much more the US. Reagan and Bush snr were plying him left, right and centre. The contracts were piling up. How can u condemn the very action u sponsored/caused? Ritter is what I wanted u to read, not merely quoting the names of the journalists who are no doubt very decent and honest tea drinkers, hehehe

lol ok

The tannins in tea are proven to have a relaxing/laxative effect. Not so sure about snorting cocaine tho as Clinton and Bush were into

your obviously forgeting Sheffield Forgemasters "super gun" that was going to be delivered to Saddam then back around the same time.

well,it was old Stormin' Norman himself who when asked by Saddam after GW 1 "can we still use our helicoptor gunships despite the no fly zones?" said,"yep,sure you can,no problem,"those choppers were then used to butcher the shia anti saddam uprising in plain sight of allied forces......

I was referring specifically to the article which I posted but nevermind...Britain never did business with Saddam like America did and that was what I was trying to get across.

great now you made Hillary cry.[

quote=isthatu] can we still use our helicoptor gunships despite the no fly zones?" [/quote]
I was referring to the crop dusters.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/07/clinton.emotional .cnn?iref=videosearch