11-03-2004, 02:16 PM #1
Bush re-elected now we attack............
No one. I think that we are entrenched over there puffing out our chest making ourselves seen to the region to try to stabilize the region w/out more war. Iran would be a huge mistake IMO. N Korea forget it, no way.
11-03-2004, 02:22 PM #2
My opinion: We need to take care of Iraq, then let the rest of the world fight each other like they do already. If we are attacked, we respond with extreme force, simple as that. As far as other nations needing our help, no way, no how (with the exception of England).......Let them take care of themselves as they tell us to do.
11-03-2004, 02:27 PM #3
we cant go around and start an attack after not completing the mission 100% in a current country. After Iraq, we should focus 100% once again on Afghanistan and Bin Laden until al qada (spelling) is 100% dead or captured. then i would go after iran before north korea. if we go after iran, i dont think north korea will do anything. if we go after north korea i think iran will join them.
11-03-2004, 02:28 PM #4
For some reason I think if we attack Iran the whole muslim world would gather up against us even though they don't like each other they hate us worse.
11-03-2004, 02:30 PM #5
instead of pulling together our "allies" we have to pull together countries in the arab world, and HELP them fight their own wars.
11-03-2004, 02:31 PM #6Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 02:34 PM #7
personally i think that we should send 2x as many troops into iraq and afghanistan.. i think if we started sending tons of troops into either one people would call it vietnam and bush wouldnt have gotten re-elected. now we should send them in, and finish the job so they all can come home.
I feel afghanistan is/was an easy war and we could fight there and somewhere else, but we cant fight afghan/iraq/iran at the same time if it isnt a full scale war.
11-03-2004, 02:35 PM #8
All I know is I don't know shiat about the real reason and the whole plan, it's frustrating to no end . There has to be reason behind it, I refuse to believe it is as simple as greed and revenge. I am not stupid as some mey think . It is not that simple I'm sure it's oil and getting nukes out of the wrong hands (I think)
11-03-2004, 02:37 PM #9
in a full scale war i believe we could take on a lot of countries that have a mediocre military. we have a great navy, a great airforce, good troops on the ground, and great special forces.
11-03-2004, 02:40 PM #10Originally Posted by symatech
11-03-2004, 02:40 PM #11
Well according to some we are to pick off a terrorst cell in a crowded town hiding in a mosque without putting a scratch on a civilian. If this were conventional we would and could wipe anyone out but it isn't "allowed" anymore.
11-03-2004, 02:41 PM #12
here are my thoughts on that
1)So you are saying that the reason we don't have the troops in Iraq as we needed was because of the allusion to vietnam, which would cost bush the election? So now that he is elected it's ok to send them? How do you think our soldiers feel about that comment? "sorry guys we're going to keep you understrength until W gets back in the white house then you can have the support you need, in the mean time try to not die?"
Im not trying to attack you personally Im just seeing if thats the logic you are presenting.
2)So you think there can be exceptions to the 100% rule? If you allow an exception then you know bush will have a dynamite excuse to go into Iran. Pretty soon that will be an exception and the rule is no longer a rule. Of course, I personally dont think bush will invade iran, korea, syria or whatever, he already won his re-election.
Is it not possible that the reason bush is a self proclaimed 'war president' is because to win an election you either need fantastic support from your domestic policy or you need to be kicking but in war -historically that is- Bush's domestic policy is lacking, not entirely his fault no doubt he inherited a declining economy, the dot coms boom was gone and it was he who started to feel the pressure. After all, it has been proven that no link between Iraq and al-qaida existed until we invaded. Is it not possible?
11-03-2004, 02:50 PM #13
The last part of your post is confusing. Are you implying he invaded Iraq to secure his re-election?
11-03-2004, 02:51 PM #14
1. you act like all politicians dont make war decisions to their political gain. kerry was for the war then when trailing to dean he was against it. i believe we can win in iraq with what we have, but not as easily and quickly if more troops are there. the more troops there the more may die, so its not like there are 18 guys there in a firefight and we are telling them we arent sending help until after the election.
2. i hope we dont have to invade iran. north korea kim jung ill is a nut and anyone will admit that. didnt syria stop its weapons program?
3. you wrote "Is it not possible?" is what not possible?
11-03-2004, 02:53 PM #15
Let me also say that I would like nothing more than to find out that bush's policies are completly morally justified. But I am far from being naive in thinking that just because it would be horrific if they were not. We are all people here, and we all know that people can be vicious, greedy, ruthless, and deceptive. I am not saying that he is but you must concede to the fact that it is a possibility, and we are all deprived of many facts.
Bush lost the election -his father- because of his failed domestic policy. Again which wasnt really his fault, the american people should know better than to fall for "read my lips no more taxs" so maybe W learned from his father's mistake. My contention is that it will never be PROVED, but we must acknowledge the possibility. Then we must realize, that our countrymen are dying. Is it right to use them as tools for re-election. Hell no.....does that mean bush is? not necesarily, but I wouldnt put it past him. He is a shady man like all politicians
11-03-2004, 02:55 PM #16
how is he using them for re-election if every poll showed that people didnt want a war? if you are talking about what i said earlier i said he doesnt want to keep putting in troops in iraq because it will look like a vietnam, like we are loosing there, and we can win with the troops we have but not as fast.
again, this is what i believe i am not speaking for the president
11-03-2004, 03:01 PM #17
To 1victor and nickrizz in posts 13, 14
I am not saying that Bush invaded Iraq to secure his re-election. I am saying that it is a possibility as real as any other. Of course. We will never be able to prove anything, nobody on this board can read his mind. Perhaps vengence had something to do with it, do you all remember a Q and A session he had and somebody asked him why we were going into Iraq and pulling many troops out of afghanistan? He stumbled across a few points dealing with WMD and the only thing he said clearly and with conviction was "hey lets not forget sadam houssein is a man who tried to kill my dad" Is this concrete evidence? no way!! But it does make one think. Now I am not accusing Bush of sacrificing american soldiers to promote his place in history books, but it is a possibility. And yes, ALL POLITICIANS would do the same. So what is my point??? Perhaps its time for a change. As long as there is a 2 party system the people will be manipulated to the parties. I think the parties should be manipulated to the people.
you wrote "Is it not possible?" is what not possible?
11-03-2004, 03:08 PM #18
Simple solution.......get out of the mideast.......buy the oil.......and they'll leave us alone........
11-03-2004, 03:09 PM #19Originally Posted by nickrizz
of course, I dont speak for the president either. Just trying to present all sides of an issue. Without all perspectives, we truely have no perspective.
11-03-2004, 03:10 PM #20Originally Posted by Badgerman
11-03-2004, 03:12 PM #21
It would take the devil incarnate to start a war for solely personal reasons. What you are suggesting isn't beyond the realm of possibility but I just don't buy it. That takes conspiracy theories to new heights. Perhaps I have on blinders , I just can't see it.
Can you imagine how purely evil someone would have to be? This would include everyone around him as well. Plus the fact that the Dems had a laser pointed at his forehead the whole time ready to pull the trigger. How could this be buried?
11-03-2004, 03:22 PM #22Originally Posted by symatech
11-03-2004, 03:24 PM #23Originally Posted by 1victor
anyways, think back to men like Stalin, Hitler, genghis khan (sp) history is full of evil men, who truely murder, pillage, rape etc for soley their own beneift. alexander wept when he realized there were no more worlds to conquer. It has happened in the past, it can happen again.
Politics is full of crooked people, when you see the daily total of lives lost, all you see is a number. Then you look at your bank acount and sleep well. Its not personal. There are evil people in the world bro, hell sadam was an evil man nobody will deny that. (remember all of us that getting rid of an evil dictator was never the cause for war) and I would say it is a good thing, except now the country is in ruins, and a haven for terrorists. do you think any gov. we set up will last? Most that we have set up have FALLEN. who will control iraq? zarqawi? bin laden? some other random guy that feels his calling is now? whose to say.
Be buried? you dont have to bury something thats not dead. He had intelligence which said WMD. The dems saw it. Kerry voted for it. But then think of the timing. We were soooo close to bin laden. Bush had that intel for YEARS. why in the months when we are getting bin laden do we pull out and go into Iraq? there is a reason. Iraq was no greater a threat to us the day we invaded as they were a year or two before. why the timing?
Again, these are possibilites like any other. Most americans dismiss it because they dont want to believe or even acknowledge that its a possibility. Most americans think our country is #1 and can do no wrong. We are people too, flawwed like every body else in the world.
There is a reason 3000 americans died on sept 11. Does anybody really want to belive why? We say the war on terror started then. Obviously, to some fool in the middle east, it started long before. But nobody ever talks about that. why not?
11-03-2004, 03:24 PM #24Originally Posted by symatech
11-03-2004, 03:26 PM #25Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 03:27 PM #26Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 03:28 PM #27Originally Posted by symatech
Originally Posted by symatech
11-03-2004, 03:30 PM #28Originally Posted by symatech
and i think in a few days/weeks falluja will be rid of these terrorists by a huge marine strike
11-03-2004, 03:42 PM #29Originally Posted by nickrizz
what am i getting at. Well, this may cause some trouble, but I'll say it anyway. But first let me say that I -hopefully obvious to you all- utterly despise men or women or children who would commit suicide solely so they could kill other men and women or children, especially innocent civilians.
now, I have a thread -very old- about some troubling things america has done in the past. Vicious things, evil things. And people tend not to forget things like this -at least those who felt out wrath- people like osama bin laden. What if, the reason 9/11 happened was our fault? Now dont get me wrong, obviously osama bin laden is at fault, but a man doesnt just wake up in the morning and decide to sacrifice 13 or his men to kill 3000 civilians. Obviously he's a sadistic bastard who needs to be captured or killed. But something we did, made him do that. But if I went out on the street and said that to americans they would burn me alive and call me unpatriotic. Thats what Im getting at, this country is great, but to be truely #1, the people have to think. The people need to realize, why the country is great, and to do that they need to understand that we are flawwed.
I know its kind of jumbled, sometimes I can write well other times it's really hard for me to convey my thoughts. But what I'm trying to say is, with the dawn of instant oatmeal, and tv news etc etc americans have gotten LAZY. Lazy physically and lazy mentally. When they are lazy physically it only hurts them, but a lazy mentality is dangerous to the whole world, because sometimes we act on that mentality. and sometimes the consequences are dire.
TV is rotting americans brains, how many times have you seen a newscast that doesnt sway opinion? The truth is disturbing, and there is not much money in it. TO be a great country we need to ween ourselves off of the abundant laziness and start thinking clearly.
11-03-2004, 06:25 PM #30
All of you can mock and laugh at me all you want, but I belive Iraq will win this war, under Bush.
11-03-2004, 06:39 PM #31
Way to inspire discussion any ways causasian!!! Yeah I think you are right..
11-03-2004, 06:45 PM #32Originally Posted by Anhydro78
Then if elections do happen, we will have a Shia leader, probably Sistani, and maybe Muqdata al-Sadr in the Cabinet.
Al Zarqui and his group are fanatically against Shiaism, will fight the Shias, might have a mini civil war.
The Kurd and Turk situation is getting worst. Turkey just threated to go into Kurdistan again, just yesterday.
The Iraqis have unlimited money, and unlimited soldiers.
Belive it or not, the war in Iraq has just begun. It will be similiar to the Israeli/Palestianian conflict. But the US does not live in the area, so it will have huge pressures.
I am very curious to see how they handle this Iraq situation.
11-03-2004, 06:58 PM #33
Caucasian, I am not laughing at all. I have no idea and don't pretent to know what will happen over there. I don't see what is wrong with a democracy there.
I will say this and it is not a flame or trying to be ignorant if things do heat up as you suggest this will more than likely become the ugliest war (minus Hitlers genocide of the Jews) that the world has ever seen. If this things get that bad perhaps the end is nearer for us all than we think. And I mean THE END.
If it causes a domino effect throughout the middleast God help us all. I don't think the possibilty of tactical nukes will be out of the question at that point and where does it stop from there? Lines will be drawn and sides will be taken by all.
Perhaps I'm just an alarmist I for one hope democracy will succeed and we can get the he** out of there asap. I see no good coming of this situation if democracy fails.
This is why I say no way to a war with Iran.
11-03-2004, 07:16 PM #34
There is nothing wrong with Democracy, and I am sure 90%+ people in Iraq want a democracy, I want to see a Democracy in Iraq. But the militants are killing and wounding American soldiers left and right. And the militants are maybe 3000 or less in number.
If there is a strong push in Fallujah, there will be more extremists. Do you think any militants are in Fallujah right now? Doubtful, because they know the US is coming there, so they hide and spread out.
Last week 9 US marines died, and the Marines are some of the best military units in the world, who are dieing to Iraqi militants who are poorly trained and badly equiped.
I honestly feel bad for American soldiers. I dont see a goal in Iraq, in war the worst thing is being in a war with no objective goal. The militants have a goal, what is the US's goal now? The US soldiers are sitting ducks in a place that is very hostile to them.
I never said it will be the ugliest war, it will be like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict or the Russian/Chechan conflict. But the US cannot afford to fight in those type of conflicts, because unlike Russia and Israel, the US does not live in that area.
In Algeria for example they experimented with democratic elections, when the results came in, the government realized that a Radical Islamic terrorist group had won the elections, and the election was called off.
All I am saying is, when outside forces bud in, especially in Middle Eastern societies, there is bound to be problems. When the US and the West bud in Iran with the Shah, there was an Islamic revolution, brining in Khomenie.
How is the US going to get rid of the terrorists/militants? Honestly there hasnt been one defeat of a guerilla uprising, because guerilla uprisings are very succesful.
Always be careful what you wish for.
Last edited by CAUSASIAN; 11-03-2004 at 07:18 PM.
11-03-2004, 07:28 PM #35Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
This could go on for twenty years......easy
11-03-2004, 07:31 PM #36Originally Posted by 1victor
The Iraqis are used to ugly war.......remember they lost a MILLION in the war with Iran.......supported by us.........and then we wonder why people get extreme.............jeez...........can you imagine a million Americans dying????
unbelievable........and we wonder why they're so pissed all the time???
11-03-2004, 07:48 PM #37
im not being sarcastic at all, but what would you guys suggest now that we are in Iraq? I have no military experience, other than what i read and hear.
11-03-2004, 07:49 PM #38Originally Posted by nickrizz
11-03-2004, 07:52 PM #39
how about in your point of view?
11-03-2004, 07:59 PM #40Originally Posted by nickrizz
I dont think turning over the authority to the UN would help. The only good thing would be to put a Muslim force in Iraq, consisting of Muslim troops, but the Muslim states know better than that, because they know their population would be against it big time.
But the best thing for the US to do is, let the election happen, and step back from major cities, and eventually blend away from Iraq.
But it will be interesting to see what happens. Anything can happen, from total peace, to total war. But I think this war will go on for years simliar to the Russian/Chechan conflict.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)