|
Post by jimpres on Nov 18, 2005 20:27:31 GMT -7
Pawian,
That is what the news reports say. I just googled and the number of firearms owners in the US is 60-65Million. Now I know why it would be hard to take over the US.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 18, 2005 21:56:10 GMT -7
The US is just trying to stop the terroists before they get to the American mainland like 911. I won't get into the politics but most Americans would rather fight the terroists in there own country (if they have one) then in the US. It is difficult to fight someone who is willing to commit sucide. And with the small amount of explosives needed to do distruciton it is tough to stop them. Jim, I have a problem to understand a rationale of attacking other country for a sake of another country. What if Poles would be convinced that Germans want to attack Poland and then... Poland would invade Germany in a preventive action? Would the world support us? Who are these terrorists? Are all Iraqis who are fighting against American soldiers the terrorists? Look from their perspective, what if their friends or family were killed in the attack? How many Iraqis civilians were really killed in this war? Is this war legal? I wish Americans let UN inspectors to finish their job. Do America or Russia as superpowers more rights to attack other country than for instance Belgium or Sweden? If somebody do me a harm - should I go with a gun and start killing people who look suspicious? Just like the alleged thread from Iraq to America after 9-11. Why America did not send its army to Sudan? Hundreds of thousands of people died in this conflict already.
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Nov 18, 2005 23:15:50 GMT -7
I don't think we attack other countries because they say thay want to attack us. Iran President said he want to kill all the Americans and anilate Isreael. But we are not attacking Iran.
The terroists are a fringe organization of the Islamic faith who believe that if you are not of that faith you are an infidel and should be killed. And they continue to note what the Crusasdes did to them in the name of God. They want the world to be the radical Islam. So thsy kill other Arabs in their quest to conquer the world. Can you actually tell me someone who thinks when he a martyr will go to heaven and 73 virgins will be waiting?
And your right many Iraqis have been killed in this war but not as many as killed by Sadam. He killed and gassed many or his own people, plus tortured, raped and mutilated many of his countrymen and women.
The UN passed 14 resulutions trying to stop Sadam and could not. So America went to war believing that he had WMDs as was told to us by Russia, France, England and our own CIA. Were they right is still an issue. But I'm sure the Iraqis are better off with that dictator not in charge any more. The UN had 12-14 years to do something and did nothing. In the meantiime Sadam and his sons continued to kill, rape and murder. And for what he is a Shite and hated the Sunnis, and Kurds. So does that give him the right to kill them at will? I think not
I don't think any country has a right to attack other countries. The world has had enough of this fighting over someone elses dirt. I someone did you harm or your family and you knew them what would you do? I would hope your would let the legal system take care of the situation.
I think the jury is still out about Iraq and 9-11. But for sure the terroists should be hunted down and killed for what they did and continue to do in the name of radical Islam.
The UN sent troups to Sudan where thousends of people died. And most of the UN personnel were corrupt and harmed many of the people. So should America keep world peace. I think not
We only have gone to war because of attacks and requests for help. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait. I'm all for being an isolationist I have had to many friends killed because of this dictatoial quest for other countries dirt. But if you attack the US expect a quick response.
Who helped the quickest for the large sunami, hurrican etc. We helped the world with ships and food during the sunami. When we had Katrina....... the world watched we helped our selves.
And I don't think the US is attacking all Arabs because of the radical few. We have thousands of them here in San Diego living in peace and harmony with the rest of us.
We get criticised for all the mistakes we make but no recognition for the good we do. So when Iran shoots a missile at Europe what should the US do? You know we will help And when North Korea shoots a missle at Europe what shour the US do? You know we will help And when either of them shoots a missle at the US I know what we will do. I don't think it will be to sit and negotiate or let the UN handle it. But will we get help, not from France, Spain, Germany, Russia. Yes, I know Poland will propably supply GROM.
I have never seen a case when we attacked a group of individuals just because one was a redical. Yes we intured the Japanese during WWII, and it was a mistake and we recognized it. But we did not enture any Vietnamise during that war. And we are not harboring ill will to the Arabs in this country
Last but not least I don't believe the US has attacked any other country just to gain its territory (dirt) We could have done that in several wars but did not. We have not gained any land from any war. Can that be said for Europe WWII was a good example. POlands borders moved both east and west and Russia grew.
That is my humble opiinon on the USA.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Nov 18, 2005 23:26:24 GMT -7
Jaga I will make this short and simple. If there is a nest of Rattlesnakes living near my porch, I will take out the Rattlesnakes before they can bite me or my family. If my neighbor hates me, wishes me dead and broadcasts this for everyone to hear and then starts building a cannon that is aimed at my house, I will take out that person before the cannon is fired. I think that if England and America had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler and then merely observed, the outcome of the 1940's would have been a lot different. If good people just stood aside and observed than the people with evil intentions would triumph. The only true and lasting peace belongs to those who have died. strife in life is the norm and not the exception.
|
|
|
Post by jimpres on Nov 18, 2005 23:31:46 GMT -7
Bob,
Your exactly righ good men make good decisions on the information at hand. And Freedom is NOT Free. Evil is evil and must be dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 19, 2005 5:46:14 GMT -7
Jim, Bob, I know that you truly love America and you really want all the best for your country. But I also believe that you would like your country to be the best not only for your citizens but for the citizens of all the countries. You would also like America to be loved rather than hated around the world. I don't think we attack other countries because they say thay want to attack us. Iran President said he want to kill all the Americans and anilate Isreael. But we are not attacking Iran. no question about it. The USA does not attack every enemy country immediately. Why should it? The terroists are a fringe organization of the Islamic faith who believe that if you are not of that faith you are an infidel and should be killed. And they continue to note what the Crusasdes did to them in the name of God. They want the world to be the radical Islam. So thsy kill other Arabs in their quest to conquer the world. Can you actually tell me someone who thinks when he a martyr will go to heaven and 73 virgins will be waiting? Bin Laden was against American military presence in Saudi Arabia at least it was clear what Zarqawi wants - beside Iraw being free from American soldiers nobody knows, what these French riot people wanted - I have no clue. THere is a bg spectrum of Muslims around the world and it is hard to judge - it especialy refers to especially Iraqis in Iraq. Iraq was not a theocracy in the first place. And your right many Iraqis have been killed in this war but not as many as killed by Sadam. He killed and gassed many or his own people, plus tortured, raped and mutilated many of his countrymen and women. there are/were many terrible regimes, Guatemala regime including (that America supported). But this was not a reason for a war. The war based on false presumption. Nobody from ouside pushed America for the war. Besides, Iraq was not in the stage of any civilian or military uproar. If Bush senior would abolish Saddam - it would be much more justified than three years ago. The UN passed 14 resulutions trying to stop Sadam and could not. Many American mass media has a total contempt against UN. They only quote UN when it supports their views otherwise they think that UN is useless and corrupted, like you do in the rest of your post. Answering your question - UN did not send America to war and did not want to, they send inspectors.UN passes many resolutions which nobody obeys, for instance it passed many resolutions against Israel to widthdraw from Gaza through the years and Israel withdrew just imediately, still for the whole time Israel is a best friend of America. Besides, Iraq was disarmed as the evidence suggests. So America went to war believing that he had WMDs as was told to us by Russia, France, England and our own CIA. Were they right is still an issue. But I'm sure the Iraqis are better off with that dictator not in charge any more. The UN had 12-14 years to do something and did nothing. In the meantiime Sadam and his sons continued to kill, rape and murder. And for what he is a Shite and hated the Sunnis, and Kurds. So does that give him the right to kill them at will? I think not Clinton sent several times military airplanes, they bombed several places, Saddam was unable to flight its planes in many zones over Iraq. Saddam was pretty much confined and could not do too much of anything. As you said before UN passed resolutions, now you saying that UN did not do anything, so maybe Saddam was listeing and was too afraid to do anything anymore. He was still American friends during Iran war although they KNEW that he killed his enemies, so how you can explain that? I don't think any country has a right to attack other countries. The world has had enough of this fighting over someone elses dirt. I someone did you harm or your family and you knew them what would you do? I would hope your would let the legal system take care of the situation. I agree totally about your seeing war as a dirt. If you start a war you need to see consequences. Referring to your example - What if you would go after your enemy thinking that he harmed you before but he did not? Would you not end up in jail? Especially if you kill or harm through your actions some innocent bypassers? What if you would use the fact that somebody attacked you as a pretext to attack somebody else? We only have gone to war because of attacks and requests for help. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait. Read the story about guatemala, what about.... attacking Grenada? There were some proud moments and not so proud moments... As for Vietnam - this attack probably never happened (according to my history book, scholastic, I can give you references). So when Iran shoots a missile at Europe what should the US do? You know we will help And when North Korea shoots a missle at Europe what shour the US do? You know we will help Last but not least I don't believe the US has attacked any other country just to gain its territory (dirt) I do not know, since all the American forces are now centered in Iraq. Americans could not stop any other country from attacking Europe but do Iranians or Koreans are so stupid? This is just simple speculation. This all talk about the enemy and America at war reminds me of Stalin totalitarian regime. Stalin and Soviets were always on the guard agains internal and external enemy. Terrorists were for a long time and they would not go away. I believe that the interest to attack Iraq was developed before 9-11, main reason besides Saddam being a stupid guy in the past - was the oil. Now - America lost lots of money and men, the same Iraq. people there donot live in peace or any kind of stability, even with the dictatorship but still at least without worrying about their daily life, it is just a mess there. The US also lost lots of credibility, also among Eastern Europeans. I see just one positive of the war - Kurds have its own autonomy, but is it enough?
|
|
|
Post by justjohn on Nov 19, 2005 5:51:08 GMT -7
And we have about 2M 2nd ammendment believers here who are armed according to statistics. Plus we have a lot of people who have served and would serve again. Do you mean 2 million people who possess guns? In almost 300 million population of America, isn`t it a too low number? I always thought it is much higher. I believe Jim is making a reference to California.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Nov 19, 2005 7:41:03 GMT -7
[Why America did not send its army to Sudan? Hundreds of thousands of people died in this conflict already.]
And why didn't other African nations do something about the Sudan? and why didn't other countries do something about the Sudan? Why didn't the UN do something about the Sudan? There are other nations in the world besides America, England and Poland. What is wrong with the rest of the world? Are they all asleep or perhaps there was a lack of bribary to be had. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 19, 2005 9:27:18 GMT -7
Jaga I will make this short and simple. If there is a nest of Rattlesnakes living near my porch, I will take out the Rattlesnakes before they can bite me or my family. If my neighbor hates me, wishes me dead and broadcasts this for everyone to hear and then starts building a cannon that is aimed at my house, I will take out that person before the cannon is fired. I think that if England and America had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler and then merely observed, the outcome of the 1940's would have been a lot different. If good people just stood aside and observed than the people with evil intentions would triumph. The only true and lasting peace belongs to those who have died. strife in life is the norm and not the exception. Bob, The analogy with WW II is not good, Saddam was not in the course of attacking anybody. He did not have any will nor WMD. who are rattlesnakes - Saddam? Not a good analogy since America was a friend with these "rattlesnakes", Rumsfeld hanshake with Saddam is known and documented. Am. administration in that time (does not matter really who) knew very good who Saddam was - how he got to power (killing his competitorr) and they still liked him because he was considered less devil than Iran. It is not just that Saddam is out of power but Iraq is in worse dissaray that it was. So by destroying the nest of rattlesnakes - also the good nests were destroyed, besides, these rattlesnakes were not poisonous anymore.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Nov 19, 2005 10:53:04 GMT -7
Quick reply Jaga, yes the analogy to WW2 is good! Why? If Hitler had been taken out in the early 1930's when there were a lot of riots in Germany don't you think that there may have been no WW2 in Europe. In 1936 there were a lot of leaders from different countries that said Hitler and his party were doing great things for Germany. As an analogy: If I supply a firearm and money to a person who promises to kill someone that I designate and I give firearms and money to others who promise to do the same thing for me; should I be innocent of everything because it was not I who pulled the trigger but the other person who did the killing? The Rattlesnake still had the fangs and could bite. If I am bitten by one rattlesnake, shall I believe all other Rattlesnakes will do me no harm. It is to late or almost to late to say, "I was trampled by the stampede" after the stampede has passed. People cannot predict the future but they can reason that something like this happened in the past and it is about to happen again because all the signs are there.. Jaga, we both have different ideas but this is great because if we both thought alike and everyone else thought like we did then, the Oxcart would not have been invented yet. Different thoughts for different people but, the same goal; the betterment of humanity.
|
|
Bob S
European
Rainbow Bear
Posts: 2,052
|
Post by Bob S on Nov 19, 2005 11:07:10 GMT -7
;D Just another example Jaga: If we each have the same experiment on our benches and the exception is that you use one method and I another but the conclusion is the same should we critisize each other because of the different methods used or is the answer more important? ;D
|
|
Yanc
Full Pole
Posts: 337
|
Post by Yanc on Nov 19, 2005 11:15:29 GMT -7
He did not have any will nor WMD. And what about killing 5000 Kurds with chemical weapons in early 1990s ?? And even if any WMD was not found doesn't mean he hasn't any. And what about his will to invade another country? He already did it with Kuwait. I believe he was not attacking another country not because he didn't want to, but because he was afraid of world response. Maybe not whole world but US & allies. Yanc
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Nov 19, 2005 12:01:56 GMT -7
A few years ago I concluded that with the modern weapons of our US army the idea of people using simple rifles and explosives to fight them was an exercise in futility. Our troops would quickly locate them and wipe them out.
The Iraqi patriots have proven me wrong. With rifles and explosives and simple weapons they are giving us a heck of a battle!
Maybe if we didn't have a draft dodger for Prez and had someone who served honorably in the military he would have been more careful in spending our military lives and capital.
Kai
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Nov 19, 2005 13:42:36 GMT -7
Jagoda and to all
I as a person, was not to add to this exchange, but, for every question of why, there are always the answer of: Why not!
To add for my qualification of expertise in these matters, I will first say, I have non!
For as an ex-every thing, well, I am alive now. Perhaps not so long if my mouth continues.
Since this discussion is related primarly to the Iraqi question. It is easy, so easy infact, that even the people up in the DC Ivory towers will understand it.
It is all about simantecs, yes, we must have a name to justifie what ever tactical action is enitiated. The conclusion must meet cerain criteria: It must meet first with a ratiional, that we are good, and the enemy is bad. Simple.
Arab concept= freedom fighter
Western Christian= terriost is a terriost
Arab concept of Jews and Christians= people of the book that turned away from their true God.
Wrong or right? Who knows or cares. Untill the casutie list comes in, then, what went wrong, for why is this happing?
Iran is a Farsi nation, they are not Arab or Serian, but to them selves. Israel is apart from every thing. They (Israel) are of a gurranteed people. They are gurranteeded by the American Goverment, also that of the German goverment. They will be as they are.
Then the question of Iraq. Iraq is Iraq, they dug their own hole in the earth. The people allowed a leadership under a known family of murderers, first supported by US policy, and when it went bad, allowed world opinion to favour them. Well, I am sorry! The axe fell and this time it was on their head...
The Americans then followed a pursuit of miltary commencement of classical Kombat.
It is called:
Absolute and Real War
As follows:
The plan of war comprehended of the whole military act.
The enemy is realized, then the act of war is consemated in the act of complete destruction of said enemy, in the most effcient manner of disposal.
We are speaking of people here, they are as real in flesh and blood as of your mothers, your sisters and all that you hold dear.
Now the end of hostilities, the politictions need a way out of this self dug hole, so the logical manner of extraction, is, finger pointing and blame away from them, they need to distance them selves from responsiblity.
And in the end the people to bear the brunt of rebuilding of personal lives, businesses, raising of their families, well, the Iraqi working people, of course. It is all about people, then, about power, toasters, computer chips and oil.
At one time, we could tell the bad guys from the good guys, what has happened now?
Charles
|
|
|
Post by Jaga on Nov 19, 2005 16:27:23 GMT -7
He did not have any will nor WMD. And what about killing 5000 Kurds with chemical weapons in early 1990s ?? And even if any WMD was not found doesn't mean he hasn't any. And what about his will to invade another country? He already did it with Kuwait. I believe he was not attacking another country not because he didn't want to, but because he was afraid of world response. Maybe not whole world but US & allies. Yanc Yanc, what if, what if, what if? We do not know. These are all speculations. But the reason that American administration was able to force the resolution to start the war with Iraq was the faulty evidence of WMDThere are plenty better and worse dictators in the world, for instance in Saudi Arabia women had much less rights than in Saddam's Iraq. Still countries do not go to war without good evidence that they are in danger. Please, read Kapuscinski, he travelled all through the world and he understand the world politics
|
|