Originally posted by DelmerNo, I'd disagree. I try to enter into each discussion in the attempt to put across my point of view, just the same as you. You were the one to call into question my intellect, my response was merely to point out that I am actually capable of working things out for myself, and not just writing down the thoughts of others.
And you enter each discussion as an arrogant elitist. I have no PhDs, Scotty, but if you type Delmer O. Gasche into Amazon.com author search you can purchase two of my books. I'd be happy to buy two of your books if you tell me where to find them.
I actually have one PhD, Rajk, from the University of Aberdeen in the UK.
My point is that the young 18 year old guys doing the grunt work on the front line are not privy to the information that their seniors are. Neither are we. It takes a huge amount of time and energy to keep on top of all the information we are bombarded with on a daily basis, and most of these guys probably don't have the time, or wish to invest the significant amount of effort (in their spare time) to read numerous news sources. I do. Some of these young guys and girls are actually in the army because they want to finish their education.
Now if you'd said something along the lines of 'i get my info from high ranking military personal', then fine, I'll agree they probably know more than me about the social and political motivations for going to war, but most of these kids don't.
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow would you know what grunts do? You were too busy getting your PHD. I was an ex-grunt and I sure knew what the hell was going on around me. Typical intellectual snob attitude thinking anybody without a college degree is a loser. You want to toot horns? My son's principal at school has a couple of PHD's and can't believe how I make three time his salary with just my crappy little High School diploma.
Well, actually, quite possibly. I mean, not, perhaps about the situation on the ground in the place where they were, but perhpas in terms of 'the big picture'. Grunts are rarely kept in the loop about the big picture, and are generally only told of their specific job to do, and fed with the propoganda that the military wants them to hear to keep the ...[text shortened]... ety of sources and weigh it up. Probably not something Private Piles from the US infantry does.
Originally posted by Rajk999Actually I do have a job.
Dell .. no need to justify yourself. PhDs are dime a dozen in most countries. The fact that this loser appears to have more than one PhD probably means that nobody wanted to employ him. Employers generally shy away from these arrogant pricks as they just full of shit and cant do anything productive or constructive.
By far the people who have contributed t ...[text shortened]... the balls and the guts to do the RIGHT THING. I doubt Dr. Soctland knows what Im talking about.
Emm, my own stated belief is that it takes all kins of people to make a successfull society. Scientists have just as valid a role in society as do chartered accountants. You may want to remember that the next time you're sick and need to visit the Doctor. Penecillin anyone? MRI scans? hmm....
Originally posted by slimjimOh yes, you're soooo right. I'm looking down my nose at you all.
How would you know what grunts do? You were too busy getting your PHD. I was an ex-grunt and I sure knew what the hell was going on around me. Typical intellectual snob attitude thinking anybody without a college degree is a loser. You want to toot horns? My son's principal at school has a couple of PHD's and can't believe how I make three time his salary with just my crappy little High School diploma.
Well, actually I'm not. Look I'm trying to keep this nice and polite, I just prefer people to make their point succinctly and politely and let everyone else do the same.
You have your point of view, and that's fine. So do I. That's also fine. I did not bring my qualifications into this to try and prove I'm more intelligent than Delmer. I brought them into it because Delmer inferred that I'm stupid.
Actually, I don't think anyone without a college education is a loser. My girlfriend doesn;t have a college degree (although she will start a degree next year).
Also, I know. We intellectuals can be quite poorly paid. Dreadfull isn;t it? But then again, I do the job because I love doing it. I don't really measure success in terms of financial gain. Nice to have enough to live, but i'm not greedy.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOk.. Dr Aberdeen.. lets try not to get too personal and lets be factual.
Oh yes, you're soooo right. I'm looking down my nose at you all.
.
You seem to be pulling a few facts out of a hat that suits your purpose in order to convict Bush and the US. Lets look at the whole the history of the Iraq conflict :
1. Saddam conducted a 10 yr war with Iran over borders and land.
2. He started building a nuclear reactor to asisst him with his war.. thanks to Israel, this was destroyed in 1983.
3. He attacked Kuwait in 1991, killed murdered and raped citizens. Kuwati GOvt asked the US for assistance.
4. The US assisted but when they withdrew, Saddam proceeded to gas (from his stockpile of chemical weapons) the Kurds, his own people, leading to the death of about 300K.
5. Saddam routinely murdered many of his own countrymen .. mass graves are still being uncovered today.
6. Between 1992 and 2004, the UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq but Saddam often expelled them for months at a time making the inspection process pointless. I am at a loss to understand how you can truthfully claim that he was not in violation of UN directives.
7. Saddam is on record as saying that he will destroy the US.
8. Saddam said that the Iraqi Govt gives $25,000 US to the surviving family of every Palestinian suicide bomber - Saddam is therefore a supporter of terrorism.
A group of other terrorists but with a common cause attacks the US and kills 3000. How can any rightthinking person not see that this terrorist regime needs to be removed ? By any means necessary !
I agree that the US should move out of Iraq now.. but the decision to go to war was justified. Whether or not WMDs existed in the country at the time is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Rajk999Thanks for reopening sensible dialogue.
Ok.. Dr Aberdeen.. lets try not to get too personal and lets be factual.
You seem to be pulling a few facts out of a hat that suits your purpose in order to convict Bush and the US. Lets look at the whole the history of the Iraq conflict :
1. Saddam conducted a 10 yr war with Iran over borders and land.
2. He started building a nuclear reactor to asis ...[text shortened]... o go to war was justified. Whether or not WMDs existed in the country at the time is irrelevant.
1) Saddam conducted a 10 year war with Iran over borders and land. Fine, but I don't see what this has to do with either whether Bush lied or actually why it has anything especial to do with the US. There are many other wars in the world that the US (and indeed the UN) are not doing anything about.
2) Started a nuclear reactor to start him with his war. Destroyed in 1983. Fine. Again, since the reactor was destroyed and therefore unable to be used as a cyclotron in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I don't see how it's of relevance now, especially since Saddam wasn't removed from office in 1991.
3) Attack on Kuwait. Okay, I can see the US connection here, but this sort of thing is what the UN is for.
4) US assisted then withdrew. Under the auspices of the UN.
5) Saddam routinely murdered many of his own countrymen. Not a nice thing to do, granted, but if the US wanted to do something about that then surely it falls under the remit of the UN Security Council - bring it up there. Also, that wasn't a stated aim of the war.
6) Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. This is the UN's problem. Hans Blix's reports (I think two of them (at least)) did show that there were no WMD in Iraq. Still none have been found.
7) Saddam is on the record as saying he will destroy the US. Well, after a few beers we all say things we regret, don't we?!!! Seriously though, so do many others. Saying someething and doing something are totally different things. He has never had the capacity to destroy the US. The analogy of this would be pitting a 7 year old child against a batallion of marines.
8) Iraqi govt give $25 k to the surviving family of every palestinian suicide bomber. I agree, not the nobelest of causes. But I never said Saddam was a nice guy, or that he should remain in office.
A group of terrorists attacks the US kills over 3000. A terrible tragedy, but please, go after the guy who ACTUALLY DID IT!!!! Saddam has never been linked to the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
I agree with you that Saddam wasn't a particularly nice guy, but there are means and ways of approaching problems. The correct route in the case of Iraq would be through the UN. I'd support you all the way then. But using intellegence of questionable value and authenticity (the CIA and MI6 normally use double sourced info, but not in this case) isn;t the way to conduct international relations, nor is it a valid excuse to initiate a war that has killed tens of thoughsands of civilians. I do think the reason for war is important - we should learn our lessons of the previous World Wars and exhaust all the options before using force as a last resort. If force must be used, it must be for a real, tangible reason, and it must be legal.
If another force, such as the Russians or the French or anyone else had went in unilaterally, you'd still hear my voice condemning it.
First, Im showing you that Saddam has a history of greed, murder, and war with everyone around him. The history behind someone, is vital to understanding how you should react to what they say, and what they are likely to do. Its called having foresight and its a gift that not everyone is blessed with.
Second, you would be a very silly president if you ingnored Saddam and his threats and simply go after Al Queda. All Muslim terrorists are united in the common cause to kill infidels .. Israel, US , UK and their supporters, even their own people. So it is clear that ALL terrorists need to be forcibly removed from this planet. There is no room for them here.
Whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq , Bush and the US, Blair and the UK, is doing the right thing.
Do you remember Lockerbie ? Do you know why Gadaffi/Libya turned from being a hardened terrorist state to a moderate muslim nation that can happily co-exist with the rest of the world ? Any why Libya gave many millions ($500 M ?? not sure) to the Lockerbie victims ? You can thank Reagan for that. Reagan, bombed his palace and killed members of his family. After that Gadaffi changed his ways.
Thats the way to have to treat terrorists . YOU HAVE TO KILL THEM ! Sadly innocent people will die.. but there is no other way.
Is there another way you can think of? Like maybe reason with them ?
Originally posted by Rajk999If it's so obviously the right thing to do, why do they Governments to lie about it? (to their employers, us - that's a sackable offence surely)
Whether or not there are WMDs in Iraq , Bush and the US, Blair and the UK, is doing the right thing.
....
Sadly innocent people will die.. but there is no other way.
....
Is there another way you can think of? Like maybe reason with them ?
Yes, but we would like to be able to choose which innocent people die
We don't want our voters to be killed
errrrm, no
1. Saddam conducted a 10 yr war with Iran over borders and land.Facts 1 and 2 are irrelevant in the current conflict.
2. He started building a nuclear reactor to asisst him with his war.. thanks to Israel, this was destroyed in 1983.
3. He attacked Kuwait in 1991, killed murdered and raped citizens. Kuwati GOvt asked the US for assistance.
4. The US assisted but when they withdrew, Saddam proceeded to gas (from his stockpile of chemical weapons) ...[text shortened]... o go to war was justified. Whether or not WMDs existed in the country at the time is irrelevant.[/b]
Facts 3 and 4,
After the first gulf war Saddam was never a danger to others again. He did gas his own people but the US didn't want to help support an uprising.
5. Bush signed death warrants and supports the death penaly - he kills his own people too.
6. Weapons inspectors found little evidence to support the war on grounds of WMD
7. Saddam might of said he will destroy USA but Bush actually has destroyed Iraq!
8. $25,000 per suicide bomber is peanuts when compared to the amount the US gives to Israel. Israel destroys and humiliates palestinians on a daily basis.
This war is wrong.
This war is not in my name.
Originally posted by invigorateFurther to Invigorates response...
Facts 1 and 2 are irrelevant in the current conflict.
Facts 3 and 4,
After the first gulf war Saddam was never a danger to others again. He did gas his own people but the US didn't want to help support an uprising.
5. Bush signed death warrants and supports the death penaly - he kills his own people too.
6. Weapons inspectors found little evid ...[text shortened]... and humiliates palestinians on a daily basis.
This war is wrong.
This war is not in my name.
Fact 1 is actually relevant here. Saddam did conduct a 10-year border war with Iran. Aided financially and with military equipment and intelligence from.....
...The good old US of A.
A number of US companies were liscenced by the US Gov to supply military equip to Saddam during this conflict under National Security Decision Directive 114 (including Hewlett Packard, International Computer Systems, Siemens, Rockwell Collins International, etc). This directive was instigated by Rumsfeld, and signed by Reagan.
2. See 1
3. Agreed
4. The US (and a few other counties, UK included) did help remove Saddam from Kuwait, but never took it further. This was especially cruel when they encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and his party, promising to help in the fight, and then turned thier backs, thus being complicit in the gassing of the Kurds who dared to start an uprising.
Originally posted by invigorateI find it partucularly incredible that you liken Bush's support of the death penaly for convicted murderers, to Saddam's wonton murder of thousands of innocent people.
Facts 1 and 2 are irrelevant in the current conflict.
Facts 3 and 4,
After the first gulf war Saddam was never a danger to others again. He did gas his own people but the US didn't want to help support an uprising.
5. Bush signed death warrants and supports the death penaly - he kills his own people too.
6. Weapons inspectors found little evid ...[text shortened]... and humiliates palestinians on a daily basis.
This war is wrong.
This war is not in my name.
Its not possible to have an intelligent debate if you say silly things like that.
Originally posted by Rajk999My friend, I am from Lockerbie originally. My parents still live there to this day. I was there and I watched the fuselage crash to the ground. I need no history lesson from you.
First, Im showing you that Saddam has a history of greed, murder, and war with everyone around him. The history behind someone, is vital to understanding how you should react to what they say, and what they are likely to do. Its called having foresight and its a gift that not everyone is blessed with.
Second, you would be a very silly president if you ...[text shortened]... t there is no other way.
Is there another way you can think of? Like maybe reason with them ?
Furthermore, I do think Lockerbie is a good lesson, bacause they caught the perpetrator, or did they. I'm not saying al megrahe is a nice guy, but one man does not wake up one day and decide to bomb a plane. It was a coordinated attack with numerous people. Al Megrahe was just the fall guy in that instance. Saddam is the fall guy for the WTC attacks.
Originally posted by Rajk999Not so sure really. I mean GWB is also a committed Christian, and doesn't it say somewhere 'Thou shall NOT kill'. Guess he missed the 'not' there
I find it partucularly incredible that you liken Bush's support of the death penaly for convicted murderers, to Saddam's wonton murder of thousands of innocent people.
Its not possible to have an intelligent debate if you say silly things like that.
Originally posted by Rajk999Oh, and you are right, it is impossible to negotiate with terrorists. However, you can let the UN deal with it. Calling the UN toothless, or insulting it does not improve it's credibility. It has had some notable successes.
First, Im showing you that Saddam has a history of greed, murder, and war with everyone around him. The history behind someone, is vital to understanding how you should react to what they say, and what they are likely to do. Its called having foresight and its a gift that not everyone is blessed with.
Second, you would be a very silly president if you ...[text shortened]... t there is no other way.
Is there another way you can think of? Like maybe reason with them ?
My point is that by going into countries, causing widespread death and destruction, crowing about how good the US is when they re-build a school that they destroyed, making peoples lives worse on the ground is a great way of politically destabilising an area, and CREATING MORE TERRORISTS.
Also you previously posted a text stating that more people would have died in Iraq had Saddam been left to his own devices. How can you possibly know that? Actually, I believe (although in need of some verification boys) that Saddams total death toll was about 25,000 over his entire regime. Not a kickin the pants away from what the US has killed (but you'll never know cause you don't bother to count the bodies) in its regime.