War is peace
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, March 8, 2026 23:49
VIEWED: 7556
PAGE 3 of 8
If pre-emtive strike upon speculation is justified... perhaps the world should consider pre-emtively attacking the US ?
There seems to be alot more evidence that the United States is a threat to the interests of Europe, Canada, Russia, China, South America... the world in general...
Best we start shooting now I guess
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You keep talking about "handling" Iraq as if there was something to "handle"! WHAT WAS THERE TO HANDLE? NOTHING WAS THERE. (How complicated is that to wrap your brain around???) Even if I thought invading potential threats was the right thing to do, then Bush did a h*lluva bad job prioritizing, wouldn't you say?
So, since your hindsight is working 20/20 maybe your crystal ball is too. Who would you have George invade? Russia? Brazil? N Korea? Saudi Arabia? China? How would you prioritize? Which nations would you start invading, in what order, and why? Or would you just use nukes? And what do you suppose the world reaction would be???
And since you can tell who's going to be a major pain in the butt ahead of time, why did we fund the Taliban and Saddam and continue our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia? Who would you STOP supporting in view of them being dictators, potential threats and/or destabilizing forces? Karimov? Sharon? Hugo Chavez? Musharef?
As I said before, at any one time there are DOZENS of potential threats in the world. Most of them take decades to develop, any of them could become a MAJOR pain in the *ss. We don't have the weapons to invade them all, unless you count nukes, and if we tried the rest of the world would unite against us.
Your notion is like jailing someone ahead of time because they fit a profile. We don't have enough jails to even think of it, and if we tried all that we would do is create a lot of very disaffected criminals.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
SO let me get this straight... if we had invaded Germany, deposed Hirohito, invaded China and killed Mao and his cadre, invaded Italy and killed Moussilini, and bumped off Stalin then things would have been much different. And you're right! All we had to do was invade six or seven nations and we'd all have been OK.
Only in the mid 1930's if Churchill had of acted as you suggested, the odds were even that the USA would have entered the war on the side of the Nazis
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm
" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino... If the USA continues its rampage through history you may very well be right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I doubt that you and I will ever agree on the neo-colonialist thing. I'm sure we're less that lily-white, but I'd say less grey that most developed countries.
We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world. That says a lot about our level of gray. Germany and France may cut deals and so forth, but they haven't militarily taken over a whole lot of countries in the last 50 years or so, have they?
Quote:
My time machine needs a new widget, but without being able to go and check, I'd bet we aren't going to get any real commercial benefit out of Iraq. If we're lucky we'll leave them with a more-or-less democratic government and an army well-trained enough to keep the insurgency down to a dull roar.
Not for lack of trying. It was sheer miscalculation on Wolfowitz' part. Have you read Paul Bremer's CPA orders? They practically give away Iraq assests EXCEPT the oilfields. Those they left alone simply because they didn't want to look "as if" they had designs on Iraq's oil.
Geezer, your arguments are falling apart for lack of reality, and your bias is showing through the seams. If you're SERIOUSLY contemplating the "preventive" invasion scenario, then you need to go stand in the corner with Cheney and "Let's contract it out" Rumsfeld.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Amazing how many times France and Russia come up in these articles. As Capt. Renault would say, "Round up the usual suspects."
"Keep the Shiny side up"
You forgot Poland.
Quote:
Excerpted from USAToday article, "Cheney uses WMD report to defend Bush" datelined 7 October found at http://tinyurl.com/6omdr
"The sanctions regime was coming apart at the seams," Cheney told a later forum in Fort Myers. "Saddam perverted that whole thing and generated billions of dollars. ... He used the funds to corrupt others."
The new GOP strategy contained some risks to Bush: Some of the countries possibly implicated in wrongdoing in the program include U.S. allies in Iraq, particularly Poland, as well as Russia — countries the administration does not want to alienate.
Sorry
. I just couldn't resist. But it does look like there is more evidence than just the stuff Chalabi was hyping back around July. So that's a very good thing. I would be disappointed if we were still making pronouncements based on anything Chalabi told us.
And the Casablance reference warms my heart
. * thanks to at eschaton for the USAToday link
There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... we should go bomb or invade any nation that we "think" is going to be a threat. Even if I thought that was the right thing to do, then Bush did a heckuva bad job prioritizing, wouldn't you say?
So, since our hindsight is working 20/20 maybe your crystal ball is too. Who would you have George invade? Russia? Brazil? N Korea? Saudi Arabia? China? How would you prioritize? Which nations would you start invading, in what order, and why? Or would you just use nukes? And what do you suppose the world reaction would be???
Ok, you're right. We should let the UN deal with it. Right after they do something about the Sudan. Or maybe they should get the final report from the Volker Oil-for-food first, so they'll know who's in whose pocket. I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for the UN to resolve anything.
Quote:
And since you can tell who's going to be a major pain in the butt ahead of time, why did we fund the Taliban and Saddam and continue our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia? Who would you STOP supporting in view of them being dictators, potential threats and/or destabilizing forces? Karimov? Sharon? Hugo Chavez? Musharef?
I'd just as soon kick them all to the curb, if I wasn't more concerned about what would follow their ouster.
Quote:
Your notion is like jailing someone ahead of time because they fit a profile. We don't have enough jails to even think of it, and if we tried all that we would do is create a lot of very disaffected criminals.
We often jail people ahead of time for conspiracy, e.g. conspiracy to commit murder, before they do the crime. All we need is evidence they were seriously planning to do it. See the Post article above about illegal arms purchases.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NO, we need evidence that they DID something about it... paid someone, for example, or bought guns, or made pipe bombs. We don't jail people for their intentions, we jail them for their deeds.
Any crime needs means, opportuntity, and motive. You might have the motive, but if you don't have the means it doesn't count.
Quote:
I'd just as soon kick them all to the curb, if I wasn't more concerned about what would follow their ouster.
And you weren't worried about what would follow Saddam's ouster??? I wish there was a
emoticon! NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We're the only developed nation with over 800 military installations around the world. That says a lot about our level of gray. Germany and France may cut deals and so forth, but they haven't militarily taken over a whole lot of countries in the last 50 years or so, have they?
Got a list of bases? Hard to find on the internet since 9/11. I'd guess most are leftovers from the Cold War in countries like Germany, England, Italy, Japan, Korea, Turkey, etc. Somehow I don't think we're seen as having "militarily taken over" there.
Quote:
Geezer, your arguments are falling apart for lack of reality, and your bias is showing through the seams. If you're SERIOUSLY contemplating the "preventive" invasion scenario, then you need to go stand in the corner with Cheney and "Let's contract it out" Rumsfeld.
As I noted above, I'm not sure I buy into it, but it's the defensible position that the administration is going to use. I think that it will keep their core constituency satisfied. Just as your "neo-colonialist after the oil" position will continue to keep your fellow anti-Bushies satisfied.
I personally am voting for "None of the Above".
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not defensible. We went into Iraq on the basis that their WMD formed an "imminent" threat. Iraq bought aluminum tubes and attempted to buy yellowcake uranium. They had "tons" of chemical weapons. Rummy knew they were positioned near Baghdad. Tony Blair said that Iraq's WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes, and this Aministration had no problems repeating it. Colin Powell went before the UN and debased himself for an hour repeating the message. The entire Administration sang the same tune endlessly, remember??
To justify the invasion afterwards on the basis that Iraq "might become a threat someday" is a lie, and it's just plain looney. You can add that to the long list of OTHER justifications and lies that can go onto the garbage-heap of history.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Bush and his Administration doesn't lie.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....(gasp!)..... HAHAHAHAHAHA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME