Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/7/2003 10:07:44 AM EST
I've been behind Bush from day one but in the last month or so I've started to lose faith in him. I can't really explain why. I guess it's all this saber rattling with North Korea and Iraq. I mean honestly..... I don't give a shit about those two countries. Bush said in a speech a few days ago that we're going into Iraq to liberate people. Those fucking people don't want liberated! Hell they're getting in line over there to be human shields. Oh well, I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for a post like this but I just felt like I had to get this off my chest. Maybe some of you guys will bring me back from the dark side. DG84
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:10:21 AM EST
I support my Commander in Chief, but I agree that he behaves in a quirky fashion. Almost like he's got some Oedipus thing about being bigger and badder than daddy, who we all know had a fetish about being bigger and badder than Ronnie.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:10:56 AM EST
[b]'Those f***ing people don't want to be liberated'?[/b] Did you say [u]that[/u] about those f***ing people in Afghanistan? Huh? Bush has done many things to disappoint me, but sabre rattling over Iraq and North Korea are surely not among them! You [u]need[/u] to be flamed! [:D] Eric The(Badly!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:13:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:16:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 10:16:58 AM EST by BenDover]
I'd agree with ETH and 82nd. It's more of a projection. He doesn't carry himself well in front of a camera. He never did.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:18:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]'Those f***ing people don't want to be liberated'?[/b] Did you say [u]that[/u] about those f***ing people in Afghanistan?
View Quote
Nope, I sure didn't.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:19:39 AM EST
Just what til he passes the next gun bill, and I will cook up a huge serving of crow for ETH and Bendover.......
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:25:34 AM EST
It's not Bush to lose faith in. Remember there is always a new President. It's the people that pull the Presidents strings to worry about. Think about this who knows all the secrets? Is it the President or the people that show him around once they give him the key to the bathroom. Is Bush really making War or are the people showing him polls and saying you have to do this or that to be popular making war. You don't lose faith in one man you lose it in a whole Nation.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:29:08 AM EST
"Politics ends at the water's edge" so, to foreigners or our nation's enemies, I will defend him and follow his lead. He is the president and I respect the office. Having said that, I dislike Bush and many of his policies and decisions, and see him as little more than the Republican version of Bill Clinton. Plenty of skeletons in [i]that[/i] closet. (*) Hopefully, we can get through his reign without the complete loss of our constitutional rights. (*) Just to be clear, I don't like the democrats, either.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:29:51 AM EST
Nope ep, I don't have any faith in the president or his peeps, but the US is still the best G@#-D#$%d country this planet has ever seen
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:34:53 AM EST
Originally Posted By doorgunner84: ... Bush said in a speech a few days ago that we're going into Iraq to liberate people. ...
View Quote
That wasn’t meant for you – it was meant for liberals who are uninterested in American lives but care about Iraqi ones. However, while I’m no dove by any stretch of the imagination, even I feel Bush hasn’t made a very compelling case for going into Iraq. I remember a statement made by an embittered Vietnam veteran at the end of that war, which went: “The only country worth fighting for is this one” (meaning the U.S.). I agree.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:40:54 AM EST
Who frikken cares about what the liberals think, Bush made one good speech---the head of OBL--and he's been running from that fight like a little schoolgirl ever since. The republicans still haven't figured out that they are at war with the dems. It ain't the old gentlemen's smoking club. And the dems are going to whip them them like the cowards they are unless they find a pair. "liberated" yeah like the huge poppy production that has been harvested since shrub removed the people in afghan who were stopping it. smooth move grace.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:41:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 10:42:43 AM EST by 82ndAbn]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:44:16 AM EST
"I kinda prefer to take him out PRIOR to that happening" Another buddy with the wrong impression---read more on his miserable delivery systems---if he could hit his own foot, it would be impressive. And the US doesn't start fights, we finish them. Saudi should be crackling nicely by now......
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:49:58 AM EST
Originally Posted By BenDover: I support my Commander in Chief, but I agree that he behaves in a quirky fashion. Almost like he's got some Oedipus thing about being bigger and badder than daddy, who we all know had a fetish about being bigger and badder than Ronnie.
View Quote
Truly to have the Oedipus thing going, he'd have to sleep with Barbara......Yikes, horrible thought.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:52:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 12:49:29 PM EST by Mr_Mullen]
Two things are making me lose faith in Bush; He is not really behind the 2nd Admendment and the "Axis of Evil" comment. I have not seen him do one thing for Gun Owners since he knows we'll follow him since we have no choice (Who we going to vote for, a Gun Grabbing Democrat?) "Axis of Evil" was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Great, take 3 countries that hate us, and isolate them more. Iraq we are going to invade and always had that plan. Iran's youth are sick of the strict Islamic life and they want Democracy. Calling them Evil only gave the Mullah's more power in controling the Democratic movement since it can be labeled Pro-American. North Korea could have been contained with food and oil shipments (Yes, I really think that). They know they are going down, and we had a chance to do it peacefully. Not anymore. With a country and culture that demands "saving face", they will go down in a blaze of glory. They'll get nukes and then things will get real ugly. Just what I think. [Cleaned up my post]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:57:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 10:58:18 AM EST
Doorgunner, it's all about tearing down the state sponsors of terrorism. Bush's detractors (who would hate him even if he locked himself in a closet and did nothing for 4 years) try to paint the invasion of Iraq as pointless and irrelevant to the war on terrorism. After all, Iraq never struck the US. They dont realize that for the most part, terrorism depend on state sponsorship for funds, for amnesty...for refuge. It has been that way for over 20 years. Bush is making a quick, easy strike on one of these states. Not one of the primary sponsors (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria are bigger fish in the terror pond) but Iraq is the easiest, the most odious, and the closest to developing nukes. Taking out Saddam sends a strong message to SA, Iran, and Syria: I.E., "We are serious about this war on terrorism thing. Knock it off, or you are next." North Korea was just thrown in to the Axis of Evil to make it look like we arent ganging up on muslim middle eastern countries.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:02:35 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:04:00 AM EST
Mullen, I feel the same way about North Korea. Starving people do crazy shit. I was there a few years back and the South had made some stides in opening up the boarder. The north let families that hadn't seen each other since the 50's reunite. Now what do we have there? The South is pissed off because we're fucking shit up between them and the North is even more fired up now. In an intel brief a few days ago they told us that there was some of the biggest Anit U.S. rallies in the South. Now, this happens all the time but I guess this time the protester had a large amount of support.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:08:12 AM EST
Originally Posted By Mr_Mullen: Two things are making me lose faith in Bush; He is not really behind the 2nd Admendment and the "Axis of Evil" comment. I have not seen him do one thing for Gun Owners since he knows we'll follow him since we have no choice (Who we going to vote for, a Gun Grabbing Democrat?) "Axis of Evil" was about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Great, take 3 countries that hate us, and isolate them more. Iraq we are going to invade and always had that plan. Iran's youth are sick of the strict Islamic life and they want Democracy. Calling them Evil only gave the Mullah's more power in controling the Democratic movement since it can be labeled Pro-American. North Korea could have been contained with food and oil shipments (Yes, I really think that). They know they are going down, and we had a chance to do it peacefully. Not anymore. With a country and culture that demands "saving face", they will go down in a blaze of glory. They'll get nukes and then things will get real ugly. Just what I think. Sorry about any spelling and grammar errors. I want in a rush.
View Quote
We wouldn't have noticed a thing if you had deleted your last two sentences! [:)] Good post, though.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:12:51 AM EST
Originally Posted By hound: Who frikken cares about what the liberals think, Bush made one good speech---the head of OBL--and he's been running from that fight like a little schoolgirl ever since.
View Quote
Only in your warped imagination, not in reality.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:15:14 AM EST
Who is starving in NK? Certainly not the people calling the shots. Totalitarian regimes like NK are set up to ensure that there is no way the ruling clique can be dislodged from their dominance internally. NK has done a great job of that. They could care less about the people they dominate. Since they have no threat from within, the main threat they face is from without: The US. NK may have a big army, but it is no match for the US. The only possible way they could hope to counter the US, if it decided to dislodge the Kim Jong-Il clique, is nuclear weapons. That's why they're making them; to ensure no outside force will tangle or disrupt their dominance over that wretched land. Iraq is exactly the same way, except Saddam was stupid enough to throw his weight around and challenge the US BEFORE developing a nuke. He was lucky to be spared after the Gulf War, but now he's up shit creek without a paddle. He is going to be made an example of, and there's nothing he can do about it. It would be grossly unfair, if it were anyone less odious or despicable than Saddam. Saddam blew it, too bad, and his people will be better off with him gone, despite the shrieking of leftists, the UN, and Jimmy Carter.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:35:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By doorgunner84:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]'Those f***ing people don't want to be liberated'?[/b] Did you say [u]that[/u] about those f***ing people in Afghanistan?
View Quote
Nope, I sure didn't.
View Quote
Then what in the world makes you think that the Iraqi people [u]don't[/u] want to be liberated? You're not falling for those propaganda pieces from old 'All-Saddam, All-of-theTime' Iraqi television, are you? Eric The(ISureHopeNot!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:39:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]'Those f***ing people don't want to be liberated'?[/b] Did you say [u]that[/u] about those f***ing people in Afghanistan?
View Quote
No, he said this about those f***ing people in in f***ing Iraq; can't you read?
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:42:53 AM EST
Really, [b]Kar98[/b], I think you've gone way beyond the point of 'just needing glasses'! You are in the 'jack-batty' category! Eric The(AskAround)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:43:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Kar98:
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [b]'Those f***ing people don't want to be liberated'?[/b] Did you say [u]that[/u] about those f***ing people in Afghanistan?
View Quote
No, he said this about those f***ing people in in f***ing Iraq; can't you read?
View Quote
He's wrong in either case. The f***ing people in f***ing Iraq want to be f***ing liberated too.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 11:53:54 AM EST
North Korea could have been contained with food and oil shipments (Yes, I really think that). They know they are going down, and we had a chance to do it peacefully. Not anymore. With a country and culture that demands "saving face", they will go down in a blaze of glory. They'll get nukes and then things will get real ugly. Just what I think.
View Quote
[nono] Ah. I think I heard appeasement defined as "feeding the crocodile, hoping he'll eat you last." If I'm not mistaken, the North Korean scenario was set up in our last administration. As was Iraq. President Clinton's administration gave North Korea the money and technology to build the nukes, and told them we'd send them oil if they didn't build them. So, when the new administation finds out that, in fact, the Koreans were building nukes, we stopped those oil shipments. Seems like NK cut their own throats. Iraq? I personally am absolutely amazed that for 10 years, the UN and the US have been letting Saddam Hussein so flagrantly violate the terms of his surrender. Either those terms have meaning, or they don't. Until this administration came along, those terms were only words on a UN document. Now, the piper has to be paid. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a "peaceful" world. Better to make the rules than to be subject to them. Needless to say, that power entails certain responsibilities, and I'll have to say, this administration, if not this President in particular, has my admiration for sticking to a very, very unpopular position in a world of spineless appeasers. I'll take President Bush over President Clinton in a heartbeat, chiefly because I feel Clinton's "foreign policy" trashed the world the same way he trashed the White House.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:01:16 PM EST
oops factcheck...shrub is continuing to ship food to North Korea.......what was his name again? William Jefferson Bush?
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:01:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 12:08:10 PM EST by offctr]
The same people who are saying "why are we going after Iraq" are the exact same people who will say of Bush " Why didnt he do something" after NYC or Tel Aviv or some other major city is a wasteland and (if we are lucky) only a million or so are dead. Saddam had 10 years between when he threw the inspectors out (with no consequences)and the new inspectors were "let" back in. All the new inspectors are doing is checking where the stuff used to be 10 years ago, alot like looking for a stolen car by searching the parking space it was left in before it was stolen. Look at the History of weapons inspection in Germany following WW1 by the league of nations, same story 70 or so years later. The chief weapons inspector in Germany at the time detailed the deceptions undertaken by the Germans and predicted that the league of nations and thier inspections would lead the world into another world war not prevent it. Saddam will nither disclose or disarm himself of his weapons anymore than you or I would willingly give up our firearms, he would rather use them than lose them. The diffrence? You and I dont run around randomly killing,raping and pillaging our neighbors every chance we get. North Korea is in violation of an agreement to not produce nuclear weapons even though they have the technology to do so. They are testing our resolve as they did when they got the original agreement during the Clinton administration -- and found out we didnt have the stomach for a fight then. Kim Il is testing Bush to see if he has the stones. NK dosent want the fight--it would be anihlilation for thier state (eventually - not saying that would be an easy fight)just the benefits of a re-re-negotiated agreement they can then violate in a few years and re-negotiate agian. Each time a "compromise" is reached with NK they give up nothing they just agree not to do what they are doing, then continue to do it in secrect anyway. We on the other hand give them grain/oil to be good little 4th world country (NK dosent even have an electrical distribution grid) Most if not all latin american countries are more devloped. China does not want NK to have Nuclear weapons.South Korea,Japan,Tiawan,Russia dont want NK to have nukes either. Two weeks ago NK expelled the UN inspectors (who were probably happy to see runnig water and indoor plumbing agian) who ensured that NK's nuke program remained dormant and NK restarted thier breeder reactor to build a bomb (no other purpose for that reactor)in the meantime the UN has not even come up with a response to NK other than "double please with sugar on top,dont build a bomb." By the time they act NK nukes will be detonating in Seoul or Tokyo or stashed away in Al Queda's arms bunker somewhere. We are doing something about two tin horn dictators becuase if we dont we will have to do something about two tin horn nuclear capable dictators 2-5-7-10 years down the road.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:11:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By hound: Just what til he passes the next gun bill, and I will cook up a huge serving of crow for ETH and Bendover.......
View Quote
'He' passes [u]nothing[/u]! Only Congress can pass the next gun bill, which 'he' will either sign or not! If it gets [u]that[/u] far, we have already lost! What happens in the [b]House[/b] will be determinative of everything! I don't count on Bush or the Senate for anything! But [u]Gore[/u] would have been preferable? I can't believe that anyone would actually think like that. Eric The(Realistic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:18:46 PM EST
he "passes" crap across his desk and into law--remember this? " I am signing this, even though it is unconstitutional." I would refer you to the oath of office of the president of the United States.....he broke an oath to g*d....clinton just lied to congress.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:23:06 PM EST
clinton just lied to congress
View Quote
He didn't take the same oath Bush did? He didn't lie to the American people? Must be something to view Clinton in a better light than Bush! Eric The(Serious)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 12:46:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 12:50:05 PM EST by Happyshooter]
I am a republican, even on my county committee. Bush senior went into Iraq because his oil and Skull and Bones buddies wanted him to, he stopped because they told him to, he banned guns because they wanted it, and he raised taxes because they wanted it. Is Jr going to be any better? He had a good start. The tests will be: 1. When we are facing the capital city in Iraq, and he has to decide between MOUT and 50,000 American and 250,00 local dead; cutting a deal; and bombing and rocketing supply lines into the city while the euros cry about starving the children. 2. While we are on the boarder of Iran and he has to decide between a deal; the russians getting a piece; or the euros crying about supplies; or losing 250,000 americans. 3. When the NK does a 15 minute arty strike on the south capital and he has to decide what to do. And, what we care about the most: 4. When some islams shoot up and frag 500 people at Citibank HQ or Saint Pats will he ban all 'assault style' guns while saying 'islam means peace'? As for number 4, based on his and his adminstration's total and absolute failure with regards to air travel and security---kiss those guns goodbye. As for 1 through 3, I can't tell. Rummies stupid ass makes me scared, though. (Don't need tanks? Don't need arty? Air wins all? WTF movie is he watching?)
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 1:09:18 PM EST
Eth..intentionally misunderstanding? I refer you to the oath....it don't say crap about lying to the peeps or to congress...it says to uphold and protect the constitution. I don't recall WJClinton saying anything this bad against his oath. And you know how I feel about politicians as a bunch.....I don't see any of them in a good light.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 1:20:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 1:21:41 PM EST by Cincinnatus]
If we left North Korea and Iraq alone, lifting all of the sanctions, what would happen? 1) North Korea would still be poor, they may try to set up a Mail Order Nuke business, or hint at invading the South. Neither would be tolerated. Would they invade China? Japan? No. They'd stil be poor and starving. 2) Saddam would be free to stop out all opposition. Iraq, because of it's oil, would become one of the richest states in the region. They would use these riches to build the military into something that would take over Iran, Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Yemen... He would do it, too. Does anyone doubt this? He'd attack Israel. He'd control the World's Oil Supply. Iraq is FAR more dangerous a threat.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 1:43:40 PM EST
Anyone want me to post my "10 Questions Conservatives Ought to be Asking About the War in Iraq???" [:D] Its fabulous. [:I]
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 1:54:17 PM EST
Originally Posted By offctr: The same people who are saying "why are we going after Iraq" are the exact same people who will say of Bush " Why didnt he do something" after NYC or Tel Aviv or some other major city is a wasteland ...
View Quote
I really don’t see any correlation between the two. Any time this country decides to send it’s troops to die in a foreign land, we have a right to ask “why is this being done”?
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:04:02 PM EST
[s]John Wayne[s/]oops I mean George Bush is out to have a big ol cowboy roundup. I too backed him at first but also seem to find something fishy about the way he handles his business.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:05:02 PM EST
[s]John Wayne[s/]oops I mean George Bush is out to have a big ol cowboy roundup. I too backed him at first but also seem to find something fishy about the way he handles his business.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:05:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By shooterX308:
North Korea could have been contained with food and oil shipments (Yes, I really think that). They know they are going down, and we had a chance to do it peacefully. Not anymore. With a country and culture that demands "saving face", they will go down in a blaze of glory. They'll get nukes and then things will get real ugly. Just what I think.
View Quote
[nono] Ah. I think I heard appeasement defined as "feeding the crocodile, hoping he'll eat you last." If I'm not mistaken, the North Korean scenario was set up in our last administration. As was Iraq. President Clinton's administration gave North Korea the money and technology to build the nukes, and told them we'd send them oil if they didn't build them. So, when the new administation finds out that, in fact, the Koreans were building nukes, we stopped those oil shipments. Seems like NK cut their own throats. Iraq? I personally am absolutely amazed that for 10 years, the UN and the US have been letting Saddam Hussein so flagrantly violate the terms of his surrender. Either those terms have meaning, or they don't. Until this administration came along, those terms were only words on a UN document. Now, the piper has to be paid.
View Quote
I view NK more as "Feed the Croc so he does not eat anyone. Soon as he eat's someone, kill it." As long as we keep feeding them, then could stay at a status-quo. However, there is a flaw in my logic that the Croc will like the status-quo, which is not happening. NK is a real tough problem with four choices: A) If we "contain" them with no oil or food programs, millions of NK'ers starve. These are not military people, but normal people like you and I. This would involve a blockade. Good option if they don't have nukes. B) If we let them build nuke, then they will bully their neighbor's and sell them. Not what you or I want. No one get's fed, lots of people die. C) Last choice is to give them the oil and food to exists, not live and grow, but to keep people from starving. This sucks because you and I have to pay for this, but no one gets killed and they don't get nukes. D) Invade them. Strike fast, strike hard. Show no mercy. This requires knowing where their 2 nukes are and destroy them in the first seconds of the war. Expensive and costly. I don't need to explain this one any farther. In the real world, looks like D) is the option. Clinton really blew it on this one. He should went in there when they were weak from famine but did not have the nukes. A pro-American South Korean president would have been in office and personally think the world would have been on ourside. Now that the North has nukes, the D) option is an expensive one. No one wants to piss of the Croc with the nukes.
There has never been, nor will there ever be, a "peaceful" world. Better to make the rules than to be subject to them. Needless to say, that power entails certain responsibilities, and I'll have to say, this administration, if not this President in particular, has my admiration for sticking to a very, very unpopular position in a world of spineless appeasers. I'll take President Bush over President Clinton in a heartbeat, chiefly because I feel Clinton's "foreign policy" trashed the world the same way he trashed the White House.
View Quote
I agree on this. When your on top, people like to take you down. Just play "King of the Hill" (The game not the TV show) and see the satisfaction you get from knocking the King off the hill. Our spineless "friends" are just taking the wrong postion.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 2:24:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/7/2003 2:32:20 PM EST by magnum_99]
OK. Iraq, N. Korea, and half a dozen other terrorist supporting regimes need to be conquered and converted or the world will be embroiled in this radical Islamo-fascist turmoil for decades. Because the U.S. was a direct target of a successful attack we have the legal and moral authority to go out and clean up those nations actively supporting the groups committed to doing harm to our nation. No problem there for me. I don't buy any of the liberal B.S. about the U.S. bringing it on itself by catering to tin-pot regimes for oil or other political capital. Radical fundamentalist Islam is at war with Western culture and provided they could succeed against the U.S., they would move on the rest of the civilized world. The truly envision a world where Islam rules and they are in charge. They are indeed the modern day equivalent of the Third Reich. What does disturb me about the executive branch (remember, it wholly supported the "USA Patriot Act and seeks to enlarge the scope of its powers under the rather vague provisions of the Act) is that heavy handed tactics are and will increasingly be used under the guise of fighting "terrorism." I'm sorry, but simply declaring U.S. citizens to be "enemy combatants" based upon somewhat spurious and unverifiable evidence in order to deny Constitutional due process is plain wrong. Who's to say you or I won't be declared an ally of terror for gathering to speak out against government policies? Will we be declared "domestic terrorist sympathizers?" Don't count on the virtue of G.W. to help in that instance. We have Constitutionally protected rights for a reason--to check to power of government so that all citizens will have fair and equal access to the courts and due process. Bush is too ready and willing to cast aside those protections to give us "safety";something even the government, sometimes on a daily basis, admits they cannot provide. "An attack is coming and we can't stop it," is all we seem to hear anymore. Then why the hell should I give up my protected rights if the result is ineffectual? This is setting bad precedent for the government to get its filthy hands all over every aspect of our lives--TIPS, TIA, Carnivore, etc. You won't be able to take a piss without some government jerk-off knowing about it. That my friends is the paved road to tyranny and Bush seems all for it rather than focusing on the heart of the matter which is: RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMISTS OF MIDDLE EASTERN DESCENT hell bent on the destruction of Western civilization and the conversion of all non-Muslims. Too much P.C. one-world U.N. bullshit and not enough looking out for U.S. interests (and protecting U.S. CITIZENS). Bush must be beholden to corporate powers--why else wouldn't we shut down the borders instead of activly encouraging illegal immigration with talk of "amnesty" for Mexicans. We have no idea about the background of the people sneeking in over the border. We have no idea about their loyalties other than their allegiance to the U.S. dollar. We have no idea about their physical fitness (lack of disease) to be in this country (TB, smallpox, dengue fever, West Nile all likely a result of ineffetual screening of immigrants). We have no idea of the ability of these individuals to actually CONTRIBUTE to our economy rather than become a drain. Why does Bush push for an open border with Mexico? More one world B.S. and no looking our for U.S. interests. I want to trust and support the guy (he's got to be better than the alternative) but if that means selling out the U.S. in favor of foreign interests, then Bush must go next election. Here's hoping Hitlerly doesn't pick up steam or there WILL be a civil war in this country.
Link Posted: 1/7/2003 5:25:41 PM EST
All this is very compelling but I am still not convinced that it's worth watching my buddies get killed in combat. Why should we go die for somebodies freedom when they aren't willing to die for it themselves. Riddle me this Batman, if there was a tyrant in power in the U.S. would thousand sit back and let him or her rule the country? I didn't think so. If there are people fighting for there freedom in Iraq why hasn't it been covered more as the Northern Alliance was in Afgan?
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 11:44:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/8/2003 11:50:08 AM EST by shooterX308]
I view NK more as "Feed the Croc so he does not eat anyone. Soon as he eat's someone, kill it." As long as we keep feeding them, then could stay at a status-quo. However, there is a flaw in my logic that the Croc will like the status-quo, which is not happening.
View Quote
You pick your friends, you pick your enemies. I challenge you to show me one instance where a regime with North Korea's philosophy to have been staisfied with appeasement. The choice to appease them was fatally flawed from the start: you don't bargain with thugs that will starve their own people to fund their military.
NK is a real tough problem with four choices: A) If we "contain" them with no oil or food programs, millions of NK'ers starve. These are not military people, but normal people like you and I. This would involve a blockade. Good option if they don't have nukes.
View Quote
"We" do not starve them. The PRK military government starves them through their own choices. You/I/we do not own this problem, and falling into that trap taints all future decision processes.
B) If we let them build nukes, then they will bully their neighbor's and sell them. Not what you or I want. No one get's fed, lots of people die.
View Quote
National Security Issue. Can't argue with it.
C) Last choice is to give them the oil and food to exists, not live and grow, but to keep people from starving. This sucks because you and I have to pay for this, but no one gets killed and they don't get nukes.
View Quote
I don't mind giving money for true humanitarian aid. But, I want strings attached, like don't build nukes. Again, 'we' aren't feeding the people. "We" don't give the food/oil to the people of Korea; it is given to the PRK govt, who says they feed their people. Break the treaty? No food. Our only weakness is our inability to get this message across clearly.
D) Invade them. Strike fast, strike hard. Show no mercy. This requires knowing where their 2 nukes are and destroy them in the first seconds of the war. Expensive and costly. I don't need to explain this one any farther.
View Quote
Was it Yamamoto who demurred a compliment of brilliance with the statement "a brilliant man would find a way to not fight a war"? Again, in my view, this decision is in their hands, not ours.
In the real world, looks like D) is the option. Clinton really blew it on this one. He should went in there when they were weak from famine but did not have the nukes. A pro-American South Korean president would have been in office and personally think the world would have been on ourside. Now that the North has nukes, the D) option is an expensive one. No one wants to piss of the Croc with the nukes.
View Quote
Only one of many areas where IMHO, President Clinton's policy missed the mark wholly. I agree, this choice has left us back at the same door, but with greater risk because of the PRK's probably nuclear ability. Of course, that latter fact elevates the risks to all involved, esp. Japan, South Korea, and even China, so perhaps brilliance may yet be seen on the part of some back door diplomat, allowing PRK to save face while defusing the situation not only for the immediate moment (ala Clinton Era Policy), but for the foreseeable future as well. As last result, see "D" above, and pray.
Link Posted: 1/8/2003 11:55:39 AM EST
Originally Posted By doorgunner84: All this is very compelling but I am still not convinced that it's worth watching my buddies get killed in combat.
View Quote
I respect that opinon. Curiosity: What would?
Why should we go die for somebodies freedom when they aren't willing to die for it themselves. Riddle me this Batman, if there was a tyrant in power in the U.S. would thousand sit back and let him or her rule the country? I didn't think so.
View Quote
I'm not sure we know they aren't willing. Seems to me they may not have the means. Is there Gun Control in Iraq or the PRK? I don't remember. As far as he US, what is so special about us in this scenario? Any good tyrant will first remove the means of resistance from those he desires to oppress.
If there are people fighting for there freedom in Iraq why hasn't it been covered more as the Northern Alliance was in Afgan?
View Quote
Not certain these two situations are comparable, and there may be some concern about arming a resistance and then having it turn into what Afghanistan became, i.e. an enemy with weapons we supplied.
Top Top