Does this not piss you off?!

[Alex]

Slammer2 -
Got it - I wasn't as clear with that statement as I should have been.

As for jabbing CNN, I say poke them in the eye. I stopped watching them after how they handled the Operation Tailwind story (made up story of gassing American defectors in Laos).

I don't doubt that if we get the intel, we'll take a shot at bin laden, or any other terrorists in Afghanistan. My concern is that with the limited manpower and resources devoted to the task, our chances of getting that intel, and having the assets available to respond, are diminished. In fact, I read recently that in Iraq, when an insurgent mortar position was spotted in an urban setting, the desired air assets were so far away that our guys cut loose with a (relatively) inaccurate mortar barrage rather than wait. It worked, but it just illustrates that you could almost always benefit from having more stuff.

I'm kitty corner from you - down in Cincinnati.

 

[Jolly Roger]

As for the comments about Bin Ladin, I cannot guess to Bush's motives or reasoning. However, IMO, this has never really been about OBL. After 11 September, the American public needed a bad guy to pin it on. But do you truly think that if we took out OBL today, the terrorists would throw down their guns and go join greenpeace or something?

OBL is just a figurehead, the roots of terrorism stem alot deeper.

I think the Bush team realised that and that is a reason why they went into Iraq. If you can make Iraq a stable democracy in a morass of islamo-fascist totalarianism, then it will give the people of the region something to aspire to. It is like, "Hey, they are Arabs and they have a democracy why can't we?" Iraq was the weakest and most strategically advantageous to pick off. I, myself, would have went for Iran, but Iraq was easier diplomatically to pick off than Iran. I think awfully Machiavellian, don't I?

 

[bmcnamara]

First, I think that if you have never won a war in your entire history that you should not be allowed to speak (or at least listened to) in the international arena on issues of combat. That takes care of France. They didn't want us to go to Iraq because it would cost them big since they were involved in the oil for food scam along with the sales to Iraq that were mentioned earlier.
Second, I never did see a news report that said we left Afghanistan, everyone just thinks that because the news is not reporting that it is not happening. This second war in Iraq was just a continuation of the first war because we never finished for whatever reason. As for President Bush being a neo-conservative, I have to disagree. If he were a neo-conservative he would not be spending more on domestic issues, such as health care, and I would hope focus more on our borders which is a major concern for those of us here in California. It would be nice to get OBL, but come on, I'm sure they have a chain of command just like we do. If you take out the head, the second in command comes up, and on down the line until you get to one of the homicide bombers that hasn't had the chance to blow himself up. The main thing OBL's capture would do is raise the moral for a while, but with the liberal media it wouldn't last long.
When was Blair elected last? In Britain, elections for PM are held every five years unless the PM decides to do so sooner.

 

[usmcecho4]

Something I was just thinking about - everyone opposed to the war keeps throwing out the fact that iraq supposedly had WMD and this is the only reason that we to war with them. Then they usually say why not go to war with other countries that we KNOW have weapons. My question is how do we know that Iran, for example, really has these weapons. I don't understand how someone can attack claims of a country having WMD because we havent found them yet, and then use the similar claims to go invade Iran or North Korea. After all, the majority of the world was of the belief that Sadam had these weapon ready or near-ready. What are the Bush-haters going to say after we take down another country and dont find big weapons right away?? The only way that people "know" that other countries have them or are developing them is through the media or governmental officials makign statements. And I'm pretty sure that people who really know stuff and see the latest intel aren't posting about it on websites...unless of course, you're AQ Khan


Patmack - sounds like a good plan!

Such are the problems with the doctrine of premtion. You never know until you go.

S/F,
usmcecho4

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Edited to add: One very minor nitpick. It wasn't the entire world, or even the entire UN calling for "grave consequences" for Saddam's failure to comply. It was just the 15 members of the UN Security Council. Still, getting all 15 to agree was a major diplomatic coup.

This is not really relevant. The UN Charter outlines that resolutions made by the General Assembly (which comprises all UN members) are non-binding. Resolutions made by the Security Council are binding and thus carry the full weight of international law... what that means, interpret as you will.

Look, if the French want us (or anyone else) to take them seriously, I've got a 5-step plan...

1) Become full and complete partners in NATO again. How the hell can you call someone 'unilateral' when you were the one who withdrew from an *alliance's* integrated military command? What, was that some big multilateral decision?

2) Stop reneging on your commitments to the Balkans. This is YOUR backyard. We said we have troops in there for a year, and the reason there's still ANG guys out there is because the Europeans won't commit the support they promised in Dayton. If you won't support us materially in an area you WANT us to have troops in... why should we give a sh!t what you think about our involvement in the Middle East?

3) Stop your development of new anti-ship missiles. This one is a killer that scares the hell out of the Navy. Apparently, the Frogs are making new ASMs that will be able to evade CIWS. Why, when only their so-called 'allies' use CIWS? Probably so they can make some francs on the Third World arms market. You'd think they'd have learned their lesson their after French-made Exocets killed 20 British sailors on the HMS Sheffield and 37 Americans on the USS Stark... but noooo...

4) Hold true to your end of the Stability Pact. True, it's none of our business... but a lot of the Eastern European countries busted their butts to balance their budgets and pay off their debt to hold their end of the Pact. Then the French and Germans decide 'nah, we're gonna start deficit spending again... nevermind what our so-called allies and partners are doing'... and Chirac wants to get pissy when those same countries go behind his back, supports the US in Iraq, and sign the Vilnius letter? Dude, get a grip.

I just wonder what the French have done recently that we owe them any sense of respect. Or even why we should care what they think...

 

[HueyCobra8151]

The Vilnius letter. Good stuff.

I think we are going to see an interesting, cultural divide seperate Europe far more sharply than the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Pact ever could.

BTW, The Baltics are seeing more GDP growth than France in some places, and more business competitiveness than Italy in some places. If I was an investor, would I look at Old N' Busted, or Hot N' New?

TB55: You forgot about France's awesome performance in Abidjan. To quote the Simpsons: "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!" Maybe if they hadn't taken unilateral action in Africa or told the world to go collectively f**k themselves, someone would have helped them out down there.

Oh yeah, your 5 step plan for FR only had 4 steps...

 

[Yeahitsme]

Keep dreaming...as if our unqualified support of Israel and the way we crapped on thr Muslim world for 50 years didn't matter, we then invade a country to make us safer. Where are the WMD's? Why is democracy so important there? Why do we seem to distrust Islam? Look deeper, read a book...we need to reasess what we are doing and look at through their ideas... Chirac is right, We Screwed with the Hornet's Nest

 

[Yeahitsme]

Oh, and another thing....let's stop picking sides and divinding countries and cultures into the ones we like and the ones we obviously don't. If youa re going to be bigoted against a nation try to pretend you like them at least. And if you think they are bigoted against us...well, DONT GIVE THEM ANY MORE REASON TO HATE US...THEY LOVE THAT STUFF...WE ARE THE USA THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD...DONT STOOP IF U DONT LIKE THEIR ATTITUDE...!!!!!!!!

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Keep dreaming...as if our unqualified support of Israel and the way we crapped on thr Muslim world for 50 years didn't matter, we then invade a country to make us safer. Where are the WMD's? Why is democracy so important there? Why do we seem to distrust Islam? Look deeper, read a book...we need to reasess what we are doing and look at through their ideas... Chirac is right, We Screwed with the Hornet's Nest

1. Support of Israel: If we are not allowed to pick and choose our own allies, is that true freedom? Do we need to clear who we lend our "unqualified support" to through global channels? Perhaps the UN should create a committee to let us know who we should and shouldn't be supporting.

2. Crapping on the Muslim world for 50 years: Where do you get this? Please list some specific policies and incidents. I am sure this shouldn't be too difficult.

While you are compiling that list, feel free to look at this one which I feel is relevant.

3. Invading a country to make us safer: Obviously we were not safe before the invasion. Killing terrorists halfway around the world is preferable to them killing themselves in the United States. When terrorists kill themselves, usually they are not the only victims.

4. No WMD's: As was already discussed, the unanimous approval of S/RES/1441 was a de facto declaration by the UNSC (or the world, depending on how you view it) that Iraq had WMD. Convoys were seen leaving Iraq directly before America crossed the border. They are finding chemical laboratories, and the amount of warheads and nuclear/bio/chemical compatible weaponry suggests WMD of some sort. Iraq had entire jet aircraft hidden in the sand, how can you suggest that there is nothing else hidden in a country the size of California? Finally, when American troops first rolled in to Iraq, farmers and villagers all spoke about chemical weapons, many believing they would be killed with chemicals from Saddam.

We have no found a giant pile in the sand marked WMD, but there is a large case for the fact that he had them. His whole conduct during the 14 year build up to OIF, the reports from the IAEA, and the 16 resolutions passed by the UN concerning his WMD all lead to the conclusion that he in fact, had them.

4. Distrust of Islam: That is a blatant editorial. We fought Japan and Vietnam and Korea before, is that "distrust of Buddhism?" Maybe you have a distrust of Islam, but please don't try and speculate for the rest of America.

5. Chirac is an azz. He didn't care about any cause in Iraq, only oil for food kickbacks and weapons export sales.

 

[Cate]

4. Distrust of Islam: That is a blatant editorial. We fought Japan and Vietnam and Korea before, is that "distrust of Buddhism?" Maybe you have a distrust of Islam, but please don't try and speculate for the rest of America.

HueyCobra, I think you might be the first person I've ever heard to actually come out and say that this isn't an Islam issue. So many people are quick to blame this on Islam without really recognizing the fact that while the terrorists are largely Muslim, so are many of the victims. It's nice to hear it from someone else's mouth.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Oh yeah, your 5 step plan for FR only had 4 steps...

Real funny for a guy who counts 1-2-3-4-4-5

I think we are going to see an interesting, cultural divide seperate Europe far more sharply than the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Pact ever could

Ultimately its a divide between the social welfare states of France/Germany whose economies are stagnating under overregulation... and the newer free-market types with a laissez-faire attitude. We all saw how quickly Spain's economy took off once Aznar came in and started privatizing and deregulating. The Labour Party in Britain has gotten away from their socialist roots. Berlusconi in Italy is on board the bandwagon. The Eastern Europeans know which way the tide is turning and are leaning away from the "Old Europe" ideal and toward what the Spanish, Brits, and Italians are doing.

And of course, this has political repurcussions too. Who drafted the Vilnius letter? Jose Maria Aznar.

Of course the Spanish had to screw it up and elect that a$$hole Zapatero.