127 replies to this topic

[Spectre2689]

I hate to say it, but the U.S. doesn't give two shits about anyone elses affairs. They just want resources. Iraq? Oil. Afghanistan was slightly different, it was a show of power. The armies way of giving terrorists the middle finger. Vietnam, interestingly enough, was for rubber. During that time period, North America was at a shortage for rubber, for tires and whatnot. Vietnam on the other hand, had an abundance of rubber. America attacks Vietnam, tries to get rubber, gets owned. Korea was a land dispute. Then there was WW2. WW2 was a different story though, since everybody KNEW Hitler had weapons.

Just thought I'd just give everyone a brief history lesson. And now I'm done.

[EDIT] Don't flame me, because this is my opinion. It's who I am. If you don't like it, piss right the hell off.



P.S.

Found him in the bottom of a hole, full of lice, rats, and most-likely copious amounts of his own feces...

Sounds like a family reunion

Edited by Spectre2689, 14 December 2003 - 10:45 PM.

[Alexthebeast]

See the thing about Bush (and his daddy during his adminitration), is that they are on a serious power trip when it comes to the middle east. Not once have either of them listened to the UN when it comes to the middle east. Part of it with GW might be Sadaam's assassination attempt on his father.

[merlinski]

The difference between the US and the rest of the world is that we wouldn't use them. They aren't a novelty to us, we've used them, they helped ended World War II (DUR!). Nukes are a no-no for us. There is a huge leap that people need to take into account when we compare the United States and countries like North Korea or other hostile nations. We can't use the bomb again (well at least I can't imagine the scenario) because we know what goes along with it and we wouldn't be able to forgive ourselves for what such weapons do. Others, like Kim Jong Il, the Shah of Iran, for example, cannot gaurantee such hesitance when it comes to "the button".

Unfortunately, that's not a clear-cut issue anymore.

The Pentagon has recently recieved congressional funding for the development of low-yield "bunker-buster" nukes. These nukes would be in the range of 1 kiloton and less, and would be used to penetrate rock to get to underground structures. This seems tailored specifically for the kind of bombing raids that the US undertook in Afghanistan and Iraq, but were unsuccessful due to the limited penetrating power of conventional weapons. Now, why would we be doing this if we weren't thinking of using these in a tactical scenario?

The danger of these weapons is not the nuclear radiation, but the line that we cross if we use them. Although it is a nuke designed purely for precision bombing raids, where do we draw the line? Is anything less than 1 kiloton ok? What about small nukes targeted at desert training camps? What about towns housing a resistance forces in Iraq? What about a larger, more powerful bunker buster? Heck, why not just level all the army command posts in a city using larger nukes? You see the problem here? This is why I am worried.

Oh, and about the tax thing:
The government needs to spend money. That money needs to come from citizens. Now, consider the effect of taxes on people. Someone who makes $10 million a year can still live on $5 million a year (50% taxes). Someone who makes $18,000 a year can barely live as it is, so imagine would it would be like to live on $12,000 a year (33% taxes). Graduated taxes are extremely important, and it should stay that way.

That said, I know you didn't say that there should be a flat tax rate. You said that the rich pay the most, so they deserve the most back. But when you consider that the war in Iraq costs hundreds of billions of dollars, you have to consider which is more important: Giving the rich an extra million back that they'll probably put into a bank or spend on a ferrari, or keeping the national debt as low as possible? I'd prefer to have a low national debt.

Edited by merlinski, 14 December 2003 - 11:27 PM.

[J cobbers]

America attacks Vietnam, tries to get rubber, gets owned.

FYI I have a Bachelors degree in Poli Sci from UW Madison (one of the most liberal campuses you can find besides Berkly) so I have a good background to speak out here.

I'm not going to rip you a new one over this point, but I will do a bit of a rant. Vietnam was about a whole lot more than rubber. Anyone ever hear of the domino theory? You really don't understand the cold war mentality if you think Vietnam was about rubber, we're lucky we don't worry about a serious possibility of nuklear holocausts, invading comunist armies. Yes we have to worry about major landmark buildings being targeted for destruction, but not say the entire eastern seaboard.

Vietnam was not a simple matter of natural resources, it was like Korea a battle of political ideologies and responding to the fear of a spread of communism, which by the way has much stronger Fasict tendancies than say oh I don't know the USA as represented by Vacc. Unless he actually suports a single party system with rigged elections, secret police raids, and government imposed terror upon the current citizenry then you could call him a Fascist/Communist it's not that different.

And in my use of Communist I do mean in the real world sense not the utopia that Marx hoped for, I'm thinking Stalinist/Maoist. The point I'm trying to make here is that Vietnam and Korea were more about perseving democratic or democratic friendly governments and securing positions of strength in a part of the world dominated by a real threat to the way of life you and I are privledged to have. That's what I believe Bush is trying to build in the Middle East, though I really don't think he's doing it right.

Good points about the Iraq policy, sending a huge check as a gift, not pulling out the military and letting the nation return to a state of chaos that would result in a factionalized set of groups trying to take control by force.
Bad points, only letting US companies bid on contracts, (and most of those being close to the current administration). I should also point out that there are probably not that many Iraqi companies that could handle major reconstuction, but europeans contries probably could. The whole bidding thing is also taking way too long. We should be out there improving things hiring what Iraqi people we can to provide jobs instead of these political negoitiations.

One last fact about me that is relevent. My Girlfriend, a PhD student back in UW Madison is a South Korean citizen. If the US had never fought in Korea, I would never have met this wonderful girl, because she'd have been raised in a Fascist-Comunist nation run by madman Kim Jong Ill. Vietnam and Korea were not about rubber and land. They were about me dating a hot asian chic whom I love to death and get to introduce to my family at Chirstmas, I mean it's obvious.

Edit: My room mate Matt demands that I include his endorsment of my GF as a Hot Asian Chic. there is a pic of her at http://www.geocities...bbers/pics.html

Edited by J_cobbers, 14 December 2003 - 11:32 PM.

[Groove]

This seems tailored specifically for the kind of bombing raids that the US undertook in Afghanistan and Iraq, but were unsuccessful due to the limited penetrating power of conventional weapons. Now, why would we be doing this if we weren't thinking of using these in a tactical scenario?

I'll tell you why.

"Speak softly, and carry a large stick."

[Evil]

I hate to say it, but the U.S. doesn't give two shits about anyone elses affairs. They just want resources. Iraq? Oil. Afghanistan was slightly different, it was a show of power.

That argument as a whole is a joke. We, Americans, have the money to purchase such things. No president or party, no matter who they are or affiliate themselves with, would send your brother to some remote location to kill people or be killed so that gas costs me 11 cents less. Get over it.. It's nice to think that you're a number, that you're faceless, that you're part of the machine, and that all the government wants to do is consume and consume and consume. But it's not true.

The armies way of giving terrorists the middle finger.

Nothing like an M-16 in your face. Just about nothing gets the point acrossa quite like that.

Vietnam, interestingly enough, was for rubber.

I could see what you mean. I mean if you take the whole Communism/tyranny thing out of the loop, yea, thousands died for rubber. I understand totally. Vietnam was a matter of containment, not erasers and tires.

Vietnam on the other hand, had an abundance of rubber.

And so we defended the South Vietnamese from high rubber costs? Is that what you're trying to say?

America attacks Vietnam, tries to get rubber, gets owned.

No one got owned in Vietnam. Maybe you've mixed up your wars but it reached a plateau known as a stalemate, we didn't want to lose more of our sons and brothers and fathers, so we left. That's not getting owned. That's getting out.

Korea was a land dispute.

Actually it was a simple matter of whether or not we would let a North Korean communist dictator take over South Korea and butcher a whole different lot of people whom he would rule. Korea was a matter of saving those who had the potential to be saved. It was about standing up for people who needed the assistance of a country like America. To call the Korean War a land dispute is outright wrong. Men died and faught and rose up, so that their children wouldn't be born into Communism. So that their children could be born free.

You call that a land dispute?

Then there was WW2. WW2 was a different story though, since everybody KNEW Hitler had weapons.

Hitler killed millions. That's not a matter of weapons of any kind of destruction, the allies faught the Nazis because they butchered, maimed, mutilated, tortured, killed, and slaughtered. They were engineers of a genocide of which the civilized world couldn't imagine.

Just thought I'd just give everyone a brief history lesson. And now I'm done.

Yea, I just figured I'd give you a brief history lesson. Thanks for stopping by. Come back after you've read up and gotten your history right next time. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it.

Edited by Evil, 15 December 2003 - 01:38 PM.

[Ares]

If we catch Osama too, Howard Dean doesn't have a chance. Not saying I'm for Osama or Saddam or anything, of course I want them either captured or dead, but if he is captured, Bush is pretty much guaranteed to win the upcoming election. However, I'd still rather have Osama and Sdaam captured, even if it DOES mean suffering Bush again.

[cooldood31]

Yeah but what about the "Weapons of mass destruction". The U.S.A has a crapload of nukes, so now it's ok for the states to have weapons but not other countries? I'll bet if Canada ok'd the misile defence system the states would have sent thier troops straight here saying "if they have a misile defence system, who knows what else they have"

[Evil]

If we catch Osama too, Howard Dean doesn't have a chance. Not saying I'm for Osama or Saddam or anything, of course I want them either captured or dead, but if he is captured, Bush is pretty much guaranteed to win the upcoming election. However, I'd still rather have Osama and Sdaam captured, even if it DOES mean suffering Bush again.

If Bush nailed Saddam AND bin Laden, the democratic party would not have a chance. That's true. As for "suffering" through another 4 years of Bush, I think you could manage, a few more regimes and dictators might not, but I'm okay with that.

Yeah but what about the "Weapons of mass destruction". The U.S.A has a crapload of nukes, so now it's ok for the states to have weapons but not other countries? I'll bet if Canada ok'd the misile defence system the states would have sent thier troops straight here saying "if they have a misile defence system, who knows what else they have"

Yea, great argument. Really well thought out and everything. Complete, consise, I love it. The reason Canada would have nothing to worry about is because their government hasn't commited any crimes against humanity. They haven't slaughtered or tortured who disagrees with them. Their are no Mullahs in control of Canada, bastardizing the Koran for their own gain. They have a prime minister, someone of compassion, unlike countries like North Korea and Iran for instance.

Edited by Evil, 15 December 2003 - 03:23 PM.

[Spectre2689]

Hitler killed millions. That's not a matter of weapons of any kind of destruction, the allies faught the Nazis because they butchered, maimed, mutilated, tortured, killed, and slaughtered. They were engineers of a genocide of which the civilized world couldn't imagine.

That would explain why it took the U.S. 3 years to get off their ass and do something then. And THAT was only because of Pearl Harbor. If Imperial Japan hadn't attacked the U.S., they just would've stayed there in their own happy little world.

[Nello]

That would explain why it took the U.S. 3 years to get off their ass and do something then.

Well, the US was actually invloved in the war a long time before Pearl Harbour. The US started sending vehicles, guns and other supplies to allied soldiers in Europe a long time before Pearl Harbour. Without those American supplies, Allied soldiers would have be running into battle like Russians in WW1, with 1 gun for every 2 soldiers, and only one or 2 bullets per day. That isn't doing nothing.

[Evil]

Yea, Spectre. It took us Pearl Harbor to get off our asses. That's right. But it's doubtful that the U.S. would never have gotten involved. Once England started to really catch the brunt of the Nazi war machine (although the Battle of Britain failed for the Germans) it was a wake up call to us. If the Nazis took hold of England, they would be less than a stone's throw to the U.S. We would have gotten involved no matter what.

It took three years for anyone to get involved for the most part in World War II. At best, the invasion of Poland and other eastern European countries was left relatively quiet. It was a matter of appeasement. The French gave up, other countries faught valiantly but ultimately their efforts were futile. The west as a whole looked away as Hitler waltzed across most of Europe.

We were left with our own crisis. The Nazis weren't killing us. We were drowning in our depression. That's not an excuse, but I'm sure it crossed the minds of the Roosevelt administration.

And just so you know, as the war slowed in the late 1944 and early months of 1945 rolled around, their was a sharp increase in the murder of Jews/Gypsies. The most damage done to their respective races was done as Germany became desperate, and as the allies were doing their best to win the war. Only weeks before Germany surrendered, the death camp Auschwitz was murdering 65,000 people a day. People. That's not a number. That's people.

Sixty-five thousand people.

(That's not just a number I made up, I did a report on Auschwitz last year for 20th Century World History. I didn't choose it, but it was a morbid learning experience to say the least.)

[Alexthebeast]

Yes, but we stayed out of it becuase we were in the great depression at the time... and couldn't afford war, am I right?

[merlinski]

"Speak softly, and carry a large stick."

1. Bush doesn't speak softly.

2. He uses his big stick.

That's why I'm afraid of the new nukes.

Evil, I want to know your opinion on the potential use of bunker-busting nukes and the inherent change in US nuclear policy that would bring. Though, I know it's fun to beat down people making ridiculous liberal claims (that I don't agree with), I do the same to the psycho-conservatives that cross the boards every so often.

[Groove]

"Speak softly, and carry a large stick."

1. Bush doesn't speak softly.

2. He uses his big stick.

That's why I'm afraid of the new nukes.

Eh, that's still debateable...I don't think I'm going to go into it, Evil keeps summing up everything I've wanted to say into nice little packets of posting goodness...almost like another Christmas present. Mmm...delicious.

Are you really cowering over a full-blown nuclear war here? Shit man...I really don't think 'Dubya is sitting in the oval office everyday like, "gimme' the fuckin' codes, man!!! Give 'em to ME!!! I want those fuckin' CODES, MAN!!!"

I'm confused on what "new nukes" you're referring to. To my knowledge the newest addition to our arsenal was E-Bomb, MOAB, something of that nature - essentially a tiny nuclear device that unlike previous nukes, emmits a tiny nuclear blast that is detonated above a city, wiping out all electronic/industrial "things" within a certain area. I know we have smaller nuclear missiles/bombs...I was unaware of a new type of nuke, however...do you have information on it?

...I know it's fun to beat down people making ridiculous liberal claims (that I don't agree with)...

Tee hee...you make me chuckle.

[Ironman]

P.S.

Found him in the bottom of a hole, full of lice, rats, and most-likely copious amounts of his own feces...

Sounds like a family reunion

[Mantis]

That would explain why it took the U.S. 3 years to get off their ass and do something then. And THAT was only because of Pearl Harbor. If Imperial Japan hadn't attacked the U.S., they just would've stayed there in their own happy little world.

You're a silly one. As the others said, we were still in the depression for the most part, and as somebody said we were selling weapons to the Allies. Thats not entirely true, we were using a lend-lease system, which meant we lent weapons to the Allies, while still remaining neutral. This would never have lasted the entire war though. As with WWI and the Lucitannia, something would have happened and caused us to jump into the war. Assuming something like that never happened, one man controlling an entire continent might prompt us to go to war.
In case you missed it in the previous arguements, also, we were not the superpower we are today, in the 40's. People who were once living in roomy houses were digging through dumps for food, for an entire decade. So we didn't have the luxury we have today where we can step in and police the world back then.

[neonerfer]

I really love these threads. I don't know as much about history and politics as I'd like to, but I have a very short attention span when it comes to reading history books. You guys are all smart and clever and slightly arrousing though, so I'll just say this.

[Grinch]

Hmmmmmm I would like it if everyone got their guns highly modifed and have like 50 people shooting metal tip stefans him mwahahaha. Sorry just a though.

Ha! You're so funny!

By the way, I'm sure soldiers with AKs would completely own us.

My thought is this: just because we've caught Saddam, the war is nowhere near over. For the past 6 months, while we've been in Iraq, our top priority was not to find Saddam. Now that we have got him, it does take us one step closer to completing our mission over there, but it certainly does not end the problems. Quite obviously, he hasn't caused much trouble hiding in a hole for half a year.

Howard Dean really got screwed. His whole campaign has pretty much been how we should not be in Iraq, and the fact that we've just arrested one of the world's most wanted men does weaken his arguement. According to the statistics, Dean's support rating has dropped 8% since we found Saddam. It certainly does not look to good for him.

I honestly don't think Osama bin Laden is much a threat anymore. We haven't heard of him for more than a year, and the worst thing he could do right now (if, in fact, he's still alive) would be to wage an attack on the U.S., because all that would do is reassure us that he is alive, somewhere.

My final point: we found Saddam. Great. I'm happy for the soldiers and my country, I really am. But, the fact is, this really doesn't change our situation dramatically.

[Alexthebeast]

Neo-even on my 5th time seeing that...It still cracks me up and is ever-so-fitting.

[Evil]

Wait Merl I'm lost, did I comment on bunker buster nukes? I'm serious, if I did I don't remember. And by the way, I'm not psycho-conservative. Please, I'm not Pat Buchanan here, it's just that as I grew up I found myself more aligned with the rights platforms over the left. That's all. I'm not a bad guy.

In fact I enjoy walks on the beach, baking little brownies with cute candy faces, I love a good bowl of popcorn and snuggling. I'm not a psycho, if anything, I'm misunderstood.

[N3maN]

As most of u probably know, i am from aus.

firstly i think it is damn sad the way we are lead around by theus. i dont think howard is capable of thinking himself.

i think it is great tha6t that mother fucker has finally been brought down too.(hussain not howard) but i cant say i like bush. the justification for the us to go into iraq was weapons of mass deastruction... but have any been found???

[Evil]

but have any been found???

I personally was for the war because of Hussein's dictatorship and the fact that genocide is genocide. But I won't rule out the WMDs or their associated programs just yet, because if you or I was Saddam, I'm fairly sure we could find somewhere to hide them. There's a lot of sand in Iraq. If you can hide MIGs and other Soviet aircraft, I'm sure you could manage to hide a warhead or two, or two hundred.

That's pure speculation, but then again, anyone's take on the Iraqi WMD situation is pure speculation.

Oh and good news today, France and Germany are apparently "working hard" to alleviate the Iraqi debts which they are owed. As has been said before, this might be a step towards France and Germany receiving the chance to bid on Iraqi contracts. I know contracts won't help the European viewpoint of the US, but it can't hurt.

This is good for the Iraqis most of all, now that the burden has been lifted.

[Alexthebeast]

I'm not psycho-conservative.....I'm not a bad guy.

I don't think anybody should be judged on political standings, unless all they want is to kill, bomb, and destroy other human beings and thier creations.

And another thing. All those planets that we found a few lightyears away....If all the money this planet has put into war and weapons over the last hundred years or so was taken back and pooled towards technology to make life better for eveybody, we would be on different Planets on a regular basis by now...and technology would adavnce 2 times as fast.