VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]
Subject: Iraq


Author:
JeffF
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 08:19:12 08/01/02 Thu
In reply to: Mark7 's message, ""WE" Screwed Up?" on 15:38:53 07/27/02 Sat
 The real question is what would be the goal. Nobody has been able to answer the question - If we oust Saddam, then what? Are we going to occupy the country? Are we going to install somebody else?

I loath Saddam, but I think we have to slow down a little and decide what the end game is before going any further.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Iraq = October


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 23:29:23 08/01/02 Thu
The Great Idiot needs the patriotic idiots from the Mid West to rally behind the flag and vote Republican in November.

While his morality won't permit the Retard to receive Oral sex, it doesn't hinder him when it comes to sending men to their death while he managed to avoid Vietnam when his number was up.

The hell with reasoning, it never has been a strong Conservative point. Conservatives have strong beliefs, reasoning is the department of those "literate liberals".

We'll do it Texas style in October. Shoot first, let others worry about the consequences.

And remember the Retard's words: "You are either with us, or against us". No middle ground with the idiot. Spoken like a true God Damn Communist from Stalin's old guard.

[> [> [> [> Subject: My problem


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 07:45:42 08/02/02 Fri
with the "with us or against us" statement is that it doesn't totally work in the real world. This is an example. A lot of the same allies who stood by us in Afghanastan do not want to see us invade Iraq. In part, they have the same misgivings I do. I have no objection to getting rid of Saddam, but the question remains "then what?" What are we going to replace him with? Are we going to be sure that the Iraqi people are happy with the new leadership we install? Are we going to try and have elections there? Are we going to occupy the country indefinitely? The sanctions against Iraq have hurt the people more than they've hurt Saddam(as is also the case with Cuba and Castro).
It's important to remember that Churchill and Eisenhower and Truman and others thought out what was going to happen in Germany and Japan after they were defeated. I am not for or against war with Iraq at this point. I am in favor of stopping and thinking about what we are trying to acheive and what's the most intelligent way to go about it and what the end game is. I don't want to see us blindly rush into a war without thinking it through.
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: First ADD President of the US?


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 10:11:19 08/03/02 Sat
Our younger generations are plagued by Attention Defficit Disorder. I guess W is the first ADD president.

Long term planning is not his forte. It proved in Afganistan, it proves in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and will prove again with Irak.

I agree. Nobody will cry for Saddam if he goes, but so far, the Bushes are good at killing civilians and prove very bad at getting the bad guys.

Dada Bush didn't get Saddam, although he killed 80,000 Iraki draftees, and baby Bush didn't get Osama, although he killed some 3,000 innocent Afganis and worse, from my point of view, mauled our American rights under the Constitution to a point where it will take 20 years to fix.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Another thing


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 08:04:06 08/05/02 Mon
Apparently, the administration has promised Turkey that there will be no independence or even autonomy for the Kurds in Iraq. Turkey, of course, is opposed to any Kurds in their area being free.

This is a troubling promise for several reasons. For one thing, how are we going to stop it if we remove Saddam and the Kurds demand independance or at least equal rights. Are we going to get a new governement to guarantee them equality or are we going to try and put them down?
For another thing, how many promises do we want to make to Turkey. This is my problem with the "with us or against us" philosophy. Turkey has often stood by us, but they will not try and resolve the situation in Cyprus, a country they invaded, and they still don't acknoledge the massacre of the Armenians. I don't think it's a good idea to make them a blanket promise about the Kurds. Besides, the Turks still oppose the invasion of Iraq, so we've made a promise we probably shouldn't have made in exchange for nothing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Turks


Author:
Mark7
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 22:31:10 08/05/02 Mon
I agree with everything you said about the Turks and our alliance with them. They were a cornerstone of NATO in the days of the Big Bad USSR, so anything they did went.

We built their military to be the second strongest in NATO except for the US in conventional forces (few Americans know this) through massive aid.

Israel, Egipt and Turkey have been the main recepients of US economic and military aid from the 50s on-going.

However, Turkey's value as an ally seems doubtful in today's international environment. But in order to reduce aid to Turkey, you do need a president that can point Turkey on a map.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: LOL


Author:
JeffF
[ Edit | View ]
Date Posted: 07:13:51 08/07/02 Wed
Before 09/11, the President had no interest in foriegn affairs and except for Mexico, he pretty much ignored other countries.
This isn't the first time in history that events forced a President to think beyond domestic issues.(Jefferson, Wilson, Jimmy Carter all tried to ignore the outside world until they had to face it because the world doesn't go away if you ignore it).
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.