SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=103534)

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

(even you, you pacifist europeans!)

Eh...? At least not all of us are like that. I for myself am less pacifist than you seem to imply. I am ready to fight wars and do not rule them out totally, no matter the price - when I see the need to do it. And I know by experience that people do not like my thoughts on the way I would fight a war, if needing to do it and have a say in it - it'S just that I do not like it and usually don't see it as my first and only option. I just want to be sure of two things: that the cause is a worthy one, not an intellectual stillbirth like this one has been from the very beginning, and that those that are leading and are in command are knowing what they are doing, know the method of war, and have the experience to talk about war - and are not only hypnotized by their childish illusions that are flying around inside the boundless vacuum inside their heads.

Oh dont worry mate it certainly wasnt directed towards you, by no means. from my background, its normal, common and almost expected that you stereotype by region. Thats just how my and my particular... group (for want of a much much better term) are. Yanks are loud and obnoxious, poms whine, europeans are pacifist and the french are 'cheese-eatin surrender monkeys'. The kiwis are just a little too friendly with their domesticated animals.

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare. a little too many for my liking, but thems the breaks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

But at the same time, these stereotypes have got some backing in truth, and a lot of europeans are compeltely opposed to warfare.

That is true. But you see - two huge world wars, and centuries of continent-wide warfare before worked wonders in acchieving that attitude. Also, those who have much have more reasons to fear losing more, and europe is fat, and old, and lazy. Also, Europe is closer to and more directly affected by many of the world's hotspots than America.

"Those without swords - still can get killed by a sword." But being easy to go to war is no virtue, but a sin. "Readiness is all", said Shakespeare. I say "Readiness is enough, don't be early, don't be late - and you can't get surprised."

All this is true. And i'll also be the first to commend the nato contributions in the balkans and in afghanistan. But, what about the question of how much is too much? in war, any is obviously too much, but how much can you let things go before you do go to war? How much can we let Saddam get away with back in the day, how much can we let Iran and NK get away with today - what will it take for action?

I understand perfectly the legacy of the wars and whatnot. no doubting that. But, as a european what do you think itd take today for members of the EU to go to war? Do we need another Sept 11 01? would it honestly take another major attack to reawaken peoples memories?

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

I assure everyone this is still perfectly on topic. The 2nd gulf war began as a war to depose a dictator and liberate the Iraqis, the majority of whom were oppressed. It has become, however a major front in the war against international terrorism (as determined by 'western' standards). Bush, by electing to send more troops, is continuing the fight. To stabilize iraq is to remove yet another haven for said terrorists (whether it was before the war is irrelevant here, it is now).

Actually the invasion of Iraq began as way to protect America from Sadam's WMD's.

When that didn't pan out it was because Sadam was ignoring 17 UN resolutions and shooting at US Planes.

That quickly went to hell in a handbasket so then it was because there was a direct link betwen Sadam and 911.

That one stuck a little longer (thanks in large measure to Faux News), but eventually was exposed as another neo-con-job.

So then... when every other concievable excuse for the debacle had been exhausted... then we get the "Cuz he was a bad guy" excuse.

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

JCC

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Channing

America has a obligation and moral responsibility to put right what they have done. If they ever want to have credibility in the World again they cannot leave Iraq until they rebuild what they have destroyed.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing
“Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have fled their homeland are likely to seek refugee status in the United States, humanitarian groups said, putting intense pressure on the Bush administration to reexamine a policy that authorizes only 500 Iraqis to be resettled here next year.”—from this article

The American people should not be asked to pay, with further endangerment of their security, for the mistakes of the American government, or rather, for the inevitable Sunni-Shi'a friction and hostilities in Iraq. Those hostilities became inevitable because of the nature of societies suffused with Islam (and therefore unable to compromise and naturally aggressive not only toward Infidels, but toward all those who in some way were different, were not the same), once American soldiers undid the Sunni despotism of Saddam Hussein.

Americans have spent or committed close to half-a-trillion dollars in the effort to make Iraq a better place. They have discovered that far from demonstrating any real gratitude, the Arabs of Iraq, both Sunni and Shi'a, have been content to grab as much money -- fantastic sums -- and stuff of all kinds, and to watch the Americans, under hellish conditions, attempt not to "re-construct" but rather to construct all kinds of things for them, in a vain effort to pull them out of the primitive and aggressive and Hobbesian world in which they live.

It is not the Iraqis who have been doing much of the fighting to bring about a better Iraq. Many Iraqi soldiers routinely show up only to collect paychecks. Many run in combat situations, leaving the Americans to fight and die for a place called "Iraq" that the so-called "Iraqis" have no loyalty to, and on every occasion, by the testimony of so many of our fed-up and disgusted soldiers, have left the Americans in the lurch or substituted their own brutal methods of treatment of the population and ignored everything the Americans have tried to teach them.

We owe the Iraqis exactly nothing. We do not owe any Iraqis asylum at all. If asylum is to be given, it should be strictly limited to Christians and the handful of Mandeans and other non-Muslims. Not a single Muslim needs to come to swell the Muslim ranks in this country, adding to the security risk, adding to all sorts of worries.

To those who say, as someone does in the article linked above, that we let in Vietnamese refugees, the answer should be obvious. The Vietnamese Buddhists and Christians were fully able to integrate into American society. They were not raised on a belief system that counselled them, that taught them, to see others as their enemies and to work to dominate them, and to spread a belief-system that was inimical in every way to the legal, political and other institutions and arrangements and understandings of this country. That is quite different from the permanent problem posed by Islam.

Anyone who begins to prate about "what we owe the Iraqis" should be reminded of who has been fighting for the idea of "Iraq" over the past few years, who has been spending or committing a half-trillion dollars, receiving only more demands for more-more-more, and whining, and ingratitude, and the occasional smile as some "Iraqi" asks for a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. Oh, they've had their Marshall Plan. They've had all kinds of things.

And they've got the oil wealth to live on, like all the other Muslim oil states that are rich through no effort on their own. They can stay there in Iraq. They can move about - Shi'a to Shi'a controlled regions, Sunni to Sunni controlled regions in Iraq, or outside Iraq, to other Arab countries. But examine the attitude of Iraqis toward the Americans who rescued them from a murderous despot who had ruled for 35 years, and whose homicidal sons were prepared to succeed him and to rule for another 35. Examine the behavior of both Iraqi civilians and the Iraqi soldiers and police, the former in often demonstrating indifference to or even taking pleasure in the killings of Americans, and the latter often neglecting their duties or running away, or selling the weapons supplied to them by the Americans on the black market, and almost in no case providing the kind of minimal aid that the Americans had, and have, every right to expect that people will offer. It is, after all, their country and supposedly it is they who care about it.

But we have had quite a demonstration of how the Iraqis think and behave. It has been edifying. And the officers and men of the American military, who have served in Iraq, ought to be consulted first about whether or not they think that we "owe Iraqis" something and whether or not they think tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims should be allowed to settle in our country, or for that matter other Infidel lands.

The response of those officers and men should be instructive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iceman

send in a few tactical nukes and solve it all....come back there in 40 years and you'll have a big oil reserve...

Quote:

The only solution is Christ.

Glad I am atheist! :o

You guys just don't get it...either make the whole tree evil or make it good...instead you fumble around in the dark....and cry oh why oh why!

Serve who you will and reap what you sow...you sow kaos you will reap it.Well reap it.Even demons are united in their efforts against light....there is no unity in the world and will never be under any "human"..."This is the condemnation of man that light came into the world and men loved the darkness more than light".Well enjoy the freefall....

These evil mens eyes are set on the destruction Israel period.They will find themselves in for a rude awaking soon.I choose to let the the Lord Jesus Christ do my battles for me, he is able.I do not advocate the use of neclear weapons you knuckle heads, read between the lines...I only imply the absurdity of a people who choose to take the couse of action of war...as to why they think there is some "special" way as to how they are to conduct it....the object is to win with the least amount of loss on your side....and when it comes to Gods people not one will be lost.

He that is evil let him be evil still he that is holy let him be holy still.

PS I am speaking about how America is conducting the war if anyone got lost in that lol....War is hell and dirty.

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

Wow, and after that one, I'm REALLY glad I'm an atheist :doh:

Yeah because atheists never did anything like wipe out whole bunches of people! Wait, who were Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao again?

Just messing with ya some, but it'd be a mistake in my opinion to think that religion is the only thing that makes people go a little nutty and decide to wipe out bucketloads of people. Or that taking religion out of the equation would necessarilly remove those sort of impulses.

People have always been a little nutty, it's part of our charm as a species. Religion, ethnicity, politics, etc. just make it easier to organize and channel impulses that are already hardwired.

Yeah I'm obviously a really optomistic "up with people" sort of guy... :sunny:

Guys, This thread was specifically about the recent speech by President George W Bush on te situation in Iraq and the US changes in strategy. It was not about religion. Religion has been done to death on this forum. Start a new thread if you like but don't hijack mine. Thanks. :D

I´ve moved some of the posts to a new thread:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=103716

SO people, what do we all think about the newest nes headlines at subsim.com?

Media speculation?

Leaked information?

Deliberate information?

my bet is for #3, that they're laying the building blocks for an attack, and by christ i hope so. Not because im a warmonger, but because i believe it honestly needs doing

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Do you mean a US strike by the United States upon Iran in April as mentioned in that news article?

If so then I doubt it. It may have been put out there by the US as a signal just as the Patriot missile battery deployments were IMO.

Yesterday Stephen Hadley was interviewed by Tim Russert on NBC Meet the Press. Russert asked Hadley "He raised eyebrows when he talked about Iran and Syria in his speech on Wednesday night, sending carrier groups, Patriot missiles, positioning supplies, weapons, ships into the area near Iran. Are we preparing for a potential military conflict with Iran?"

Hadley replied "No. The president has said very clearly that the issues we do—we have with Iran should be solved diplomatically in terms of the nuclear issue. He did say that Iranians are active in Iraq, supporting people who are putting our American troops and Iraqis at risk. He said very clearly we are going to deal with that, we’re going to disrupt those operations.

But that’s why I tried to say earlier, Tim, there’s a broad struggle going on in the Middle East between the forces of freedom and democracy, the forces of terror and tyranny, and Iran is behind a lot of that. They’re behind Hezbollah. They’re about—behind Hamas. And the region is looking and watching and asking the question whether the United States is going to stay engaged in that region and be an ally of those countries who want to resist an effort by Iran to basically establish hegemony over in that region, and that’s why the president is taking those steps."

Full story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

Well at this point its become far too obvious that america cant just "pull out".

Its already been confirmed by military officials that Al qaeda is regaining power and becoming more oppressive to coalision forces by the day...... of course theres also countless other factions and countrys against the US now.

America is far too intrenched in the war in the east and currently has the future of the middle east in its hands.

I feel they had no choice but to commit more troops to the fight. With the growing terrorist groups spreading all over the world, and of course new cells in africa, a new and more brutal approch is needed

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......

Dont forget we are no longer in a cold war era where two super powers only use weapons of mass destruction as deterants ... The Soviet union was just as scared as the west by nuclear weapons and would do anything to avoid using them knowing full well about M.A.D......... but america is now making enemies who arnt affraid to use biological and nuclear weapons and are more contempt with killing themselves in order to destroy america :nope:

Quote:

America is far too intrenched in the war in the east and currently has the future of the middle east in its hands.

I'd say Iran and Saudi Arabia has the future in it's hands. All we've done is open it up for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ!

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......

I believe this to be very true. The west's politicians, military and national defense agencies still do not understand what they're up against. Iraq is indeed a distraction, drawing terrorists like flies to feces. But the inadvertant distraction won't last forever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ!

If America were to pull out now then we would see attacks in the west so horrific, people would forget the 9/11 incident......

For example. And anyone of us here can think of other similar "creative" plots.

Indeed the current middle east theatre is just a distraction... Problem is Bush feels by sending more troops over he will be able to quell a war that is no longer limited to that theatre.

America is still using a tactic of "cut off the head and the body will die" against the terrorist cells which just doesnt seem to work. The groups regenerate quicker then the americans can neutralize them and theres always a new head to replace the old.

And with every casualty the terrorists take they become more determined to win

The war is easily turning into another vietnam. the most advanced technology and sheer force is still brought to a halt by an enemy who can use his home turf and gurrila tactics to their advantage..... i mean what good is a multimillion dollar gunship against a enemy that conseals themselves in the civilian population

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ!

Indeed the current middle east theatre is just a distraction... Problem is Bush feels by sending more troops over he will be able to quell a war that is no longer limited to that theatre.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one AJ ... The middle east theater is just that a theater and by being there we are a threat to their threats from Bin Laden's number two man (I can't spell worth a darn) that keeps sending messages that are months old. Bush is sending more troops, because Secretary Rumsfield didn't when he was asked to by his own comanders. Our troops have been playing hide and seek. A very dangerous game ... with more troops we can knock on more doors with good ole M-16's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ!

America is still using a tactic of "cut off the head and the body will die" against the terrorist cells which just doesnt seem to work. The groups regenerate quicker then the americans can neutralize them and theres always a new head to replace the old.

We are fighting terrorist cells that are being supplied money and arms from Iran which spells sh**te protected by sh**te forces within Iraq (the president himself is a sh**te). We haven't been able to neutralize anything due to, I say inside information being leaked to where we are going to neutralize. The enemy probably lives in the rural areas and come to Dodge just to make trouble, although I have no proof of this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJ!

And with every casualty the terrorists take they become more determined to win The war is easily turning into another vietnam. the most advanced technology and sheer force is still brought to a halt by an enemy who can use his home turf and gurrila tactics to their advantage..... i mean what good is a multimillion dollar gunship against a enemy that conseals themselves in the civilian population

This is not Vietnam, they were backed by Russia and China and were a tougher fightning force than any modern day muslim has even thought about being.

The civilian population you speak of is ripe for this conflict to be over ... Offer them the same $25,000 for staying alive instead of dying in a lost cause car bomb explosion. Give them the reward for information and see how many bad guys get caught by their own mommies ... I know, I know Army intelligence has already tried this, but try harder.