Last nights speech by President Bush. What do you think?

bradclark1 · 01-12-07, 09:43 PM

Let none say you aren't a ray of sunshine Skybird.

baggygreen · 01-12-07, 10:20 PM

Ok, so, what is better... staying in Iraq and trying to sort out the mess (which yes, is caused by stupidity earlier on in the conflict) or letting go and seeing, as i said before, a massive regional conflict that will drastically impact on the worlds economy (even you, you pacifist europeans!) and has a good chance of ultimately resulting in again as i said before, the use of nuclear weapons again..

honestly, whats better?!

baggygreen · 01-12-07, 10:30 PM

Oh and Sky, mate, you post something that is telling about the next few years. Where you posted the article about America learning from its mistakes in Iraq, that is because no longer does the US army or marines (or any other western country's forces) need to fight column after column of MBTs. This next half century of warfare will be technology fighting against wave after wave of demented, fanatics - and lord knows, its gonna become very very bloody.

Skybird · 01-13-07, 05:23 AM

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.

baggygreen · 01-13-07, 06:19 AM

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.

Skybird · 01-13-07, 06:34 AM

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."

baggygreen · 01-13-07, 08:04 AM

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).

John Channing · 01-13-07, 09:41 AM

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

01-12-07, 09:43 PM	#1
bradclark1 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Connecticut, USA. Posts: 2,794 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Let none say you aren't a ray of sunshine Skybird.

01-12-07, 10:20 PM	#2
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Ok, so, what is better... staying in Iraq and trying to sort out the mess (which yes, is caused by stupidity earlier on in the conflict) or letting go and seeing, as i said before, a massive regional conflict that will drastically impact on the worlds economy (even you, you pacifist europeans!) and has a good chance of ultimately resulting in again as i said before, the use of nuclear weapons again.. honestly, whats better?!

01-12-07, 10:30 PM	#3
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	Oh and Sky, mate, you post something that is telling about the next few years. Where you posted the article about America learning from its mistakes in Iraq, that is because no longer does the US army or marines (or any other western country's forces) need to fight column after column of MBTs. This next half century of warfare will be technology fighting against wave after wave of demented, fanatics - and lord knows, its gonna become very very bloody.

01-13-07, 06:19 AM	#5
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	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.

01-13-07, 08:04 AM	#7
baggygreen Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canberra, ACT, Down Under (really On Top) Posts: 1,880 Downloads: 7 Uploads: 0	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).