BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-03-2007, 09:54 AM   #111
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguy View Post
It's because of the 21st century is the reason we need to.
I do not understand this statement at all. With the level of communications and travel we have today, why do you believe this?

Quote:
China is powerful, however I was talking about the nations from the Democratic world. You don't wanna provoke China. Would you feel the same and support China if they attack Iraq? Please don't draw the "human rights" card with China. They want the oil just as bad. They just don't throw a smoke grenade into the political fray.
If you believe we invaded Iraq for the oil, why did we not just keep it in 1991? Take Kuwait's?

Quote:
Countries that have pulled out:
Nicaragua (Feb. 2004);
Spain (late-Apr. 2004);
Dominican Republic (early-May 2004);
Honduras (late-May 2004);
Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004);
Thailand (late-Aug. 2004);
New Zealand (late Sep. 2004);
Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004)
Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005);
The Netherlands (Mar. 2005);
Hungary (Mar. 2005);
Singapore (Mar. 2005);
Norway (Oct. 2005);
Ukraine (Dec. 2005);
Japan (July 17, 2006);
Italy (Nov. 2006)

Countries that are sticking around (probably because Bush would have a hissy fit if they did pull out)

UK: 7,200
South Korea: 2,300 ! Hmmm wonder why so many from this country
Australia: 850
Poland: 900
Romania: 865
Denmark: 515
El Salvador: 380
Georgia: 300
Azerbaijan: 150
Bulgaria: 150
Latvia: 136
Albania: 120
Slovakia: 103
Czech Republic: 100
Mongolia: 100
Lithuania: 50
Armenia: 46
Bosnia & Herzegovina: 37
Estonia: 34
Macedonia: 33
Kazachstan: 29
Moldova: 12

Let China get in there. They will throw 1.5 million troops in there and clean it up real good! ..........Joking aside....... See where this war is heading? Call them all quitters if you want. Bottom line, this is the right way this war should be heading.
Do you mean that the unilateral US invasion of Iraq has actually been supported by 38 other nations?

What do think the repercussions for Iraq and the West if the coalition forces pulled out tomorrow?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-03-2007, 09:59 AM   #112
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;676336]I do not understand this statement at all. With the level of communications and travel we have today, why do you believe this?



If you believe we invaded Iraq for the oil, why did we not just keep it in 1991? Take Kuwait's?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Do you mean that the unilateral US invasion of Iraq has actually been supported by 38 other nations?

What do think the repercussions for Iraq and the West if the coalition forces pulled out tomorrow?
WOW, 38 out 200 countries...almost better percentage than Bush's approval ratings...
Be real man, Brits and us send over there 180k soldiers, others send 3000, all together. A joke.
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 10:24 AM   #113
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;676342]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
WOW, 38 out 200 countries...almost better percentage than Bush's approval ratings...
Be real man, Brits and us send over there 180k soldiers, others send 3000, all together. A joke.
What is your magic number? Thirty-four nations contributed to the first Gulf war. Was that a unilateral US action as well? What about the Korean War, it had troops from 15 nations other than the US and ROK?

This is another example of your inability to think rationally about this subject. You continuously claim the US "went it alone" in Iraq when the facts clearly show otherwise.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 10:34 AM   #114
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;680096]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

What is your magic number? Thirty-four nations contributed to the first Gulf war. Was that a unilateral US action as well? What about the Korean War, it had troops from 15 nations other than the US and ROK?

This is another example of your inability to think rationally about this subject. You continuously claim the US "went it alone" in Iraq when the facts clearly show otherwise.
Actually, I did not say anything about the 1991 war -- I think it was more justified than this one. As for this one -- 34 countries may have gone in -- most of them because they had to, otherwise... In the end, again it is the Brits and us. So, yes, we pretty much went alone in there. Just do the simple math -- 34 countries is ~15% of the UN. 3000 soldiers from 34 countries compared to 180k from US + UK is <2%...

In 1991 Saddam attacked a small difensless country that asked for our help. This time, he kept his own country under control...I guess we did not like that, and we made it "better".

BTW, our military is the DEFENSE of our country. What does the war in Iraq have to do with the word "defense"?
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 12:00 PM   #115
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;680109]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

Actually, I did not say anything about the 1991 war -- I think it was more justified than this one. As for this one -- 34 countries may have gone in -- most of them because they had to, otherwise... In the end, again it is the Brits and us. So, yes, we pretty much went alone in there. Just do the simple math -- 34 countries is ~15% of the UN. 3000 soldiers from 34 countries compared to 180k from US + UK is <2%...
Here is your statement from a few posts back, "That one definitely not perceived to be effective otherwise all nations that signed it would agree with this Iraqi war -- not only the uSA and UK" where you say that if UN Resolution 678 had been in effect in 2003 as well as in 1991, more nations would have supported the war. The fact is more nations contributed forces in 2003 than in 1991.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 12:03 PM   #116
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;680277]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

Here is your statement from a few posts back, "That one definitely not perceived to be effective otherwise all nations that signed it would agree with this Iraqi war -- not only the uSA and UK" where you say that if UN Resolution 678 had been in effect in 2003 as well as in 1991, more nations would have supported the war. The fact is more nations contributed forces in 2003 than in 1991.
OK, if you say so...we're pulling two different ways. Look at the numbers:
1) # of countries in this Iraqi war
2) $$$ invested in the war
3) Lives lost in the war
4) Soldiers involved in the war

How can you even say anyone else but the US and UK contributed to it???
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 01:07 PM   #117
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;680284]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

OK, if you say so...we're pulling two different ways. Look at the numbers:
1) # of countries in this Iraqi war
2) $$$ invested in the war
3) Lives lost in the war
4) Soldiers involved in the war

How can you even say anyone else but the US and UK contributed to it???
You could say the same thing about the first Gulf War, NATO operations in Bosnia in 1995 (75% US/UK), or the Korean War as well. Unfortunately, the US and UK (barely) are about the only western nations who have maintained an ability to project force around the world.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:26 PM   #118
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;680415]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

You could say the same thing about the first Gulf War, NATO operations in Bosnia in 1995 (75% US/UK), or the Korean War as well. Unfortunately, the US and UK (barely) are about the only western nations who have maintained an ability to project force around the world.
I agree.
Do you think that we could continue doing it -- lets say if the Iran or NK or...whoever becomes a real danger to the USA (and alies)? Would that prove the silliness of this war that we stretched ourselves so much now that we cannot respont adequately to the real danger (and act as the defensive force as we're supposed to be)?
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:39 PM   #119
mike138
Private First Class
mike138's Avatar
4
Rep
187
Posts

 
Drives: 335i (c)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: your moms house

iTrader: (0)

doc ...... are you al gore in real life ???
__________________

i do hate that enter key
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:41 PM   #120
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;680572]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

I agree.
Do you think that we could continue doing it -- lets say if the Iran or NK or...whoever becomes a real danger to the USA (and alies)? Would that prove the silliness of this war that we stretched ourselves so much now that we cannot respont adequately to the real danger (and act as the defensive force as we're supposed to be)?
It would depend on what Iran or North Korea did and whether it required a substantial commitment of ground forces. Fortunately, the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan leave a large portion of our air and naval forces available to rapidly respond.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:47 PM   #121
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;680600]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

It would depend on what Iran or North Korea did and whether it required a substantial commitment of ground forces. Fortunately, the current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan leave a large portion of our air and naval forces available to rapidly respond.
Basically, the diplomacy is the only option now...should have been then too. Unlike in 1991, this time it was way rushed and ill-planned.
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:52 PM   #122
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;680619]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

Basically, the diplomacy is the only option now...should have been then too. Unlike in 1991, this time it was way rushed and ill-planned.
How do you get that diplomacy is the only option from what I said?

Diplomacy had 12 years to work in Iraq. It failed repeatedly. Twelve years is rushed?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 02:55 PM   #123
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

[quote=ganeil;680625]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

How do you get that diplomacy is the only option from what I said?

Diplomacy had 12 years to work in Iraq. It failed repeatedly. Twelve years is rushed?
Well...someone interpreted the "diplomacy" wrong in this case. If ordering someone to leave the country in 72 hours or...; if telling someone to show the WMD that he does not have; if ignoring the reports of the inspectors from UN; if the only proof is your own "data" and PPT plots...if that is called the diplomacy... then we're all screwed...

Why not the same "diplomacy" approach in Somalia, Sudan, and other "hot" areas of the world???
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 03:14 PM   #124
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

[quote=dr325i;680630]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

Well...someone interpreted the "diplomacy" wrong in this case. If ordering someone to leave the country in 72 hours or...; if telling someone to show the WMD that he does not have; if ignoring the reports of the inspectors from UN; if the only proof is your own "data" and PPT plots...if that is called the diplomacy... then we're all screwed...

Why not the same "diplomacy" approach in Somalia, Sudan, and other "hot" areas of the world???
Iraq was obligated to destroy its stores of WMD under the supervision of the UN inspectors, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.

Iraq was required to end its support to terrorist organizations, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.

Iraq was required to end repression of its civilian population, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.

Iraq was required to compensate Kuwait for the damage done by their invasion, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.

How much more time should they have been allowed? Another 12 years? 50?

Every situation is unique and requires a unique type of resolution.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 03:22 PM   #125
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

Iraq was obligated to destroy its stores of WMD under the supervision of the UN inspectors, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
.
Where are they?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Iraq was required to end its support to terrorist organizations, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.

.
More than enough clear reports came that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the war. Remember...we "invented" the Taliban, Osama, etc... We supported those terrorists against USSR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Iraq was required to end repression of its civilian population, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
.
True! But, there is much worse out there. And it is much worse now (for that civilian population) than it was during Hussein.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Iraq was required to compensate Kuwait for the damage done by their invasion, they were given 12 years to do so - they refused.
.
Compensate them with what. Supposedly, they were given food enough to survive for oil...compensate them for what??? Who is going to compensate Serbia, Sudan, andothers for our little experiments???

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
How much more time should they have been allowed? Another 12 years? 50?
.
Exactly, how much more time??? 2 years, or the next one will be the same??? I hope not.

Every situation is unique and requires a unique type of resolution.
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 04:03 PM   #126
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
Where are they?
Other than the 500+ rounds filled with sarin and mustard, they were either destroyed without the required supervision, moved, or hidden.

Quote:
More than enough clear reports came that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the war. Remember...we "invented" the Taliban, Osama, etc... We supported those terrorists against USSR.
If you believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the invasion than you are either ignorant or naive. In addition to the bounty payments of $25,000 for Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq provided safe haven for such notable terrorists as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and lets's not forget Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan before the invasion.

Your assertion that we invented the Taliban and Bin Laden is fiction. The Taliban did not exist until long after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the USSR ceased to exist. Bin Laden was not a member of an American supported faction in the Afghan war against the Soviets, he did not need US money and was attempting to lure others off of US support in return for his financial support.

Quote:
Compensate them with what. Supposedly, they were given food enough to survive for oil...compensate them for what??? Who is going to compensate Serbia, Sudan, andothers for our little experiments???
Compensate them for the damage they did in what the UN determined was an illegitimate act of aggression against a member state. If the other incidents you refer to are similarly adjudicated, we can talk.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 04:46 PM   #127
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post
Other than the 500+ rounds filled with sarin and mustard, they were either destroyed without the required supervision, moved, or hidden.



If you believe Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism before the invasion than you are either ignorant or naive. In addition to the bounty payments of $25,000 for Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraq provided safe haven for such notable terrorists as Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and lets's not forget Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan before the invasion.

Your assertion that we invented the Taliban and Bin Laden is fiction. The Taliban did not exist until long after the Soviets left Afghanistan and the USSR ceased to exist. Bin Laden was not a member of an American supported faction in the Afghan war against the Soviets, he did not need US money and was attempting to lure others off of US support in return for his financial support.



Compensate them for the damage they did in what the UN determined was an illegitimate act of aggression against a member state. If the other incidents you refer to are similarly adjudicated, we can talk.
1) TERRORISM IN IRAQ:
OK, you're right, there was the support prior to the attacks, however, again, not aimed at us:

Source (Council of Foreign Relations):
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

What type of terrorist groups did Iraq support under Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has aided the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (known by its Turkish initials, PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel , including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported the Islamist Hamas movement and reportedly channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. A secular dictator, however, Saddam tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamist ones such as al-Qaeda, experts say.

Have U.S.-Iraq relations always been hostile?
No. In the 1980s, following the Iranian revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis in Tehran , the United States saw Saddam as a useful regional counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini. Indeed, when Iraq launched a long, brutal war against Iran in 1980, the Reagan administration provided Saddam’s regime with arms, funds, and support.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid proof of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies.

2) OBL

by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

(***YOU should read it all the way)

ANOTHER interesting read:
http://www.capecodonline.com/special...inladen17b.htm

"...In the war against Hitler, the United States found common cause with Stalin. In the war against Japan, America aided Vietnamese rebel Ho Chi Minh. In Third World struggles, America helped Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

As Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan.
..."


I don't believe much in this: http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcol...mns/052201.htm, but it is interesting...

3) COMPENSATION:

NATO, led by the USA has bombed Yugoslavia for 77 days without the approaval of the UN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitim..._of_Yugoslavia


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...4/ai_n13844806

"WASHINGTON Economic sanctions against Yugoslavia will end and the United States will participate in an international aid program to rebuild the war-torn country if President Slobodan Milosevic permits free and fair elections..."

Milosevic did it, lost the elections, US never helped...

MORE on legimity of the bombing of YU:

March 26, 1999

As of today, President Clinton is now in violation
of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the one created to
prevent another Vietnam War. He is, in essence,
now using the US military to pursue a purely
personal agenda without the Constitutionally required
approval of Congress. He is the first president
to overtly violate this law since its passage.

26 members of Congress have filed a lawsuit in federal court
today to have the law enforced and the military assault
ended. The 60 day period a president has to use the
military without Congressional approval ended last night
at midnight.


EDIT:

4) THE WMD

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313

Fox anounced that so far they found about 500 shells with "degraded mustard"... Obviously he had plans to use them on us...


I could go on and on...
I am sure you could too...
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 06:37 PM   #128
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post
1) TERRORISM IN IRAQ:
OK, you're right, there was the support prior to the attacks, however, again, not aimed at us:
1) Iraq's obligation was not to cease support to only those terrorists who targeted America but all terrorist organizations.

2) Of the 4 prominent terrorists I listed, all of them were responsible for attacks on Americans.



Quote:
In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

...

"...In the war against Hitler, the United States found common cause with Stalin. In the war against Japan, America aided Vietnamese rebel Ho Chi Minh. In Third World struggles, America helped Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

As Afghan rebels fought Soviet invaders in the 1980s, the United States gave aid from afar while Saudi exile Osama bin Laden provided support from within Afghanistan.
..."
OK, so where does this say the US created the Taliban or UBL? The US did support some of the groups opposing the Soviet invasion but not specifically the one UBL was working with and not the Taliban because they did not exist.

Quote:
NATO, led by the USA has bombed Yugoslavia for 77 days without the approaval of the UN:
...

"WASHINGTON Economic sanctions against Yugoslavia will end and the United States will participate in an international aid program to rebuild the war-torn country if President Slobodan Milosevic permits free and fair elections..."

Milosevic did it, lost the elections, US never helped...
Has the UN ever deemed the NATO actions to be an illegitimate use of force or a violation of the UN Charter?

Has the Security Council passed a resolution under Article 7 requiring the NATO nations provide compensation to Yugoslavia?
US unblocks Yugoslav aid

Colin Powell (right) announces decision, beside Serbian PM Zoran Djindjic
Powell (right) says Belgrade has made progress
The US has announced that it is lifting a ban on millions of dollars' worth of aid to Yugoslavia, because of Belgrade's improved co-operation over war crimes suspects.

The aid was cut off on 31 March to try to force Belgrade to hand over more of the suspects indicted by the war crimes tribunal in The Hague...
Quote:
MORE on legimity of the bombing of YU:

March 26, 1999

As of today, President Clinton is now in violation
of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, the one created to
prevent another Vietnam War.
No US President has accepted the limits placed upon a President's power in his role as Commander in Chief by the War Powers Act. Every President since its passage has considered the act an unconstitutional infringement on executive power.

Quote:
Fox anounced that so far they found about 500 shells with "degraded mustard"... Obviously he had plans to use them on us...
My understanding is the sarin was much degraded but the mustard was still quite dangerous. Unexploded mustard shells from WWI are still found in France and Belgium and considered quite dangerous.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 08:57 PM   #129
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)


Did you just get the e92, or you had it for a while?
I haven't noticed it before...must be the avtar
Appreciate 0
      02-05-2007, 09:20 PM   #130
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i View Post

Did you just get the e92, or you had it for a while?
I haven't noticed it before...must be the avtar
Picked it up at the Performance Center in November. It is incredible!!
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      02-07-2007, 08:46 AM   #131
ski360
Second Lieutenant
ski360's Avatar
7
Rep
251
Posts

 
Drives: 325i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Germany (US)

iTrader: (0)

I really don't want to get into this discussion mainly because Dr325i is always right and is mainly a dick but this is a email I got from a friend in Iraq. Read it and enjoy it. You might learn more here then you will all year.

From a medic in Iraq:

Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.(Dr325i, I think he's talking about YOU) I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Sheiks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.
There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.

But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its the politicians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.

When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so.

But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in because the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.

So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.

So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation.
The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the words that came out of the elder's mouth, "We do not want America here, and America does not want to be here. But you cannot leave because the militias control the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."

What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community, is that Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.If leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but its better than American civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.

Feel free to share this with whomever wants a real soldier's opinion about the war. - SPC "Doc" 2/5 Cav, 1st CB
Appreciate 0
      02-07-2007, 10:29 AM   #132
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,975
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski360 View Post
I really don't want to get into this discussion mainly because Dr325i is always right and is mainly a dick but this is a email I got from a friend in Iraq. Read it and enjoy it. You might learn more here then you will all year.

From a medic in Iraq:

Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed version, the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about.(Dr325i, I think he's talking about YOU) I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with Sheiks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need more troops and we need to take greater action.
There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on the brink of civil war.

But this war is between them. They largely do not concern themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here isn't the insurgents. Its the politicians. The local politicians. Even though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed the President into diplomatic immunity.

When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurgent breeding ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and rightfully so.

But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terrorists can train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in because the Prime Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.

So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not? They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr will get to "run" the country and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings. Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advised we should let Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of Iraq.

So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young men had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the situation.
The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the words that came out of the elder's mouth, "We do not want America here, and America does not want to be here. But you cannot leave because the militias control the country. America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."

What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community, is that Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.If leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but its better than American civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who can stop al-Sadr.

Feel free to share this with whomever wants a real soldier's opinion about the war. - SPC "Doc" 2/5 Cav, 1st CB
ski360, get off my back you f'n idiot. As you can see there are normal people here that do not share my opinion, but are civilized enough to respect the opposite thoughts.
If you call yourself a hero for distributing these emails and for sitting somewhere and surf internet all day long, you're in the wrong business.

If you call yourself a patriot for just ignoring our problems (and every country has them), you're a moron not giving a shit about the USA and the democracy we stand for. Not even to mention your children's future and your family for that matter.

As for my past -- you may see it as a cowardness, or the other way around. If you read my posts and if you have any brains, you may have figured out where I come from and the chronology of the events that lead to my move to the USA. Maybe because the military service over there was mandatory, and maybe because I was against fighting with my neighbors just because they belonged to a different religion. Maybe I left because I saw something you will never see in your sorry life (like a pile of 40 dead bablies, and so on). Maybe I left because I did not believe the future was possible in the country that you could not freely wals on the streets because of your age.

You will never understand how different it is to be in the war I have been in -- untrained, no communications systems, no plan, no real reason to fight. That is when I realized that the military of any country should be a defencive force, not offensive.

So, I question this war as do many Americans (MAJORITY) as is the media, as is THE WORLD. I never question if you or your medic friend is right. You're following the orders. I question those above you. And of course the one that evaded the military service, himself. Unfortunately, there will always be bad people in any business -- we have seen the takn against the cab, we have seen the Haifa events. I may have seen the Humvee thing differently than you did, and later I corrected myself.

SOme of you immediately connect the critisizm towards the Administration as towards you. No, most of people (including myself) appreciate what you're doing because you're doing your job. And that is all.

The point is not that a few the medic chatted with support our efforts -- the point is IT IS NOT OUR PLACE TO BE THERE! Why in the hell we decided to go there over the other (much worse) places???

Finally, I doubt even your friend could get a piece of complete picture within "a couple of months" he's been there... You have to study their history to really understand what is behind...
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST