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
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-04-2006, 04:32 PM   #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 dr325i
Christ man, are you a freiken Robot or something???
tra, tra, tra...
This is the definition, this is the formula ...according to definition killing innocent it OK... Wake up, killing a single human as an error has no price tag on it and cannot be justified EVER! War theory??? BULL SHIT!

As for your numbers and UNSCR crap -- again, it sounds terrific, however, if it were true then we would have all nations putting efforts into this mess from the beginning and it would have been clean by now. On the other hand, it is a two-nation show pretty much and a total mess. The terrorists (or whoever) killed 3000 innocent Americans, then we killed (or sent them directly to be killed) another 4000 robots or soldiers if you will and Bush and company are only pretending they care that their families will have to live without father or mother or brother or sister.

The UN is formed simply for one reason -- so that the most powerful will not use that power to opress the rest -- every invasion would HAVE to be approved by the UN and Security Councel. This agression never was. Of course, Bush and co prepared us (or general public) very well -- French are cowards, Germans are scared, blah blah -- omitting to say -- maybe they respect the rules and the will of their own people?! Bush clearly stated -- either you're in this with us or we consider you an enemy -- basically saying I don't give a shit about any approval...

Again, you and I will probably not witness this, but one day the US (most likely) may not be this world power and others will toy with us as we're toying with them. And, unfortunately, my child, or their children may end up slaving for someone thanks to the evil doind of our generation (spending, attacking, opressing, ignorance, global warming, drilling...)
I am not a robot. I am a professional who spent a good chunk of his life thinking about these issues. I have not had the luxury of emoting on these issues as you do. War is not pleasant but it is occasionally necessary. Your assertion that any killing of an innocent is immoral is a nice theory that falls apart in the world we live in. If someone attacks you and surrounds himself with innocents, are you wrong to end the attack on yourself if you may kill an innocent in the course of defending yourself? I would say no. The Just War theory says no. International law says no.

The UN Security Council did not compel nations to enforce its resolutions against Iraq. That decision is left up to the individual member states. What nations would have had to join the coalition in 2003 to make it acceptable to you? What nation's participation in 1991 tipped the balance? You made a statement that Bush deserves to tried for war crimes because he violated a UN resolution. I showed that he clearly did not.

Your idea of the intent, purpose, and jurisdiction of the UN is either naive or ignorant. The UN allows all member states to act in their own defense or the defense of others. No prior permission is required. The UNSC can decide that a member state has acted aggressively against the Charter and resolve to take action against the aggressor. Kore in 1950 and Iraq in 1991 are examples of this. I am curious, would you approve of a policy that made US foreign policy subject to a veto by other nations? That seems to be what you are endorsing here. Which nations would have such a veto, China? Russia? Mexico? France? Belgium? Wouldn't you agree that US foreign policy is best left to the people elected by the American people to conduct its foreign policy?

As an aside, the basic structure of the UN argues against your assertion that it was formed to prevent the strong from acting against the weak. The only body in the UN with the power to compel any member to do anything is the Security Council and any action by that body is subject to the veto of any permanent member - and they just happen to have been the most powerful nations which existed at the time of the UN's inception?
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 06:00 PM   #112
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
I am not a robot. I am a professional who spent a good chunk of his life thinking about these issues. I have not had the luxury of emoting on these issues as you do. War is not pleasant but it is occasionally necessary. Your assertion that any killing of an innocent is immoral is a nice theory that falls apart in the world we live in. If someone attacks you and surrounds himself with innocents, are you wrong to end the attack on yourself if you may kill an innocent in the course of defending yourself? I would say no. The Just War theory says no. International law says no.
I do believe you have a good idea of what you're talking about...just very FOX-ish and without any proof. You throw at us impressive abbreviations and numbers, but still very empty.
"If someone attacks you then..." -- that it EXACTLY what bothers me the most -- Saddam, Iraq, Serbia has NEVER attacked us, nor hurt us. Yet, we justify killing innocent civilians by saying this for a long time now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
The UN Security Council did not compel nations to enforce its resolutions against Iraq. That decision is left up to the individual member states. What nations would have had to join the coalition in 2003 to make it acceptable to you? What nation's participation in 1991 tipped the balance? You made a statement that Bush deserves to tried for war crimes because he violated a UN resolution. I showed that he clearly did not.
Again, who the hell authorized us to be the world policeman??? That is the core behind this all. We can police the world now, however, in 30, 40, 50 years, someone else will be slapping my kids around because of things we're doing today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
Your idea of the intent, purpose, and jurisdiction of the UN is either naive or ignorant. The UN allows all member states to act in their own defense or the defense of others. No prior permission is required. The UNSC can decide that a member state has acted aggressively against the Charter and resolve to take action against the aggressor. Kore in 1950 and Iraq in 1991 are examples of this. I am curious, would you approve of a policy that made US foreign policy subject to a veto by other nations? That seems to be what you are endorsing here. Which nations would have such a veto, China? Russia? Mexico? France? Belgium? Wouldn't you agree that US foreign policy is best left to the people elected by the American people to conduct its foreign policy?
Of course -- if we can Veto something, others can too. Is our policy to attack Iraq cause we simply can??? If yes, and if you aplaud that, then why is it wrong for N Korea to attack...lets say South? Or Iraq to attack Kuwait?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
As an aside, the basic structure of the UN argues against your assertion that it was formed to prevent the strong from acting against the weak. The only body in the UN with the power to compel any member to do anything is the Security Council and any action by that body is subject to the veto of any permanent member - and they just happen to have been the most powerful nations which existed at the time of the UN's inception?
Not following you here?
Did you expect Bosnia and Fiji to be the members of the UNSC?
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 06:26 PM   #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:
I do believe you have a good idea of what you're talking about...just very FOX-ish and without any proof. You throw at us impressive abbreviations and numbers, but still very empty.
"If someone attacks you then..." -- that it EXACTLY what bothers me the most -- Saddam, Iraq, Serbia has NEVER attacked us, nor hurt us. Yet, we justify killing innocent civilians by saying this for a long time now...
Are you saying you cannot do a bit of research to find out what you are talking about? You make accusations of UN resolutions violated, war crimes committed, and Geneva Conventions violated, then when I presente facts that are easily verified you claim I am making empty arguments. An argument backed up with actual facts is not empty. On the other hand, one full of emotion may qualify.

You are correct, neither Iraq nor Serbia attacked us. They did attack others and those they attacked asked us for help. Is it wrong to help?

Quote:
Again, who the hell authorized us to be the world policeman??? That is the core behind this all. We can police the world now, however, in 30, 40, 50 years, someone else will be slapping my kids around because of things we're doing today.
In the case of Iraq, the UN did. I am afraid I do not follow your other point. Who do you expect to see slapping your kids around?

Quote:
Of course -- if we can Veto something, others can too. Is our policy to attack Iraq cause we simply can??? If yes, and if you aplaud that, then why is it wrong for N Korea to attack...lets say South? Or Iraq to attack Kuwait?
If you are saying that the concept of the UN is flawed, I would agree. Nations, as a general rule act in accordance with their own best interest. North Korea thought it was in its best interest to invade the ROK. Iraq thought it was in its best interest to invade Kuwait. Others disagreed and acted in their best interest to change the calculus.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 06:45 PM   #114
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
Are you saying you cannot do a bit of research to find out what you are talking about? You make accusations of UN resolutions violated, war crimes committed, and Geneva Conventions violated, then when I presente facts that are easily verified you claim I am making empty arguments. An argument backed up with actual facts is not empty. On the other hand, one full of emotion may qualify.

You are correct, neither Iraq nor Serbia attacked us. They did attack others and those they attacked asked us for help. Is it wrong to help?
By the way...what facts did you give us here. The question was simple. Did the UN and UNSC approve the war in Iraq. Answer is even simpler -- NO. And it is obvious since if they did there will be more than 2 countries engaged in it...

Attacked others??? Serbia tried to protect its teritory?? Attacked whom??? Do not give me the bull from the news, give me the facts. BTW, I am originally from Srbia...



Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
In the case of Iraq, the UN did. I am afraid I do not follow your other point. Who do you expect to see slapping your kids around?
History repeats itself and we cannot do much about it. We're the most powerful now but someone else will be more powerful in 30 years (China, India...who knows). And we all know they do not like us.
I am fortunate enough to travel the world for work and what I have noticed that in last 10 years the US did not advance anywhere, whereas for example China turned itself 180 degrees around. I used to teach them 7 years ago about the Wireless Communications, today I travel over there to learn from them...



Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
If you are saying that the concept of the UN is flawed, I would agree. Nations, as a general rule act in accordance with their own best interest. North Korea thought it was in its best interest to invade the ROK. Iraq thought it was in its best interest to invade Kuwait. Others disagreed and acted in their best interest to change the calculus.
I agree. But I ask you if their best interest is to drop the nuke on Seoul because (they tell their people on their CNN) ROK is about to hurt them, what is different from what we did in Iraq and told to our people on the CNN??? You and I will probably never know the truth behind it all...
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 06:56 PM   #115
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
Have you ever seen the border areas of Afghanistan? How do you propose we could have closed them?
Sorry, I missed this one...
How many troops we have in Iraq -- lets say 100k (I am sure there is more). How big is the Aghani border to Pakistan? Lets say 1000 miles (I am sure it is less than that. Plus, we did have the support from the others with Afghanistan, so there would have been many more to help...
So, that is 100 people per mile, i.e. a soldier every 16 yards. And all we needed is a month of full engagement like that and sweep to the north. There would be no OBL any more, and much less of those rats left.

However, the dumb ass chose the other way -- let me throw 1000 bombs from 30000 ft -- and maybe we will kill 100 of them -- the rest will run away and form thousands little cells, and recruit 100's more rats per cell. So, instead of 10000 of them initially, now we have 100000 of them all over the place.

And even dumber -- put now 100k of our kids in Iraq -- serve them on the plate to them. Iraq had absolutely no terrorists in there prior to our great war. Of course they are all going to storm over there when you gave them 100k reasons to do so...

Finally, we may have the mightiest military in the world -- however, all that might is useless on the ground. That is why Clinton stayed up in the air in Kosovo beause he knew he would get his ass kicked on the ground. Iraq is definitely easier terrain to fight at, but should have stuck to the air. This think is getting deeper and nastier every day. No matter who comes to the office next will not be able to pull out for a long time, but of course, W has only 2 years to go and then breathe easier because we will be cursing at someone else for his mistkes...
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:13 PM   #116
pawarrant
SECDEF
pawarrant's Avatar
United_States
18
Rep
759
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 Melbourne Red 328xi Sport
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 328xi  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to pawarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
By the way...what facts did you give us here. The question was simple. Did the UN and UNSC approve the war in Iraq. Answer is even simpler -- NO. And it is obvious since if they did there will be more than 2 countries engaged in it...
Two times I've proven how many nations have troops in harms way fighting on our side in Iraq. I have also provided the UN resolutions and the truce agreement Iraq was in violation of. I also provided info. on our aircraft that were fired on every day prior to the war. Three reasons there that the war was legal. Following your devotion to the UN, can you show us any UN resolution which condemns us or declares the war illegal? How can anyone argue with someone that will not accept any proof that is contrary to your delusions?
__________________
2013 328xi Melbourne Red Metallic/Black Dakota Leather/Red Highlights Anthracite Wood Trim
Retired:2009 328ixi Sedan Montego Blue Metallic/Saddle Brown Dakota Leather Aluminum Trim
Retired: 2006 325xi Monaco Blue Metallic/Gray Dakota Leather Dark Burl Walnut Wood Trim
Retired: 2003 325xi Steel Grey Metallic/Black Leather Wood Trim

Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:19 PM   #117
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 pawarrant
Two times I've proven how many nations have troops in harms way fighting on our side in Iraq. I have also provided the UN resolutions and the truce agreement Iraq was in violation of. I also provided info. on our aircraft that were fired on every day prior to the war. Three reasons there that the war was legal. Following your devotion to the UN, can you show us any UN resolution which condemns us or declares the war illegal? How can anyone argue with someone that will not accept any proof that is contrary to your delusions?
You listed 20 nations -- there are 180 out there.
We have 100k+ troops there, UK has 10k, the rest of them 2000. WHat the hell are you talking about???

Aircraft fired at over their occupied territory!!!!!!!!! Wake up!
Would you fire at Chinese patrols oved N Carolina and Alabama. I would. you're so brainwashed, downey would not help any more...
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:29 PM   #118
pawarrant
SECDEF
pawarrant's Avatar
United_States
18
Rep
759
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 Melbourne Red 328xi Sport
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2013 328xi  [0.00]
Send a message via AIM to pawarrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
You listed 20 nations -- there are 180 out there.
We have 100k+ troops there, UK has 10k, the rest of them 2000. WHat the hell are you talking about???
You keep saying there are only 2 nations fighting. The rest of those nations have varying amounts of personnel under 2000 each. There are a lot of brave service personnel from other nations who apparently mean nothing to you since they do not fit with your political agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Aircraft fired at over their occupied territory!!!!!!!!! Wake up! Would you fire at Chinese patrols oved N Carolina and Alabama. I would. you're so brainwashed, downey would not help any more...
If you knew what you were talking about the UN established no fly zones in Iraq following the Gulf War which the US was in charge of enforcing. Our aircraft were authorized to be there and they were fired on daily in violation of the terms which ended the Gulf War and several UN resolutions establishing the no fly zones! This in itself is considered an act of war. What facts do you have to dispute any of this? What are you talking about Chinese patrols over NC and AL? The Chinese do not have permission to fly over our country as we had permission and it was our job to fly over the no fly zones in Iraq.
__________________
2013 328xi Melbourne Red Metallic/Black Dakota Leather/Red Highlights Anthracite Wood Trim
Retired:2009 328ixi Sedan Montego Blue Metallic/Saddle Brown Dakota Leather Aluminum Trim
Retired: 2006 325xi Monaco Blue Metallic/Gray Dakota Leather Dark Burl Walnut Wood Trim
Retired: 2003 325xi Steel Grey Metallic/Black Leather Wood Trim

Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:38 PM   #119
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
By the way...what facts did you give us here. The question was simple. Did the UN and UNSC approve the war in Iraq. Answer is even simpler -- NO. And it is obvious since if they did there will be more than 2 countries engaged in it...
Again you are simply incorrect in this. The FACTS are that UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678 authorized the use of force against Iraq. It was still in effect subject to Iraq's compliance with UNSCR 687. Iraq failed to comply with 687, as the UNSC reiterated in UNSCR 1441. There was no need for any further UN approval. Those are FACTS. Would you like to present any facts or just keep repeating unsubstantiated opinion?

By my count, off the top of my head, US, UK, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Japan, Slovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Mongolia, and Norway equals more than 2... I may be mistaken as math was never my strong suit.

Quote:
Attacked others??? Serbia tried to protect its teritory??
The Bosnians and Kosovars would disagree with your interpretation.

Quote:
History repeats itself and we cannot do much about it. We're the most powerful now but someone else will be more powerful in 30 years (China, India...who knows). And we all know they do not like us.
Are you saying that the longest any nation has been the world's dominant power is 90 years? I am not sure history backs you up here. What I am sure of is that we should not make decisions today based on some notion of preordained future failure.

I do not doubt that sometime in the future the PRC and India will join the ranks of world powers, whether or not they will challenge the US for dominant power in 30, 40, or more years remains to be seen. I would just say that your anecdote about wireless technology fails to impress me. I recall similar comments 20 years ago when many were sure that Japan and Germany were about to supplant the US.

Quote:
I have noticed that in last 10 years the US did not advance anywhere
Our GDP is 160% of what it was 10 years ago. By what measure have we not advanced?

Quote:
I agree. But I ask you if their best interest is to drop the nuke on Seoul because (they tell their people on their CNN) ROK is about to hurt them, what is different from what we did in Iraq and told to our people on the CNN??? You and I will probably never know the truth behind it all...
It is up to us to make sure that they understand it is NOT in their interest to nuke Seoul. Make them understand the consequence of their actions.

I am sorry that I do not accept your conspiratorial outlook. We were not deceived into war in Iraq. We were mistaken in some of our assumptions but nothing I have seen suggests we were deliberately deceived.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:39 PM   #120
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 pawarrant
You keep saying there are only 2 nations fighting. The rest of those nations have varying amounts of personnel under 2000 each. There are a lot of brave service personnel from other nations who apparently mean nothing to you since they do not fit with your political agenda.


If you knew what you were talking about the UN established no fly zones in Iraq following the Gulf War which the US was in charge of enforcing. Our aircraft were authorized to be there and they were fired on daily in violation of the terms which ended the Gulf War and several UN resolutions establishing the no fly zones! This in itself is considered an act of war. What facts do you have to dispute any of this? What are you talking about Chinese patrols over NC and AL? The Chinese do not have permission to fly over our country as we had permission and it was our job to fly over the no fly zones in Iraq.
OK, no point of dragging this any more...
The no-fly zones were established by us, not UN, again. Otherwise, Turks, Chinese etc would patrol it. Yes, that one was approved by the UN, but the intend was definitely NOT to stay there for 15 years which only us and UK enforced.
The China and AL+NC was supposed to alude to the situation what if. What if the UN now sat down, said the US did bad occupying Iraq since nothing was found there, and now there is more scum there than anywhere else, lets impose a no-fly zone between east and west coast of the USA. How would you feel about it? Would you shoot at them? I would.

As for the permission -- we have no permission to fly over Chinese airspace (military) but we do and occassionally they snap at us but FOX and CNN tell us we were over Int'l waters. Incidentally, I was in China when it happened and heard the other side of the story. Maybe the actual incident did happen over the Int'l waters, but what happened before that we never heard on this side of the world...
We never had the permission to do it over Russia, but we did with the U2's, and again -- got slapped in the face.

So, how come we don't have to follow the rules but the others have to?
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 07:48 PM   #121
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
Again you are simply incorrect in this. The FACTS are that UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 678 authorized the use of force against Iraq. It was still in effect subject to Iraq's compliance with UNSCR 687. Iraq failed to comply with 687, as the UNSC reiterated in UNSCR 1441. There was no need for any further UN approval. Those are FACTS. Would you like to present any facts or just keep repeating unsubstantiated opinion?

By my count, off the top of my head, US, UK, Australia, Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Spain, Japan, Slovakia, Hungary, South Korea, Mongolia, and Norway equals more than 2... I may be mistaken as math was never my strong suit.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil
The Bosnians and Kosovars would disagree with your interpretation..
Well, there are always two sides in the war and the US Gov't makes sure that our public never sees the other side. Look at Kosovo now -- murders every day, corruption, prostitution, horror!
Look at B&H -- Al Qaeda all over the place... That is how great we made things over there...



Are you saying that the longest any nation has been the world's dominant power is 90 years? I am not sure history backs you up here. What I am sure of is that we should not make decisions today based on some notion of preordained future failure.

I do not doubt that sometime in the future the PRC and India will join the ranks of world powers, whether or not they will challenge the US for dominant power in 30, 40, or more years remains to be seen. I would just say that your anecdote about wireless technology fails to impress me. I recall similar comments 20 years ago when many were sure that Japan and Germany were about to supplant the US.



Our GDP is 160% of what it was 10 years ago. By what measure have we not advanced?



It is up to us to make sure that they understand it is NOT in their interest to nuke Seoul. Make them understand the consequence of their actions.

I am sorry that I do not accept your conspiratorial outlook. We were not deceived into war in Iraq. We were mistaken in some of our assumptions but nothing I have seen suggests we were deliberately deceived.

Actually, as much as I am against the current Gov't, I di not believe in the conspiracies...
You see...you tell me we're there to teach them it is not in their interest, but we fail to recognize what is in ours.

Next, the most powerful and widely spread argument in the war with Iraq was the WMD. Hide it, tell me it was just a small assumption -- BS. We had NOTHING else that would warrant the war. And we have many proofs not wto back it up! Bush hated him -- yes. He was bad -- yes. So is the Iranian, Korean, Somali, and many, many other leaders. We knew Saddam had nothing, otherwise would never touch him -- proof: N Korea! SHowed us their teeth, we backed off and you hear nothing in the news about them...That is how powerful we actually are...

160% in 10 years is a joke compared to China and India and many others...
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 08:30 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:
Originally Posted by dr325i
Sorry, I missed this one...
How many troops we have in Iraq -- lets say 100k (I am sure there is more). How big is the Aghani border to Pakistan? Lets say 1000 miles (I am sure it is less than that. Plus, we did have the support from the others with Afghanistan, so there would have been many more to help...
So, that is 100 people per mile, i.e. a soldier every 16 yards. And all we needed is a month of full engagement like that and sweep to the north. There would be no OBL any more, and much less of those rats left.
This acually makes my head hurt. It is so devoid of any comprehension of military operations that I do not know where to start. First, the Afghan - Pakistan border is close to 1500 miles long. It is incredibly rough, mountainous terrain that does not readily lend itself to standing on-line and marching in synch even if that were a viable form of military maneuver (which it is NOT).

I am not going to give you a crash course on military tactics but I will ask you a few simple questions, if all of our soldiers were to line up - one every 16 meters - who would feed them? Who would mend their injuries? Who would fire the artillery? Who would fly the helicopters? Who would fix the radios?
What happens when one guy gets hurt, is that 32 meters left empty or do 100,000 men shift?

Quote:
However, the dumb ass chose the other way -- let me throw 1000 bombs from 30000 ft -- and maybe we will kill 100 of them -- the rest will run away and form thousands little cells, and recruit 100's more rats per cell. So, instead of 10000 of them initially, now we have 100000 of them all over the place.
What dumbass is that? GEN Tommy Franks? It was his plan and it worked. The Taliban was removed from power, al Queda lost its sanctuary and lost a large portion of its leadership.

Quote:
And even dumber -- put now 100k of our kids in Iraq -- serve them on the plate to them. Iraq had absolutely no terrorists in there prior to our great war. Of course they are all going to storm over there when you gave them 100k reasons to do so...
Where do you get your information? By any standard, our casualties in Iraq have been very light. Counter-insurgency is a very difficult political/military operation and we are and have been adapting our tactics to improve how we operate. Given the proper level of domestic political will, we will succeed because no one on the ground can defeat us militarily.

Also, there were terrorists on the ground in Iraq before our invasion including the head of al Queda in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi

Quote:
Finally, we may have the mightiest military in the world -- however, all that might is useless on the ground. That is why Clinton stayed up in the air in Kosovo beause he knew he would get his ass kicked on the ground. Iraq is definitely easier terrain to fight at, but should have stuck to the air. This think is getting deeper and nastier every day. No matter who comes to the office next will not be able to pull out for a long time, but of course, W has only 2 years to go and then breathe easier because we will be cursing at someone else for his mistkes...
If what you are saying is that our greatest military vulnerability is our people's unwillingness to accept casualties, you are right. Of course having an opposition party that undermines the war effort by constantly questioning its legitimacy does not help matters.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 09:11 PM   #123
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
Actually, as much as I am against the current Gov't, I di not believe in the conspiracies...
You see...you tell me we're there to teach them it is not in their interest, but we fail to recognize what is in ours.

Next, the most powerful and widely spread argument in the war with Iraq was the WMD. Hide it, tell me it was just a small assumption -- BS. We had NOTHING else that would warrant the war. And we have many proofs not wto back it up! Bush hated him -- yes. He was bad -- yes. So is the Iranian, Korean, Somali, and many, many other leaders. We knew Saddam had nothing, otherwise would never touch him -- proof: N Korea! SHowed us their teeth, we backed off and you hear nothing in the news about them...That is how powerful we actually are...

160% in 10 years is a joke compared to China and India and many others...
You disagree with the elected leaders of our nation that the invasion of Iraq was in our interest, fine. They were elected to make that determination and those who share your belief were not. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, even noble in our system What I object to is the movement from simple disagreement to the villification of those with whom you disagree.

You have accused the President of war crimes, of sending young Americans off to war for oil, and deliberately deceiving the American people simply because he (and the overwhelming majority of the Congress) looked at a set of facts and made an assumption that has proven to be false. Instead of looking at the situation as it existed at the time and accepting that the assumption was a reasonable one to make and one that every major intelligence agency in the world had made, you impugn the character of and question the motives of those who made the assumption.

What evidence do you have that we knew Saddam did not have WMD? Name for me one credible individual who believed that between 1991-2003? The bottom line was that it was up to Saddam to prove to the satisfaction of the inspectors and the Security Council that he had abided by his obligations, it was NOT up to us to prove that he had not. In this case, given his history and the agreements he made, he was guilty until he proved himself innocent.

160% may not compare well to the growth of China or India but they started pretty low and still have quite a way to grow. Per capita GDP in China is still below the world average but they are hanging in their with Gabon and Belize.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 09:52 PM   #124
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
You disagree with the elected leaders of our nation that the invasion of Iraq was in our interest, fine. They were elected to make that determination and those who share your belief were not. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable, even noble in our system What I object to is the movement from simple disagreement to the villification of those with whom you disagree.

You have accused the President of war crimes, of sending young Americans off to war for oil, and deliberately deceiving the American people simply because he (and the overwhelming majority of the Congress) looked at a set of facts and made an assumption that has proven to be false. Instead of looking at the situation as it existed at the time and accepting that the assumption was a reasonable one to make and one that every major intelligence agency in the world had made, you impugn the character of and question the motives of those who made the assumption.

What evidence do you have that we knew Saddam did not have WMD? Name for me one credible individual who believed that between 1991-2003? The bottom line was that it was up to Saddam to prove to the satisfaction of the inspectors and the Security Council that he had abided by his obligations, it was NOT up to us to prove that he had not. In this case, given his history and the agreements he made, he was guilty until he proved himself innocent.

160% may not compare well to the growth of China or India but they started pretty low and still have quite a way to grow. Per capita GDP in China is still below the world average but they are hanging in their with Gabon and Belize.
Buddy, I will have to give up on this conversation, although I enjoyed it.
You're telling me what you read, I am telling you what I saw. I lived in Serbia for 19 years. I served military there. I've seen the war. I "live" in China these days -- going there for the 6th time this year November 9 -- probably my 30th time since 1998 -- the GDP mumbers and comparison to Belize does nothing good there. Go to our NYC ghetto and there is worse situation than Belize...

Bush should not go to Hague for lying to us -- we're easy to sell anything -- our problem. He should go to Hague for allowing innocent to die. The end. Call it colleteral damage if you want -- I call it innocent death.

As for the WMD evidence...another pointless conversation. Take a simple Physics 1 course at College and study the radiation part... If he had nukes, no way to hide them and the traces of them. I never saw the proof of it. Did he have hte bio & chem -- yes. WOuld he use it against us -- hell no. Would he sell to be used agains us -- most likely no. Do we have them -- hell yeas. Did weuse them -- hell yes -- Vietnam, Bosnia, kosovo, probably Iraq. Kosovo is glowing at night because of tipped anti tank rockets -- not much of shit but enough (by the way that glorious successful war shoved that we actually destroyed less than 20 of Serbian tanks -- but we claimed thousands. We'll see what will come out of this one...

So, in the end, we all have our opinions -- backed by the facts or inserts from the magazines... As you may have noticed I do not accuse only Bush, but the previous (Dem) leaders too. I believe our fall started with Bush Sr. theough Clinton and is culminating now. THough we don't feel it yet since the Dow is at the highest point and the gas is again close to $2, etc., no way that our economy can sustain almost $1B a day thrown for some war... We do have $8 trillion dollar debt, but at the moment we don't give a shit. However, debt is a bitch, and one day we, or our kids will find that out...

God bless you all
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 10:10 PM   #125
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
Buddy, I will have to give up on this conversation, although I enjoyed it.
You're telling me what you read, I am telling you what I saw. I lived in Serbia for 19 years. I served military there. I've seen the war. I "live" in China these days -- going there for the 6th time this year November 9 -- probably my 30th time since 1998 -- the GDP mumbers and comparison to Belize does nothing good there. Go to our NYC ghetto and there is worse situation than Belize...

Bush should not go to Hague for lying to us -- we're easy to sell anything -- our problem. He should go to Hague for allowing innocent to die. The end. Call it colleteral damage if you want -- I call it innocent death.

As for the WMD evidence...another pointless conversation. Take a simple Physics 1 course at College and study the radiation part... If he had nukes, no way to hide them and the traces of them. I never saw the proof of it. Did he have hte bio & chem -- yes. WOuld he use it against us -- hell no. Would he sell to be used agains us -- most likely no. Do we have them -- hell yeas. Did weuse them -- hell yes -- Vietnam, Bosnia, kosovo, probably Iraq. Kosovo is glowing at night because of tipped anti tank rockets -- not much of shit but enough (by the way that glorious successful war shoved that we actually destroyed less than 20 of Serbian tanks -- but we claimed thousands. We'll see what will come out of this one...

So, in the end, we all have our opinions -- backed by the facts or inserts from the magazines... As you may have noticed I do not accuse only Bush, but the previous (Dem) leaders too. I believe our fall started with Bush Sr. theough Clinton and is culminating now. THough we don't feel it yet since the Dow is at the highest point and the gas is again close to $2, etc., no way that our economy can sustain almost $1B a day thrown for some war... We do have $8 trillion dollar debt, but at the moment we don't give a shit. However, debt is a bitch, and one day we, or our kids will find that out...

God bless you all

I agree that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. You continue to make assertions that you are either unwilling or unable to substantiate. You want Bush tried for things that are not crimes and your insistence that the US is guilty of war crimes and used and is using WMD from Vietnam through now is simply insulting. Maybe that is the way your army operated but it is not the way mine does.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-04-2006, 11:05 PM   #126
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
I agree that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. You continue to make assertions that you are either unwilling or unable to substantiate. You want Bush tried for things that are not crimes and your insistence that the US is guilty of war crimes and used and is using WMD from Vietnam through now is simply insulting. Maybe that is the way your army operated but it is not the way mine does.
my army had no WMD at all...so not a chance...

as for "our" or as you call it your army:
1) Japan 1945 = WMD
2) Vietnam -- Depleted Uranium (views at: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0809-33.htm)
3) Agent Orange Vietnam (views at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3798581.stm)
4) Against many others (views at: http://www.propheticdesire.us/micros.../msg00808.html)
5) Korea, March 31 1952 (http://www.sociology.org/content/200...il_weapons.ppt)
6) Depleted Uranium -- Iraq (1991, 2003 and on), Bosnia 1993, 94, Serbia (1999, Afghanistan (2002) (http://www.sociology.org/content/200...il_weapons.ppt)

And I could go on and on...it is all public...

As you can see it is far from innocent as you portray it...

See ya
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 05:47 AM   #127
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
my army had no WMD at all...so not a chance...

as for "our" or as you call it your army:
1) Japan 1945 = WMD
2) Vietnam -- Depleted Uranium (views at: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0809-33.htm)
3) Agent Orange Vietnam (views at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3798581.stm)
4) Against many others (views at: http://www.propheticdesire.us/micros.../msg00808.html)
5) Korea, March 31 1952 (http://www.sociology.org/content/200...il_weapons.ppt)
6) Depleted Uranium -- Iraq (1991, 2003 and on), Bosnia 1993, 94, Serbia (1999, Afghanistan (2002) (http://www.sociology.org/content/200...il_weapons.ppt)

And I could go on and on...it is all public...

As you can see it is far from innocent as you portray it...

See ya

Please do go on, you merely reinforce the view that you are ignorant. Depleted uraniun is NOT, by any definition, a WMD, neither are defoliants like Agent Orange nor incendiary weapons like napalm.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 07:28 AM   #128
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
Please do go on, you merely reinforce the view that you are ignorant. Depleted uraniun is NOT, by any definition, a WMD, neither are defoliants like Agent Orange nor incendiary weapons like napalm.
So mustard is (that SH used) but Agent Orange is not (because we used it)...
I'd suggest we retake the chem class and pay attention to the ingredients...

You see, that is the whole point of my view -- we simply justify things that we did and they are essentially exactly the same as the "bad guys" did.

As for the DU -- I agree it is not as it stands. Now, how do YOU define the WMD, you, not Bush. I define it (simple words) like something that instantly kills masses or over time if left there. Instant is the nuke for example, the others are radiation or long presence of the bio and chem shit that causes mutation, death and other bad things. Again, that is my interpretation of it. Seems to me as a logical one. However, you, Bush, Condi and Rummy may not agree with it because a Serbian, Albanian, Bosnian or Iraqi life is not worth that much?!@#$%^

So, the DU (if used in large quantities as we did use it) can easily be equal to a nuke -- radiation-wise. It stays there for years to come, it does not get blown away. So yes, by the definition of a simple mind, the DU is a WMD. Again, your robotic thinking may pull some military definition that shows it is not (if we used it)...

In any case, you said "your military would never do something like that", an I simply tell you Hiroshima, Nagasaki = 250k dead in 10 seconds. If that is not an example of the WMD or if you deny it, then...
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 08:49 AM   #129
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
So mustard is (that SH used) but Agent Orange is not (because we used it)...
I'd suggest we retake the chem class and pay attention to the ingredients...

You see, that is the whole point of my view -- we simply justify things that we did and they are essentially exactly the same as the "bad guys" did.

As for the DU -- I agree it is not as it stands. Now, how do YOU define the WMD, you, not Bush. I define it (simple words) like something that instantly kills masses or over time if left there. Instant is the nuke for example, the others are radiation or long presence of the bio and chem shit that causes mutation, death and other bad things. Again, that is my interpretation of it. Seems to me as a logical one. However, you, Bush, Condi and Rummy may not agree with it because a Serbian, Albanian, Bosnian or Iraqi life is not worth that much?!@#$%^

So, the DU (if used in large quantities as we did use it) can easily be equal to a nuke -- radiation-wise. It stays there for years to come, it does not get blown away. So yes, by the definition of a simple mind, the DU is a WMD. Again, your robotic thinking may pull some military definition that shows it is not (if we used it)...

In any case, you said "your military would never do something like that", an I simply tell you Hiroshima, Nagasaki = 250k dead in 10 seconds. If that is not an example of the WMD or if you deny it, then...

It is obvious that you do not even know what depleted uraniun is. It does not kill anybody while it is laying on the ground. It is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium and will not hurt you unless you ingest very large quantities of it. Here is a link from the World Health Organization that may be informative. By your definition, a bullet is a WMD. It is made of lead and if you eat some you will get lead poisoning. Get real!

Your analogy of mustard gas vs. Agent Orange is equally as ridiculous. Here is a test, open a container of Agent Orange, take deep breath and see what happens to you. Answer: absolutely nothing. In 20-30 years you may develop diabetes or, less likely, cancer. The Institute of Medicine recently reported that they could find no clear link between Agent Orange and cancer but they did find a link with diabetes.
Now try the same with mustard gas. Within a few hours your respiratory system will begin to blister and if you are lucky you will die within a day because the alternative is a slower death while it takes about a week for you drown in your own blood. Of course that is not to mention the non-lethal but painful effects of the external blistering of your skin and eyes.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were of course WMD's and I have never denied that. Do I think the decision Truman made was the right one? Probably not, there may have been another way to show the Japanese authorities what we could do without actually doing it. A demonstration on a more remote island possibly. I also am convinced that the 2nd bomb was unnecessary. I am glad I did not have to make the decision. Kill 250K Japanese or risk up to 1 million American casualties in the invasion of the home islands?

And YES, I do hope that Truman did and Bush does value American lives more than the lives of the enemy.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 09:16 AM   #130
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
It is obvious that you do not even know what depleted uraniun is. It does not kill anybody while it is laying on the ground. It is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium and will not hurt you unless you ingest very large quantities of it. Here is a link from the World Health Organization that may be informative. By your definition, a bullet is a WMD. It is made of lead and if you eat some you will get lead poisoning. Get real!

Your analogy of mustard gas vs. Agent Orange is equally as ridiculous. Here is a test, open a container of Agent Orange, take deep breath and see what happens to you. Answer: absolutely nothing. In 20-30 years you may develop diabetes or, less likely, cancer. The Institute of Medicine recently reported that they could find no clear link between Agent Orange and cancer but they did find a link with diabetes.
Now try the same with mustard gas. Within a few hours your respiratory system will begin to blister and if you are lucky you will die within a day because the alternative is a slower death while it takes about a week for you drown in your own blood. Of course that is not to mention the non-lethal but painful effects of the external blistering of your skin and eyes.

The atomic bombs dropped on Japan were of course WMD's and I have never denied that. Do I think the decision Truman made was the right one? Probably not, there may have been another way to show the Japanese authorities what we could do without actually doing it. A demonstration on a more remote island possibly. I also am convinced that the 2nd bomb was unnecessary. I am glad I did not have to make the decision. Kill 250K Japanese or risk up to 1 million American casualties in the invasion of the home islands?

And YES, I do hope that Truman did and Bush does value American lives more than the lives of the enemy.
I thought we were enging this thread
Anyway, I tell you my e90 spends 27 mpg, and you answer, indeed, the weather in Sri Lanka was hot yesterday...

Your analogy to blisters and horrors of the mustard to Orange is pointless. We are not measuring how fast and how bad it is. We're saying what is does over time.

I know the DU has less radiation than the 237 & 238. However, put the large quantities in one spot, and you have it. The scientists went with Geiger meters all over Kosovo and measured. They measure elevated levels even now. I am not saying it is the same as the 1945 thing we did or what Saddam did with mustard. All I am saying it is the WMD.

Now, how did you get from my definition that the bullet is the WMD, I have no idea (but again, if it fits our standards and our interests, you translate my words the way you like it...)

Actually, I gave you the links on the Orange and what it still does to Vietnamise people, so further comment is not necessary.

And again, if we did not kill 250k of them, 1 million of us may have died. The same (VERY WRONG) analogy is used nowdays to brainwash people -- if we did not invade...
First of all, the war was over in 1945 -- Germany done, Italy done, Japan was a joke. It was just the use of force to show them who the boss is. Not really carrying about the human life at all. War crime -- definitely!
Similarly with Saddam -- the guy was isolated for 15 freinin years. Yes, the food for oil thing had flaws, but his people were starving. I trully doubt all he had on his mind is how to kill 1M americans...
Actually, it was shown that others have planned just that, but we let them go. Tell me Mr. Military Expert, is it harder to fight an enemy confined in Afghanistan, or to fight their smaller cells all over the middle east and World? Bush had his personal feelings against Hussein interfere here with no justification. Instead of jumping onto this mess, he should have finished more important things first... Saddam was not going to go anywhere...

Now, you have 10x terrorists in the area
you have much more hate toward the US
you throw away $1B daily in that war
you have 4000 dead soldiers
you have N Korea openly finishing their WMD development
Iran is aware that if they show us their teeth, we will back off -- we fuel their nuclear program
You have much worse massacres all over the world (Congo, Somalia...)
You have a VERY confused nation at home -- should I fly, should I not, should I take a bottle with me, should I not, toothpaste...
You have the president that is toying with his people's minds -- code yellow, code orange, blah, blah, before election, but none of that crap nowdays...
you have the "uniter" that has completely divided this (once) wonderful country
you have the situation where you're absolutely not able to claim your pride of being an American outside of the USA
you have daily scandals in the White House, but we almost impeached Clinton for messing up his owm marriage...

and so on...
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 01:57 PM   #131
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
Your analogy to blisters and horrors of the mustard to Orange is pointless. We are not measuring how fast and how bad it is. We're saying what is does over time.
How can you say that with a straight face? By your definition, the cigarettes we distributed to our own troops and the South Vietnamese were a weapon of mass destruction as well because the research linking cigarette smoke to life threatening illnesses is a whole lot more definitive than that linking Agent Orange to anything. I guess my car is a weapon too because it is emitting greenhouse gases that may finally tip the polar ice caps the wrong way and flood Miami. You need to get a grip on reality. If the US had wanted to eradicate the population of Vietnam, don't you think they could have figured how to do it in a way that would not take 30+ years?

Quote:
I know the DU has less radiation than the 237 & 238. However, put the large quantities in one spot, and you have it. The scientists went with Geiger meters all over Kosovo and measured. They measure elevated levels even now. I am not saying it is the same as the 1945 thing we did or what Saddam did with mustard. All I am saying it is the WMD.
Not only is it less radioactive than 237 and 238, according to the WHO it is virtually harmless unless ingested in large quantities.

My final word on this is this:
In 2001 the UN Environment Program examined the effects of nine tonnes of DU munitions having been used in Kosovo, checking the sites targeted by it. UNEP found no widespread contamination, no sign of contamination in water of the food chain and no correlation with reported ill-health in NATO peacekeepers. A two-year study by Sandia National Laboratories in USA reported in 2005 that consistent with earlier studies, reports of serious health risks from DU exposure during the 1991 Gulf War are not supported by medical statistics or by analysis.
Quote:
Now, how did you get from my definition that the bullet is the WMD, I have no idea (but again, if it fits our standards and our interests, you translate my words the way you like it...)
From the same document:
However, uranium does have a chemical toxicity about the same as that of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard. Most uranium actually absorbed into the body is excreted within days, the balance being laid down in bone and kidneys. Its biological effect is principally kidney damage. WHO has set a Tolerable Daily Intake level for U of 0.6 microgram/kg body weight, orally. (This is about eight times our normal background intake from natural sources.) Standards for drinking water and concentrations in air are set accordingly.
Quote:
Actually, I gave you the links on the Orange and what it still does to Vietnamise people, so further comment is not necessary.
How about an actual, peer reviewed medical study instead of conjecture and anecdotes?

Quote:
And again, if we did not kill 250k of them, 1 million of us may have died. The same (VERY WRONG) analogy is used nowdays to brainwash people -- if we did not invade...
First of all, the war was over in 1945 -- Germany done, Italy done, Japan was a joke. It was just the use of force to show them who the boss is. Not really carrying about the human life at all. War crime -- definitely!
Similarly with Saddam -- the guy was isolated for 15 freinin years. Yes, the food for oil thing had flaws, but his people were starving. I trully doubt all he had on his mind is how to kill 1M americans...
Actually, it was shown that others have planned just that, but we let them go. Tell me Mr. Military Expert, is it harder to fight an enemy confined in Afghanistan, or to fight their smaller cells all over the middle east and World? Bush had his personal feelings against Hussein interfere here with no justification. Instead of jumping onto this mess, he should have finished more important things first... Saddam was not going to go anywhere...

Now, you have 10x terrorists in the area
you have much more hate toward the US
you throw away $1B daily in that war
you have 4000 dead soldiers
you have N Korea openly finishing their WMD development
Iran is aware that if they show us their teeth, we will back off -- we fuel their nuclear program
You have much worse massacres all over the world (Congo, Somalia...)
You have a VERY confused nation at home -- should I fly, should I not, should I take a bottle with me, should I not, toothpaste...
You have the president that is toying with his people's minds -- code yellow, code orange, blah, blah, before election, but none of that crap nowdays...
you have the "uniter" that has completely divided this (once) wonderful country
you have the situation where you're absolutely not able to claim your pride of being an American outside of the USA
you have daily scandals in the White House, but we almost impeached Clinton for messing up his owm marriage...

and so on...
I sure wish you had been around to help advise MacArthur and Nimitz. I am not sure they would have found Japan to be a joke given what was occuring on Okinawa. We suffered over 70,000 casualties in the two and half months it took to take that island. The Japanese fought so ferociously on that island that they suffered about 75% fatalities. What gives you the idea that the invasion of the home islands would have been a JOKE?

I am sure you are a very nice man but you obviously have your own pre-conceived notions based not on thought but on emotion and they are impervious to facts and logic.

I am done.... enjoy your car.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      10-05-2006, 02:03 PM   #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 ganeil
How can you say that with a straight face? By your definition, the cigarettes we distributed to our own troops and the South Vietnamese were a weapon of mass destruction as well because the research linking cigarette smoke to life threatening illnesses is a whole lot more definitive than that linking Agent Orange to anything. I guess my car is a weapon too because it is emitting greenhouse gases that may finally tip the polar ice caps the wrong way and flood Miami. You need to get a grip on reality. If the US had wanted to eradicate the population of Vietnam, don't you think they could have figured how to do it in a way that would not take 30+ years?

Have to do this one quickly
You go buy cigarettes and poison yourself as much as you want.
We threw shit at them -- Kosovo, etc That is the definition of the W in the WMD -- weapon.
And actually, we got our asses kicked in Vietnam, so, no, I don't think we could have done more (damage) than we did...


Car...ah, I forgot that is what this forum is about
You enjoy yours too!
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 06:55 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