What, oh what would we do without the level headed, just, kind & thoughtful peacemaking of Rev Jackson & the heiress to the elven throne (after Babs, of course) Ms Sarandon?
Rest of the silliness
Rest of the silliness
Our ambassadors of peace speak
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
B
Bubba
Guest
Actually, Jackson said something today that I agree with for a change. There is too much empasis on the war with Iraq and not enough on the economy.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
There will be more casualties. This won't be desert storm. I think it would be a mistake to ever walk into a war expecting a breeze. That's when the trouble begins. I won't ever expect another desert storm. Saddam has learned a lesson. He'll be backed up into Bagdad this time. We won't be able to wipe out his forces as before without killing many civilians. This could be long and arduous process, of course that doesn't make it any less necessary.
Ardsgaine
New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
You state this as a fact. How do you know?
It would be a mistake for the pentagon planners to send soldiers over there without considering worst-case scenarios, etc, but they've shown that they have the ability to plan and execute operations with a minimal loss of human life. I don't think it's a mistake for me to say that, based on their past performance, they're going to mop up the desert with Saddam's troops.
I doubt it.
Then he'll be easy to find.
That's possible, but on the other hand it's really hard to fight while hiding under a burka. They can't hide and fight at the same time. Either they're going to go underground and fight a guerilla war, in which case they'll be giving us control of the city; or they're going to try to hold city, in which case they'll have to bunch up and present us with a target.
It could be, or it could be relatively easy as these things go. We don't know. Susan Sarandon and her compatriots don't know either. They're just trying to frighten people into opposing the war.
of course that doesn't make it any less necessary.
Absolutely! One hundred percent agreement there. Even if we knew that lots of people were going to die, that by itself wouldn't be an argument against fighting.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
Let me put it this way, it would be an absolute miracle if we could pull off a desert storm again. I don't know anything for a fact but i do study military history and i know just how ridiculously lopsided desert storm was. Don't get me wrong, i totally support US action against Iraq, but i'm not so foolish to believe that we'll walk away unscathed just because we did once before. As far as Saddam learning a lesson, US officials are already expecting to take this into Bagdad because Saddam has already moved forces there. Bagdad is a major city. It's going to be ugly. They can hide and fight at the same time. Just like they did in Somolia. Which means many civilians die. Sure we can still get to them, but it's going to be ugly. I hope and prey that it goes smoothly, but my high hopes are restrained by strategic realities.
Ardsgaine
New Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
Naw, man. I wouldn't do that. I've just gotten tired of her and the rest of the liberals telling us that Iraq is going to be a bloodbath. They said it about the Gulf War and they were wrong, and they said it about Afghanistan and they were wrong. Doesn't the media ever notice just how often those people are wrong?
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
It doesn't bother me if they complain about it being a bloodbath. It's a bloodbath over there right now, if we don't go in it's going to continue to be a bloodbath and when we do go in it will be a bloodbath. It doesn't have to be just Americans dying for there to be a bloodbath. Iraqis are human being as well and a million of them have died since sanctions began eleven years ago. It's time to end the bloodbath. It will not end until Saddam is gone.
Ardsgaine
New Member
Squiggy said:
So the only people who have a right to say we should go to war are those in the military? You want the military making that decision? Since we currently have a civilian government in charge of that, perhaps we should let the military choose all our leaders too.
No? I didn't think so...
I don't have to be in the military to participate in this debate, sport. As far as my personal courage goes, I'm at least brave enough not to be intimidated by your rhetorical blathering.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Ardsgaine said:
As a matter of fact , if you really believe in it, you should be there. Thats a lame argument hiding a selfish motivation to have others die to make you more comfortable. I don't care for that idea.
I don't have to be in the military to participate in this debate, sport. As far as my personal courage goes, I'm at least brave enough not to be intimidated by your rhetorical blathering.
And so, I have coined the phrse "Faux Patriot"
unclehobart
New Member
The right think that the left is a sheep herd. The left thinks that the right is a sheep herd. One side thinks that the other doesnt or will not think. Poking each other with a stick at the personal level serves no end.
unclehobart
New Member
That describes the current Middle East situation in a nutshell.
poke, counter poke, counter counter poke, so on
poke, counter poke, counter counter poke, so on
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Ards, I can actually appreciate the "right wing" view on this subject. I do have a problem with those willing to let others die for "their" beliefs and not willing to do it themselves. If you believe in what you are saying, you would be willing to die yourself for that cause. You can't expect anyone to ask less of you if you're going to climb under the "Team America" blanket and call yourself one of us. That aside, I can respect those who support theirbeliefs, in thought and action, even if I don't agree.