UN, Iraq & Al Qaeda links

Next time we'll throw rocks as they throw rockets?

The idea is to outmaneuver, outflank & outgun the enemy. If yours is big enough they won't bother showing theirs.
 
I would rather not throw anything. I may have been taught wrong(certainly in your eyes) but I was told we started the whole damn thing
 
freako104 said:
but I was told we started the whole damn thing
Click to expand...

I don't say we started it, but it certainly is not the simple "us 'uns against them 'uns" that some would have you believe.
 
Gonz said:
Now that is worthy of further discussion....make that speculation. I still think Ronnie did it.

In hindsight the Cold War was what kept peace in the world. Whodathunk it?

There's no need for me to go into my idea's on Iraq. Let me just say it's do something with a needy area or wait for more bloodshed. Better to try & lose than to sit back & watch it fester.
Click to expand...

1. And I think Ronnie just happened to be there when it happened.

2. Peace? There was peace? Shit, I must have blinked or something. Seriously, Gonz, There always were and always will be dozens of small wars going on. Just because they don't affect you directly doesn't mean they aren't happening. I no longer believe universal peace is possible, but I would like to avoid global conflict.

3. Do something, even if it's wrong? Well, I don't agree, but it is a typically American point of view. :shrug:

Oh, and cat, my mistake. The UN won the Iran-Iraq war for Saddam and then he gave the territory back in exchange for Iran not interfering when he went after Kuwait.
 
I think it was more than just Ronald being there. I think if he hadnt done the arms race but had spent the money on other things not just the weapons(though most of it did go to the weapons) the Soviet Empire would not have fallen. They put all their money into the weapons. we did not.
 
freako104 said:
I think it was more than just Ronald being there. I think if he hadnt done the arms race but had spent the money on other things not just the weapons(though most of it did go to the weapons) the Soviet Empire would not have fallen. They put all their money into the weapons. we did not.
Click to expand...

They were in serious economic trouble as far back as the Nixon administration. A large economy takes a while to collapse like that. Hell, the depression here really started before the turn of the century. You'll notice that the really big folks (Ford, GM, etc.) were largely ready for it when it happened.
 
If they had fincial troubles back then, then it would have been inevitable for it to fall. I thought it was supposed to not be prosperous but not in the shits either.
 
Because of their military spending as a percentage of their GNP, People had to stand on line for hours to get things like bread, sugar, eggs and milk. I remember reading in high scholl that Levi jeans were 350 bucks a pair on th black market. It was inevitable. That's not to say that the policies of the Reagan administration had nothing to do with it, but it would have happened anyway. Perhaps not as soon, but they wouldn't have lasted much longer in any case. The same thing can happen to us, although not as easily.
 
chcr said:
Oh, and cat, my mistake. The UN won the Iran-Iraq war for Saddam and then he gave the territory back in exchange for Iran not interfering when he went after Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Now that part sounds about right. :headbng2:
 
The same thing can happen to us, although not as easily.
Click to expand...

It's one hell of a lot harder for a free market to collapse to the point of extinction.
 
Gonz said:
It's one hell of a lot harder for a free market to collapse to the point of extinction.
Click to expand...

It almost happened once already, Gonz. You're right though, the Soviet system made it almost inevitable. Our (more or less) free market economy makes it much harder.
 
isnt our economy one that bounces back? You spoke of how close we came to it ending. But then in the 50s and 60s I thought the economy got stronger back then.
 
freako104 said:
isnt our economy one that bounces back? You spoke of how close we came to it ending. But then in the 50s and 60s I thought the economy got stronger back then.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the depression. And no, it didn't bounce back that time. It took a very hands on approach and then a World War to recover.
 
chcr said:
I was talking about the depression. And no, it didn't bounce back that time. It took a very hands on approach and then a World War to recover.
Click to expand...

exactly IMO too.
And, when the bomb was dropped, that scare many, but also pointed out
that technology was/is the wave of the future that will keep us strong, secure,
and somewhat comfortable.
Freako, that 50's and 60's was the start of the reflection of that. With new
innovations in cars, the early calculators/computer?, and many other things.
Kinda like a second industrial revolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top