When the shoe is on the other foot

[FisforFast]

Look, I'm not going to argue with you because it would be pointless. You have the typical American view of the subject whilst I have the typical 'world' view of it. It's pointless to go back and forth like this, so I'll just put up a white flag.

[jracerlmn]

Originally Posted by FisforFast

Look, I'm not going to argue with you because it would be pointless. You have the typical American view of the subject whilst I have the typical 'world' view of it. It's pointless to go back and forth like this, so I'll just put up a white flag.

White Flag? Why am i not surprised. Quebec is half french after all.

The reason why they're called swiss army knives and not french army knives is because the french one has only a white flag and a corkscrew.

[FisforFast]

Originally Posted by jracerlmn

White Flag? Why am i not surprised. Quebec is half french after all.

The reason why they're called swiss army knives and not french army knives is because the french one has only a white flag and a corkscrew.

That was uncalled for... I'm actually of French nationality, as in from France, and I'm quite offended. I'd expect this comment on a BMW board, not a Lexus one.

[1SICKLEX]

Knock-off the jabs and insults everyone.

[jracerlmn]

sorry, he threw the first stone. I couldn't resist. I know it's against the rules and I wasn't thinking.

I apologize to you 1sick. Won't happen again.

[UDel]

Originally Posted by FisforFast

I'm not even going to bother replying to these typical brainwashed statements I have regurgitated at me almost every time I go on a business trip to the U.S., but I will say one thing: if there were WMDs in Iraq they would have been found by now - but that's a broad thing to say, for the U.S. can send a man to the moon and zoom in on a pin in the middle of the Saharan desert thanks to their fancy schmancy satellites, yet they can't find an old bearded man with a turban probably hiding in their own backyard.

That being said, you cannot deny that the Iraqi people were under much better living conditions under the tyrannic rule of Saddam than they are right now under American occupancy. To believe otherwise would be utter rubbish.

Brainwashed statements? Saying you know for a fact the only reason the US went into Iraq and took out Saddam was just for their oil is the only uninformed baseless brainwashed statement. Sorry, there is nothing brainwashed about anything I wrote even if it does not agree with you passing on what you "think" or just want to believe as fact. The US did not just make up Saddam was a horrible brutal corrupt sadistic dictator, he had and used WMDs on others and his own people, he ruled Iraq with a iron fist and killed, tortured, and kidnapped hundreds of thousands to millions who he did not trust, did not like, or was not happy with, Iraq was constantly firing on and trying to shoot down US and NATO planes patrolling the no fly zone, was rewarding suicide bomber families with cash, fired SCUDS into neighboring countries and on his own people, Iraq was constantly kicking weapons inspectors out and violating mandates and toying with the US and NATO just like North Korea and Iran who have or will soon have nuclear weapons.

If Iraq had WMDs they could have been incinerated, dumped in a river, buried in some remote location or most likely covertly moved to a neighboring country like has been suggested by some intel sources during the months prior to the invasion when we the US and coalition were preparing. It is not that hard to just put them on a couple trucks or vans and get them out of the country, we can't track or search vehicle leaving Iraq when we were not even in Iraq and we can't search for them in other countries. Russians even notified Iraq to get rid of the WMDs before the US invades. I am not even saying I fully believe Sadam had stockpiles of WMDs but there is a possibility he had them and had plenty of time to get rid of them, what was found and proven was that he was working on and in the process of acquiring them and was forcing scientist and engineers to build long range missiles to deliver them which they had to lie to him and say they were almost built in fear for their lives. Sadam purposely made the rest of the world believe he had them to keep Iran in check. Even if he did not have them he would have got them like he did before and then we would be facing a more dangerous Sadam and Iraq when something had to be done.

Answer me this, since we tried to do the whole non military diplomacy and sanctions thing with North Korea and now they have nukes and Iran will soon have nukes if they don't already have them do you think Sadam would just sit idly by while his neighbor and closest enemy now is in the process of building nukes or would Saddam put all his resources in getting them as soon as possible and not give a damn what the UN or US does like he did the whole time before. The answer is he would be getting them as soon as possible out of fear of a nuclear armed Iran and defense of his country and we would have to deal with not only a nuclear armed NK but Iran and Iraq getting them very soon and destabilizing the middle east even more. It is a very good thing Saddam is out of power and the US took him out when they did and history will show us that.

Did you ever read up on Iraq before the US invaded and how the Shiites and Kurds were treated to make a bizarre statement that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddams iron fist then after the US invasion. Maybe the hardcore Sunni minority and republican guard and their families were better off but the Shiites and Kurds certainly were not. Just because the media cherry picks Iraqi's who may say things are worse does not mean the entire population feels that way. If it was so great there why was there so much celebrating and cheering when US forces arrived and why was there little to no resistance from the population of millions when the US came. If a foreign country invaded the US or Canada and took out their military do you think the population would start cheering and celebrating and shaking the invaders hands and giving them flowers with little to no resistance?

Here is a video from one of your own Canadian networks, the Iraqi's don't seem to have liked living under Saddam rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVeUE...eature=related

Here is a few videos of how Sadam and his regime treated Iraqi people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf7dSPI8Fxw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6exI...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pA59x72eg

Bin Laden is not in our back yard. It is not easy to find a single man hiding and living in remote caves in foreign countries, it is pretty much impossible. All Bin Laden had to do was slip into Pakistan at the beginning of the invasion of Afghanistan which he did and there is absolutely nothing the US can do about it other then encourage Pakistan to get him or hope someone turns him in for an award as we can't go into Pakistan to look for him. As long as he remains living in a cave or in some remote hut in a Taliban friendly area he is pretty much impossible to find and kill no matter how much technology you use.

[tromly]

Originally Posted by jracerlmn

Brainwashed statements? Do you know how much crap I get spewed back at me every time i do business in toronto? Whatever.

Saddam always had a hard on for WMDs. He built his first nuclear enrichment reactor in the 1980s called Osirak. He acquired it with French help. The same French that he helped with oil back in the 1970's oil crisis. The only reason wasn't earlier was because it was his 3rd attempt to acquire a reactor, with his first two attempts falling apart. Whatever. Saddam himself declared it to be the first step to an Arab atomic weapon.

Yes we did send a man to the moon. Yes we can bomb with precision up to 3m. It's all math and engineering. That stuff is a lot easier than finding someone in the middle of the desert. I bet if the moon was hidden in an asteroid field and had little Death Stars waiting to attack any Apollo spaceships we tried to land on it, it'd be a lot harder too.

The people of Iraq no longer have to fear Saddam's death squads, or his sons running around picking up random girls to take back, rape, and kill. Or rape and let their families deal with the shame. Nice private little reign of terror. Wonderful to live in.

The Kurds no longer have to fear Saddam picking on them again like he did in 1988's Anfal (where 50k-100k kurds died). Did we forget about Halabja? Saddam used chemical warfare killing 5,000. He also did it 24 other towns. It included VX gas. Which is considered a WMD by UN resolution 687.

Besides under Saddam's rule, they went through multiple wars. Iran-Iraq war. Gulf War. For you to say that they lived better under his regime is baseless.

I personally WISH we'd go crazy with the things that go BOOM. It'd keep our casualties way way down. The only reason we don't is because we care a little more about collateral damage than Saddam.

+1, you sound like a Marine and stated the obvious with lucid reasoning!

[4TehNguyen]

this pretty much goes in line with what was originally posted. One of the biggest jokes is there is rampant fraud in the election for one candidate, and thats the one we keep supporting How does that make us look over there. We need to get out, we cant afford the human, financial, or the political costs.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

Saving Face in Afghanistan

This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 – just to be “safe”? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it?

I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what?

The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.

Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

[Lil4X]

We tend to assume that everyone shares our cultural view of the primacy of liberty. We are actually surprised that most of the world operates on greed and power, graft and corruption. Leaders of third world nations aren't George Washington or Abraham Lincoln - we need to understand that there are more Pol Pots, Kim Jung Il's, Hugo Chavez's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's in the world than there are Margaret Thatcher's, Ronald Reagan's or even Barack Obama's. Most national leaders are in the game for personal profit. Only a few have a conscience.

That's critical. We always assume that others have the same conscience we do, and they clearly do not. Some think nothing of achieving and maintaining power by the simple expedient of killing their own citizens, keeping them in fear of the established regime and subjugating them by force of arms. Such regimes are doomed to failure at some point when the government can no longer afford to supply its minions with palaces and Mercedes sufficient to maintain their loyalty. The resulting coup will not produce a democracy, since that concept is totally foreign to the local culture. Another dictator will emerge, gather power, further abuse the people, and be overthrown. It's the way of the third world. It keeps whole populations destitute, defenseless, and desperate. Believing we can create and maintain a democracy overnight in such a political culture is naive.

Troop numbers in Afghanistan or anywhere else are NOT the question. We first have to select a strategy to achieve the desired outcome, a timetable for that operation, and THEN select the weapons and troops necessary to bring that about. Simply sending more troops into harm's way is not going to achieve the desired outcome. First we have to determine if achieving the desired goal is even possible given the local political system and culture. If not, we need to ensure that whatever tribal warfare and whatever resulting government does not EXPORT violence beyond their own borders. Whether that is achieved militarily, politically, or diplomatically is immaterial.

[bitkahuna]

Originally Posted by 4TehNguyen

this pretty much goes in line with what was originally posted. One of the biggest jokes is there is rampant fraud in the election for one candidate, and thats the one we keep supporting How does that make us look over there. We need to get out, we cant afford the human, financial, or the political costs.

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?...ngdetail.shtml

from that post by ron paul...

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

well gee, the guy arrested in the u.s. (zazi?) was communicating with al queda leaders IN AFGHANISTAN. plus, if afghanistan turns to chaos and taliban leadership, it will embolden radicals on the border areas with pakistan. we can either fight them in afghanistan, or we will inevitably be forced to 'help' pakistan, one way or another. if we withdraw and do neither, there's a fair chance pakistan will fall to radicals too, along with the nuclear weapons. 9/11 will look like a graze in comparison to what could happen.

[4TehNguyen]

Senate diverts 2.6B away from defense spending that would buy food, supplies, and ammo for troops, but they go to pork pet projects instead Unfreaking believeable

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...-pet-projects/

U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects

Study finds $2.6 billion taken from guns and ammunition

By Shaun Waterman THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, called the transfer of funds from Pentagon operations and maintenance "a disgrace."

"The Senate is putting favorable headlines back home above our men and women fighting on the front lines," he said in a statement.

[Lil4X]

The WWII Museum in New Orleans has just completed a $200 million dollar overhaul and expansion that will more than triple the old D-Day Museum's exhibit space. They could use your donations, but they don't need government pork, thank you. They are being supported very nicely by contributions from visitors and veteran's organizations. If you're headed for the Big Easy this year, be sure to put this outstanding exhibit on your itinerary. It is impressive beyond belief - and a must-see for anyone who had a family member in the War. http://www.nationalww2museum.org/

I don't think there's a vet in the world who would take kindly to slighting the defense of our nation or its present defenders for another memorial to the veterans of past wars. Any politician seeking to ingratiate himself with his veteran constituency, had best take another look at what he is doing to the future vets.