Cheeseburger_in_paradise
-
Posts
976 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Cheeseburger_in_paradise
-
-
-
Talk about not knowing your readership, let alone your adverting base. That editor/newspaper owner is going to lose a lot of money in advertising revenue, at least in the short term. Of course, he did get some national exposure.
-
Well...for starters, she's being a lot nicer to me. But I'm sure that won't last.
And yesterday was our 1-week anniversary. I forgot about it. "Oh, that's okay, dear...let me cook you dinner." I feel like I'm being set up for something big, like "My neice and her four kids are moving in with us..."
Where have I been. You're a neo-wed. Congratulations.
-
Bush used sensitive in describing the war BEFORE Kerry did, so that sensitive matter is done.
SO WHAT?!?!? I don't care if it were just US, US and NATO, US and UN, US and British, US and Chinese... the POINT IS that we were there to DEFEND the Bosnians and Croats from mass murder, JUSTIFIED to do so, being aided by a unified world opinion, UNLIKE IRAQ. Adding a party label to a war is just a way of dodging that fact... good for sound bites and quick quips, but not a legitimate answer to my point.
It's ok NOW to go after Iran and North Korea if we exhaust our diplomatic solutions BECAUSE IT IS JUSTIFIED... they pose an ACTUAL, REAL threat that no classified documents need to tell us someday, unlike Iraq.
And I don't really care what you think is justified or not justified in your own mind. Atrocities go on all over the world all the time, in every decade. Ever hear of Pol Pot? The Carter administartion did not rush to the Cambodians defense. It probably wasn't justifiable at that time. Still three million people were executed our starved. Humanitarian reasons are not the only reasons to JUSTIFY the US using its military. I'm not saying that what we tried to do for the Bosnians wasn't noble. So glad we were able to save the Croats and Bosnians from mass murder, only to watch them regoup and murder Serbs a little while later. You are so transparently partisan, it's pathetic.
-
There were US forses involved. So bombs dropped with a "D" on them are O.K. But bombs dropped with a "R" on them are not. Please! Just curious, when will it be OK to invade Iran and North Korea. Oh I know. When we have a democrat in charge, one that will run a more sensitive war.
-
In reading and occationally posting on the PPP, I notice a lot of people support the current administrations handling of the Iraq conflict. I also notice a lot of people oppose it. Some are even saying invading Iran would be justified because they could pose a threat as well.
I have on thing to say to both sides of the debate. There is only one question needed to justify any war. One thing that makes war ok. Imagine the person you love most in this world. Your spose, your child, your best friend. Now ask yourself, would I send this person to die for this cause? Who you send your wife to die because Iraq is a threat?
My guess is you are asking about Iraq, not the larger overall situation. Iraq is justified because when Gulf War I ended, there were conditions. Iraq was required to comply with conditions of a TRUCE. Not only did they not comply, they waved their genitals in our general direction, daily. 9-11 changed our nation's focus on a lot of things, including Iraq. Even without the immediate FINDING of WMD, it's justified. That Idiot Sadam drew us into two wars.
We don't send our loved ones to die. But they do. They strap bombs to their daughters to go die killing inocent people, they do not know. When we mobilize our people to win a conflict that has been thrust upon us, it is not to die. It is to win. It is to make life better on this planet for them, and us, and even you.
-
-
It goes back to the Japanese concept of the "Co-Prosperity Sphere" of the thirties. In short, they planned for the Pacific to be a Japanese lake. Main reason was raw materials for their industrial base, mostly out of Indonesia (oil). You either agreed or you were gotten out of the way. Ask China.
There ARE mid-east parallel implications, once you take the "Islam" out of the equation.
The difference with Dien Bien Phu (besides idiotic tactics) is that the French had colonialized Indochina for a long time with no benefit to Indochina. There was much more of a united effort. Iraq, in spite of all the rhetoric, is mostly populated by ambivalents and the true upheaval is being done by a relative few with support from outside entities. Giap did not destroy his own infrastructure to make a point.
Don't off yourself anytime soon BiB. I definitely appreciate your point of view. I thought I remembered learning Japan waged war on us because the diplomacy of the time dictated we not sell or allow Japan to have any oil. So, that is a boycott in trade of sorts. Hard to run an empire even in the 30's if you can't move ships or run machinery. So they knew they would have to take it (from Indonesia). The American fleet was the only thing that might be stand in the way. And because it was conveniently parked in one place, they went for it.
Islam and the Middle east is a whole bunch of different animals.
What trade have we denighed them, that they wern't easily able to get elsewhere, with all the wealth that they have secured oil? Oil for food! HA
-
-
If we were going to be hit, would you want to know or not? What would you do if you found out today we only had two days left to live?
I'd marry Brittany Spears. In 48 hours it would all be over anyway.
-
He apparently also supported the death decree on Salam Rushdie, the author of Satanic Verses. So he is favor of the death of anyone who speaks against Islam. I'd be keeping my eye on him too. I don't think he ever again needs to set foot in the United States of America.
-
France once alligned themselves with us against England, for similar reasons.
-
We haven't taken "decisive military action" since Bush declared "mission accomplished". Why would a "looming election" have anything to do with it? If Bush wins we will take "decisive military action" with a lot more unnecessary American Soldiers dead and wounded and nothing accomplished. But at least we can say we took "decisive military action". To what end we would have taken that action we can only guess.
So you agree then. Most likely no major action until after the election.
-
Holy stevestojan. Moore is now doing comedy.
-
It's not lack of cojones it lack of planning and brains.
You don't think if we could have had a decisive victory along the line, we would pass it up? Uh huh. Right. And pass up the chance to crow about Mission Accompllshed again?
Come on, add it up. Stop loss. Sending administrative reserves overseas in the biggest reserve call up in decades. And we still can't "win".
Those who don't learn from history are billsfanone to repeat it. At least Iraq is easier to spell than Vietnam.
But we did have a decisive military victory. What we're up against now is different than the amazingly efficient and successful land war of last year. I suppose the reason Israel keeps getting popped is because of decades of lack of planning.
-
-
Just a thought. We know we need to get real serious in certain places like Falugia. But we're not doing it. Letting things be turned into a "stand off." Come on! I suspect that a bloody large scale decisive military action would cost American lives, and would politically play right into the hands of the Kerry people, when we are very close to what will likely be a close election. I hate the way politics may be affecting the way we are executing this situation. If on Nov. 3rd, we start to get some kahunas, I guess that's what it will have ment.
-
Does anyone remember which network ran the story years ago about some vehicle that would explode on impact if in an accident? They then rigged the vehicle with explosives so they could film a simulation. I believe it was one of 60 minutes inspired tabloid shows, but don't remember which one.
-
Grenades don't kill people, contractors do.
-
The better question is probably if this was John Kerry, would 60 Minutes and Dan Rather have run the story. It is impossible to know. For my money, I would say yes, they would have. In a second. Because the men and women from 60 Minutes are true scumbags, and will slander anyone, and will use deceptive and false and misleading interviews and editing unrivaled this side of Michael Moore to tell their stories. And they have been shoveling stevestojan for 30 years.
It starts with their ingrained bias. In many cases, they imagine a story, based on inconclusive facts, and their ingrained preconceptions of what they might mean. Then they find ways to fill in the gaps, to support their story. In this case, they fabricated the "facts." This isn't bias. This is fraud. They would not have done this to John Kerry.
-
What I don't get is, why not fight back? In some of the videos, their hands were free to hold up IDs. Why not try to grab a gun and see how much damage you can do? Instead they sat there and endured what must be a very painful death, and I for one, wouldn't want my death to be propaganda. You think they're going to release tape that shows one of their guys getting hit alongside the face? Might get shot, but what're they going to do, cut your head off?
NEVER GIVE UP.
Exactly. But even sooner. When you realize they are abducting you, fight them to the death, then and there. It will require being mentally prepared.
-
Interesting that there's no mention of Al Jazera running it, just a web site. Wonder if that signals another baby step towards the reformation of this barbaric region and it's leadership. In a word, progress, maybe. But, as long as we show lack of resolve, we will have more of this. These guys did their best to keep a low profile, in a dangerous land, full of real bigots. They now deserve justice.
-
-
Whats really funny is that the documents are suspicious, but their contents are, so to speak, easily believable. One looking for the truth over the "Viet Nam record" debate, might easily conclude that Kerry volunteered, served honorably, came home and spoke his conscience about the conflict. While Bush probably shammed his way through the era and never really formed an opinion on the matter. B)
Link?
IS THIS WAR JUSTIFIED
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Well, I never said or inferred that.
I was attempting to give an example of a time the US did not JUSTIFY getting involved in a conflict.
Iraq was justified, if for no other reason, because they violated the conditions of the truce that they agreed to after they was expelled from Kuwait. At that time, we ceased hostilities against Iraq, but always knew we might have to go back.