Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Some Sane Voices  
User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 726 times:


Some voices of sanity coming out of the mob.

Dick Armey (US House Majority Leader)

As long as Saddam Hussein behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him… I do not believe that America should make an unprovoked attack on any nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we we should be as a nation.


Chuck Hagel (Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Vietnam Veteran

It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country (the US) into war and think it would be so quick and easy don’t know anything about war… We are the greatest power the world has ever known. But we have limits too. And these coalitions for change will be our future and the worlds future.


Barbara Lee (House Member)

The world would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, but I believe that we are better off still if we live under the rule of law and eliminate Weapons of Mass Destruction. A preemptive, unilateral first strike would set off a terrible international precedent.. Where will it end? Which dictator will be next?


Gen. (Retd.)Antony Zinni (Retd. Marine General and former Head of US CENTCOM)

We need to quit making enemies that we don’t need to make enemies out of. Its pretty interesting to see that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot are hot to go to war and see it another way.





As I have always said, this silent majority in the US must speak out more vocally against war. Right now only the minority voices, with its extreme right wing idiocy, is coming out to the rest of the world, which does give us a lot of confidence in the way things are going.

-Roy



7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineScootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 699 times:

Sane voices... I don't think so.

In my mind, it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a policy of containment for Iraq has and will not work. Just because we TEMPORARILY suppress Hussein's territorial ambitions does not mean that he cannot continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction. As I have said before in this forum, there is nothing that is preventing him from making a mutually beneficial deal with any number of extremist groups to export the technology of death.

The rules changed in a big way on September 11th. Bush is correct; oceans are no longer an obstacle to attack by those that would do the United States and it's allies harm. The only way to deal with the threat is to take the fight to the enemy and wipe them out before they have an opportunity to strike.

Look at it another way. People love to call the United States the world's policeman, either in a positive sense or in a negative one. If the world had no policeman, no one who had the willpower to back diplomacy with force, would we as a world be any better off? I think not.

Anyway... The 5th of February meeting of the Security Council will probably be rather enlightening.


User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 691 times:

"Bush is correct; oceans are no longer an obstacle to attack by those that would do the United States and it's allies harm."

Well duh, they got in to our country by walking in, get it? Not some ICBM idea... There is no time to warn people about a suicide bomber, we can warn folks about an ICBM-missile attack by 45 minutes, what's the threat again?

"The only way to deal with the threat is to take the fight to the enemy and wipe them out before they have an opportunity to strike. "

Then go find another enemy of similar and capable caliber. Start researching and analyzing all sorts of data based on the histories of different extremist networks that have express displeasure in the west are capable of attaining materials to carry out those objectives in secret. Follow their tactics and operations with spies within their organizations. Destroy the network from within, just like an ant will bring back poison to its colony which ends up killing them in the process. Don't go after a well-known country with a well-known history to get votes for a war; it's called scapegoat, it's also a prime way to drag attention away from other aspects of a situation, i.e. the fact that we've not officially captured OBL who could be plotting at this moment...

And were letting him, otherwise this campaign would be over.

But Saddam is the threat, because he unseated daddy, didn't he? It's a family affair now. This isn't about oil, who cares about what's everywhere, got to stand up for one’s father.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineScootertrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 569 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 682 times:

Wow, you are way off base! If you for one minute think that the President of the United States is going to send thousands of troops to war because of his daddy, you outta be out chasing aliens in Roswell!

I think you have no idea how intelligence operations work. What you are proposing, destroying a terrorist organization from within, is an extremely difficult task. We have a very hard time getting human intelligence on these people; it is almost impossible to infiltrate organizations that are often family affairs. The modern terrorist group has incredible financial and intelligence resources. If it were as simple as you suggest to destroy these groups using low intensity, unconventional means, we would have done so eons ago.

The most effective means of dealing with the threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction is to cut off the supply. That means using extreme diplomatic pressure, and where warranted, military force. Iraq has been given every opportunity to disarm. If there is a war, Saddam has brought it upon his own people through his own stupidity and obstinacy.



User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 651 times:

Scootertrash: "Wow, you are way off base! If you for one minute think that the President of the United States is going to send thousands of troops to war because of his daddy, you outta be out chasing aliens in Roswell! "

Ever wonder the possibilities of a sarcastic remark without the need of an emoticon to prove it? Left or Right; I don't buy most of the theories as they are purely motivated by emotion rather than logic, i.e. there is no such thing as common sense. Common sense is a biased opinion based on hearsay and direct experiences.

"I think you have no idea how intelligence operations work. "

And this helps you how?

"If it were as simple as you suggest to destroy these groups using low intensity, unconventional means, we would have done so eons ago. "

You are the one who interpreted that my opinion was simplistic, probably by the fact that it was small and to the point and because of that last remark. I doubt the theory of 'we would have done it by now', cuz that would mean EVERYONE has got to be blind and isolated so that they won’t get a clue. It is difficult to pull crap like that off nowadays cuz people ask questions, whether media or citizens. Maybe in a place that suggests you to control yourself, like China, the John Wayne mode of operations can be done. Of course if there were enough people to believe in something else, then that’s good enough too.

As you said, "What you are proposing, destroying a terrorist organization from within, is an extremely difficult task." Heck the brunt of what you posted is the exact opposite of Saddams nature in Iraq, yet somehow he's a terrorist and therefore a threat. Care to enlighten us?

"The most effective means of dealing with the threat of terrorists using weapons of mass destruction is to cut off the supply. That means using extreme diplomatic pressure, and where warranted, military force. Iraq has been given every opportunity to disarm. If there is a war, Saddam has brought it upon his own people through his own stupidity and obstinacy."

The first part made sense, the second...you are talking about apples and oranges; Saddam is a dictator not a terrorist; diplomacy works for nations with rulers, but not radicals who don’t hold a common place of rule. Please distinctify your enemy before you proceed. BTW, if a river or an ant trail was cut off, does it stop indefinitely?






The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2048 posts, RR: 22
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 628 times:

I believe after Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. and the laying out of more damning details, America will throw even more support behind this effort. But this is just an opinion. If subsequent polls prove me wrong, I'll slither away.


II Cor. 4:17-18
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 622 times:

"Right now only the minority voices, with its extreme right wing idiocy, is coming out to the rest of the world, which does give us a lot of confidence in the way things are going."

Roy,

You have no idea what the majority of Americans want.

'Speed





User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (11 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 602 times:

After the State of the Union, 55% of Americans polled support a US attack WITHOUT UN backing if it is justified by either evidence or lack of cooperation. (USA Today-Wash. Post poll)

With UN backing, its somewhere in the 70-75% range.



"Shaddap you!"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
I Need Some Advice posted Thu Aug 7 2008 08:47:52 by Skyhawk
Why Do Some Men Want Virgins? posted Mon Aug 4 2008 20:13:48 by Blackbird
Some Really Do Still Think The Earth Is Flat! posted Mon Aug 4 2008 13:03:29 by GDB
I'd Like To Apologize For Some Statements posted Tue Mar 11 2008 10:52:12 by LHStarAlliance
Why Do Some People Communicate In All Caps? posted Thu Feb 7 2008 03:03:37 by AverageUser
Looking For Some Advice On Tokyo posted Wed Feb 6 2008 06:39:05 by B78710
Internet Outage Across Some Of The Planet posted Thu Jan 31 2008 08:02:32 by Allstarflyer
That New Bus Smell And Some Pics posted Sat Jan 26 2008 22:41:10 by Glid4500
Driving In The Alps - Please Some Advice posted Wed Jan 23 2008 02:44:46 by GeorgL
Some Angry LSU Fans posted Tue Jan 15 2008 11:26:50 by Tsaord