I heard this on the news,

Some Arab country (it was either Eygpt or Saudi Arabi I cant remember witch) compaired George Bush to Saddam Hussien.

Come on people, you can dislike Bush all you want, I dont care that much, but to compair him to someone like Saddam Hussien is just plain wrong. There is a few things that pissed me off about this.

First off, someone drew a picture of Bush as a cowboy dragging a horse that had "Allies" branded on it. Ok, whats wrong with this picture, no human is caplbe of 'dragging' another human around, not unless they perment it. And its a act of major hypocracy (sp). Like alot of Arab countrys dont drag there own people around through hell on earth.

Secondly, they said Bush is as bad or worse then Saddam. Thats down right stupid to say. Yeah, Bush has murded his own family and poinsed his own family. Bunch of idiots.

Thirdly, that is related to the subject, but strays away a little bit, is that people that object to going into Iraq. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT SADDAM TO DO!? You want proof? There is proof, his own (former) bomb makers said he is dangerously close to developing a nuclear bomb. Yeah ok, we will wait untill he uses a nuke and then drag our dead asses into Iraq to stop him.

Some people.

Oh yeah! Lets bomb them all [img]smile.gif[/img]

I dont beileve I mentioned anything like that in my post. I could double check but I am prettu sure.

Well, they should flatten the place anyway.

It all depends on which side of the fence (or issue) you sit. Where did you see the story. Was it ABC, CNN or something like that.

I would not be surprised if a large number of people in the World hate George Bush. How many hated Bill Clinton?

When you are President of the US you tend to wear a "kick me" sign...it goes with the job, y'know?

Have you ever understood editorial cartoons?

It has been said that the President has the ability to lead the World, but as the cartoon you mentioned, it shows that Bush is trying to drag the rest of the World in a certain direction instead of leading them.

What you speak of is pure freedom of speech. There is not much wrong with it. To have everyone in the USA follow and agree with the government would be closer to Dictatorship. It is because different views are allowed here that make this country so great.

Mark
You need to put it all in perspective.

Well johnny, sit back and watch, and don't forget to bring some marshmellows and a long stick to roast them over the fire :D

You misunderstood my post Skywalker. I am not saying that you have to follow Bush, as I said, like him or hate him I dont care.

But some points of view, like this one, are just plan idiotic.

You are right, being president you are wearing a big bulls eye sign on you, I have always said that. As for the world liking Cliton and not Bush, well, I dont know thats 100% true, it might be, but you cant take a poll on the entire world.

But, what I think, is the reason alot of people dislike Bush is because of his straight up attitude. He says what he means, and to put it frank, hes a conservative in a liberal world. Of course they will dislike him.

Where as Cliton on the other hand, hugged everyone and loved everyone and sent them stuffed bunnys and flowers (Figure of speech). People that suck up to you your going to favor.

Salman Rushdie makes a few interesting points about why it may not be the best idea to bomb the crap out of the place...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...115997448.html

A united Islamic force ????? BIG DEAL.

yeah bush is in a really sticky situation here, he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. either iraq has chemical and possibly nuclear weapons, or we have a new wave of terrorism to deal with, neither one seems promising, thats why im going to move to canada ;)

OOHH, a united arab force, I'm really scared, now. Come on, the Israelis beat the crap out of them and they are just one little country. Lets see how big they talk when the M1A1s start rolling and the B-2s and F-117s are bombing them and they cant even see them. Pfui.

Well, be that as it may, i wouldn't like another world war to happen. And that's what's going to happen if this 'united arab' force comes to be. Even if that war only lasts a couple weeks.

I think the point being made is that worse than the threat of a united group of nations against the US/UK and any allies is unity and common cause of the extreme and desperate collaboratives of individuals combined with the backing of their respective governments.

Therefore you have the possible scenario of fighting a 'traditional' war and a terrorist 'war' at the same time. What did Hitler teach us about a war on two fronts?
The terrorist front is very large and undefinable too. It is neither an easy nor desirable position the allies are in right now.

How many divisions does the Unitied Islamic Force have in the field? As for them uniting the Iran-Iraq war is a good example of their unity. I bet Jordan has more troops on the border with Syria or Iraq then on the border with Israel.
The UN ineffective, they aren't even enforcing the mandates on Iraq from '91. For the last 4 years there's been NO weapons inspectors in Iraq, in violation of the UN mandates. Whats the UN done? They've contemplating their collective navels! They couldn't find their rear ends with both hands, a mirror, and two friends!!
As for our allies, from here it looks like Eastern Europe, the former Soviet block Nations are stacking up better then most of Western Europe. But I guess that's to be expected since a little over 12 years ago we had forced the colapse of the USSR, alowing them to throw off the yoke of oppression, and start on the road of freedom. The memories of brutality (sp?), and how cruel man can be to each other on a day to day basis are still fresh in their minds.
It won't be a two front war, if it turns into a full scale war then all citizens of the enemy combatant countries will be sent home. We're sitting here with two oceans seperating us and a poop-load of satelites(sp?) watching both oceans.
What are they going to do cut off the oil? Hell if they jump into a War and cutting off oil is their big offensive, it will be over in hours, not days or weeks. Troops take and hold land not oil wells. When was the last war won by an oil well? Russia has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and they need and want our money, They'll sell we'll buy.

Its a point thats been repeated throughout history. All great leaders and great men have been the point of criticism. How many people here have read Punch cartoons during the World War 2 era? I can remember cartoons on almost every nation and every leader from Punch. At the time they might have been controversial. Now they're counted as historical evidence.

A United Islamic Front? You forget that not all the Muslims in the world live in the Middle East. Indonesia is huge. Most Western countries have a significant Islamic presence. Whats going to happen when they start levelling the guns at the Islamics? I dont think all the Muslims and Immigrants are going to take that very well. I dont want to see the USA become another Israel, living in fear from suicide bombers, unlikely as that may seem. Drastic times call for drastic measures, on both sides of the field. Strike without thought, and sometimes you'll be surprised when the target strikes back. Sure the Allies could level the Middle East in a month. But can they bring peace to a land that has been wartorn for thousands of years? That region is the cradle of modern religion. We have to remember that when we go in there we arent just killing Muslim extremists or terrorist dictators. You'll be blowing up women and children right along with the AK-47 armed nutcases. And what happens if you go in to minimise civilian casualties? You forsake America's greatest advantage, and get bogged down in a ground war where the land itself is hostile to Americans. Does anyone really want a bloodier Vietnam? The very civilians you try to protect will strap bombs to themselves and hurl themselves at our proud tanks and brave soldiers in the name of "freedom". Its not a matter of pounding the Eastern Bloc into comparative atoms. Its about pulling something out of the firestorm. Otherwise that just solves nothing.

It saddens me to say that you think that bombing a country to smithereens is the way to win a war.

You are not dealing with the second or third generation warfare anylonger. An Islamic united force means terrorist camps, cause they know they can´t beat the allied forces in an open warfare. Even if not all the Islamic countries unite under one flag, you still have seen sofar what some extremists are able to do and work across boarders. When your atomic plants are being targeted in your homecity powersupplies, watersupplies, TV-sataion, Deadly bacterias and diseases. Will you nuke the germs away then? Will your fighter pilots be able to launch missiles to kill the falldown of radiation?

This is an action to be taken far more seriously then rattling your sabers. Leonis gave you a perfect conclusion about A Hitlers misstake.

Hear Hear!
All this talk of obliterating the Middle East to stop 'terrorism' is just an example of the disgusting belligerence giving the US and it's allies a bad name.
A Worldwide United Islamic force of dedicated and mobilized guerilla terrorists would quite possibly be the one military entity that could successfully evade the West's sledge-hammer tactics. Sure Afghanistan got blitzkrieged but-good and fell within weeks, Afghanistan was essentially isolated and the Taliban left without hope of reinforcement. But a United Islamic front would be another matter entirely.
A long-term war of attrition against a united, cohesive guerilla force? Sounds like a certain Southeast Asian Civil War the US was involved in a few decades back (not to mention the USSR's defeat in Afghanistan itself).
It's not that I'm trying to defend these terrorists, I hate what they are doing. And I'm not anti-US either. But banging our chests and throwing missiles around is going to do nothing but create even more anti-western sentiment within these nations, like it or not. And like Wolfgir and Leonis have said, a war on two fronts against conventional forces and guerilla terrorists could prove disastrous for the predominantly sedentary Western nations.

it always amuses me to see grown men in mature attitudes like saying, im bigger than him, ill beat him up because im stronger, i have a big brother, i have more missiles, more guns, im soo scared, well flatten the place, etc etc... pretty funny.

There's an election (parliament) soon here in Sweden, and when they were interviewing the leaders of the parties, they wanted them to chose between leaders of countries. One of these groups was; Bush or Castro? Some leaders of parties didn't know which one to chose, and one chose Castro. I know that those not being able to decide which was the Green Party, and the one that chose Castro was, I think, the Left Party. I'm not sure about that, so Swedes please correct me if I'm wrong. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't think it's so strange with some people in the Arabic countries saying Bush is worse than Hussein. For them Bush is what Hussein is for Americans. It's all about from which point of view you look at them. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I admit it, I don't know much about Iraq and the wars... I know what I learnt in history in highschool, though that wasn't that much since it wasn't that far away from that time. And I know what I read about it now. So I won't go into who's wrong and who's right.
All I know is that if you want to help the people (This is what the US wants to do, right? Or at least that's how I understood it...) you help them and not bomb them. I don't see how bombing a country would help the people living there. You can't say there won't be any civilian victims. :( And like some others said in their posts, it would just make them angrier.

About the nuclear bomb... So they're saying he's developing one? I know, that's really bad (strange word to use, heh). I'm against nuclear bombs... But what I don't understand is why are other countries 'allowed' to have them and not them? USA has them. Russia has them. France has them (they tested them, right?). Pakistan and India have them (I think). I bet some other countries have them too. I understand that Iraq is dangerous to the countries around it, but won't attacking them provoke them to make one even more? If they feel threatened of course they'll make one. Because then the people threatening them will think about attacking... Well, that's what I think at least.
Oh, and lots of other countries have the ability to make a nuke. Sweden is one of them. The ability to do it doesn't mean you will. (Though Iraq probably will build one if provoked... I don't know about using it though... I hope nobody is stupid enough to use it, because it would mean death to yourself.) :(

Edit - I just wanted to say that I'm not defending Iraq. When it comes to the nuclear bomb I see all countries that have it the same because you build bombs to destroy things. You don't have a bomb if you don't have an intention to use it.

[ 09-10-2002, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Ahh, I thought of Freud when I read that... [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

Ahh, I thought of Freud when I read that... [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D </font>[/QUOTE]lol... at least you didnt think of jung!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

All I have to say is if you want Saddam, take him out and leave the rest of Iraq alone. Chances are we will kill thousands of innocents and he will escape. This scenario sounds familiar...anyone know where Osama is?

Mark

Okay, speaking just militarily. The "two-front war" phobia is just that. Hitler lost because his "two-front war" was against the USSR and the Allies, the two biggest armies (eventually) in the world. The USA actually fought on at least three fronts in WWII (European Theater, China-Burma-India, and the Pacific), with smaller theaters like the Aleutians and North Africa/Mediterranean thrown in, and we won. True, terror could be a problem in the early stages, but as the ground troops and air forces neutralized the military assets of the "Union", this would fall away. Then, rule the Arab world militarily until democracy in some form is established. Oh, yeah, kill off all of the radicals that lead and train the terrorists. Militarily, that's easily doable, in, say, two years. Politically, harder.

Hiya Mark. Just couldn't resist putting my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] in regarding this one statement. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just recently, President Bush had an 85%+ approval rating, and he still enjoys one in the high 70's. Now...you said that if 'everyone in the USA follow(ed) and agree(d) with the government (we) would be close to Dictatorship'. So, by your interpretation, does that mean that we're almost a dictatorship? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or, is it just possible, that maybe, just possibly, it could very well be that the majority of Americans are happy with the direction our President is taking our country, and are pleased as punch that we're finally going to finish what our pansy 'Allies' wouldn't let us finish properly about a decade ago...namely, stomping a mudhole in Saddam Hussien's ass? Sounds like Democracy in action to me. [img]smile.gif[/img] Well...I guess only the Polls will tell when 2004 rolls around. :D

Some food for thought.
Nachtrafe

PS: I agree totally with you on the Freedom of Speech point. That is one of the defining hallmarks of our country, and one of the cornerstones of it's greatness. [img]smile.gif[/img] Without such a thing this would be a far sadder world.

Just a never-ending cycle of bitterness and counter-bitterness isn't it.

No, I meant was that if we were forced to follow, it would be a dictatorship. Approval ratings and not being allowed to question the government are 2 very different things. I think I chose an extremely poor set of words there. Sorry my intent was not to describe this government as a Dictatorship. I did not realize how blatantly wrong my statement was.

Mark

[ 09-10-2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

Interesting, but it will not be a war against Islam, this is not a crusade, nor will it require bombing the smitherenes out of the country (doesn't anybody remember watching the gulf war?) 11 years ago we were dropping our bombs with a 80-85% accuracy (with in 10 yards of their target), now the tech for the "smart" bombs is lightyears ahead of where they were in '91. Does anybody remember all the talk about how we could never be able to invade Afghanistan (the had beaten both the English & USSR, major powers of their time. What chance did this arrogant Americans have?) Nuff said on that!
Skywalker is probibly closer to what will happen then he knows :D Sodamn Insane will be taken out either by us or his own people.

<font color="#55aacc"> I have found it very interesting, that as each country that has objected to going after Iraq, has been shown our intel analysis they each and every one so far has started changing their tune. Heck even France, which is ADAMANT that the secret intel that we have on Iraq NOT be made public is starting to sound like they would support an operation. (I know the paranoid would explain this away as just another example of Bush bullying other leaders)

Sadam Hussein's track record and why we should preempt him:
1. has used chemical and biological weapons against Iran.
2. has used chemical weapons against the Kurds in his own country.
3. has harboured various terrorist groups and supplied them with money.
4. has been trying to buy nuclear and chemical weapon components around the world.
5. has a stockpile of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles especially equipped to spray chemical & or biological weapons. (this was verified after a hanger had the top sheered off by a nearby bomb impact.)

Ok would you let someone who has used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbor and an ethnic minority in his own country to go ahead and rebuild that capability? If so why?

In effect I believe taking a "wait till he does something else wrong with them" is irresponsible and immoral. What would the public response be say if he sold a nuclear weapon to a terrorist and they used it in London, Paris or Jeruselem? Those targets are much easier to hit and far closer than US cities.</font>

Just a never-ending cycle of bitterness and counter-bitterness isn't it.</font>[/QUOTE][img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]

It's not about bitterness. It's about follow-through. If the US' 'allies' had allowed President Bush to finish what he'd started in Desert Storm, Saddam Hussien and his Biological, Chemical, and (possibly) Nuclear weapons wouldn't be an issue right now. Why? because he'd be dead, or locked in a cell so deep in the earth that not even the moles would know where he is. If the US' 'allies' had the intelligence to stop hamstringing Isreal, and the intestinal fortitude to live with the consequences, instead of whining about them, then the Palestinian threat wouldn't even exist. If the US' 'allies' weren't such a pack of whining, liberal, feel-good-politic, panty-waists who actually got up off their collective asses and actually *DID* something about the things they constantly whine about, then the world really *would* be a better place.

So, I say again, it's not about bitterness. It's about anger! Anger at the politics of appeasement, anger at wishy-washyness, anger at cowardice. Our dear European 'Allies'(with a singular exception...and the British still aren't fully on-board) are so happy to enjoy the benefits of our money, our culture, our fashions, and our aid, but, when the chips are down, and there's real work to be done...well, then all you hear is the sound of crickets and cowards.

No worries Mark. Mostly I was just tweaking your nose. [img]smile.gif[/img]

<font color=orange>Great point! One I've wondered myself! Doesn't seem logical to me. But then, I'm just a dumb old redneck from Tennessee.</font>

[ 09-10-2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

The only point that I can see is that the Left hates and fears war in itself, and really believes that one can never be justified.

Yep. That, and the silly notion that you can end war by either talking it to death, or signing a treaty about it. FEH! No war, in recorded history, has ever been successfully stopped by a treaty, unless one side had already beaten the other. Treaties can be *forced* on the loser by the winner, and can be *enforced* by said winner. But the treaty, in an of itself, is nothing more than a piece of paper.

Me wuvs you all [img]smile.gif[/img]

LOL, for once I agree with your stupid posts ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Me wuvs you all too! Don't like all the paranoia and resentment online and in the world today, nuh-uh, me doesn't likes it one bit! *shakes head vigourously*

<font color="hotpink", size=5>GROUP HUG!!!</font> *bounces*

[ 09-10-2002, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

LOL, for once I agree with your stupid posts ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Me wuvs you all too! Don't like all the paranoia and resentment online and in the world today, nuh-uh, me doesn't likes it one bit! *shakes head vigourously*

<font color="hotpink", size=5>GROUP HUG!!!</font> *bounces*</font>[/QUOTE]Oooohhhh...Mel is bouncing. WHEEEEEEEE!!!!

*Grabs Mel and FF and joins in the Group Hug*

*Starts singing*

Kum-baya my Lord, Kum-baya

for you all:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb.../Flowers.2.jpg

LOL, for once I agree with your stupid posts ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Me wuvs you all too! Don't like all the paranoia and resentment online and in the world today, nuh-uh, me doesn't likes it one bit! *shakes head vigourously*

<font color="hotpink", size=5>GROUP HUG!!!</font> *bounces*</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#55aacc"> Umm Mel, I will take one of your hugs any time, but it isn't nice to "bounce" like that in front of all us old men! [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color="#55aacc"> Didn't Nevile Chamberlain try to talk a war to death?</font>

Awww, so sweet... [img]tongue.gif[/img]
You came here to spread peace and love... *sniffle* *HUG* [img]tongue.gif[/img] :D

[ 09-10-2002, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]