Madness

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: Points taken, but the realities are 1.Without WWI there would have been no Hitler. 2.Without Western intervention in the Russian civil war there would have been no cold war. 3.Without Nagasaki and Hiroshima there arguably would have been no nuclear arms race. .... But surely we can all weep at the prospect of more human lives being needlessly destroyed, no matter who is to blame. War is madness.

Take it back, further ... without Napoleon, there would have been no Bismark. Without Bismark the stage for WWI would have been .... less ripe.

War is madness. War is chaos. War is insanity.

It is tragic, the events that lead to war. But, once on the path, there are those who must fight it, and those who must do what they can to bring it to swift end. Sometimes it's the same person, cuz the battle is obviously over when you are the last standing.

Be wary how long you stare deep into the Abyss; for it stares back as well. - Nietche

(and these thoughts from a Soldier!)

[ 01-08-2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Animal]

Iron Ranger:

I'd quote the post, but it'd just make the whole thing too darn big and quite unreadable, so here goes.
I tend to disagree with you about Kuwait. The original Gulf War, was about oil. Most politicians don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves. Vietnam was about "helping out," and look where that got the US!
Yes, I am for action in North Korea, before it's too late, that IS a worthwhile cause, while running roughshod through the Middle East, in my opinion, is not. I see no reason for US or other forces to die in a war that they have no business being involved in. Again I direct you to Vietnam.
If the politicians where on the front lines of combat, you're right we would have no leaders, but don't you think if Bush was sent to Iraq with an M-16, he'd think twice about the whole thing?
I'm not defending Saddam or other tyrants and despots, but I figure until such times as he does try something leave him be. Is there any wonder why there is such anti US sentiment in the Middle East, when every few years the US drops by to slap them around a bit.

[Animal]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Animal: The power of the press at it's finest. The conflict in the Gulf during the last two decades has been about one thing: OIL Your proof sir? Iraq did not invade and wage war with Iran for ran's oil, it was about religion. Iraq did not invade Kuwait for it's oil, it was about religion and conquest. The USA did not wage the first war solely for oil and there is ample proof, that the US goes to war to aid people being faced with injustice (somalia, kosovo, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam war none of which were about oil. Though some of the motivations were self serving, it was never the sole reason for involvement. There are a lot of evil people in the world, doing evil things. Look at the number of hate crimes, murders, rapes etc... in any country at any time. Bush would like the world to think that his is doing this for humanitarian reasons, but I really, really doubt it. And your doubts are based on nothing at all. He stated his reasons, and unless you can demonstrate your psychic abilities, you have ZERO proof that he is lying. You just want him to be lieing. Which is far from being fact. Take North Korea lately for example. If reports are to be believed they are developing weapons of mass destruction faster than Iraq, yet the focus is still on Iraq. Why? Because there is no oil in North Korea. You are showing a surprising lack of knowledge about what is going on in Korea, you seem to know nothing about the political leverage the US has over N.K. Not only is the US pressuring China, Japan and S. Korea to take steps against NK, there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in S.K., along with several billion dollars in military hardware and the US Pacific Fleet being in the general vicinity when needed. We don't need to employ the same tactics for every situation. I think if the politicians themselves where holding rifles on the front lines of combat, we'd see a lot less "police actions" for humanitarian reasons. Good rhetoric but useless waste of words in the end.

[/QUOTE]I understand you patriotism, however don't be blinded by it.
I never once said I wished Bush were lying, however I do believe his motives are questionable. If we are to take Bush at his word, why not take Saddam at his word?
I don't recall saying that any Middle Eastern countries waged war on each other for oil, but perhaps I could have been clearer. Any outside country involving themselves in a war in the Middle East, has been for oil, no matter what the "official" reason may be.
I understant the situation in North Korea, but don't you think that they represent more of an immediate threat then Iraq?
MagiK, have you ever had anyone shooting at you, trying to kill you? I can say that I have, how about you?
Yes politicians picking up a weapon and standing beside those that they send to fight is a useless waste of words, because it will never happen.
Unfortunately we tend to stick our noses into affairs that are not our business all in the name of "aid."

[Luvian]

I agree that if political leaders had to face the consequence of their actions, there would be a lot less war and other such things, it seem to me that they all feel invinsible, sitting right next to their nuke activation console, and are not really considering their actions. Pride and overconfidence have always been the downfall of nations and leaders alike.

We are so close to world war 3, I think it's inevitable. The Middle est is mad at the west, north korea is mad at about everyone, china has bad humanitarian policies,... every nations seem to be in conflict in some way, and things don't seem to be getting any better...

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by MagiK: You are showing a surprising lack of knowledge about what is going on in Korea, you seem to know nothing about the political leverage the US has over N.K. Not only is the US pressuring China, Japan and S. Korea to take steps against NK, there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in S.K., along with several billion dollars in military hardware and the US Pacific Fleet being in the general vicinity when needed. We don't need to employ the same tactics for every situation.

This example that you state here.. that the situation is different.. there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in S.K., along with several billion dollars in military hardware and the US Pacific Fleet being in the general vicinity when needed..

well it fails here because .. there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, along with several billion dollars in military hardware (except for the landmines you got in S.K. and the fleet being the Pacific one). The Prince Sultan base in Saudi Arabia.. the presence is the same.

[ 01-09-2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: This example that you state here.. that the situation is different.. there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in S.K., along with several billion dollars in military hardware and the US Pacific Fleet being in the general vicinity when needed.. well it fails here because .. there are and HAVE been US troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, along with several billion dollars in military hardware (except for the landmines you got in S.K. and the fleet being the Pacific one). The Prince Sultan base in Saudi Arabia.. the presence is the same.

Permit me to once again disagree with you and point out an error in your knowledge. The types of military preasence in the middle east are far different than that along the DMZ. Not only are there not a large contingent of troops permanently stationed in the persian gulf, there are no permanent US military bases. We use Diego Garcia Extensively (a British territory/island) and we use ports in Israel. Except for in times of actual war we dont maintain much there (because the Arabs do not like American men and women military who tend to show the inequities in their cultural treatment of women)....hence it has taken months of build up for this up comming conflict...no such build up would be necessary if NK were to go hostile.

[Djinn Raffo]

Hasn't there been twenty to twenty five thousand troops stationed there since 1991?

What defines a 'permanent' base and a large contingent?

There are thirty six thousand troops in Korea right. Do your really think that that number would be sufficient and no build up would be necessary if N.K were to go hostile?

[ 01-09-2003, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: Hasn't there been twenty to twenty five thousand troops stationed there since 1991? What defines a 'permanent' base and a large contingent? There are thirty six thousand troops in Korea right. Do your really think that that number would be sufficient and no build up would be necessary if N.K were to go hostile?

36,000 U.S. troops would be enough to do whatever we needed in Korea, given the right hardware. I've heard talk though of trying to get 'em out. As has been mentioned before (and I forget the exact number of battallions) the US does not really have active military enough to combat multiple wars, each with possibly multiple fronts.

Not that I disagree w/ Clinton's downsizing - I think it was needed and the military was bloated. We do have reserves and national guard that are easily accessed. As well, you need only maintain a standing army of a certain size in the days of conscription.

Of all the places in the world that the US is ready and able to defend hands down with little muss and fuss, Korea would have to be it. The defensive organization arrayed against N. Korea is...err Impressive [img]smile.gif[/img] Every one should tour the DMZ some time! oh and take a look at what the Pacific Fleet can do on short notice [img]smile.gif[/img]

I stand by my assertion that the comparison of things in the Persian Gulf and in the Korea's is comparing Apples and Ford Thunderbirds.

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Animal: I tend to disagree with you about Kuwait. The original Gulf War, was about oil.

Very much so - SH wanted to get his hands on the Kuwaiti oilfield and to stop the Kuwaities slant-drilling into Iraqi oil-reserves.

Vietnam was about "helping out," and look where that got the US!

Nope - It was to stop the spread of World-Communism (Domino-theory)

Yes, I am for action in North Korea, before it's too late, that IS a worthwhile cause

So am I - but lets stick to dimplomacy, shall we.

If the politicians where on the front lines of combat, you're right we would have no leaders, but don't you think if Bush was sent to Iraq with an M-16, he'd think twice about the whole thing?

Yes - but that sort of thing went out of fasion after the time of Alexander the Great. You won't find any of the 'chickenhawks' in Iraq during the fighting.

I'm not defending Saddam or other tyrants and despots, but I figure until such times as he does try something leave him be.

He has been quiet for 10+ years - I still can't understand the urgency.

Is there any wonder why there is such anti US sentiment in the Middle East, when every few years the US drops by to slap them around a bit.

Good point [img]smile.gif[/img]