The Latest From Secretary of State Colin Powell
http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=021220031230
http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=021220031230
Cliarlaoch,
Thank you for 'getting' what I was saying.
1 question - Can you justify this statement? I'm honestly curious of your sources as this is the first I've heard of it.
:asian:
Thank you for 'getting' what I was saying.
1 question - Can you justify this statement? I'm honestly curious of your sources as this is the first I've heard of it.
:asian:
Kaith,
I am not sure of this, yet I do know that there were many a North American or English Company that had offices and manufacturing plants in Germany before and during World War II.
I do not know of any sources, Yet I could easily see an order going through a Neutral Ally or through a company affliated with a Germany company here in the states making the order and even delivering them to Europe. The larger the machine the easier it is to get lost in the system, and even in WW II the U.S. Government was a large entity.
Very Curious if sources could be provided. THanks for the post!
I am not sure of this, yet I do know that there were many a North American or English Company that had offices and manufacturing plants in Germany before and during World War II.
I do not know of any sources, Yet I could easily see an order going through a Neutral Ally or through a company affliated with a Germany company here in the states making the order and even delivering them to Europe. The larger the machine the easier it is to get lost in the system, and even in WW II the U.S. Government was a large entity.
Very Curious if sources could be provided. THanks for the post!
U.N. To Destroy Banned Weapons
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inspectors_3
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20030212/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_inspectors_3
OP
Pakhet
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #27
Are you referring to the Prescott Bush/Nazi connection? If so, not everyone may know all the details. I'll try to find my links...
Lisa
OP
sweeper
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #28
as US selling weapons to germany,I would believe it.. remember the thing with IBM not to long ago?
And lvwhitebir thanks for the links, I'm off to read them right now.
And lvwhitebir thanks for the links, I'm off to read them right now.
OP
GouRonin
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #29
I am quite happy with my gov't's position on the Iraq issue. If the UN says go we'll be there.
Gou,
Quit being a reasonable person expressing their opinions. This just has to stop.
I will not allow it; Well ok maybe just for a short while.:rofl:
OP
lvwhitebir
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #31
Rant away Cliarlaoch. That's what this country is all about, Freedom of Speech.
Here's some of my viewpoints from what you bring up.
IMO he's doing it because the UN (read as the WORLD) has sanctions against Iraq that are currently in place that are being defied. N. Korea does not have such sanctions, at least not yet, so we can't do anything but talk to them. Khadify is off the radar at the moment so he's not a direct threat. I can't think of any others off hand, but we'll always have some nut case doing what he wants, when he wants it.
We aren't directly rallying against dictators. People are free to have the government they want. We just won't help them rule and we'll make sure they stay in their own borders.
We have found that the sanctions are not hurting the people in the country that make the war-mongering decisions. They are hurting the average citizen. That's the only reason why it's not working. We've allowed Iraq to have many types of things for humanitarian aid. But, we've said that if they don't "play nice" then they don't get the benefits of other countries. Too bad they don't see that.
Right now the government of Iraq is too intent on purchasing illegal technology, instead of helping its citizens. If it really wanted to help it's people, really wanted to comply with the UN resolutions, they would divert their money into less military uses and more humanitarian ones. If they fully complied, they would essentially humiliate the US government, especially now. How powerful would that be to them.
It's not all one man. It's the government in general, including the ruling political party. If the Iraqi people were having trouble with just one man, they would remove him themselves pretty easily. Unfortunately the government controls the military and won't be removed so easily.
The only people that will be murdered are those that are fighting the battle or those that are basically human shields. The US won't directly engage civilians, but these innocents may be too close to military targets. Other than that, there will always be incidental casualties. You can't avoid it. If it were a perfect world, we won't be having this conflict in the first place.
If you don't want to fight a war because innocent people will die, then how many do you think will die from the attacks that might follow if Iraq's power is not checked? Can we find a way to have the least amount of bloodshead? Remember, Iraq started this whole thing. They threw the first punch. The world has punished them and told them to be nice. It's their responsibilty now to show they're living up to their part of the bargain.
I believe they will support a war once their definition of a "political solution" runs out. Our patience has run thin, their's will too eventually. They've already agreed that Iraq is in violation of the sanctions, but they want to give the inspectors more time to find the "smoking gun". We'll see what they say when the inspectors report back to the UN tomorrow.
It's a damn big country. You can hide an awful lot of things, especially when you're watching the inspectors' every move.
IMO, Bush has found something to make him stand out; something to define his presidency. It's the same for all leaders, from political to commercial. We see company presidents come in all the time and re-organize the workforce. They do it because they think its the right thing to do and that it defines their position. The whole idea was kind of thrust on him from 9/11. Who knows what he'd hang his hat on otherwise.
CNN isn't doing anything (that I know of) other than reporting what's happening. They're not starting the war, they're not saying that they found missiles in Iraq. They're just providing an explanation of what other's are saying. They are one of several news organisations that try to find the evidence.
Unfortunately their access into Iraq is limited. In most cases, their reports must be approved by the Iraqi government and their access to sites and people is restricted. How do we know what it's really like if all we see on that side is what Iraq wants us to see?
Some people don't trust the CIA's intelligence that Powell presented. That's fine, you can't have 100% agreement. It'll be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the US to prove that he's got weapons ready and able. Therefore, per the UN, it's not our responsibility to do so. We have information of what Iraq had in 1991, and know a lot about what's they received since then. It's their responsibility to show the UN what they've done with it. They are not!
Per the inspectors themselves, their document had gaps. The US has pictures of them clearing out weapon sites, has human and electronic intelligence that says they are actively deceiving the inspectors. The last quote I saw was that everyone in the UN agrees with that, except Syria. The only argument is whether the political solutions have run out.
WhiteBirch
Here's some of my viewpoints from what you bring up.
IMO he's doing it because the UN (read as the WORLD) has sanctions against Iraq that are currently in place that are being defied. N. Korea does not have such sanctions, at least not yet, so we can't do anything but talk to them. Khadify is off the radar at the moment so he's not a direct threat. I can't think of any others off hand, but we'll always have some nut case doing what he wants, when he wants it.
We aren't directly rallying against dictators. People are free to have the government they want. We just won't help them rule and we'll make sure they stay in their own borders.
We have found that the sanctions are not hurting the people in the country that make the war-mongering decisions. They are hurting the average citizen. That's the only reason why it's not working. We've allowed Iraq to have many types of things for humanitarian aid. But, we've said that if they don't "play nice" then they don't get the benefits of other countries. Too bad they don't see that.
Right now the government of Iraq is too intent on purchasing illegal technology, instead of helping its citizens. If it really wanted to help it's people, really wanted to comply with the UN resolutions, they would divert their money into less military uses and more humanitarian ones. If they fully complied, they would essentially humiliate the US government, especially now. How powerful would that be to them.
It's not all one man. It's the government in general, including the ruling political party. If the Iraqi people were having trouble with just one man, they would remove him themselves pretty easily. Unfortunately the government controls the military and won't be removed so easily.
The only people that will be murdered are those that are fighting the battle or those that are basically human shields. The US won't directly engage civilians, but these innocents may be too close to military targets. Other than that, there will always be incidental casualties. You can't avoid it. If it were a perfect world, we won't be having this conflict in the first place.
If you don't want to fight a war because innocent people will die, then how many do you think will die from the attacks that might follow if Iraq's power is not checked? Can we find a way to have the least amount of bloodshead? Remember, Iraq started this whole thing. They threw the first punch. The world has punished them and told them to be nice. It's their responsibilty now to show they're living up to their part of the bargain.
I believe they will support a war once their definition of a "political solution" runs out. Our patience has run thin, their's will too eventually. They've already agreed that Iraq is in violation of the sanctions, but they want to give the inspectors more time to find the "smoking gun". We'll see what they say when the inspectors report back to the UN tomorrow.
It's a damn big country. You can hide an awful lot of things, especially when you're watching the inspectors' every move.
IMO, Bush has found something to make him stand out; something to define his presidency. It's the same for all leaders, from political to commercial. We see company presidents come in all the time and re-organize the workforce. They do it because they think its the right thing to do and that it defines their position. The whole idea was kind of thrust on him from 9/11. Who knows what he'd hang his hat on otherwise.
CNN isn't doing anything (that I know of) other than reporting what's happening. They're not starting the war, they're not saying that they found missiles in Iraq. They're just providing an explanation of what other's are saying. They are one of several news organisations that try to find the evidence.
Unfortunately their access into Iraq is limited. In most cases, their reports must be approved by the Iraqi government and their access to sites and people is restricted. How do we know what it's really like if all we see on that side is what Iraq wants us to see?
Some people don't trust the CIA's intelligence that Powell presented. That's fine, you can't have 100% agreement. It'll be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the US to prove that he's got weapons ready and able. Therefore, per the UN, it's not our responsibility to do so. We have information of what Iraq had in 1991, and know a lot about what's they received since then. It's their responsibility to show the UN what they've done with it. They are not!
Per the inspectors themselves, their document had gaps. The US has pictures of them clearing out weapon sites, has human and electronic intelligence that says they are actively deceiving the inspectors. The last quote I saw was that everyone in the UN agrees with that, except Syria. The only argument is whether the political solutions have run out.
WhiteBirch
Well, the UN hasn't found anything major yet.....most of the UN wants to keep looking, and the Warhawks are livid. Basically saying 'well, we know better, so do what we want or we're gonna do it ourselves'.
Anyone else but me see a problem with all this?
Every other time we went to war we went with a nice amount of support, as liberators and defenders. This time, we're shooting first.
I dunno....
My prediction? Between now and March 31st, 'something' big will happen and 'create' the 'excuse' needed to launch a full assault. We will find out about the assault being launched about 15-30 minutes after it starts.
Hopefully, they don't kill too many folks with the 'excuse'...
bastards..all of em, on all sides.
Anyone else but me see a problem with all this?
Every other time we went to war we went with a nice amount of support, as liberators and defenders. This time, we're shooting first.
I dunno....
My prediction? Between now and March 31st, 'something' big will happen and 'create' the 'excuse' needed to launch a full assault. We will find out about the assault being launched about 15-30 minutes after it starts.
Hopefully, they don't kill too many folks with the 'excuse'...
bastards..all of em, on all sides.
OP
Shinobi
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #33
I don't know anymore. I don't know what, or whom to believe. None of it adds up or makes any sense. I.....well after 9/11 I would have been all for it. Untill I relized, the killing didn't stop at 9/11. The killing is still happening.
And it doesn't matter...what Government...what Country. They all have propaganda to make them seem in the right. Everything Bush is doing, he has, his keyword is "Anti-Terrorism."
That seems to be the buzzword now. Bush don't like someone? "They're terrorists out to kill us. We MUST draw first blood and take over their Government." I know one thing, OUR Country is falling to pieces and I don't see anyone who can control it doing anything. Bush seems to have forgotten about US and the economy. I guess....I would say we mind our own business and get our Country in order.
"I foresee problems with a multitude of Arabic countries. (And if
you read foreign news, they claim that we're loathed so strongly
by them because we support and protect Isreal.)"
True. The terrorists do hate us because of that and even say so. It's not as simple as that. I don't know. I think if we helped EVERYONE out over there and not just Israel, we could create some sort of peace. Such as Bush and the UN sitting down and saying "you, you're held responsible for suicide bombings. Tell your people to stop. Israel, if they stop, you leave them completely alone. They do their thing in their country and you do yours."
I dunno...just a suggestion.
And it doesn't matter...what Government...what Country. They all have propaganda to make them seem in the right. Everything Bush is doing, he has, his keyword is "Anti-Terrorism."
That seems to be the buzzword now. Bush don't like someone? "They're terrorists out to kill us. We MUST draw first blood and take over their Government." I know one thing, OUR Country is falling to pieces and I don't see anyone who can control it doing anything. Bush seems to have forgotten about US and the economy. I guess....I would say we mind our own business and get our Country in order.
"I foresee problems with a multitude of Arabic countries. (And if
you read foreign news, they claim that we're loathed so strongly
by them because we support and protect Isreal.)"
True. The terrorists do hate us because of that and even say so. It's not as simple as that. I don't know. I think if we helped EVERYONE out over there and not just Israel, we could create some sort of peace. Such as Bush and the UN sitting down and saying "you, you're held responsible for suicide bombings. Tell your people to stop. Israel, if they stop, you leave them completely alone. They do their thing in their country and you do yours."
I dunno...just a suggestion.
OP
Elfan
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #34
GaryM
Green Belt
..be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box!
OP
Cliarlaoch
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #36
In response to lvwhitebir, thanks for the commentary... good points to raise. I still don't trust big media sources, mind you, but they're not as bad as they could be.
As for the comment on the German/US business connection in WWII, Kaith, I'm hunting down my old sources (a friend of mine with better recall than me came across this sort of stuff years back, and passed it on to me, which is why I'm not as sharp on this one as I should be). For one, there is the IBM connection, wherein IBM helped Hitler catalogue those who were Jews in Germany so he could capture them more easily, but there were other examples, primarily of gun manufacturers, engine companies (for planes and the like) that were also involved... at least as far as I remember from my conversations with my above-mentioned friend... gotta give him a call and pick his brain. Back to you ASAP on that. The info's there, I just gotta find it again.
As for whether or not certain countries will be willing to go to war... I don't know if they'll be ABLE to go to war and remain in office. With all the mass protests going on right now, I don't think Germany, France, Canada, and heck, even the US can afford to make a mistake on this issue. If they do, it'll lead to problems at the next election for those in office. That's probably why I don't think Germany or France are going to be likely to commit to the war easily, if at all. Schroeder was elected on an anti-war platform. If he reneges on that, he'll be in deep doo-doo. Similar issue with Chretien up here in Hockey-land (Canada, eh?). While he wasn't elected on an anti-war platform, he IS trying to protect his legacy and the power of his party (the Liberals). If he goes about this in a way that the populace doesn't like (i.e. jumping the gun w/o UN support, possibly even fighting in the first place), the Liberals will crumble at the next election. Fun part about all this is that Canada's army is so small that we wouldn't be able to do much at all except offer the allies some beers and hope we can duck underneath whatever shots get fired long enough to beat up the enemy with our hockey sticks. (Sorry, had to go for the cheap laugh with the Canadian stereotype gags).
Another point for your debating pleasure: we've got to remember to be careful about the way we look at "defense" in the West... it's not really defense at all, if you think about it. It's OFFENSE. We ATTACK other countries. The only thing we can and should try to defend against are foreign attacks, but of course, people don't think that works after 9-11, but that doesn't mean we should start being aggressors ourselves. Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence. But try calling foreign policy "offensive" or such, and you'll be treated as a laughing stock. Why? Because we're told by every major source, the media, the government, etc. that we're being defensive. Example: How exactly are we being defensive if our planes are getting shot at for violating ANOTHER COUNTRY'S AIRSPACE (witness all those times US planes got shot at over Libya in the 80s... they were flying over Libyan airspace, and they were the only ones getting shot at... the Brits, the French, nobody else was, only the US... why? Because the US's jets were the only ones in Libyan airspace!!!)?!? Most other countries, if they did that, would get censured by the rest of the world, but when the big names do it, it's called "surveillance" or "defense." Another Chomsky-ism, but I like him and he's smarter than me, so hopefully you won't mind if I bring it up.
One last quick point... I know as well as anyone how bad things are in Iraq, and I know the common counter-argument to doves like me: how can we justify ALLOWING Saddam to stay in power if all he does is murder his own citizens. That said, there are two problems I have with war, and I think this is what my entire argument boils down to... For one, how can we say, on the one hand, that people should be free to pick their own governments, and then try and force them to accept a new one? I can conceive a counter to this already, and that is that people may not be free to make that choice, and certainly that problem exists in Iraq. But how can we be sure that we're going to solve the problem by removing Saddam Hussein? There's no guarantee that the whole country won't split apart into its separate ethnic, religious, and tribal groups, and there's little guarantee that whoever succeeds Saddam will be a better ruler. My point here is that we've got to be careful about assuming that war will actually manage to change anything. I know this sounds defeatist, but it's a genuine concern, I think.
The second problem is that we're simply perpetuating things by continuing the attacks on the rest of the world. If we want to really stop war, I think every country in the West has got to rethink how we go about dealing with the rest of the country. The US spends 360 some-odd Billion Dollars A YEAR on its military... and we're expected to believe that Bush's promise of a measly 1.2 Billion to help fight AIDS in Africa is generous (this from his State of the Union address). Imagine what we could do if those 300-plus Billion Dollars were pumped into the US's own economy, and into humanitarian projects worldwide. The UN estimates that it would only take a fraction of that amount per year to provide food for the world. Meanwhile, within 20-30 years, the world will begin to exhaust its water reserves. Maybe we ought to be spending our resources trying to find ways to ensure that our planet can sustain our existence? Again, just ideas here... they sound idealistic, but maybe if enough of us actually started getting involved, using our right to vote, using our right to speak out against our governments, etc., we might start to make a difference. Maybe instead of waging war on Iraq, we could find more constructive ways of dealing with Saddam and others like him: by providing the people living under these dictators with the means of living a good life, access to information that will allow them to question their governments, and maybe then the means to change their circumstances.
Just a thought. Call me a dreamer, but I'd rather try to find some other way of solving the world's problems then war. Because as long as people accept force as an option in solving our differences, then we're just going to keep on killing each other. Look at Martial Arts. We love to practice them, but one of the most important things we learn is never to use our skills without just cause. Maybe it's time the world started to do the same.
--Cliarlaoch
PS: Feel free to fire back at me... I'll try to respond as soon as I have spare time (bloody homework).
As for the comment on the German/US business connection in WWII, Kaith, I'm hunting down my old sources (a friend of mine with better recall than me came across this sort of stuff years back, and passed it on to me, which is why I'm not as sharp on this one as I should be). For one, there is the IBM connection, wherein IBM helped Hitler catalogue those who were Jews in Germany so he could capture them more easily, but there were other examples, primarily of gun manufacturers, engine companies (for planes and the like) that were also involved... at least as far as I remember from my conversations with my above-mentioned friend... gotta give him a call and pick his brain. Back to you ASAP on that. The info's there, I just gotta find it again.
As for whether or not certain countries will be willing to go to war... I don't know if they'll be ABLE to go to war and remain in office. With all the mass protests going on right now, I don't think Germany, France, Canada, and heck, even the US can afford to make a mistake on this issue. If they do, it'll lead to problems at the next election for those in office. That's probably why I don't think Germany or France are going to be likely to commit to the war easily, if at all. Schroeder was elected on an anti-war platform. If he reneges on that, he'll be in deep doo-doo. Similar issue with Chretien up here in Hockey-land (Canada, eh?). While he wasn't elected on an anti-war platform, he IS trying to protect his legacy and the power of his party (the Liberals). If he goes about this in a way that the populace doesn't like (i.e. jumping the gun w/o UN support, possibly even fighting in the first place), the Liberals will crumble at the next election. Fun part about all this is that Canada's army is so small that we wouldn't be able to do much at all except offer the allies some beers and hope we can duck underneath whatever shots get fired long enough to beat up the enemy with our hockey sticks. (Sorry, had to go for the cheap laugh with the Canadian stereotype gags).
Another point for your debating pleasure: we've got to remember to be careful about the way we look at "defense" in the West... it's not really defense at all, if you think about it. It's OFFENSE. We ATTACK other countries. The only thing we can and should try to defend against are foreign attacks, but of course, people don't think that works after 9-11, but that doesn't mean we should start being aggressors ourselves. Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence. But try calling foreign policy "offensive" or such, and you'll be treated as a laughing stock. Why? Because we're told by every major source, the media, the government, etc. that we're being defensive. Example: How exactly are we being defensive if our planes are getting shot at for violating ANOTHER COUNTRY'S AIRSPACE (witness all those times US planes got shot at over Libya in the 80s... they were flying over Libyan airspace, and they were the only ones getting shot at... the Brits, the French, nobody else was, only the US... why? Because the US's jets were the only ones in Libyan airspace!!!)?!? Most other countries, if they did that, would get censured by the rest of the world, but when the big names do it, it's called "surveillance" or "defense." Another Chomsky-ism, but I like him and he's smarter than me, so hopefully you won't mind if I bring it up.
One last quick point... I know as well as anyone how bad things are in Iraq, and I know the common counter-argument to doves like me: how can we justify ALLOWING Saddam to stay in power if all he does is murder his own citizens. That said, there are two problems I have with war, and I think this is what my entire argument boils down to... For one, how can we say, on the one hand, that people should be free to pick their own governments, and then try and force them to accept a new one? I can conceive a counter to this already, and that is that people may not be free to make that choice, and certainly that problem exists in Iraq. But how can we be sure that we're going to solve the problem by removing Saddam Hussein? There's no guarantee that the whole country won't split apart into its separate ethnic, religious, and tribal groups, and there's little guarantee that whoever succeeds Saddam will be a better ruler. My point here is that we've got to be careful about assuming that war will actually manage to change anything. I know this sounds defeatist, but it's a genuine concern, I think.
The second problem is that we're simply perpetuating things by continuing the attacks on the rest of the world. If we want to really stop war, I think every country in the West has got to rethink how we go about dealing with the rest of the country. The US spends 360 some-odd Billion Dollars A YEAR on its military... and we're expected to believe that Bush's promise of a measly 1.2 Billion to help fight AIDS in Africa is generous (this from his State of the Union address). Imagine what we could do if those 300-plus Billion Dollars were pumped into the US's own economy, and into humanitarian projects worldwide. The UN estimates that it would only take a fraction of that amount per year to provide food for the world. Meanwhile, within 20-30 years, the world will begin to exhaust its water reserves. Maybe we ought to be spending our resources trying to find ways to ensure that our planet can sustain our existence? Again, just ideas here... they sound idealistic, but maybe if enough of us actually started getting involved, using our right to vote, using our right to speak out against our governments, etc., we might start to make a difference. Maybe instead of waging war on Iraq, we could find more constructive ways of dealing with Saddam and others like him: by providing the people living under these dictators with the means of living a good life, access to information that will allow them to question their governments, and maybe then the means to change their circumstances.
Just a thought. Call me a dreamer, but I'd rather try to find some other way of solving the world's problems then war. Because as long as people accept force as an option in solving our differences, then we're just going to keep on killing each other. Look at Martial Arts. We love to practice them, but one of the most important things we learn is never to use our skills without just cause. Maybe it's time the world started to do the same.
--Cliarlaoch
PS: Feel free to fire back at me... I'll try to respond as soon as I have spare time (bloody homework).
OP
lvwhitebir
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #37
Cliarlaoch, I think that most in the US would agree that pumping that money back into the economy would be helpful, at least to a point. One problem, the defense contractors employ a lot of people. That would be a lot out of jobs.
The second problem is the perception of the populace. The democrats reduced the defense spending with Clinton, saying that we need to do more with less. I was in the government at the time and we had a huge reduction in force, without any reduction in requirements. Then 9/11 happens and people blame the government saying it should have known and prevented it. Well, when you're overworked, things take longer to find and put together.
Enough said by me. I hope we avoid a war. The ball is in Iraq's court.
WhiteBirch
The second problem is the perception of the populace. The democrats reduced the defense spending with Clinton, saying that we need to do more with less. I was in the government at the time and we had a huge reduction in force, without any reduction in requirements. Then 9/11 happens and people blame the government saying it should have known and prevented it. Well, when you're overworked, things take longer to find and put together.
Enough said by me. I hope we avoid a war. The ball is in Iraq's court.
WhiteBirch
OP
Cliarlaoch
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #38
Fair enough. I hope we avoid a war, too... but I doubt we can, now.
Oh well, time will tell.
On a slightly more cynical note, anyone got any bets on how long it'll be before Dubya says something dumb again, like "People need to understand that commerce is about trade," or "People have a lot of faith in me... they tell me, don't ever let us down again."
I'm saying about 2 hours into the war, we'll here something about war being the proper way to find peace. Sheesh.
--Cliarlaoch
Zujitsuka
Blue Belt
I hope that we don't go to war.
If war does come, the U.S. should not go into this alone. Let the U.N. play a part or we'll undermine their importance. Additionally, someone else should share in the costs of this campaign. Why should U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab in dollars and blood?
It is also my understanding that Turkey, a NATO ally wants the U.S. to pay rent for using their military installations as a staging area. We're paying off a lot of people these days. It seems like we're being played by so-called friend and foes alike.
Peace and blessings,
If war does come, the U.S. should not go into this alone. Let the U.N. play a part or we'll undermine their importance. Additionally, someone else should share in the costs of this campaign. Why should U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab in dollars and blood?
It is also my understanding that Turkey, a NATO ally wants the U.S. to pay rent for using their military installations as a staging area. We're paying off a lot of people these days. It seems like we're being played by so-called friend and foes alike.
Peace and blessings,
OP
Jas
Guest
- Thread Starter
- #40
I keep hearing show us proof, what kind of proof do you want? Do you want to see saddam on Cnn standing next to a nuclear missile or do you want to see pictures of victoms of his new chemical weapon, I think then it will be to late!! If any of these countries ever get the power to destroy us they will, so why not destroy them while we still have some power left. I am so sick of people who have never served this nation claiming the rights they think they deserve and then questioning the govt. when its time to go fight for those same rights. My grandfather landed on the shores of Guadalcanal with the 1st Marine Raider division, my father was with the 82nd Airborne in Vietnam and I went to Iraq with the 2nd Marine division and Bosnia with The 2nd Marine Recon Battalion, I think my family has earned the right to question the govt. and yet we never do, but you get some college kids sitting around there favorite coffee house tables and all of a sudden they become the new joint chiefs of staff with all the answers to our countries problems...
LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY
LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY
