War 101 Logistics
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=136937
Printed Date: 19 December 2025 at 3:36pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: War 101 Logistics
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: War 101 Logistics
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 8:56am
|
Ok since many here do not feel I understand Politics lets attack the issue from a differant standpoint.
Anyone who has attended any of our service War Collages will tell you that wars are won by logistics, not the actual gun on gun battle. Once you deprive your enemy of the ways to wage war, he no longer can. Ok, understanding that fact lets look into the current war, the War on Terrorism. Many trace the initial battle in the war against America by the Radical Fundimental Islamic Idea to the Iran Hostage Incident of 1979. Where a Radical Islamic Movement backed by the Government of Iran, the Ayatollah siezed the US Embassy, and held hostages for 444 days. Since then the movement seeing a lack of resolve in America used a suicide bombing of a Marine Barracks in Lebanon 1983, again with no direct US response, the first World Trade Center bombing, The USS Cole, various Embassy bombing, again all without US direct response. Finally September 11th, and finally America responds. Be aware the Osama BinLaden has on the behalf of Al-Queda declared War, a Holy War on the United States, and under any and all conventions currently in place allows military action by the warring parties, on any front needed to end the war. Also just recently upon his election the new President of Iran announced the beginning of the "New Islamic World Revolution" and guess who the target is, if not directly stated. Now the Logistic part of this. Since the inception of terror as a weapon many mid east Nation States have used these factions in proxy wars against the west and primarily America, with plausable denieability. Now since these terror networks are not considered nation states, nor flagged armies of a nation state no current convention of rules of war exsist to combat these terror networks. Other than the tried and true logistics battle. So in order to combat these terror networks and to eliminate them as a threat first we eliminate thier logistical infastructure. No beans, no bullets, no money, no safe place to hide, equates to an ineffective fighting force unable to project war beyond a relatively small area of local influance. Afganistans Talliban Regime was a prime location for this terror infastructure, a freindly government with basically the same motive against the west and America, vast areas to conceal training and base facilities, monies made available for weapons and food, and all safe behind the shield of the Taliban Government. So we began that phase of the anti terror operation, and forced the terror network infastructure to relocate, disrupting thier ability to make war. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, along with several other Nations in the area also have provided, and still do provide safe haven for terror cells and infastructures. Saddam was more than likely delighted that he could use his proxy army and continue to wage war on America, with no direct link. Now anyone not to believe the Iraq, as well as Saddam did not support any terrorist cells really does not follow the scope of the activity in the area, nor the man himself. Now, lets look at methods of logistical containment, pretty simple really, we contain the terror organizations in a small area, limit thier logistical support and in doing so limit thier way of projecting thier war. Fighting in Iraq, against a growing number of "foriegn" fighters, not even Iraqi "Insurgents" aligned with terror cells is acomplishing the mission. Ensuring that the war does not spread, limiting the logistical base by draining exsisting support. Wherein after Afganistan, now Iraq, National Leaders with designs of supporting this proxy war on America must think twice before becoming envolved or risk American Paratroopers or Marines knocking on the Palace door. Contrary to belief in Allah, many of these National Leaders like thier lifestyle, and would rather still be in charge of their little kingdom than to risk American Invasion, so thier direct covert support is drying up to the terror organizations. Again one of the purposes to our War in Iraq. For too long these terror network by whatever name or cause were not considered a State on to which wage war. And those within the terror cells were in all realality "mercenaries" to thier cause, paid by cash, promise, or religious conviction. Up until our intervention in Afganistan, now Iraq, these cells operated with impunity, and felt that we did not have the National will to fight them, and the terror cells influenced the Leaders of local Nation States to support them or feel thier wrathe. Now the tables have turned, the logistical support is drying up, local National Leaders no longer feel they can risk to support the cells, based on impending US response, so Al-Queda, as well as any other Radical Islamic individual with a cause is being forced to fight in order to re-establish support so he can continue thier war, and the place America chose to fight this war is Iraq, and it is better than fighting it here, which was inevitable if we did not respond after 9/11. Saddam and the Iraqi Government of the time had ample opertunity to conform to the vast numbers of UN Resolutions, and to change its intended path, and Saddam chose the path he is currently on, and if giving peoples freedom from oppression as well as limiting the world Radical Islamic Terror network the ability to project thier terror war, is seen as wrong, when do we see the light, after LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc suffers another suicide attack of more epic proportions than NYC, where the same people who demand we withdraw from the current battle, will blame Bush for not protecting America from the terror threat, that they now refuse to see nor comprehend. Again war today is fought by logistics, no beans, no bullets, no war. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:06am
Very well written OS, must of been up all night 
I like how before we even thought about going into Afghanistan, we froze all their assest that we could find, Al Queda and Taliban. Taking away all their money OS made a good point. Countries around the world know they cannot hold a candle to our military machine. We'd wipe the battlefield with their asses all day long. So they have terrorist to fight us, and then they deny ever funding them. We're coming for other terrorist harbing countries next, don't like it? Tough. 
UH-oh.. post 666  ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:08am
|
Whatever happened to all those WMDs?
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:12am
Wrong thread Ced, don't hijack OS's post. -------------
|
Cedric wrote:Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:15am
|
After all, it is our duty to go around to every country that doesn't agree with us and look for terrorists. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:16am
|
No, it's our duty to look for terrorist, and if it happens to be inside a country that disagrees with us.. their problem, not ours.
Are you really THAT close minded Cedric? -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:19am
|
I'm still wondering where all of those WMDs that were threatening our
existance are. Wait, I forgot. They're all over in North Korea.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:22am
|
Cedric, again, ignroance is not bliss in your case.
Don't argue the fact that he had WMD's, he did and most of the (educated) forum agrees. Now where they are now, I don't know. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:28am
|
That is a legitimate question, the WMD's. Lets see he used Chemical Weapons on the Northern Kurds in 1992/93 after The First Gulf War, still had stocks of chemical warheads, available then, even though the UN Cease Fire Agreement stated that he must reveal and destroy or turn over his current stocks immediately after ceasation of hostilities, which he did not.
We can not be blind enough to believe that he was not persueing a Nuclear Weapons Program, Biological Program, or Chemical Weapon Program from 1992-2002. We also can not believe that as in the Gulf War to protect his air assest for future use he flew his air force off to Iran, till the war was over and back they came, that a simular probabilty of NBC assests moving to Syria, or another local "freindly", local in order to preserve them for future use after this war (which did not turn out as planned for Saddam) Chemical weapons exsisted, we have proof and proof of use after the first Gulf War, where is the UN required documentation of its destruction per the 1992 Cease Fire Agreement. No there is no proof and it is still in the area, where is unknown. Have a freind go hide a BB in your back yard, and then tell you to go find it, it is there, you can't denie it, but where, how long till you find it, if ever...but it is still there. (by the way where is Jimmy Hoffa, he exsisted too, and we still have not found him or his body, and no one will talk to tell us where, but he is here, somewhere, and someone knows exactly where, but will never talk) -------------
|
Posted By: No Quarter
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:29am
| Even if Saddam didn't have WMDs he was a supporter of terrorism, he offered sanctuary to terrorists, which made him enemy # 1. The fact that he may have had WMDs just made the situation MORE urgent. For those of you who are queasy about Iraq, I hate to inform you that Iraq and Afghanistan were just the beginning. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:32am
|
And no problem Cedric, we can just wait till the Terrorists come here and bring thier war here, just to satisfy those whose disbelief on their cause and methods leads them to think that if we leave the Mid East, all will be forgotten and we will live in Peace and Understanding.
We are in a War, against an enemy with No Nation State, No Flagged Army, just individuals with the sole intent to do harm to America, by whateve means, and wherever we show weakness. We either bring the fight to them or they will bring it here to us, a choice many Americans refuse to consider in thier blissfull ignorance of mans hostility towards his fellow man. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 9:47am
|
Exactly.
I'd rather bring war to those bastards and be hated by a lot of the world and be called a war monger then have them come over here and do a 9/11 repeat. If you don't accept that, that means you want Americans and our allies dead, which means you don't ike America, which means gett he hell out of the US. -------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 10:06am
Wasnt it just revealed that we had every intention to go to war, and that the WMDs were just a made up reason to go in? Or did I make up the downing street memos in my mind? And bugg, im pretty sure that china has a powerful enough army to take ours on pretty well, not to mention the nukes there and in N Korea. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 10:10am
In all actuality, most of the (educated) forum believes he did not have them. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:04am
|
Hysteria, Don't know where you are getting your info...
Look at OS's post, look at Clarks post. He had them. Period. Where they are now, I don't know. But he had them. Gatyr, China has a BIG army, not a good one. Take Korean war for example. They came streaming accross the yellow river, so we had to retreat. They had a 10:1 ratio. But once we dug in, got our air power up, we just decimated them. They stand no chance in a long drug out war. That's besides the point,t hey don't want N. Korea to have nukes either. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:06am
|
Yes, Saddam had chemical weapons. But that was back during the gulf
war. By the looks of it, he doesn't have them now. Which makes our
reason for entering Iraq obsolete.
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:08am
|
So, what's your point now?
EDIT: Oh, bye the way, I don't know where you went to school, but it's their, not thier ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:08am
But he never gave proof, so in the minds of any sane person, he still had all possibility of having the weapons. Hell, we found munitions built to hold chemicle weapons, built by France in 2003, banned by the UN in 2000... explain that missour. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:10am
|
There is no proof he still had them either.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:11am
And another thing, if he didn't have them, then why would he keep the inspectors out of places? -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:12am
|
I wouldn't want people snooping around in my room. It's just weird.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:15am
|
Listen, if someone snooping around your room kept you from being grounded, then you would let them, unless you have something to hide...
End of Discussion. -------------
|
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:18am
|
Who says anyone has the right to snoop around in my room, contrand inside or not?
Maybe just having someone in my room, looking around makes me feel like my private space is violated. That alone is good enough reason for you to stay out. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:19am
|
Just because you say "end of discussion" doesn't mean this is over... Only regs can say that.
If Saddam wouldn't allow some rooms to be seen, the inspectors should
have tried harder. -------------
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:26am
I don't know where you are getting your info, or the lack there of. I know he had them. I was not debating this. I was simply stating that a good many of the most intelligent members on this forum believe he did not have them. Why are all your "debate" posts attack-esque? |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:34am
Isn't it more ignorant to take one point of view and refuse to see the logic in other people's views? -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:36am
|
Sorry, I don't mean to attack anyone hysteria. Sorry for that.
Hades, but your room is different then the security of the US and our allies. If Saddams pivacy had to be encroached upon to make the world be safe, then so be it. Mbro, I see the logic in other peoples view. I am not against their views unless it's totally retarded, i.e., "saddam never g**edited**ed the kurds."
 -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:37am
|
Innocent until proven guilty. We see no WMDs, therefore, saddam doesn't have them.
-------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:38am
|
Linus - I pointed this out before. Everybody agrees that Saddam had chemical weapons AT ONE TIME (that would be the time when he g**edited**ed the Kurds, more than a decade ago). There is much less agreement on whether he had chemical weapons at the time of the invasion. There is also no agreement on whether he was seriously pursuing nuclear or biological weapons at the time. You have to be more specific. "He had WMDs" is a useless statement. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:39am
|
Our whole basis of law is actually Guilty until proven innocent, cedric.
Why do you think we put people in jail, make them pay bail, or even keep them in jaul before they go to trial? Ok Clark, I'll say this for the millionth time. You guys say he did have WMD's after First Gulf War, but not before second one.. Where did they go? IF he dismantled them, show me proof. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:41am
And you're calling me ignorant..? -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:41am
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAH -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:45am
|
You want proof? Have we found any WMDs? No. There's your proof.
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:45am
-------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:46am
I never opened my mouth. I'm typing on a keyboard. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:47am
|
Ok, read the whole post before you type a response that isn't even half thought out. -------------
|
Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:49am
|
Please, stop attacking me. Is it possible to have a civil debate here?
-------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:50am
And we are being civil, no one has yet to call anyone more then ignorant... -------------
|
Posted By: Killgore
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 11:56am
|
Why do you think Canada and some other UN countries are not fighting in the 2nd War? There is no proof that he has WOMD. If the US would have proved he had them, Canada would have been happy to give you troops and cash. Like we did the 1st time.
The big problem is if the US did find WOMD, they would be labeled "Made in the USA". :) Remember the Iraq and Iran war. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:01pm
| This scare tactic our government likes to use really frightens people that they should be more scared of an outside source than an inside. Pretty stupid. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:06pm
|
What about the Iraq/Iran war? We never gave them WMD's.
The thing with the world is only a few couintries can be trusted with WMD's. And the countries that are not trusted, basically all except for the USA, Canada, England, and Russia, are mad about that. And I like it like that. We know the destructive power of nukes, thats why we try and keep it out of other peopls hands. Killgore... proof is in the books. He had them. France sold him illegal muntions to hold them. He never proved he got rid of them. He banned the inspectors form doing their jobs. IF that isn't enough proof.. I don't know what is, short of showing a nuke to your PM. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm
|
We've sold illegal munitions to plenty of terrorist groups ourselves, even help to set up a few, and turned our eyes on the creation of a few too. No country is deserving enough to have nukes, not even the US. We can't be trusted more or less than anyone else. |
Posted By: entropy
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm
| Is it just me, or is WMD a purely sensationalized term brought about by the media? Honestly, I can't recall ever hearing that term before Iraq and/or 9/11. I'm sure it existed, just not in mainstream usage. Someone fill me in. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:08pm
|
I'm going to have to go with Cedric here: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Flight risk. Not because they are guilty, but because we might not get a chance to find out. Entirely different.
First - my main point is that you are muddling issues. Just because people agree that he had chemical weapons in the early 90s doesn't mean that people agree that he had them in '02. Second - just because he had chemical weapons in the early 90s does not mean that he had them in '02. There are a variety of reasons why he may have abandonded them. Third - even if nobody can prove that Saddam didn't have chemical or nuclear weapons in '02, that doesn't mean that he had them. That does not logically follow. This may hold as evidence of Saddam's bad faith, but it is nowhere near conclusive as to the reality of actual weapons. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:10pm
|
Pop quiz - which country is the ONLY country ever to use nuclear weapons? And let me get this straight - you would rather trust Russia with nukes than, say, Sweden? |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:17pm
He didn't have to show the inspectors anything, the UN has no power. Show me the UN's army. Show me the UN's land. The UN is not sovereign. The Iraqi goverment was. The United Nations has no right to excersize power over sovereign nations. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Stormcharger
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:19pm
|
According to the 'how old are you' post recently, very few people on this forum can even vote. Belief without proof is called faith. Just how faithful are you? If you believe what you reed or hear, and never investigate its veracity, then I pity you and leave you to your ignorance. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:22pm
Can I extrapolate from this that you personally verified the absence or presence of chemical weapons in Iraq? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:29pm
Clark, yes we were the only ones to use a nuke DURING wartime. And yes, I trust Russia, becasue they had it for over 50 years and only used it for test, never in active service. Only thingthat worries me is their lack of security messures around old nukes... Clark, flight risk is right, becasue we don't trust suspect. They are suspect for a reason.. guilty till proven innocent. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:30pm
|
It is not guilty until proven innocent, although many defendents do not get the benefit of the doubt sometimes. We should not be trusted like any other country. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:34pm
|
although many defendents do not get the benefit of the doubt sometimes.
Exactly, which is why I say it's guilty until proven innocent. If your rights are suspeded, you are guilty. Your right are suspended away when you are arrested. -------------
|
Posted By: Dune
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:37pm
| It's for your own protection and the protection of those around you. You're rights are never suspended, as even those arrested have their rights. If they are compromised then it is not their fault it is that of the department handling them and does not prove guilt, nor does it **edited**ume it for anyone that knows anything about the system. |
Posted By: entropy
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:53pm
|
Our country goes by innocent until proven guilty for a reason, Linus.
The courts reason that it is better for a guilty man to walk than an
innocent man to hang. Checks and balances are what keep democracy
afloat, let's not have the whole thing come tumbling down so a few
suspected terrorists can get what's coming to them. Being arrested means that you are under suspicion of guilt. It does not mean that you are guilty unless otherwise noted. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:39pm
|
Entropy.. let me rephrase
IT seems like we go under guilty until proven inncoent because of what we do to keep suspected people from doing harm to others or running. Both sides are true, becasue if you were innocent, they would not jail you, even if it was just so you wouldn't run. Drunk drivers, they go to jail for the night then are released until their hearing. They ARE guitly and it's proven, yet they walk the next day. -------------
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm
Well really, it would probably say "Made in China".  |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:55pm
See, we can be friends  -------------
|
Posted By: Predatorr
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:36pm
| this = my favorite thread ever |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:46pm
|
Please, ive seen people go to jail for things i KNOW they didnt do. The justice system of the US is so screwed there is absolutly no point in bringing in the US justice system in this debate.
Saddam used his chemicle weapons. A ceasefire was signed. We wanted to see his WMD in acordence with the cease-fire. We have been trying to inspect everything for nearly a decade. I know from personal experience, half an hour with the right machine, and what you want to hide will never be found. Iraq is roughly the size of california. What if i told you that me and my family are going to go dig a whole and sit there for 4 months and i want you to find us. You will not find us. And people keep saying the word "Logic" it is not logical that barels of chemicles just disapear! These things just dont up and disapear. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors"> 
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:56pm
|
Let's see... Maybe Saddam: 1. Used up all his chemical weapons to kill Kurds and didn't make more. 2. Sold his chemicals to terrorists. 3. Gave his chemicals to his girlfriend. 4. Disposed of them as requested by the UN, but failed to take good notes. 5. Dumped them in the ocean. 6. Gave them to visiting Russian scientists. 7. Lost the chemical weapons in an industrial accident. 8. Killed all the scientists for fun. 9. Failed to close the lid on the Tupperware, and the chemicals all went bad.
I can think of a zillion things that may have happened to the chemical weapons. Some are more likely than others, but most could easily happen without significant evidence. Now couple that with the many people we have captured (people who should know this type of thing) who have independantly said that there hasn't been a chemical weapons program in years. Is it possible that there are chemical weapons hidden in Iraq? Sure. But the simple absence of evidence that there are none is not evidence of their presence. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:19pm
|
Well, he should have some how proven that he didn't have them, no matter hwat he did.
If he did sell them to terrorist, all the more reason to go in... -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:22pm
|
Sure - perhaps from a quasi-legal, political-justification perspective Saddam had some kind of obligation to prove the absence of the weapons. Perhaps Saddam's failure/refusal to provide evidence was sufficient cause to invade. That was the point that Colin Powell made, very convincingly. But that is a political issue. It is irrelevant as to the logical/factual question of whether Saddam ACTUALLY had chemical weapons. Saddam either did or did not have chemical weapons in '02-'03. Whether he did or did not is independent of whether he could prove that he didn't. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:33pm
Why? Sadam is not required to prove anything. He was the head of a sovereign state which has the right to do anything within its boarders as long as it does not interfere wtih the rights of another soveriegn state. So, he could pursue chemical weapons all he wants as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of another state. Also, How does him selling weapons give us the right to attack him. Allow me to throw a stupid analogy in here because everyone loves those. That's like saying we can take over a gun shop because it sells something that could potentialy be used against someone else. It's just stupid. We have no evidence to even say that he did sell weapons to terrorists. You are just speculating at what could have happend and ignoring the facts, people have the potential to do anything, just because they have potential doesn't mean they will do it though. We were not attacked, we are conducting an illegal offensive war. Saying we were attacked or it's in self defense is completely ignorant and a blind position. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:44pm
Thats not the issue. The issue is that the "store" is selling things that have been baned, or illeagle. And we do that all the time. Shops get ransacked for selling ileagle firearms on a regular basis. And it doesnt matter if we were attacked, we have been dealing with this maniac for the better part of a decade, and we used military force to get what we want. His non compliance was why we invaded. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:49pm
Illegal? How is it illegal for him to make them within his own country? There is no such thing as international law. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:53pm
|
Best.Point.Ever. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 3:56pm
|
Those weapons were baned, he had them, he didnt cough em up. We took away his country like he was some petulant child, tough. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:00pm
You CANNOT ban someone not under your control from doing something. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:03pm
-------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:08pm
The geneva convention is a treaty it attempts to lay out rules for war and was signed by a country at its word, it is just a piece of paper. You cannot control something you do not own. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:11pm
Please... There are a slew of weapons that are banned.. Look it up. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:12pm
| lol |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:15pm
|
He did. He allowed the UN to drive all over his country. The inspectors told us that he didn't have them, there was no trace, but we ignored them. Now we hate France and Germany for siding with the UN. France and German soldiers aren't pushing up daisies, so who was right. Clark brought up a very good point. Context-especially time. Saddam originally ignored the UN and kicked out the inspectors, true. We started building up forces in the area before the current war, after 10 years of Saddam ignoring the sanctions, and guess what? He saw that we were serious and allowed the inspectors to go anywhere they wanted to. So saying he was non-compliant with the inspectors is true, in the context of 1993. Saying he was compliant with the inspectors is also true, in the context of 2003. Here is my simple, non black-and-white, non-extreme left-or-right analogy of this phenomenon: Every one works in a place or has worked in the place where some rule is ignored by the workforce. People come in 5 minutes late every day, don't abide by the dress code, or park in the wrong lot. They ignore the rules and are allowed to continue by their employer. It is not until the employer starts enforcing the rules that the employees comply. Saddam is no different. I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to master. Diplomacy was never given a chance. Saddam caved when the pressure was put on him in the months prior to the war. Why didn't we keep the pressure on with imminent military action, and allow the UN inspectors to do the job. We didn't, and 1700 kids wanting to get college benefits are dead. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:15pm
Not just military action, we'll cease trade which will cripple the nation in question.
One, not all were kids 2) They new the risk when they signed up If they weren't ready to die for their country thenshould have never signed up. I'm sad that they are dead, but don't give me that "Bush killed them" Bull crap. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:16pm
| Which of course proves mbro's point... |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:22pm
|
Look at the average age of the soldiers killed. The overwhelming majority cannot buy beer.
They signed up with the belief that they weren't going to die for stupid causes. They believed their government would make good decisions.
Let's see, the GI bill is around $70k now. The pell grant is still at about $1k. Seems to me he has some responsibility in this.
------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:23pm
Thank you. Good work linus. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:23pm
If you joined the military solely for college benifits, you are a moron. There a lot safer ways to go about getting an education. Scholorships were not their sole cause for joining the military. It was their choice, they died, thats a risk of being in the military. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:25pm
Last I checked, Iraq wasn't our country. They were not defending America. -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:27pm
|
Maybe in DC where your mommy works for the gov't. In southern Ohio there isn't a whole lot of options. The Pell grant may pay for part of your books. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:27pm
Please.. People dont sign up to be in the military to do pushups all weekend. They signed up knowing the possibiltiy of going to war. They did, they died. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:29pm
There are plenty of programs what give money to white kids, black kids, spanish kids, adopted kids and so on and so forth. If you are alive and breathing, chances are there are a slew of scholarships just sitting there waiting for you to aply. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:35pm
|
Hell, Bush even is for affirmative action, which I am squarly against (reverse racism) but I'll save it for another thread.
Smitty, they KNEW what they were siging up for. Hell, when you join for college to say, be a doctor, you can sign up for that MOS and never see action. The infantry know what they signed up for, and there are plenty of ways to get scholoships. In Michigan,a nd other states, if you mail McDonalds, they are very likely to give you a scolarship... Same with so many other businesses. -------------
|
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:37pm
Name 5 ways the top 25% of high school students (academically speaking) can go to a state college paid for free and clear. Scholarships apply to maybe less than 1% of the population. Five. Name five that compare to the GI bill. I'm waiting. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:37pm
Smitty.. plenty of scholarships. You don't have to choose one and run with it when going to college. A lot of people have gotten 4+ scolarships and college is free to them. They could do well in school, they can do good in sports, they can get a job!.. military isn't the only option,and you fail to see that. -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:40pm
In georgia, if you get a B average, you go to college FREE! There is money out there, free money, that is just waiting to be collected. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:42pm
|
Nope. Your post (before you edited it to add the second chunk) is a perfect illustration of what mbro meant that there is no such thing as international law. |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:43pm
|
So all those chumps that actually PAY for college are just idiots? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:44pm
No clark, the people that pay for college are hard workers. They didn't join the military for money like you claim people do. -------------
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:45pm
-------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:46pm
I said they will sanction you, big woop. That means they have no authority. Show me where I said the UN has authority? Thats why I added, the US and UK will take matters into their own hands. That doesn't prove you right at all.. -------------
|
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:48pm
|
I mean "chumps" because they didn't take advantage of all those easy scholarships - like just writing McD and asking for money. Why would anybody pay when there is all this free money out there? And where did I claim that people join the military for money? |
Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:48pm
|
Seriously, Linus. You are literally restating mbro's point for him. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:49pm
And no, you never said they were joing for $$, that was just something I threw in becasue smitty basically said it. -------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:49pm
|
Not everyone knows about the scholarships, a lot of the time scholarships arent much, you have to search for them, but they are out there. Scholarships through church, synagoge, mosques. Some people can pay for college, im not getting any scholarships right now. There are lots of ways to go to college. You can go to nightschool whatever, the military is not the only way for poor people to go to school. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: goodsmitty
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:49pm
|
Let me clarify my point. Name 5 gov't sponsored full ride college programs. Or two. You have to risk taking a bullet to get Uncle sam's help. ------------- "Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status." -Zesty |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:49pm
Oh please. You can't possibly be this blind.
You said the geneva convention is law and the UN inforces it, then you stated the UN has no authority, proving that there is no such thing as international law -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:54pm
Mbro, you are WRONG.
-------------
|
Posted By: DBibeau855
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:56pm
|
Exactly, you dont have to go through the government. Olympus autoparts will pay your college exenses if you get a B average. There are state scholarships, lots and lots of scholarships. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/DBibeau855/?chartstyle=myspacecolors">
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:57pm
Let's see, i think it was right about......... here
pwn3d -------------
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 01 July 2005 at 4:57pm
|
C'mon Dbib, they can't get it through their heads that there are other ways then the army... -------------
|