• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why it doesn't matter if Bush gets support...

G

Grasshopper27

Banned
The cold, hard truth of the matter is this...

We're going to attack Iraq and remove Saddam, Bush has obviously made up his mind. Regarding all the talk about if he is right or not, keep this point in mind:

- If Bush is right about Saddam, then what all the nay-sayers have been saying won't matter one bit.

- If Bush is wrong about Saddam, then ten angels standing over his shoulder saying he is right won't matter one bit.

That is a pharaphrase from something Abraham Lincon said before attacking the South in the opening battles of the Civil War. He said if he is right, then the debate won't matter before the war. If he is wrong, then ten angels standing behind him won't be able to help him.

It couldn't be more true. There was talk of needing 10,000 body bags before the first Gulf War, talk of tens of thousands of dead and wounded, talk of another Vietnam, talk of the Mother of all Battles, talk of it all being over oil, talk of Israel and nukes, etc.

In the end, it was one of the quickest, most lopsided military victories in the recorded history of war.

: ) Hopper
 
I think everyone understands that he's "right about Saddam". The question is how much of an immediate threat is Saddam to us? The answer is, he isn't, so what's the big hurry?

Maybe Saddam will give nukes and anthrax to Osama. Maybe. Maybe North Korea and Iran will, too. The idea that we are just going to go around kicking the crap out of anyone who "might" pose a threat to us is moronic.

In 1991 Saddam had invaded another country. We took a risk and did the right thing. Before it started we thought it might be a real war with real casualties. Now war is a joke to us, like some sort of bizarre game where only the bad guys and anonymous civilians get killed.

As things stand now (emphasis on "now") there is no case for invading Iraq. Bush lives in a dream world where the Iraqis will throw flowers at us and then line up to vote for his candidate of choice. I don't think so.

Take this test: If you really thought we would take significant casualties, would you still think this was a good idea?
 
Originally posted by: koryo
I think everyone understands that he's "right about Saddam". The question is how much of an immediate threat is Saddam to us? The answer is, he isn't, so what's the big hurry?
Click to expand...
No, that is not correct. The answer is, "we don't know how much of a threat he really is."

Bush might or might not know something we don't, but I suspect we'll find out about it after the war.

In 1991 Saddam had invaded another country.
Click to expand...
That war has not yet ended, Saddam has not yet met the terms of the cease fire that stopped the shooting.

As things stand now (emphasis on "now") there is no case for invading Iraq.
Click to expand...
About half of America and the President disagree with you. We shall soon see who was right.

Take this test: If you really thought we would take significant casualties, would you still think this was a good idea?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. It would be worth 10,000 dead American soldiers to liberate Iraq.

: ) Hopper
 
Hopper, just how many Iraq-war-Bush threads are you planning to create??
rolleye.gif
 
'it would be worth 10,000...blah blah blah....'

i will believe you when you are out there dying for our country

i for one would sooner shoot my self in the face than fight for this cause
 
Originally posted by: oliver2k
'it would be worth 10,000...blah blah blah....'

i will believe you when you are out there dying for our country

i for one would sooner shoot my self in the face than fight for this cause
Click to expand...
If the military would take me, I'm there. Give me a gun, or better yet, a helicopter, I'll go...

: ) Hopper
 
Hey Hopper you never saw my question from before.....

it was in respose to a Segway thread, you seemed to use the word "Yuppie" Alot...I wondered if you were one of those hippies that proliferates the use of that awful acronym which I felt died in the 80s....also is anything expensive "yuppie" in your eyes?

Sorry but I don't see the Segway as Yuppie, maybe stupid, but yuppies have better things to waste their money on like nice homes, home theaters, BMWs, Mercedes, Rolex watches and vacations in the tropics and Europe....I would love to be a Yuppie 🙂

sorry to crash your thread
 
Originally posted by: tagej
Hopper, just how many Iraq-war-Bush threads are you planning to create??
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

They are so much better than those anti-war threads where a bunch of anti-war people start whining about how little they know about how the world works. Pro-war threads tend to have very logical and well thought out arguements. Anti-war threads seem to have quotes from their favorite band protesting the war.
 
It matters that we respect the rest of the world and that they respect us. Not admire or agree all the time, but at least maintain a base level of respect.

If we attack on our own, against the wishes of 2/3 of the world's leaders, we have destroyed our international credibility. If we attack with no allies at all, it's even worse.

George W. Bush is about to wipe out centuries of American credibility by starting an aggressive action against another nation. If we can't understand that, then we deserve the consequences.
 
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
It matters that we respect the rest of the world and that they respect us. Not admire or agree all the time, but at least maintain a base level of respect.

If we attack on our own, against the wishes of 2/3 of the world's leaders, we have destroyed our international credibility. If we attack with no allies at all, it's even worse.

George W. Bush is about to wipe out centuries of American credibility by starting an aggressive action against another nation. If we can't understand that, then we deserve the consequences.
Click to expand...

The answers you will get to that are:

We don't need the credibility of those that are wrong (ie against us or don't see the problem as we do)
We don't need anyone - we're strong enough to go to war alone

Andy
 
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Originally posted by: oliver2k
'it would be worth 10,000...blah blah blah....'

i will believe you when you are out there dying for our country

i for one would sooner shoot my self in the face than fight for this cause
Click to expand...
If the military would take me, I'm there. Give me a gun, or better yet, a helicopter, I'll go...

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...

hope it's not a blackhawk....

hmmm, is it against the international law for us to us HIND?
 
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
It matters that we respect the rest of the world and that they respect us. Not admire or agree all the time, but at least maintain a base level of respect.

If we attack on our own, against the wishes of 2/3 of the world's leaders, we have destroyed our international credibility. If we attack with no allies at all, it's even worse.

George W. Bush is about to wipe out centuries of American credibility by starting an aggressive action against another nation. If we can't understand that, then we deserve the consequences.
Click to expand...


argued too much around here lately. But if some of those leaders opposing action are doing so based on their true disdain for conflict, that is one thing. Opposing it based on the economic impact (france and the oil contracts for instance) is wrong. We can deal with Iraq now or in another 10 years. I would prefer now, before they have developed long range ballistic millions or fine tuned suitcase nukes. After all, Saddam has funneled billions from humanitarian oil sales to funding nuclear weapons.

But this has been argued and we all know who is for and who is against.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Hey Hopper you never saw my question from before.....
Click to expand...
Nope, missed it...

it was in respose to a Segway thread, you seemed to use the word "Yuppie" Alot...I wondered if you were one of those hippies that proliferates the use of that awful acronym which I felt died in the 80s....also is anything expensive "yuppie" in your eyes?
Click to expand...
No, but you have to understand that I deal with true Yuppies when I fly them around in the helicopter.

People who can afford to pay $500 to $1,000 an hour to be flown around a city, just to save an hour in traffic, REALLY have too much money. 😀

: ) Hopper
 
Originally posted by: aswedc
Originally posted by: Grasshopper27
Originally posted by: koryo
Yes, I do. It would be worth 10,000 dead American soldiers to liberate Iraq.
Click to expand...
Yikes. How many to "liberate" the North Koreans?
Click to expand...
That would be worth 10,000 as well...

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...
I hope you aren't serious.
Click to expand...
Do you think saving a million lives is worth the cost of 10,000?

Are 10,000 American Soldiers worth more than 1 million Iraqi or North Korean civilians?

: ) Hopper
 
argued too much around here lately. But if some of those leaders opposing action are doing so based on their true disdain for conflict, that is one thing. Opposing it based on the economic impact (france and the oil contracts for instance) is wrong. We can deal with Iraq now or in another 10 years. I would prefer now, before they have developed long range ballistic millions or fine tuned suitcase nukes. After all, Saddam has funneled billions from humanitarian oil sales to funding nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Until now, I had the wisdom of not reading these threads. So bear with me if I repeat what someone else has said.

I do find it odd that you would questions France's motives because of their oil interests, and not George W. Bush's.

To me, the bottom line is that you don't start an aggressive war with another nation. If any other country in the world did this, we'd be the first to oppose it - and rightly so. September 11 did not give us license to start a war with every nation we oppose.
 
I don't give a f*ck about Saddam and never have. I care about the citizens of a country, not the government heads. This war will destroy life, its pure and simple. Fighting for peace is like f*cking for virginity. The fact that it will divide us with Europe because of its obvious oil ties is secondary. Saddam and the fact that our government is filled with a bunch of God-fearing hippocrates doesn't mean much after the first two.
 
People who can afford to pay $500 to $1,000 an hour to be flown around a city, just to save an hour in traffic, REALLY have too much money. 😀

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...

Are these young people you are talking about?? and if so damn i wish that I could swing that kind of cash for that kind of service, say what you want about Yuppies but I would love to be able to justify and afford that 🙂

 
Originally posted by: Rio Rebel
I do find it odd that you would questions France's motives because of their oil interests, and not George W. Bush's.
Click to expand...
I don't question France's motives because of oil.

I don't think this has anything to do with oil, from anyone's side.

To me, the bottom line is that you don't start an aggressive war with another nation. If any other country in the world did this, we'd be the first to oppose it - and rightly so. September 11 did not give us license to start a war with every nation we oppose.
Click to expand...
This isn't a war of aggression, it is a war of liberation.

: ) Hopper
 
Originally posted by: Piano Man
I don't give a f*ck about Saddam and never have.
Click to expand...
Neither do I, I'm sure he puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.

I care about the citizens of a country, not the government heads.
Click to expand...
Then why don't you want to free the people of Iraq?

This war will destroy life, its pure and simple.
Click to expand...
All wars destroy life, part of the price you pay for freedom.

We killed a lot of French people when we liberated their country from Nazi Germany. They welcomed us with open arms.

: ) Hopper
 
Originally posted by: bozack
People who can afford to pay $500 to $1,000 an hour to be flown around a city, just to save an hour in traffic, REALLY have too much money. 😀

: ) Hopper
Click to expand...
Are these young people you are talking about?? and if so damn i wish that I could swing that kind of cash for that kind of service, say what you want about Yuppies but I would love to be able to justify and afford that 🙂
Click to expand...
No, most are overpaid business people who fly into DFW Airport, need to be picked up in the helicopter and flown to various meeting sites around the city. During rushhour, it can take several hours to drive from one side of Dallas to the other, and if you have two or three places to go, it can take awhile.

I can pick you up direct from the terminal, throw your bags in the back, and fly you in 10 to 15 minutes almost anywhere in town. There is more to it than that of course, but you get the picture.

Another factor is that some people need to move back and fourth from Dallas to Fort-Worth. That can be a three hour drive if the traffic is busy, or a 20 minute flight in the helicopter.

Some people's time is worth that much money.

*shrug*

Of course, other people just go on tours of the city, others want to do something special for their anniversery. Others are entertaining out of town clients. I often fly people to restraunts, then pick them and fly them home.

I might only fly an hour, but it takes up four hours of my afternoon or evening. While waiting for them to finish, I pop open my Dell notebook and chat with you bums. 🙂

: ) Hopper
 
This isn't a war of aggression, it is a war of liberation.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you in the least that this is EXACTLY what Hitler said about invading the Sudetenland?

If we're going to live in a world of sovereign nations, we have to make rules and live by them which restrict us ALL. We can't trust other nations to decide when it's appropriate to invade another sovereign state, so we can't expect them to trust us to make that call for ourselves.

Bush is playing right into the hands of all of those who say we are empirialistic and aggressive. Regardless of what we think of those arguments, we have to take seriously what other nations think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top