War perspective
 

I'm not arguing a side, more than passing along part of an email I received. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

Jurgen

US. Navy Capt. Ouimette is the Executive Officer of Naval Air Station, Pensacola. Here is a copy of the speech he gave earlier this month. A wonderful and accurate account of why we are in trouble today.



America WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September
2001and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next
23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Viet Nam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and downsized / right sized since the end of the Viet Nam war. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnaped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued. In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut. 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more. Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber. The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the Snooze Alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US soil is continually attacked. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in
1988, killing 259. America wants to treat these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war...the Wake Up alarm is louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women. A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500.

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision, they kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high official in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979. The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America has to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to hit the Snooze Button again and roll over and go back to sleep. We have to make the terrorists know that in the words of Admiral Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor "that all they have done is to awaken a sleeping giant."

Thank you very much.

Sept 11 has been organized by the CIA, in order to start a sate of permanent war in the middle east, which only goal is to seize oil, or more exaclty the oil money.
The weapons of mass destructions was a big bluff, nothing significant has been found so far. And as far as freeing the iraqui people, all they have to say now is:

Get the hell out of here !

So, YOU wake up, dude !

Aurel

Dude, no. .. you got it wrong . .it was *actually* organized by the brain sucking aliens from outerspace.

Quick get the tinfoil hat on before its too AHAHHAHHHHHhttp://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/schiet.gif

Re: War perspective
 

"Ensure OUR WAY OF LIFE CONTINUES"......... I think this speaks to the seriousness of the war on terrorism.....

If the USA goes under......the world will be plunged into a new dark ages where chaos will reign.....and France will not SURVIVE... the world economy is interdependent........ the reserve currency of the world is still the $$$$$$ bill.... so Aurel you might as well decide if U like driving your Porsche and having all those other luxurys that a modern society provides.....or would you rather go back to using a outhouse to take a dump in...... Cause thats basically what it comes down to......

Tabs, you are perfecltly right. This war is about maintaining the growth rate of the global economy. The war on terror thing was just to get all the sheep onboard. Maybe if the true objectives had been stated upfront, the US would not look like a big liar to the rest of the world. I like driving my porsche, but I do not like to know that innocents have been killed for that, by other innocents who had no clue what they were really fighting for.

Aurel

Aurel it's a forest for the trees issue.....not many people can grasp the global implications of an Islamic Jihad......the threat is very real.... I think it was Charles martel at the Battle of Tours that understood the issue...

Its been mentioned on another thread, but it continually amazes me how angry many people throughout the world are with the US.

I am guessing US foreign policy tends to engender this ill-will. I mean, it annoys me, but then again I never feel any urge to bomb anything because of it :o

While I am not a serious conspiracy theorist, I have to admit that the September 11 attacks provided just the motivation that most Americans needed in order to support this latest corporate war.

Just as aside, Aurel, did you hear the title of Michael Moore's next movie:

FARENHEIT 9-11: THE TEMPERATURE AT WHICH FREEDOM BURNS

(love the Bradbury reference, btw)

You then, would likely be AMAZED how many people are "angry" with Bill Gates too. (even though they continue to give him money for product)
You may even be AMAZED how many people are "angry" with New Zealand.
So what are you tyring to say? . . .you're easily amazed, living in utopia, where no one is working hard to exterminate you?

CJ, how is the latest war a "corporate war" ?

Also, re; non-serious conspiracy; are you implying Bush is actually a mastermind & actor, just pulling the New Zealand wool over our eyes?

I'm pretty sure I'm not trying to say that.

Not that it is relevant, but other than Bush, few people are angry with NZ (I guess few people even know its here). He is apparently really pissed off because our Prime Minister said in an interview that she thought that Sept 11 under Gore wouldn't have ended up in an invasion of Iraq, and made the observation early in the war that it didn't appear to be going to plan.

She apologised for causing offennce to Bush after the US overreacted - "You're either for us or ag'en us" :rolleyes:

But not 'till she was quoted as saying she had only stated "the bleedingly obvious". :o I'm surprised he bothered getting pissed off - he should have had other things on his mind.

By "not a serious conspiracy theorist," i meant that I think conspiracy theories are cool and interesting, but I don't necessarily believe them.

And i should have left off that bit about the corporate war, that was just my editorializing attitude taking over... i really meant to be non-partisan in this post but the itch is just too tempting.

Cam, sounds like your Prime Minister is an idiot. She's Monday-morning-quaterbacking when she wasn't even getting a clear signal on the game. . . so to speak. Or does NZ have a fleet of satilites tasked on Iraq, to allow your your Prime Minister full access to how the war was going?:rolleyes: . . . maybe a crystal ball too, with Al Gores 'what-if' future? . . . idiot PM.

Island, EXACTLY!! Only Americans, and really only ones who watch FOX news, know how the war is really going! You keep on giving it to those foreigners, can't believe the nerve of some of them, questioning our foreign policy. Maybe NZ should be next on our *****-list. GRRRRRRR........ :mad:

so it never entered your mind that maybe the rest of the civilized world is right and you're the one that's wrong?

speeder, you missed my point. To spell it out a bit more;
It's one thing for us (on this board) to bat around the information we have from various sources. THe NZ PM, however, shouldn't be babbling on about 'what ifs'. . . .it makes her look like a Dan Quale. (if that helps you understand)

and, no, NZ is not the next on my *****-list.

right and wrong about what?
Are you saying France & Russia were "right" to want to keep Saddam in place JUST so they could keep their cash flow up?

Are you saying Saddam should have been allowed to continue, keeping food from the Iraqi populus? Hey it was only 4000 kids dying due to malnutrition each year. I suppose the rest of the world was right, and the US was wrong. :rolleyes:

Then there is the outright killing/torture machine of Saddam. Yeah, "the rest of the world" is so right to just look the other way.

Has it ever entered YOUR mind that maybe leftist will SELLOUT anybody(ies) to cover their latent desire for people in other countries to comit genocide? especially if it means putting down the Bush admin at the same time.

Atleast the left gets to play the part of "peace seeking" good-guy. . . .and nobody sees what *that* game is. In fact I;m just all warm and fuzzy just thinking about how right "the rest of the world" is to want to have left Saddam alone.:rolleyes:

After all, it's all about warm-fuzzies .. . sometimes you just have to look the other way to keep them. (warm & fuzzy)

Hot damn island. Well done. France and Russia, after arguing forever to lift sanctions on Iraq, now oppose lifting sanctions on Iraq after the war is over and Saddam is out of power. France and Russia argued that the children of Iraq were suffereing because of the sanctions. The oil for food program shows you what Saddam got the people of Iraq. Now Iraq needs to rebuild and it has oil to sell and France and Russia don't want to lift sanctions? How messed up is that? It just shows you who is really in it for the oil! FRANCE AND RUSSIA!

"Has it ever entered YOUR mind that maybe leftist will SELLOUT anybody(ies) to cover their latent desire for people in other countries to comit genocide? especially if it means putting down the Bush admin at the same time. "

are you insinuating that liberals actually want people murdered? wow.

btw, I agree with your points on France and Russia; I don't think anyone disputes this. However, we also must recognize that the U.S. involvement in Iraq is not as lilly-white as the current administration wants it to seem. This is been discussed in detail in other threads in the OT forum, so I won't go into it... suffice to say that both sides have their points, both positive and negative. Now, as far as the "rest of the world," popular sentiment in governments other than France and Russia (including England, our comrade-in-arms) was that U.S. involvement in Iraq was just another case of American imperialism and capitalist security. Other Western civilizations had almost as much to gain with the U.S.'s involvement in Iraq, for they rely on the same world economy that we do... so one might ask, why was the majority of world population against this war? Personal reasons? Business interests?

How do you know it was the majority of the worlds population? There is no way to prove that.

France and Russia, after arguing forever to lift sanctions on Iraq, now oppose lifting sanctions on Iraq after the war is over and Saddam is out of power

This is already out of date. France want to lift the sanctions now.

Our PM made those comments in an interview - they were off the cuff from a woman who tends to speak her mind. Many people here appreciate that personality trait, while many think she is an idiot because of it. She also never apologises - hence she only apologises for "causing offence", rather than for making the remarks.

However, what she said is true - capricious, but true. The war didn't appear to be going to plan - an observation made by everybody at the time. Gore probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq when Bush did (the link between Iraq and terrorism is somewhat tenuous).

"How do you know it was the majority of the worlds population? There is no way to prove that."

How do you know it isn't?

Exactly my point so that statement is invalid. ;)

hey, just because it can't use its legs doesn't mean you should call names.

Ok, so "all evidence supports that most of the world was against this war." Better?

How do you know it was the majority of the worlds population? There is no way to prove that.

For someone with a little time it is pretty easy to prove.

In the US, before the war started, it was greater than 50% against going without UN approval. See this. Not surprisingly, this went to over 50% support once the Administration committed - I can't blame the US public for getting behind their President (although I wouldn't have got behind my own government, but then again I don't pledge alliegance to a flag either - we aren't as patriotic here. This isn't necessarily a bad thing).

In France it was about 80:20 (or higher) against. NZ was well over 50% against.

I'm guessing the Arab world was more than 50% against ;). China and India - the real clinchers in terms of weight of population - I'd be surprised if they weren't over 50% against the war (ok, so I'm guessing now).

Why guess though. This suggests that India is against it - try here.

OK, so that pretty much proves it. 87% times 900 million people = a world majority. There is no way you are coming back from that. I also found something else which suggested ~75% of Indians opposed the war from around the same time.

Please no-one bother picking apart the stats on this. I realise it is full of holes. The exact question matters - for instance, the US question in the CBS poll was "Should US invade Iraq without UN approval?". The demographics matter - the Indian poll only looked to the educated. But rather than focus in excruciating detail on these potential statistical errors, why not just accept that, prior to the war, the rest of the world was very much against a US-led, un-UN mandated invasion.

I also realise perceptions changed during and after the war (ie now). That doesn't make the invasion right.

Yes, because then they have an excuse to moan about the state of the world whilst smoking pot and staring at the ceiling.



:D

Well, almost. You've slightly twisted my words.

Tell me why that statement is inaccurate.

Blue is right, much of the left wants to have an excuse to moan about the state of the world whilst smoking pot and staring at the ceiling. Although, those leftists are more of the indifferent types of people, when it comes to other countries killing each other.

There are for sure a number of leftists whom see people as the biggest threat to "mother earth." These are the ones that are indeed are fine with genocide (in other lands). . .especially if it's near a rainforest. . . as long as no darter slugs are harmed, of course.

well kindly don't lump me into that category; I think all murder is wrong, period. i am what you would call a pacifist, i think I would only be able to harm another human being if my life (or the life of someone I cared about) ++++++++were immediately threatened. And yet I am a liberal. I see your point about environmentalists (especially groups like Earth First!, who spike trees that result in the deaths of loggers) - they sometimes go too far. But please do not stereotype.

"And yet I am a liberal . . ..But please do not stereotype."

As soon as you put a label on yourself, you enter in to a stereotype.

When you throw out "the majority of the worlds population" as sharing a common stance against the war, you again stereotype.

Obviously the people of the world are more diverse than any stereotype, and yet stereotyping provides utility even though it is faulty. Similar to war really.

If you have to kill, a mass-killer, to make the world a safer place, then of course you have to toss out the whole pacifist ideal. The alternative is to accept the mass killer will continue to kill . . . but of course if you frown hard enough he may stop killing . . .just for you and your good intentions.

Really, the fact that Saddam was a mass killer entered to no more than 5% in the decision to go to war with Iraq, IMHO. The 90% of the driving force was the oil, period. I`d say another 5% was to find weapons of mass destruction, and yet nothing has been found. It is funny how public opinion gets so easily manipulated. It did not bother anyone that Saddam was a mass mudrderer during the Iran-Iraq war. So what changed since then ? 9/11 ? There have been no connections established with El Quaeda, despite repeated attempts. It is like if this administration desperately needs to find WMDs and links with Al Quaeda, but each time, they happen to be unsuccesful. Again, the naive american people have been embarked in an imperialistic war for oil while they are convinced to be making the world a better place...You cannot impose democracy on people, this is called a dictature ! What if these folks democratically decide to have a shiite religous form of government very much like the Taliban ? What if they are just not made for democracy ? It is a good thing that Saddam was removed, but now, if the US really had genuine and honnest intentions, it should pull back of Iraq as soon as possible. Not try to put its own puppet government to serve its own economical interrests.

Aurel

Aurel,

I have read most of your posts, and it seems like you keep coming back to the conclusion that this war is predicated on oil. I don't happen to agree. I think if if you are going to use a "percentage", it would be very low, but there is no way I can ever convince you of this.

I think that we had every right and an obligation to the American people to go back to Iraq. When we signed a cease fire areement with Iraq, it had conditions attached to it. One of the conditions was the disarmament of the Iraqi regime. They gave us a list of the weapons they had and they were supposed to document and show proof of their destruction. For 12 years they refused to do this.

So, what do we do about it?

Well, I guess we could just look the other way and hope for the best (kind of what we did under the direction of the UN). 9/11 changed things. It wasn't the first attack on US soil or against US citizens, but it was by far the most destructive. A lot of questions were raised about why we hadn't done anything to prevent it from happening. Surely we should have "seen" something like this coming. In the future we might have to try to "nip it in the bud". Okay, but "why Iraq, the bad guys are all in Afghanistan hiding in caves" you ask. Well, to say that Al Qaida, is the ONLY group of people who despise our way of life and want to see it destroyed is a little naive. Iraq had the capability and the desire to harm us, very badly if they wanted to. We just couldn't take the risk anymore. Will we do this to anybody who threatens us? Maybe, but Iraqs record on these things was pretty poor (Iran, Kuait, the Kurds, etc.).

But why didn't we do anything about N. Korea instead? They pose a much greater threat. Well, we ARE doing something about them (and they don't have any oil. Just kidding) diplomatically. For NOW. Remember just a few years ago we stood toe to toe with the Soviet Union who was also brandishing their nuclear sword. We won that one, and we will deal with this one.

I just have a few questions of those opposed to our action.

Do you think that Sadaam would have ever disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own? If "yes" when? If "no", what would have been a better solution?

Do you think it's ever possible for the US to do ANYTHING that isn't percieved by France et al as "US Imperialism", or a "quest for oil"?

Did France and Germany lose any contracts they had with Sadaam, now that he is gone? Hint: yes.

If this was all about oil, how long do you think it will take before our "investment" pays out? And who gets the cash?

When we finally "get the hell out" of Iraq, will they be better off by our leaving than say, Cuba was?

Just wondering.

I just have a few questions of those opposed to our action.

OK, I'll bite.

Do you think that Sadaam would have ever disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own? If "yes" when? If "no", what would have been a better solution?

Yes. The "when" appears at the moment to be about 2 weeks before being invaded. Having said that, I do expect that some evidence of remaining WMD will eventually be found (but maybe not much). Besides, by over-riding the UN process and invading Iraq the US has forever made this question a moot point.

Do you think it's ever possible for the US to do ANYTHING that isn't percieved by France et al as "US Imperialism", or a "quest for oil"?

Probably not, especially not now. What do you expect. I've posted this elsewhere, but to me it appears the French opposed the US attempt to bully the UN into invading Iraq because it doesn't trust the US, its motives, and a world with the US alone calling the shots. The US then invaded Iraq without UN sanction, proving it isn't trustworthy and does have imperialist tendencies. So beforehand, the French distrusted the US with little cause. Now they have a reason.

Did France and Germany lose any contracts they had with Sadaam, now that he is gone? Hint: yes.

No idea. I know nothing of the details so can't comment.

If this was all about oil, how long do you think it will take before our "investment" pays out? And who gets the cash?

I don't think it is much about oil. I think it is a very overzealous attempt to ensure US security, with scant regard for the remainder of the world. If security includes oil, then fine - the oil argument stands, but generally I'm not into conspiracy theories. I actually don't think the US is imperialist per se - rather it will protect domestic security at any cost. Which right now is making it a pretty crappy international citizen.

When we finally "get the hell out" of Iraq, will they be better off by our leaving than say, Cuba was?

No idea. I don't know much about Cuba. Fidels cafe in Wellington, New Zealand is excellent though. Its on Cuba St.

Cam,
The condition of the cease-fire, was NOT to simply make Saddams WMD disappear from Iraq. The cease-fire agreement explicitly stated that proof of there destruction must be provided.

For you to say (or imply) that 'Saddam disarmed to the conditions of our cease-fire agreement on his own, just a few weeks before we went in' is completely irresponsible, and rather trollish of you.

Re; France and Germany loss of contracts. I’m very surprised you don’t know anything about this.

“Which right now (the US) is making it a pretty crappy international citizen.”
Again; I’m very surprised you don’t know anything about this.

I must say, you seem to be simply throwing out a lot of troll tactics lately.:(
What's going on? . .. too busy with work? . . .did your dog die?
Maybe you're just on the wrong side of this one, and don't want to give up. :p

Somethings going on and you don't know what it is do U mr jones.....

The bottom line....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...h_precious.jpg

Look, I'm sorry - I guess I have got more trollish. The incessant criticism of the French really pissed me off. I actually do see two sides to this - but I end up supporting only one because:

- I am fundamentally against war etc. It is a personal belief thing. If my country was at war, I would have to be a concientious objector, because I couldn't kill other people. I understand the other viewpoint though.

- just because the US can, doesn't mean it should - no matter how well intentioned. While I think you understand this, not all who post here do. Maybe I thought I could change opinions.

I honestly believe this from my last post. "I actually don't think the US is imperialist per se - rather it will protect domestic security at any cost."

And I honestly don't think this is a good thing for the rest of the world (but good for the US). This is why I think you guys tend to have a biased view of the whole situation.

I'm happy to concede the other stuff. In particular on WMD, cease fire etc. If he had them, why didn't he use them? But then again, if he destroyed them, why not show the proof to the UN? It doesn't make sense.

I'm going to keep a low profile on this now. I have said enough and I'm not going to change anyone's opinion. I'll respond to anything directly replied on this thread, but I'm not going to wade in on any others. I don't really want to be "that guy" (which I suspect I've become).

But I reserve the right to argue again on the next "guns are good for protection thread" (and I'm not going to say [b]anything[\b] here now about that).

Cam, not to worry, you're not "that guy", IMHO. Reasoned debate is infinitely preferable than mindless insults (which none of your posts contain).

Cam, I can tell you that I have been in your shoes too, and also decided to keep a low profile. Being french, and living in the US and loving Porsches, it has been very distressing for me to see that all these guys, whom I mostly respect and appreciate, have taken such an anti-french stance, cristallized all their hatred at one country that they for most of them have never visited. I have tried to communicate my views, almost against all. I have tried not to react at basically stupid insults such as wine drinking monkeys or smelly people. Although I have to admit sometimes, you have to call a moron a moron...I have done it, and it felt good...I have been rude, and it is true that the french can sound rude when they say their truth without British hypocarcy, which I beleive the americans inherited...The bootom line is that it is a lost cause to try to convince people, and the truth lies in our hearts. I really understand how you feel...

Aurel

"the truth lies in our hearts."

where's my feak'n violin. . .:rolleyes:

My only point was Cam was slipping in to troll type territory. Cam's post usually have a more subversive-provocative tone.

All this banter does need provocative words to be thrown about. Some banter is smarter than others. Some is overtly silly, (ie wine drinking surrender monkeys) that no reasonable person is going to take it as anything beyond hyperbole.

Aurel, you've got one thing right, your truth lies.:p

Doc, your Island is sinking slowly but surely...