warhawk
-
Content Count
1,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by warhawk
-
-
My question is when is Rosie O'Donnell and Alec Bladwin's plane leave? After all they said they would leave the country if Bush was elected why not send them over to Iraq as "human sheilds"?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Some one give piccolo a cigar.
With reguards to Germany in 1938, no it wasn't too strong yet. The fact of the matter was is that no one wanted to fight another war with Germany and they mistakenly thought that appeasement was the way to go. It was the concept of avoid war at all costs. When is pretty much the same task that France, among others, are trying to take yet again. It's quite simple budgie some people don't learn from past mistakes.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
Hope you guys are right. I only read that part of Turkey's demands was that it be allowed to station a sizeable (ahem) 'peacekeeping' force inside Kurdish Iraq. Hopefully the US won't grant that wish for te sake of victory. No use liberating nrthern Iraq only to hand it over to Turkish forces - whose list of atrocities against kurds reads like Saddam's own rap-sheet. Without full UN support, the price for disarming Iraq is already too high. That might change, but Turkish soldiers won't suddenly become paragons of human virtue overnight, so it's best to keep them at arm's length.
Well I can't believe I am about to do this but I must
I just heard today on CNN that one of Turkey's request is to be able to put troops far enough into Iraq so as to stem the flow of refugee's. I stand corrected Budgie I was wrong. And I think the US is wrong if they give into this demand.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
At the start of WWII, 1939 for everyone in Europe, 1937 for China, 1914 for Korea, France wasn't strong enough to challenge Hitler. He took the Rhineland back and they had to sit back and watch.
I am sorry to say that you are mistaken on this. I did my Senior Mid Term Essay (high school) on this very subject. Prior to 1939 Hitler could have no more stood up to the French Army than I could go to the moon now. And it just wasn't Frances fault for this either. Every other major country of time sat back and did nothing while Hitler went about violating every term and condition set out by the Treaty of Versailles. Secondly when France surrendered to Germany in World War Two the government that was set up to run France by the French was pro Nazi. This is a fact. The French in turn, turned over to the Germans every piece of military equipment it had. The German occupation of France was not a hayday for the French don't get me wrong, however the ones that were in the French Government at the time of the occupation were German sympathizers.
Don't forget too it was the French that asked the US to help in Vietnam and then left the US hanging when the crap hit the fan. The French have been dogging most of the rest of the world for time immortal. Look at the way Chirac handled the european countries looking to join the EU when those countries signed declarations supporting the US stance with Iraq.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I think the following quote from budgie sums up what most people do, who are on the side of gun control laws, when they run out of facts they resort to sterotypes, unfounded facts and sometimes even name calling (in reference to Bill Mahr).
As for sarah Brady, I'd sleep with a weapon too if I knew Charlton Heston and every redneck in the NRA was after my blood.
and
But don't tell me that has to include the right to bear arms secretly or without the prior knowledge - and in the case of convicted violent offenders, consent - of the local authorities
@budgie
with great power comes responsibility and gun owners have a responsibility to the community and that includes decalring their own personal weapons of mass destruction.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander
Am I to take that this is a shot at the United States and it's policy towards Iraq? Or am I stretching a bit? Just want to make sure before I go off on some unfounded tangent.
In case the rest of you are wondering what I meant by my shot at Bill Mahr (I am not sure if I am spelling his last name correct, he was the gent with the show Politically incorrect....) let me explain. It was not uncommon for ole Billy boy to resort to the following statement when debating gun control with celeb's like Ted Nudgent and Tom Seleck.
"People who want to own guns are only trying to make up for a small ######"
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I will repeat this again as I think it is worth doing so. (No I am trying to act all high and mighty). This issue over gun control in the states, with those that I have talked to who are against gun control, is not so much about not being able to own "any" weapon they want rather it is more about not having the government tell them what they can and can't own. It's about an individuals right to own private property.
There is also another school of thought too. Don't let the government take away one freedom because what will be next? Freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? Keep in mind too that the Federal Government, if I am wrong someone please correct me, is prohibited by the US Constitution from passing any laws that affect the states without the states approval. In other words, it is supposed to be illegal for the the government to pass a law that limits the speed on interstates to 55mph. Which is why the Federal government threaten to withhold federal money for road repairs to the states that didn't reduce the speed limit back in the 70's.
Secondly, and this really burns my well you get the picture, the Brady bill was sponsored by Jim Brady. Of course he was more a poster boy if you will for the gun control legistlation itself. But think about this Jim Brady was shot by a six shot revolver. And you expect me to believe that he will stop with limiting how many rounds the magazine of my firearm can hold? The Brady Bill was all about going after guns like AK-47's and other high capacity firearms. Non of which were used by John Hinkley Jr.
Don't get me wrong I think that what happened to Jim Brady was terrible. I turely do feel sorry for the guy. But if he wanted to do something that would prevent people from suffering his kind of injury then he should be going after .22 revolvers.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@terp09
nobody should be allowed to have any gun they want
its pretty much common knowledge that not everyone has the amount of responsibility needed to own a firearm
Not everyone has the amount of responsibility to own a car either and they are just as deadly. In some cases more so and yet any 16 year old can drive one. That is not to say that all 16 year olds are terrible drivers some older ones are even worse. The fight against gun control isn't so much about allowing people to own whatever firearm they want as it is about the right to own property. People don't need SUV's but they can have them because it is their right.
the only way to ensure safety is to overestimate people's stupidity.
We should apply this to people who want to own cars too then. Because a drunk behind the wheel of say a Ford Expedition has the potential of wiping out an entire family.
There is a book called "More guns less crime" you should read it sometime. Unfortunately the name of the author escapes me right now.\
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Budgie
However Turkey is not a great nation that is going to bring peace to the region. They want a slice of Saddam's pie and to keep the Kurds under the jackboot. The US will come as lidberators, the Turks see themselves as conquerors
Am I to understand that you are under the misconception that Turkey will be sending in forces inside Iraq? If so, let me remind you that the help Turkey will be providing is bases for US Forces to use in any invasion of Iraq. That's it. No ground troops. Too many Arab countries would have a major problem with this and the US knows this. That wouldn't do much to ensure the soverenity of Iraq would it?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@firefly
How in the world do people get guns like this? I mean, these aren't just pistols and small arms stuff... these are high quality, professional weapons here... It's not like you can just go out and buy them... that would be ridiculous... or can you?
Serving in the military helps a great deal. But yes some can be bought and legally I might add. Depends on what variant you get and what hoops you are willing to jump through to get some of them. Contrary to popular belief it is not illegal to own a fully auto weapon. In order to do so though you have to have a federal firearms permit, in the US mind you, to do so.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@300mag
Yeah right!
I have fired several different types inlcuding M16/M203, M60, .270, .243, 30.06,30.30, .303, .45, .40, .44, .357, .22, and serveral different guage shotguns from Weatherby, Remmington and Moosburg. Just to name a few. And no I don't belong to a militia either.
Being a firm believer in the second admendment of the US Constitution I have tried to lay my hands on as many weapons as possible. But I'm not a gun nut. Not in the traditional sense anyways.Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@pyro
Warhawk, I thought you said you had served in the military, no?
Yes I have. Have you?
Well if you don't mind me saying so, that question is irrelevant... but the answer is no, not yet.
@pyro
You made the question relevent by asking me the same in the first place. Since you have yet to serve your country I would prefer that you not question my service record, rather I would prefer a thank you instead. A thank you for helping to ensure that you have the right to voice your opinion for one thing. It is such a simple thing that those of us who have served do not seem to take for granted.
Everything that both you and I enjoy to this day is guarnteed by those who are willing to visit harm on those who would like to take our freedoms away from us. I don't want to see military seviceman or woman put into harms way without a good reason. But when it comes to someone like Saddam, a person who is quite willing mind you, who will do evil things to even his own people then yes I say send them. If he hasn't got the slightest amount of respect for his own people, what makes you think he cares about anyone else?
Yes it is going to be a bad and sad thing to see both military personnel and civilians alike loose their lives over this. But true freedom comes at a price and when a people's are held down by a ruthless dictator like Saddam sometimes they need help. I for one say give it to them.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
It is always nice to see a post where all you have to say is.........
Enough Said
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@pyro
Warhawk, I thought you said you had served in the military, no?
Yes I have. Have you?
When people start talking about how collateral damage should be avoided. And yet I wonder what these same people would say about the US, who in World War II, for example, fire bombed Tokyo. Or how about how the British and Germans carpet bombed each others capitials. It's not like that is what is being done now. If Saddam builds military installations in urban areas then civilian deaths will be unavoidable. Just because the US and her allies use "smart bombs" does not mean that they will not somehow magically not hurt civilians. And not targeting military sites just because of thier location is not always a strategically viable option. Although I am sure that there will be some sites that will be left alone because the civilian deaths maybe to high from hitting it. But people need to keep things in perspective with any future conflict. Viper made some very good points on this subject.
@300mag
We have not lived in total fear. Knowing that if we utter one word of dissent, we or our family die. This is an unknown variable to us. It remains to be seen how they will react.
Absolutely.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
I received the following from someone I know just tonight. While I cannot positively confirm that what is stated below was said by the person quoted, I can say that I found myself saying ( at serveral different points ) "you got that right".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided by Joe Galloway, author of We Were Soldiers Once, and Young and is posted as an item of possible interest.
This one is definitely NOT tongue in cheek. Sig, the author, was a teen-aged Marine who marched and fought as a rifleman to and from the Chosin reservoir in Korea in 1950. He switched to the Army, and served as a Special Forces officer in Vietnam. After Vietnam he joined the CIA, and went back to Korea.
He's been there, done it, and has some specific thoughts on countries
that don't "like" us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you aren't interested in the ramblings of an old man, please delete
now. If you're still there, pull up a chair and listen.
Is there anyone else out there who's sick and tired of all the polls being taken in foreign countries as to whether or not they "like" us? The last time I looked, the word "like" had nothing to do with foreign policy. I prefer 'respect' or 'fear'. They worked for Rome, which civilized and kept the peace in the known world a hell of a lot longer than our puny two centuries-plus.
I see a left-wing German got elected to office recently by campaigning against the foreign policy of the United States. Yeah, that's what I want, to be lectured about war and being a "good neighbor" by a German. Their head honcho said they wouldn't take part in a war against Iraq. Kind of nice, to see them taking a pass on a war once in while. Perhaps we needed to have the word "World" in front of War. I think it's time to bring our boys home from Germany. Outside of the money we'd save, we'd make the Germans "like" us a lot more, after they started paying the bills for their own defense.
Last time I checked, France isn't too fond of us either. They sort of liked us back on June 6th, 1944, though, didn't they? If you don't think so, see how nicely they take care of the enormous American cemeteries up above the Normandy beaches. For those of you who've studied history, we also have a few cemeteries in places like Belleau Woods and Chateau Thierry also.
For those of you who haven't studied it, that was from World War One, the first time Europe screwed up and we bailed out the French. That's where the US Marines got the title 'Devil Dogs' or, if you still care about what the Germans think, "Teufelhunde". I hope I spelled that right; sure wouldn't want to offend anyone, least of all a German.
Come to think of it, when Europe couldn't take care of their Bosnian problem recently, guess who had to help out there also. Last time I checked, our kids are still there. I sort of remember they said they would be out in a year. Gee, how time flies when you're having fun.
Now we hear that the South Koreans aren't too happy with us either. They "liked" us a lot better, of course, in June, 1950. It took more than 50,000 Americans killed in Korea to help give them the lifestyle they currently enjoy, but then who's counting? I think it's also time to bring the boys home from there. There are about 37,000 young Americans on the DMZ separating the South Koreans from their "brothers" up North. Maybe if we leave, they can begin to participate in the "good life" that North Korea currently enjoys. Uh huh. Sure.
I also understand that a good portion of the Arab/Moslem world now doesn't "like" us either. Did anyone ever sit down and determine what we would have to do to get them to like us? Ask them what they would like us to do. Die?. Commit ritual suicide? Bend over? Maybe we should follow the advice of our dimwitted, dullest knife in the drawer, Senator Patty Murray, and build more roads, hospitals, day care centers, and orphanages like Osama bin Laden does. What with all the orphans Osama has created, the least he can do is build some places to put them. Senator Stupid says if we would only "emulate" Osama, the Arab world would love us.
Sorry Patty; in addition to the fact that we already do all of those things around the world and have been doing them for over sixty years, I don't take public transportation, and I certainly wouldn't take it with a bomb strapped to the guy next to me.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not in favor of going to war. Been there, done that. Several times, in fact. But I think we ought to have some polls in this country about other countries, and see if we "like" THEM. Problem is, if you listed the countries, not only wouldn't the average American know if he liked them or not, he wouldn't be able to find them. If we're supposed to worry about them, how about them worrying about us?
We were nice to the North Koreans in 1994, as we followed the policies of Neville Clinton. And it seemed to work; they didn't re-start nuclear weapons program for a whole year or so. In the meantime, we fed them when they were starving, and put oil in their stoves when they were freezing.
In a recent visit to Norway, I engaged in a really fun debate with my cousin's son, a student at a Norwegian University. I was lectured to by this thankless squirt about the American "Empire", and scolded about dropping the atomic bomb on the Japanese. I reminded him that empires usually keep the stuff they take; we don't, and back in 1945 most Norwegians thought dropping ANY kind of bomb on Germany or Japan was a good idea. I also reminded him that my uncle, his grandfather, and others in our family spent a significant time in Sachsenhausen concentration camp, courtesy of the Germans, and they didn't all survive. I further reminded him that if it wasn't for the "American Empire" he would probably be speaking German or Russian.
Sorry about the rambling, but I just took an unofficial poll here at our house, and we don't seem to like anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@pyro
You're saying it's cheaper to fight a war? To drop two-million dollar missiles in the middle of the desert at a rate of twenty per day? How socially viable is fighting this war? Is it better to keep our men safe in nieghbouring Kuwait or send them all into harm's way?
First off to the last part of this statement. There is not one serviceman (or woman) who does not know the dangers of signing up for military service. They are in the service of their own free will. If they don't want to be or don't expect to be put in harms way then they are in the wrong line of work. That is not to say that I think that they should be thrown to the wolves over some stupid reason. But I hardly call Saddam a stupid reason.
But you think that this Osama figure is going to be less annoyed when we go in and inadvertantly kill innocent men, women and children (be they Islamic or otherwise)?
Terrorist like Usama have no problems with innocent men, women and children (be they Islamic or otherwise) being killed. Especially if they can use it to further their own personal goals.
And to take you up on your final point; what's the difference between innocent US civilians dying and innocent Iraqi civilians dying? By your reasoning, either way thousands are going to. Possibly along with a few hundred US and British soldiers... but that's another matter entirely.
What's the differece? One group of civilians live under a nice warm blanket called FREEDOM. The others do too but they are free to starve while their leaders actions keep UN Sanctions imposed on them.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Pyro.
Something puzzle's me here. In your response to Viper's last post you said:
Exactly! Got it in one... well mostly anyhow. The fact is that you are for the war on Iraq because you want to protect its people. I am against the war on Iraq because I want to protect its people.
The thing that puzzle's me is you say you are against the war in Iraq because you want to protect it's people. Hmmm. Lets see, Saddam in defying the numerous UN resolutions keeps sanctions on his country that end up causing people to go hungry for instance. As if this isn't enough he also is known to excute anyone who speaks against him. Take his own son-in-law for example. You know who I am referring to. The one that defected and spilled the beans about his chemical/biological weapons programs to the west. When his son-in-law returned to Iraq, under a promise that he wouldn't be harmned, Saddam had him shot for treason. Of course we must not forget about his own citizens whom he gassed in northern Iraq. But you would rather stay with the status quo than do the one thing that is guaranteed to remove him from power all for the sake of protecting the Iraqi people?
War is not always the answer but in this situation there really is no other alternative. You can choose to hide behind a hope or go forward with a vision. If things continue the way they have for the last 12 years then we are going to continue to get the same results. If the UN does not act against Iraq as a unified body then all it's resolutions of "do this or else" will mean absolutely nothing to the other agressors of the world. You only have to look as far as North Korea to see this already happening. North Korea has made it abundantly clear that they will only deal with the US on the issue of their nuclear program. Can't you see the writing on the walls?
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
The "thousand yard stare" was a euphaism used during the vietnam war to denote someone who had seen too much combat. It was said that they were looking out ahead for enemies everywhere they were. Or so this is how it was explained to me. Those who know different may correct me as necessary.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@pyro
That's why we sent in weapons removal teams for seven years after the war... to remove the weapons
The whole problem with this is, that according the UN Resolution 687 Iraq had only 90 days to do this. So why did it even take seven years? They should have been through with "weapons removal" long before then and would have had Saddam done what he was suppose to do.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that if he hasn't complied by now he isn't going too.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
We are not saying the UN is irrelevant at this point and time. What we are saying is that it is darn close to being irrelevant.
the US military [pressure] has forced Iraq to once again open up to UN inspectors - a process that most countries believe can lead to the eventual peaceful disarmament of Iraq
The thing of it is, is it shouldn't take any pressure from the US to force Iraq to do what it is suppose to. It isn't just the responsibilty of the US or the UK to do this. It's the UN's responsibilty. That means all the countries represented have to stand united in holding Iraq to it's word. Otherwise what good is all the resolutions that they have passed.
Recent successes count for more than past failures
So you are saying that we should just forget about all it's failures? They suddenly don't count? Things don't work that way for me and you so they certainatly shouldn't work for an organization whose buisness is a lot more imperative than anything you or I would ever do. That's the whole "what have you done for me recently" argument.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@Pyro
If Saddam was removed in some way that didn't involve thousands of civilians and possibly hundreds of American and British troops being injured or killed, I would be all for it as would the entire Middle East population. The way it's being carried out now, however, is only going to lead to further trouble.
I would be very interested in hearing what your solution to the current crisis would be. Excluding the methods that have been tried already because quite frankly they haven't worked. If you can come up with an alternative like that to war I am sure I am not the only one who would like to hear it.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
The following quote was taken out of another post of yours on a different thread. I brought it here to answer it in the proper place.
For those of you who say "We've waited 12 years already," great! 12 Years and Saddam hasn't attacked his neighbors and certainly hasn't attacked America. Heck, he hasn't been able to! And if he's busy running around trying to cover up his WMDs, he won't get the chance to use them. This is a sign to unwilling nations that they can afford to wait a little longer. They are going top outlive Saddam's regime, so they see no reason to speed up its demise.
So then we should give him more time? More time to let his people suffer under the UN sanctions that are meant to hurt and cripple him? If we allow Saddam to "run around trying to cover up his WMD's" then why bother in the first place with the resolutions demanding him to disarm? Why bother with sanctions to "keep him from getting more"? Why waste everyone's time with stuff that isn't worth the paper it's printed on? If this is the course of action that everyone should take then why bother at all? If this is what it has come down to then the UN is worthless.
In the meantime, the hundreds of thousands of allied troops at Iraq's borders will serve as a friendly reminder that war is still the last option, thereby encouraging Saddam to comply with international demands.
Do you and others really expect the US and it's allies to foot the bill for stationing these troops in the reigion for an organization whose very exsistance is being called into question? If we continue to pull forces from other area's to keep this tin pot dictator in check where will the deterence be for China? What about North Korea? What about all the other hot spots on the globe where international forces, not just US forces, go to try to keep the peace? Strategically what you are putting forward here isn't very sound IMHO.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
Canada, like many other nations, no doubt bdoesn't see Saddam as a big enough threat to go to war over.
This is something that I can speak with some, please note the word some, authority on. The current government of Canada has spent the last approxiamtely the last eight years systematically underfunding it's military. The are still using aging Sea King helicopters as one example. Another is a complete debacle on the purchase of several submarines from Great Britian. Their military had to catch a lift to Afghanistan when the government sent troops there and once there they had to borrow desert cammo uniforms. Now I am not saying that the Canadian military can not do it's job. Quite the contrary. What I am saying is that it may very well be logistically impossible for them to do anything beyond their current commitments. So your comment above may work as an excuse, note the word excuse, it does not apply to Canada.
So what if he is stalling and hiding weapons?
Yes, he flouted resolutions, but breakinga few rules should not mean instant destruction.
So are we to take by what you are saying here that it is ok to break your promises? Careful now that is a loaded question.
As far as the rest of your post, on waiting for 12 years, I will respond to that in the appropriate thread.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
While non of my post have said the French Government, on France or the French, I do realize that it is the government that does make the policy. I do realize that the government is the one that is causing the problems. However it does seem from what I am seeing on t.v. that the people support their government in it's cause. Therefore that is why I haven't made that distinction between the government of france and it's people.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
-
@budgie
Since you want to bring it up yes lets look at it. The US was reluctant to enter into the frey over Yugoslavia. Look who was president then. Non other than King draft dodger himself. When the US did take a look at what the French tried to do to one particular serviceman. If you don't know what I am talking about rent the movie "Behind Enemy Lines". Just one more reason for me to dislike France.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk
Oh Canada
in Real World Military
Posted
@MarkL.
This is one statement I can not to this day understand. If it was for oil don't you think that the US would pick a country that provides more than just the measely 2% of the oil it imports? And if it is truely about oil then I guess you would be forced to admit that France's stance against the war is based on the same premise since they have a 40 billion dollar contract with Hussien for oil.
Stout Hearts
Warhawk