Why Bush, Why??????? - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-21-2002, 05:24 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
I think its a little more complex than how you state it. But again with Terrorism, the only way you can stop terrorist who are about to act is to strike before they do. Were not going after the people of a country but the criminal regime that controls the country. Many people in these countries wish we would take such action. These countries are dictatorships where people are taken out in the middle of the night and shot for no reason. A pre-emptive regime change, if democracy is put in afterwards, is liberation for the people. Were not going to target civilians in are pre-emption like terrorist do. I can't find any justification or even any rational for targeting civilians under any circumstances. The only objective it accomplishes is to inflict pain and fear on innocent people.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 02:08 PM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:45 PM
I think it is indeed a little more complicated than you state to find every terrorist, identify him as one, and kill him. This would need a totally different strategy.

Say, if intelligence got more hot leads on terrorists of 9/11 in Hamburg, what would they have done? Would they have told Bush to bomb Germany? I doubt it, I really doubt it heavily. ī

Now, if there are political leaders like Saddam, you can figure out a way of how to remove them, why not with a nuclear bomb so a feeew civilians die in the name of love, honourable and for a good cause (sorry that I go to vomit shortly), but then donīt tell me Saddam is a terrorist!

If you donīt want civilian deaths and you want to kill a very few really dangerous people, war is surely not the right way. I think you can follow the very basic tactics I am talking about.

So we are back at our original question: Why, Bush,... why?
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 04:13 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:45 PM
Quote:
[i]If you donīt want civilian deaths and you want to kill a very few really dangerous people, war is surely not the right way. I think you can follow the very basic tactics I am talking about.[/B]
This assumes you know the military plan for action against Iraq. I doubt any plan involves carpet-bombing of Baghdad. In fact Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated very clearly that any action is not against the people of Iraq, Hussein is the target. Today, the people of Iraq are more likely to be killed by their current leadership than by US armed forces.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-23-2002, 06:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:45 PM
HIPHOP,

I don't understand why you would compare a cooperating US ally(Germany) to Iraq. Of course we wouldn't bomb Germany, we have complete access to virtually everything we need there, and when it comes to catching individuals both countries are on the same page.

The goal of any US operation is not to just take out Saddam so one of his family members can take control or one of his Republican guard units takes control, the goal would be to change the entire regime. Hence the term regime change. Saddam's regime consist of his entire family, loyalist in the Iraqi government bought off by Saddam and are deeply tied to him, plus over 100,000 Republican guard troops. This does not include the regular who's true loyalties will be suspect if war happens. All of that has to be taken care of if regime change is happen. You CANNOT accomplish that with a couple of spies. Only a large conventional military force can achieve that goal!
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-24-2002, 12:04 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 11:45 PM
So you think the 100,000 would be loyal to who when the head is cut off? People in Iraq are not content with the leadership as well. You think it would be so easy for a brother of Saddam Hussein to take and keep control?

You, STING2, were stating that U.S. intelligence services had a spy near to Saddam, in his inner circle. Either this is not true, and the informations about when to use which weapons to do what are not known to the U.S. Or there are enough spies, who could also take military action with support of special small troops.

The reason I brought Germany in;... I am simply referring to the argument: In Iraq there are terrorists so lets bomb them. Well, in Germany there were terrorists too, it seems. But sure enough the U.S. wouldnīt move a finger, meaning diplomatic rel. etc., but no mixing into inner policies of an ally, let alone bombing around with a few thousands of dead civilians "by the way". You get my point? Everywhere there may be some terrorists. In Liechtenstein too, maybe. Or in Switzerland. Switzerland is not part of the NATO. So I ask myself if this is really a war against terror. I think the definitions of the reasons for this war got kind of twisted. I think to lead a "war" against terror is impossible, because a war normally happens between two states. In this case, a better definition would be: "Every action (including military) that is possible to wipe away terrorist groups and persons connected with it".

Does this take a war against Iraq to minimize potential terrorist attacks? Wouldnīt it be more useful to keep the intelligence up and alive and alerted in two dozens of countries and take quick action where it is needed (for example to take action in Bagdad if aware of planned terrorist attacks, so all the allies can agree without thinking to the potential harm of Bush to the world when he plays protector, without informing the rest of the world with facts)?

nbcrusader: This doesnīt assume that I know a military plan. It is very easy to understand that if you donīt want many civilian deaths, war (carpet bombing etc.) is not the right way. If Hussein is the target, why not small special troops? You really need to wipe out all the army now or not? Your opinion (Secretary Rumsfeld stated...) and STING2īs opinion (The goal of any US operation) seem to differ a little on that matter.
__________________

__________________
hiphop is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ÂĐ Interference.com