With war with airline tickets go up or down?

[DanM]

... in response to Been there........, posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Sorry, but the most recent polls show 71% of Americans are in favor of the war. Also, the big majority of Americans are in favor of us starting it soon.

[Jack]

... in response to Been there........, posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Who said it?

(A) "France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by  prostitutes."

(B)  "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."

(C)  "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure"

(D)  "The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris, sipping coffee.

(E)    "The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I
don't  know."

(F) When asked about a Frenchman  "Put none but Americans on guard tonight"

(G)  "We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."

(H)  Btw, another lesson for morons is that being in a minority doesn't make one wrong.

Answers

(A)  Mark Twain

(B)  General George S. Patton

(C)  Jacques Chirac, President of France

(D)  Regis Philbin

(E)  P.J O'Rourke (1989)

(F) Gen. Geo. Washington

(G)  Marge Simpson

What crazed Texan you referring too LP?  Probably means little to you but I am 100% behind kicking Saddam's ass out of Iraq, dead or alive now, not next month.

With regards to the statement " as far as another example of how the American people are ignored by those they elect", who was it that said

(H)  Btw, another lesson for morons is that being in a minority doesn't make one wrong.

Answer:   LP

[LP]

... in response to (*/*), posted by Jack on Mar 17, 2003

....The crazed Texan is of course Dubya.

Now understand, I could care less about Irag. I'm far more concerned as to what the US government is doing to our civil liberties these days. I won't get into this with you and I'll agree Saddam is a bad guy. However:

a) It's not our business to be the world's policeman.

b) The world is full of dangerous countries, how come we don't invade North Korea? We're great at beating up little places like Grenada, Panama, Somolia (and we screwed that up bigtime), but we never tangle with anyone else now do we? Btw, remember Beruit?

c) The US has no right to invade another nation or ask another's leadership to bug out as long as they've done nothing to us. If Irag had a concrete connection to 9-11, I might see it differently. How would we respond if another nation made these demands on us?

d) Without UN backing this will be illegal, flouting the very international law we're constantly striving to uphold.

e) I believe we will pay dearly for this. It will drive thousands of Muslims into fundementalism and bring more grief directly to our shores.

f) We'll all pay for it in big dollars. Irags oil wealth will not support reconstruction, thats a myth. The infrastucture is decrepit and Saddam may burn it all anyway. Since everyone knows the victory will be swift, the plan for what comes after has already been made. It's going to be the longest and most expensive occupation of a country since WWII. Not like Afganistan, we're planning on being in Irag 20 years. That'll piss off everyone else in the region even more. It's gonna cost billions, right outta your and my pockets. And this is all in addition to the cost of the war itself in dollars and lives.

g) Why bother? Did we disarm Vietnam? No, we ran away and now look at them. Ho is long gone, Vietnam is pretty much stable and non-communist today and we have decent relations with them. If we leave well enough alone the same will likely happen in Iraq. On the other hand, we stayed in Korea where we're still there after half a century. It has cost us billions and things ain't any better now than 50 years ago. Worse in fact.
When will we learn?

h) It's immoral and unjust. If anything, it's petroleum, politically, and personally motivated.

i) It will destroy any chance of peace in Israel, the anti-US motivation powers much of that problem.

I could go on and on, the end result does not justify the means. Same as FSU chicks, the risk does not justify the reward. Regardless, the majority of us are against it (as is much of the world) and while Dubya could care less what we think I'm shocked that the clowns we elected to the House and Senate standby in mute silence. Why? To save their political asses. They're all afraid if they speak out they'll look like they did in 1991 when a wave of patriotism occured after the Gulf War.

And what happens ater we install a democracy in Iraq and down the road they, like Israel, France, England, etc, decide to build nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? *Then* it'll be OK? How come we can have this stuff but want to control who else does?

Mark my words, this will cause the world to enter a new era of hatred and resentment of America in the eyes of many nations. It was bad enough before and for good reason. And for what short term gain? The American people need to look into the future when decisions are made, Dubya is too stupid to do so. We need more than macho rednecked attitudes here, this has serious long term consequences.

Today, the US is a far greater threat to world peace than any nation on Earth, plain and simple. *We* are the rouge nation, the odd man out, and we will pay for it in time.

[DanM]

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

Hey LP. Don't take any of this the wrong way. I really do enjoy your posts. I just want to offer counter points to your post. Even if you do not agree with what I say, I hope you enjoy.

A) We are not the world's policeman, but we are strong enough and now properly focused to take out the threats to our national security.

B) Who says we will not take N Korea out one way or the other. Its a matter of when and how, but probably not if. The screw up in Somalia was largely due to politicians restricting the military and then telling them to fight. This president will not tie their hands prior to engagement. He is going for the win. Pure and simple. As for dealing with bigger couuntries, we took down Iraq in 1991. We just did not have the political mandate to exploit the victory.

C)Saddam put a hit out on Bush Sr. He fires at American airplanes over no fly zones. He has chemical and biological weapons and he has ties to terrorist organizations. I for one, do not think we need to wait for another 9-11 before we act. Lets take the fight to this guy before more of our people die. I don't need another body count in the thousands to justify taking out a guy we already know is a threat.

D) Who says this will be an illegal war. The "law" on this subject is vauge and conjectural at best. There have been 21 international military conflicts classified as major since WW II. Of these, only three have been sanctioned by the UN. The UN did not call the Faulkland War illegal. It did not call the Iran/Iraq war illegal. It did not call any of the Arab/Isreal wars illegal. To now pull this "illegal" argument is inconsistent and oppportunistic at best. Simply put, the UN has no precendence or mandate to determine the legality of a war. They (UN) did not create a law to tie our (US) hands while leaving others free to do as they please. We are a soverign nation and Kofi Annan's opinions or preferences will not change that fact.

E) Got a little news for you. Millions of Muslims are already fundamentalist. Besides, they already hate us. We can either stand up and meet the threat head on or we can tuck our tail between our legs and be blackmailed by the threat of violence. Appeasement did not help France & UK against Hitler. Why would it possibly work now? Its better to show them the consequence we can deliver for their actions and let it go from there.

F) Yes it will take 20-30 billion per year in US aid and we will be there at least 5 years. The 20 year estimate is a little bit of a stretch. Its not fun, but we have a moral responsiblity to set things right (roads, schools, hospitals). It is nation building just like we did in France, Germany and Japan, but we have to make sure the new government has a chance to be better than the old one. Otherwise, it will bite us again.

G) Although this is a convenient comparison that pushes a lot of emotional buttons, it is not a valid comparison. Vietnam was not a threat to us. It did not have the ability and inclination to supply chemical and biological weapons to people who wished to kill American civillians. Also, I thought Vietnam was still communist. Maybe I am wrong, but I was pretty sure them govt controlled most sectors of the economy.

H) The immoral and unjust thing is more of an opinion than a fact. Of course your opinion is valid, but its no more valid than my opinion. Thats how it works with opinions. Everyone's got one. Personally, I think it would be immoral and unjust to let Sadam arm some more psychos who wish to prove their bravery by sucker punching defenseless women and children. To me, it would be immoral and unjust to not eliminate these threats before they kill our people. Call me a nut, but I do not want to see any more 2 year olds killed for the causes of these "brave" defenders of their faith.

I) Current events do not agree with this statement. A compromise is in the works. A big part of the Azores meeting was to show support for the plan where Arafat gives up much of his power and the US more actively supports a Palestinian state. In effect, we are buying off the people of Palestine with the offer to support their bid for statehood.

To me the risk of waiting for the next sucker punch from these thugs (terrorists) is the one I cannot justify. We have the men, weapons and motivation. Lets allow our guys (military & intelligence) to hunt the people who would threaten our citizens.

As for the politicians, most of them read the polls and see the really big majority agree with Bush (71% are ready for the war to start soon). Also most of the Republican majority in the House and Senate actually agree with him. As for the Dems, why should they break precedence and show leadership on this issue. Other than saying they do not like whatever George W. says, I don't see where they have a lot to offer. Sorry.

As for other countries hating us, they always have. Its thinly disguised jealousy and little more. Our military, economy, standard of living and popular culture are all dominant. They don't like these facts so they look so very hard for reasons to find fault with us. Its sad, but they are like the jealous girls in high school that would become so happy whenever anything bad happened to the "pretty" girl.

As far as I am concerned, they can all go take a flying leap. So what if the French don't like us. Same with the Germans, Belgians, etc. What have they ever done for us other than take our help and denegrate our country whle their hand was still stretched out for more? They take financial aid from us (Marshall plan comes to mind). They have us bail them out of wars (WW I and WW II). They have us protect them (NATO). For what? So they can act like jealous, petty little jerks when we need them. I'm sorry, but losing friend like that is no real lose. Its just going to lighten the load by removing dead weight. We can take the money we would have spent on our "friends" and use it to promote our own interests at home and abroad.

Just my opinion.

[LP]

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

.....we agree to disagree. I will not attempt to sway your opinions for they exhibit the inexperience of youth, a lack of historical understanding, cause and effect, and the complexitiy of global interaction. They show the same basic shortsighted perspective of most Americans who fail to study the real workings of international politics and believe whatever they are forced fed. In addition, they clearly are of an individual who has not experienced first hand the immense human suffering of war.

As a young man, you will be the one subject to the future ills this will bring upon a once well respected and great nation. You are witnessing the creation of your future, not mine, and I'm sorry for the burden you most assuredly will bear.

Just my opinion.

[DanM]

... in response to Then I guess..., posted by LP on Mar 19, 2003

Other than some denegrating comments and an understanding of your certainty regarding your own correctness, I am not sure what to take away from your post.

[BURKE89]

... in response to Then I guess..., posted by LP on Mar 19, 2003

however, I can't find fault with anything above.

Well said,

Vaughn

[WmGo]

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

DanM,

Good post. I agree with all of your points. As a matter
of fact, it kind of freaks me out because it is like
reading my own writing.
LP is right about the problem of decreasing freedoms
in light of increasing surveillance activities, the
TIN, etc. But that is all a part of the end times scenario -as is the impending military action in Iraq (ever wonder why Babylon is not mentioned as being a part of the Gog led invasion?).

WmGO

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Touche ., posted by WmGo on Mar 18, 2003

Thanks for the support. I am feeling a little outnumbered on this board while discussing this topic. : )

Good to hear a friendly post. Thanks.

[Alfred]

... in response to Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

Despite all of your excellent arguements, I can not escape that feeling that for Dubya this is primarily a personal matter: he is out to complete his fathers unfinished business (read failure?) and remove Sadam from power.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by Alfred on Mar 18, 2003

Sorry, but this is another myth.

How did George Sr. fail? Don't you remember that his 70+ nation coalition had a predefined mandate to not go all the way. He was prohibited by his agreement with his allies.

We are having to come back and deal with this 10 years after exactly because he allowed countries like France, Syria, etc to restrict our actions. I suppose you could say that George Sr.'s biggest mistake was to let the international community dictate and limit his actions. In that respect, George Jr. is making up for the "mistake" of his father.

[Alfred]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by DanM on Mar 18, 2003

Exactly my point: Dubya is out to do what Daddy didn't: remove Saddam.

[DanM]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Touche Jack..., posted by Alfred on Mar 18, 2003

That was sarcasm in my last post. I do not think he is trying to make up for "Daddy's" mistakes.

"Daddy" did not fail. He just played by the rules of a lot of self-serving, short-sighted allies. It would be more accurate to say that France, Germany, Syria, etc failed in forcing us to abide by their wishes.

As far as Jr is concerned, it is so incredibly insulting to reduce his motives to something so petty and personal. It is akin to name calling.

Our current president is doing his best to protect the lives of some 280 million of his fellow citizens. Period. He is trying to remove a threat to the people you love and to the people I love. You may argue with his logic or even with his methods of resolving the threat, but to question is motives in such a petty way is unfortunate.

[wsbill]

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

When we bomb the crap out of that flaky dictator.  Seems we really haven't heard peep out of him in the last 15 years.

Whether this war is valid, will just leave that up to the Iraqi people to decide.

Since all the embargos will be lifted and that country can re-emerge from the dark days of life with Saddam.

The French and Russian are actually behind us, but they had to give Saddam a exit route if he decides to live in exile in France or Russia or even China.

[lswote]

... in response to Touche Jack..., posted by LP on Mar 17, 2003

I fear you are right.  I lived in Texas when Bush was governor and I think he was the best governor Texas has had in 50 years, but Texas is very different from the rest of the world and I don't feel Bush is willing to recognize that.  He can act like a cowboy in Texas, but not in the world.  Sadaam might be a dangerous man, but I don't think he is dangerous to the US.  We can't save the world.