‘Pearl Harbor in Reverse’

[Serb]

Re: you talking to me?

Originally posted by Gangerolf
you talking to me?

No, sorry. It was reply to August Borms.

[August Borms]

I was only commenting on the number of civilian casualties, not the pre-emptive strike.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Serb
When Russia did preemptive attack?

Ask the evil Finns

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dissident


And don't give me crap about Rwanda and Korea. I already answered that. We'd get our asses kicked in those nations. We only help where it is possible.

Rwanda kicking the US' ass?

Yes, I've heard they've made great strides in stone-throwing technolgy lately and they've recently produced a machette that has the US trembling in fear!

[Az]

Actually, I have little doubt that a Rwanda campaign will be a LOT more bloody than the campaign in Iraq. besides, it's a tad too late to send troops into Rwanda. there are better places to send troops, if we don't consider the consequences of war.

[Dis]

the U.S. has no support bases in Afric. Iraq is very easy because of countries like Turkey allowing overflights and Kuwait being so generous to allow a staging area.

If we went into Africa I would expect things like what happened in Somalia on a regular basis.

[Nubclear]

Sigh.....

Dis used to be half-way interesting. Until he began his latest series of trolls.

[Dis]

So you are saying we can succeed in Africa? Did you see what happened in Somalia? We got our asses kicked.

without land bases we rely on amphib ready groups and aircraft carriers. But they couldn't divert a carrier down there for some reason. They should have. But I doubt a carrier would have been as usefual in Rwanda, which I believe is in the center of the continent- I may be wrong about that .

Unless we got permission from African nations to stage our troops there, we would be in a world of hurt. Amphib ready groups have severe limitations.

and aren't you trolling more than I am?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dissident
the U.S. has no support bases in Afric.

And why is that? I thought you people are so concerned about democracy and human rights. Why then have you almost completely ignored Africa?

Iraq is very easy because of countries like Turkey allowing overflights and Kuwait being so generous to allow a staging area.

And you wonder why we see you as the international bully! You won't stand up to a country that might bloody your nose a bit, but you don't hestitate to pick a fight with one that's down and out.

If we went into Africa I would expect things like what happened in Somalia on a regular basis.

So much for having the courage to live up to your principles! Did the US try any other approach there after you got a little bruised up, or did you just drop the whole issue like a hot potatoe? Why have we never heard of any diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation after that? Yet you expect us to trust you in Iraq! You've already betrayed the Iraqi people once, why should we believe it won't happen again?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Serb
Just answer two questions. Did you saw CNN live with Baghdad on fire?
Do you believe that no civlians and no children were harmed?

If so, then you're hopeless.

Do you believe Iraqi civilians died under Saddam?

[DanS]

Don't you think that famous American historian is correct and that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history?

I think it's important to remember that the administration participated in a lot of that history. Certainly everything from the early 70s to the present.

Also, the US is an ideological construct. Ideology is our lifeblood. Why should we expect our foreign policy to be anything but a reflection of that fact?

[ThePantaloonDog]

To compare how many people are killed by American bombs and how many people we would save by taking out Saddam is silly. The number of people killed by American bombs is a fact, the number of people saved from Saddam is speculation. You don't know how many people Saddam would eventually kill.

And the doctrine of premptive war is easily the most dangerous doctrine since Hitler's idea of Aryan superiority. What this adminstration's foreign policy has managed to do is create a doctrine where the smallest threat from another country is grounds for war. A number of conflicts around the world could quickly escalate because of this new doctrine, possibly the most dangerous being Pakistan and India.

[Dis]

those nations do not threaten us. they threaten each other though.

[Drake Tungsten]

And the doctrine of premptive war is easily the most dangerous doctrine since Hitler's idea of Aryan superiority.

I don't mean to interrupt your unwarranted moral indignation, but I think that Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine was far more dangerous than anything the Bush administration has thought up. Carry on...

[Dis]

actually there are those that argue containment and MAD are effective and pre-emptive strikes are not. And I'm inclined to believe them. But I'm hoping in this case a pre-emtive strike actually works. But I do not support that policy for obvious reasons.