Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Iraq: The 51st State

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Re: Defending the Constitution?

merikeyegro said:
It has nothing to do with public opinion.
Fortunately, Bush does care less about public opinion than all the leftists bashing his efforts.
He wouldn't care if his approval rating were 23%. He'd still be heading to Iraq and pushing a $400 billion deficit.
Ain't it great! A man with a soul and convictions! A concept that many have a hard time understanding. You understand?
I guess I, as well, am against the troops because I think GWB is a bit of an idiot, right?
"against the troops". do you mean you don't support them fighting in Iraq or are you just against them in general? You can not support military action in Iraq. But do it with some substance and logic. I have heard no logical argument against the impending action yet. you got something logical - I'm listening.
Do I hate you just because I hate your father?
Not sure I understand how this fits into the discussion. If you can, think about what you're writing a little more before you respond so you can be understood. But I'd have to say you're relating to something said by a 21st century leftist - "I hate you because you're conservative."

BTW, I agree with quite a bit of your points 1, 2 & 3.
 
Do I hate you just because I hate your father?

Not all that hard, flywithastick. Same as saying "Do I hate the troops just because I hate Bush?" He was comparing it to a more understandable situation.

you got something logical - I'm listening.

How about this? Three letters...O I L. As I see it theres no other reason for this "war" in Iraq. If we cared oh-so-much and were so lovey-dovey about "liberating the Iraqi people"...why would one of Bush's main speech points be

"Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people."?

Iraqi people...sure. We'll see how much they prosper off of that oil we're clammoring to get our hands on. IMO, he might as well have added "So we can be sure to have those secure and ready for funneling straight to the U.S."

If all we really cared about was removing this terrible dictator and liberating Iraq...why would we be so concerned about preserving oil wells? My answer: Thats the whole stinking reason we're there.
 
O I L

Ahhh, Yes. The reason that El Presidente asked the Iraqis not to destroy the oil wells is because...? Anyone? Anyone? The what Process? The Re-what Process? The Rebuilding Process.

Do you really think that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be paid for with US tax dollars? I think not. It will be financed BY THE IRAQIS with oil dollars from MANY countries throughout the world. To say oil is the only reason to go to war is nothing more than conspiracy-theory claptrap.

The Iraqis will see just as much money from their oil wells as the Saudis and Kuwaitis.
 
I have no problem with a war for oil. In fact it's always amused me when I see a car drive by with a "No War for Oil" sticker on the back. Who are they kidding? Oil is a strategic mineral, always has been. Unfortuately, we've always found ourselves importing it. Through good fortune the US found uranium within it's borders, another strategic mineral. Do you think that we would have blinked twice if we had to invade Mexico to secure a supply of uranium, and this win the Cold War? I think not. A reliable supply of oil is as vital to the health of this country as the supply of food. (Think it isn't? Stop the trucks and see how long it takes for New York or LA to starve). Further, the warning to the Iraqi's was a sound one. Besides destroying that source of wealth, they would likely kill hundreds, if not thousands, of their own people who may suffer from respiratory ailments, and turn their homes into an environmental nightmare. It's good to give them pause.

I burn 700 gallons of kerosene through a typical day's work, and that's downright miserly - my father burns 10000 gallons on a typical day's jaunt. Our livelihood depends on the black stuff. A war for oil? More power to 'em.
 
Here's a great idea for all you Bush-bashers: why don't we "give peace a chance" and not go to war?

It's all a fairytale world with rainbows and unicorns until a man named Sadam Hussein, directly associated with the most hateful and grave disregard for American and human life produces weapons of mass-destruction with the target placed directly over our heads, and drops a load of nerve gas over our urban populations. But until we actually see that happen, we can't defend ourselves? Doesn't make much sense to me. We are doing the right thing, like it or not. I am glad we are here to make a counter-attack. That's right, it is a counter-attack. Have you all-too-soon forgotton what happened on September 11, 2001? Whether you care to see the correlation between what happened that day or not, Osama Bin Laden and Sadam have the same plan for us. We just happen to be taking these steps in a seperate manner to rid the world of these two people in a campaign to take back what is rightfully ours. . . Peace.

I think there is nothing worse than a spineless coward that does not have the self-respect and dignity to stand up and fight for what he believes is right. Peace is right. We are on our way to peace. It is just going to take some brave, selfless men and women to stand up and fight for peace. I don't want to live in a world where I have to worry about someone launching a nuke into my back yard. I don't want to live in fear of someone dropping some chemical in my city's water supply to wipe us out. I want to live in a world where the people that believe we have a right to go on about our normal God-fearing lifestyle without looking over our shoulder to see how many nukes are aimed at my city park will stand up and say enough is enough. The time is now. You are either with us or aginst us. That has been made clear. And on that note, we don't need a note from France, Germany, or Russia telling us it's okay to protect ourselves. Incidently, I don't think we want France's help anyway, look at their record over the last 100 years: WW1, WW2, the French/Indo-China war. . . looks like 0-3 in my book. No thanks boys, go ahead and sit this one out. Don't forget about all that Aid either, I have a feeling it may be a while before you see any of that again in the near future. You may want to look for a little new marketing strategy on your export industry too, shipments to the USA may be down over the next few years.

Thanks Japan, thank you England, thanks Australlia, and thank you freedom-loving Americans. I am sure our troops and leaders appreciate your support more than you know.

So go on, flame me all you want. But know that I am a proud American that supports our efforts and enjoys the freedom I have to voice my opinions and my concerns, and know that I will be anxiously awaiting the safe return of our soldiers to our great land, where we are still the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE!
 
Let's not forget 8 years of inattention by an "Intellectual" who was easily distracted by a slab of pizza and a chunky intern in a thong!
 
Re: yo

merikeyegro said:
Not a one of us is any safer today than we were in 9/11.
Let me offer a perspective from another industry. things are somewhat safer in the refineries. Before Sept, '01, you could walk into a refinery wearing a hard hat and Nomex and may well not be given a second look. Since then , we've "hardened" the fence line somewhat (barricades), installed lots of additional fences and cameras. It might allow us to know if someone was breaking in do do something bad.

but there's still a tremendous vulnerability to RPG's or even something like a deer rifle being fired from the nearby roads and highways.

How about we fix the cracks instead of restricting movement! Wouldn't that help a bit?
agreed totally. Let's do some serious rethinking of border security. Like bringing the tens of thousands of soldiers home from Japan, Korea, Germany and post them along the border. Now that'd be a positive step.

Let's not fool anyone here. The North Koreans are just as nasty as Hussein. However, they are no pushover with 975,000 standing troops and they have NO OIL. Oh yeah, they have the Chinese on their side. Let's not pretend we are fighting the best fight right now. It's just cliche to bomb the Iraqis. Let's bomb NK, huh? I'm all for that. Bring it on...
I am with your here. The ChiComs have me nervous though. Almost as unpredictable as the NK's (re. taking our P-3 crew hostage and threatening to nuke LA a couple of years ago). I have no idea what would be best in NK. We invade, the NK army would be easy pickens (fighting as a conventional military force). But the ChiComs might get involved - *that* would be a problem.
 
Let's not fool anyone here. The North Koreans are just as nasty as Hussein. However, they are no pushover with 975,000 standing troops and they have NO OIL.

Eggsakery! :D

Let's stick to pushing around the little guys who have something we need. We don't wanna start sh!t with a country which has the will and military might to reach our own shores. Not when they don't really have anything worth taking. What the he!! would we do with a couple million water buffalos and a bunch of kimchee? Have a beach party? :D

Minh Thong
(A proud and patriotic American Veteran who is severely disappointed with his President right now.)
 
Snakum said:
What the he!! would we do with a couple million water buffalos and a bunch of kimchee? Have a beach party? :D
I'm contradicting myself, but what would be so bad about pulling our troops out of SK and bringing them home to protect the borders? let the SK's and NK's have each other. Would they then export weapons to whackos like Al Queda? They'd probably sell them! Would be nice if the chinks would just annex NK.
 
what would be so bad about pulling our troops out of SK and bringing them home to protect the borders?

I agree. The majority of South Koreans don't want us there, according to polls conducted by Korean publications. I don't understand why we don't just bring the 2nd ID home. Perhaps it has something to do with our economic and military alliance/obligation with Japan. Also, I guess if NK goes 'nutter' again we need the 'Speedbump' there to buy time for the 1st Cav to get in position. :D I'd still prefer to have the 2nd ID and all the VII Corp troops from Europe back home. I'm not an isolationist but it appears now is the time to worry a little more about our own back yard.

Minh
 
I disagree.

The borders can be closed down effectively without troops being stationed there. The troops are stationed abroad in order for the US to project power. It is far easier to project power to North Korea when you have bases set up in South Korea and Japan than to try to project power from 8,000 miles away in California. The agents who watch the border now would have a much easier time if they didn't have to deal with the massive amounts of illegal immigrants coming up from Mexico. Enforce the laws in this country and start booting illegals out, you will see a decline in the number of illegals in the ole' USA and those crossing the border. I'm not so worried about Canada, the 9/11 hijackers came through a border checkpoint. They were allowed to come through because they had forged documents. That was just a flaw in the system.

Stationing troops along the border is the same feel-good nonsense that brought about the TSA.

Just my $.02....
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom