OD,OTG...
Well said!
JMc
Well said!
JMc
-
TDR Magazine subscribers receive more than the magazine! You also gain additional forum privileges!
Details here: TDR Privileges
Subscribe to TDR Magazine here: https://www.tdr-online.com/
Ace of Spades.... another bedtime story? (Part 1)
- Thread starter JohnMcIntyre
- Start Date
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.
Thanks, TDR Staff
Sled Puller:
Pearl Harbor - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat.
Iraq - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat.
So what's so hard to understand about that? Even the far right can't argue it when it's put in really simple terms.
As to that CIA guy on Fox, if he was telling the truth then why on earth isn't the Administration trumpeting the discovery to everybody? It would validate the main excuse made to invade Iraq. That suggests that A) the CIA guy was lying or B) Fox News is about as fair and balanced as the National Enquirer.
As to the world being a better place without Saddam in power - I hope it makes Iraq a better place for our troops. I think many people in Iraq will be safer - but not all of them. I don't think Saddam has been a serious threat to the rest of the world since 1991, so my answer is: no, the world isn't particularly safer now that Saddam is in custody.
Pearl Harbor - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat.
Iraq - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat.
So what's so hard to understand about that? Even the far right can't argue it when it's put in really simple terms.
As to that CIA guy on Fox, if he was telling the truth then why on earth isn't the Administration trumpeting the discovery to everybody? It would validate the main excuse made to invade Iraq. That suggests that A) the CIA guy was lying or B) Fox News is about as fair and balanced as the National Enquirer.
As to the world being a better place without Saddam in power - I hope it makes Iraq a better place for our troops. I think many people in Iraq will be safer - but not all of them. I don't think Saddam has been a serious threat to the rest of the world since 1991, so my answer is: no, the world isn't particularly safer now that Saddam is in custody.
[
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... Pearl Harbor - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Iraq - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
The problem with simple terms, is they MISS alot of vital information.
A blind man could see it that way, I'm sure. But then that would be an insult to a blind man.
There is no possible way that you can compare Japan of the 1930's to the USA.
It is not even worthy of debate.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..... Pearl Harbor - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .....
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Iraq - a preemptive strike on a nation in order to neutralize that nation's threat... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
The problem with simple terms, is they MISS alot of vital information.
A blind man could see it that way, I'm sure. But then that would be an insult to a blind man.
There is no possible way that you can compare Japan of the 1930's to the USA.
It is not even worthy of debate.
There are some folks, politically to the left of my own position, who believe the US is embarking on an Imperialist policy not very different from Japan in the 1930's. While I don't really believe that, I can certainly see how taking over a nation and controlling it ourselves would be seen as imperialistic. I will also bet you there won't be any democratic elections in Iraq in the next decade - we're too afraid the Iraqi's will elect people (most likely Islamic extremists) inimical to our position.
And attacking my position on this isn't answering the question - is Iraq a better place without Saddam? Is the world? And where are the WMD's? Why did the Bush Administration puff up rumors of WMD's in order to attack another nation? If you think about it, it's looking more and more like America was more of a legitimate threat to Japanese plans in the 1930's than Iraq was to our plans now.
The world supported Desert Shield/Storm. The world understood the invasion of Afghanistan. The world isn't supporting the invasion of Iraq. Why is that? It isn't purely money - otherwise they would've been against Desert Storm. I will laugh loudly if Tony Blair loses his job in Britain because the British people prove to be against this war.
Man, with Bill gone and CF leaving, SOMEbody's got to be the moderate here!
And attacking my position on this isn't answering the question - is Iraq a better place without Saddam? Is the world? And where are the WMD's? Why did the Bush Administration puff up rumors of WMD's in order to attack another nation? If you think about it, it's looking more and more like America was more of a legitimate threat to Japanese plans in the 1930's than Iraq was to our plans now.
The world supported Desert Shield/Storm. The world understood the invasion of Afghanistan. The world isn't supporting the invasion of Iraq. Why is that? It isn't purely money - otherwise they would've been against Desert Storm. I will laugh loudly if Tony Blair loses his job in Britain because the British people prove to be against this war.
Man, with Bill gone and CF leaving, SOMEbody's got to be the moderate here!
loncray, while I'm not as far right as some I still can atleast acknowledge the left's ideas as somewhat sensible SOME of the time. But I still don't understand why everyone is putting so much stock in this WMD thing... c'mon it's not that big of a deal. It is not the reason we took over. It's the US spreading democracy, in our own, imperialistic like way. Some view it as wrong, the world disagree's, because well they always disagree with the US. Look past the WMD's because they really are irrelavent to the situation right now... they weren't a year ago, but they are now. Remember Korea, Vietnam... spreading democracy to defeat communism, no we've tapped the muslims and well that may have been a HUGE mistake.
It's not that much stock is being put in the WMD idea, it's that the Administration used WMD's as an excuse to launch a preemptive war. We're the US, we're not supposed to launch preemptive wars. Leave that to Tojo and Hitler, and the Spanish (supposedly) blowing up the Maine. Had the Administration said "we're going into Iraq to finish what Desert Storm started" or "we're going into Iraq to remove the Butcher of Baghdad", they'd have a lot more credibility. I don't think we are spreading democracy at all. Iraq has no history of democracy, and the people most likely to get elected in a fair election are precisely the sort of people we don't want running the place.
BINGO, it's gotta start somewhere. I didn't say it was possible, but someone who know's more than me thought it was worth trying. It's sure better then burying our heads int he sand and hoping no one hurts us. I can understand the liberal point of view on the pre emptive thing, there i surely other nations that equally deserve a good tongue lashing and beating with a wet noodle... however, one like Iraq is a prime traget because it is rich in skilled workers (like it or not the Iraqi's are an educated bunch when compared to african nations) and has a tremendous economic ability as a country.
Another thing... it's only been 8 months... it took DECADES to rebuild europe after that war, when compared scale to scale we're doing pretty good right now. I'm not taking sides here, I still have my doubts about the whole thing, but I do see good in somethings that are happening... I'm not blindly following a party here, but i can see a liberal picking apart an administration because of hatred when i see it.
Bush played the hand he was dealt, he bluffed and got caught, now he looks like a jackass... and clinton didn't look like a jackass? look past president and party and see a picture and you may see a little more than what you think.
1. The left's claiming we went into Iraq because of WMDs is a little like the guy who drives 20 miles to shop. After selecting a shopping cart full of groceries, he picks up one last item, a single apple.
When he gets home his neighbor says, " man it was stupid to drive 40 miles just to buy an apple".
2. If the arguments put forth to compare Japans attack on Perl Harbor with our going into Iraq is a "moderate" position, I have NEVER heard a left leaning position. One is more apt to be judged by the positions he/she takes than the label they claim for themself.
Vaughn
When he gets home his neighbor says, " man it was stupid to drive 40 miles just to buy an apple".
2. If the arguments put forth to compare Japans attack on Perl Harbor with our going into Iraq is a "moderate" position, I have NEVER heard a left leaning position. One is more apt to be judged by the positions he/she takes than the label they claim for themself.
Vaughn
But it isn't the left claiming WMD's as an excuse, it's the right. The left says we went in for oil, and war profits, and because W is still mad that Saddam tried to kill his daddy. It's the RIGHT that says we went in for WMD's. I'd support President Bush's war more if only they'd told the truth from the beginning - that they wanted to take down the Butcher of Baghdad. Instead, they puffed up poor intelligence about WMD's and used that to attack another country. And it's that whole preemptive strike thing that I'm on about - I see no difference whatsoever between that and Pearl Harbor. Tell me how it's different? Overwhelming military force is launched at an enemy's military, some of which were definitely WMD's - the US Battleships at Pearl. This strike is done to remove a threat to the nation's security and ambitions. The differences in the two strikes don't act in our favor - the Japanese didn't invade Hawaii or mainland America (though they did take many territories overseas), and they didn't try to overthrow our government. So if you think my point of view is incorrect, explain how you think it's wrong.
I think the left's position on this (the extreme left) is that we went in to take over Iraq as part of an Imperialist plot, to get free oil and crusade against the Muslims while we've got the excuse of 9/11. Note that THIS position is considerably to the left of my own.
I think the left's position on this (the extreme left) is that we went in to take over Iraq as part of an Imperialist plot, to get free oil and crusade against the Muslims while we've got the excuse of 9/11. Note that THIS position is considerably to the left of my own.
Not sure I should bother, but what the hell.
In the 1980s and 90s, Iraq had shown a history of attacking its peace loving neighbors and using WMDs any chance they thought they could get away with.
In 1930s The US had not.
10 years years ago, Iraq lost a war with the world, becuase of their treachery.
The US had not
Japan was talking peace to us, and bombed as a shear surprise.
The US and their coalititon had warned Saddam for 10 years to comply with the terms of his surrender from the previous war, he chose not to.
The US gave Saddam every possible chance to surrender, well before any bombs were dropped.
ETC, ETc, ETC
Nobody in their right mind, could ever compare those two events, it is just not possible.
Even if you try to blindly paint them both as preemptive strikes to protect their interests, there is a difference there.
Our interests are to fight terrorists, the enemy of the human race, and to protect innocent civilians.
1940 Japan interest was to conquer and take what they wanted.
To make an Imperial Empire.
In the 1980s and 90s, Iraq had shown a history of attacking its peace loving neighbors and using WMDs any chance they thought they could get away with.
In 1930s The US had not.
10 years years ago, Iraq lost a war with the world, becuase of their treachery.
The US had not
Japan was talking peace to us, and bombed as a shear surprise.
The US and their coalititon had warned Saddam for 10 years to comply with the terms of his surrender from the previous war, he chose not to.
The US gave Saddam every possible chance to surrender, well before any bombs were dropped.
ETC, ETc, ETC
Nobody in their right mind, could ever compare those two events, it is just not possible.
Even if you try to blindly paint them both as preemptive strikes to protect their interests, there is a difference there.
Our interests are to fight terrorists, the enemy of the human race, and to protect innocent civilians.
1940 Japan interest was to conquer and take what they wanted.
To make an Imperial Empire.
You would be surprised the arguments I have had with inantimate objects... then again, mebbee you wouldn't!:{ :-{}
:-{}
Turbo Tim 1
TDR MEMBER
Political threads amaze me, I have to wonder sometimes why people think the way they do. I use to work with a guy who said, "I hold Bill Clinton up to my grand children as a role model" Why? Don't think much of the grand children do you? As far as I'm concerned GW passed mis-information to me, Billy boy LIED to me. I think we're doing the right thing in Iraq, it will eventually make the whole world a better place.
But that's not the reason I even came to this thread, the reason is, I wanted to tell SLED PULLER to look at the home page and see whose truck is the truck of the day... ... AGAIN!
But that's not the reason I even came to this thread, the reason is, I wanted to tell SLED PULLER to look at the home page and see whose truck is the truck of the day... ... AGAIN!
Pearl Harbor??
I don't seem to remember the US not compling to world mandates for ten years. I don't remember Japan telling us that we had a couple of days for the president to step down from power or they would remove him. It's a completely different situation. Comparing Pearl Harbor and Iraq is grasping at straws at best, while ignoring the ten years of history leading up to each event.
What I find amusing is all the talk about Korea, China, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The main question asked is why aren't we attacking those countries too? My question back is if the same folks are crying this loud over what we are doing in Iraq, how loud will the whining be if we attacked a "friendly" country?
I don't seem to remember the US not compling to world mandates for ten years. I don't remember Japan telling us that we had a couple of days for the president to step down from power or they would remove him. It's a completely different situation. Comparing Pearl Harbor and Iraq is grasping at straws at best, while ignoring the ten years of history leading up to each event.
What I find amusing is all the talk about Korea, China, Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. The main question asked is why aren't we attacking those countries too? My question back is if the same folks are crying this loud over what we are doing in Iraq, how loud will the whining be if we attacked a "friendly" country?
Ah yes... ... and Steve was just sayin' how traffic on the site has been picking up, at least we know why!
:-laf Stick with what works. ROFLMAO
Rob
... . Hes making a list... Robs on it twice, going to find out... .
<<snip>> Now this is cool-the lowly redneck Diesel club from the hated USA is about to have an"International Affair. " on their message board!! <<snip>>
ROFLMAO Sled Puller.
Went home to UK for xmas last year, first time in many years. At the Pub I got tired of all the Bush bashing. They signed same stuff USA did.
Have been a Texas Brit for over twenty years and glad we got our respect back and have something to be proud of for a change.
ROFLMAO Sled Puller.
Went home to UK for xmas last year, first time in many years. At the Pub I got tired of all the Bush bashing. They signed same stuff USA did.
Have been a Texas Brit for over twenty years and glad we got our respect back and have something to be proud of for a change.
Peter Campbell
TDR MEMBER
Is getting 100,000 US troops out of saudi arabia a good thing for the US? Isn't those troops stationed there what what ****** off Osama? If we can get in there and clean it up and stabilize it and get out- That is in the interests of the US. If it is not fair, if it is morally repugnant to go to war- Grow up, put down the PC crapola, wake up and smell the coffee. Using logic to fight terrorist and dicators does not work. Do we need to get involved in every military coup?- No. Is every dicator a new Hitler- NO. If saddam had rolled over just a little and said- these WMD are too expensive and are not worth our effort-lets talk- we would not be there. He probably did not persue them after '91. Why did't he tell anyone? If he stopped saber ratteling (both saddam and bush ) For long enough to talk-We might have been able to quiet him down. Appeasment does not work, ask lord chamberlain " peace in our time" that time was 1939. The only difference between Adolph Chicklgruber (-5sp) and saddam was that saddam did some of his own dirty work ( torture, murder, acid baths, etc) Hitler never got his own hands dirty.
Again is a stable mideast in the interests of the US? Can anyone think of a way to stop terrorists beside military action? ( besides giving them money like dean/ gore would have).
The democrats really hate someone who makes good decisions that are not democrats. At least we are not killing US soldiers to get our favorite warlord in power like Clinton did in somalia. He put men out in the field without proper cover and support with terms of engagement meant to get them killed. But they died in a very politically correct way. I hope thier next of kin apreciated that. That is democrat military leadership- An oxymoron.
As far as where are the WMD, ask the kurds- many were expended on them. They may not be in ready status- all used up killing people. Hanging the entire effort on WMD instead of stopping the next hitler and stabilizing the region was a error- but not a lie. An error is believing that the O- ring is still good when cold, An error is believing that the ten year old report on the hazards of foam falling rom the tank hurting the shuttle never caused any problems- lets ignore it, An error is beliving one intelligence report over another because that is what you wanted to hear. A LIE is sayin " I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN" after getting some very satisfying oral interactions.
Again is a stable mideast in the interests of the US? Can anyone think of a way to stop terrorists beside military action? ( besides giving them money like dean/ gore would have).
The democrats really hate someone who makes good decisions that are not democrats. At least we are not killing US soldiers to get our favorite warlord in power like Clinton did in somalia. He put men out in the field without proper cover and support with terms of engagement meant to get them killed. But they died in a very politically correct way. I hope thier next of kin apreciated that. That is democrat military leadership- An oxymoron.
As far as where are the WMD, ask the kurds- many were expended on them. They may not be in ready status- all used up killing people. Hanging the entire effort on WMD instead of stopping the next hitler and stabilizing the region was a error- but not a lie. An error is believing that the O- ring is still good when cold, An error is believing that the ten year old report on the hazards of foam falling rom the tank hurting the shuttle never caused any problems- lets ignore it, An error is beliving one intelligence report over another because that is what you wanted to hear. A LIE is sayin " I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN" after getting some very satisfying oral interactions.
Similar threads
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
Turbo Diesel Register
Issue 128 – Digital Version
Digital Magazines
FREE!
TDR Test Drive - Digital Edition
Renew
Subscribe
Gift Subscriptions
Back Issues
Subscription Status
Address Change Form
Buyer's Guides
Ram Diagnostic Trouble Codes
The Perfect Collection
The Perfect Collection Vol. II
TSB Updates
Dodge/Cummins Historical Overview
Cameron Collection
What Makes Us Tick?
Product Showcase
Advertising
