What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-19 14:29:14

In my opinion that sinks as low as terrorism itself.

soph · 2002-12-19 17:28:07

like i said in the other thread, they violated the law, they should be punished. whats wrong with the concept of crime and punishment? its their own fault they didnt have the presence of mind to renew their visas.

if you were in this country illegaly, would you be dumb enough to go to the INS offices, without at least making steps to show your intention to get a new visa beforehand?

AltToWar · 2002-12-20 13:07:41

if it were me, i would have renewed the visa well before it expired, so nothing wrong can happen.

"Immigration officials acknowledged Wednesday that many of those taken into custody this week have status-adjustment applications pending that have not yet been acted on. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … ...452.DTL

Just in case you cannot comprehend this, many of those who were detained had tried, and were actively in the process of getting their green cards. The government has not processed their claims yet.

These people have jobs and faimys here in the US, and fear their government back home.

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Perhaps we should just gas them all, put them in a mass grave, and let god sort them out, no? They are Immigrants, anyhow. They have no rights.

I do not claim to know the intent of these new policies, but I do know what the overall effect will be:

Terror.

Arab americans now understand that they do have much to fear not just from the american public, but from the american government. I highly doubt that any terrorists will be caught, but we certialy have let arab americans know that they are not welcome in white america.

Byron · 2002-12-20 13:35:44

From the LA Times...
Hundreds of men and boys from Middle Eastern countries were arrested by federal immigration officials in Southern California this week when they complied with orders to appear at INS offices for a special registration program.
The arrests drew thousands of people to demonstrate Wednesday in Los Angeles.
..........

I find this very disturbing...as this is the sort of thing that happened to certain people living in Germany in the late 1930's. They start by going after people who supposely have "no rights," and go from there. Once the process starts, it's pretty dammed difficult to stop.

No sane (or insane, for that matter) terrorist or criminal would voluntarily submit themselves to government red tape...so why is the government arresting and jailing people who haven't filled out the "correct forms?" Just because there's some sort of need to flush these "undesirables" out of our supposely egalitarian society? Hmmm?

Let's do like Israel and give Muslims a REAL reason to hate us. I can't wait for the day that we have to fear for our lives everytime we hop aboard a public bus or subway, or have to do without public litter bins so there's not so many places to hide bombs.

If we keep on with this type of blatent discriminatory behavior, that's exactly what we have to look forward to...

B

AltToWar · 2002-12-20 13:55:43

and regarding the body bags...i dont think it will be the next vietnam. we were afraid of this in afghanistan...didnt happen. and they were far more fanatical than the iraqis. contrary to the image sadam wants to emulate, iraq is a more secular than most middle eastern muslim nations (im not sure if its technically arab or not). sadam wants to build huge mosques to be viewed as a great muslim hero, but his people arent as religious as, say, the saudis.
on a tactical level, we have a stronger military than we did in 1992, and iraq has a weaker, significantly so, military. i think that if we can get sadam, the people will turn, they way they did, for the most part, in Afghanistan.

once again I say, bombing over uncontested airspace and manuvers over open desert are far far far different than urban warfare. Sun Tzu to Our Curent Military's Top Brass will tell you so.

soph · 2002-12-20 13:57:51

clark, dont hold your breath.

Alt, once we had the city surrounded, i dont think we'd have to chase anybody in. A few pinpoint raids, which we are very capable of, could do the trick. We hit a guy in his truck in yemen, remember?

soph · 2002-12-20 14:43:16

and what are your military credentials?

as many people have said, american officials like to spread misinformation.

our first death toll estimate for wtc was over 10,000. obviously, that was quite a bit high. and dont tell me about casualties of war. im not saying i support the war, im saying on a strategiclal standpoint, our major military officials have all said, that i have seen, from credible sources, that this war will be just as easy.

its easy to find a source online that says that X said this about that. thats why i prefer to get my information from real sources i can trust.

soph · 2002-12-20 14:44:54

oh, yes, and we have a volunteer military. if a parent was afraid of losing their child, they could persuade them to leave the military. our past armies havent always had that choice.

Bill White · 2002-12-20 14:54:07

and regarding the body bags...i dont think it will be the next vietnam. we were afraid of this in afghanistan...didnt happen. and they were far more fanatical than the iraqis.

Afghanistan ain't over yet. Whether US peacekeepers start getting RPGs fired at them as they travel around Kabul will depend on whether - next year - we are seen as liberators who have invested the billions needed to re-build the country or as conquerers who came like the Soviets for our own selfish agenda.

*If* President Bush is genuinely willing to invest many billions in US taxpayer money to "nation build" Afghanistan and billions more for Iraq *then* I will agree with the above.

contrary to the image sadam wants to emulate, iraq is a more secular than most middle eastern muslim nations (im not sure if its technically arab or not). sadam wants to build huge mosques to be viewed as a great muslim hero, but his people arent as religious as, say, the saudis.

I agree - this is why the bin Laden-Saddam connection is a farce. That said - whacking Saddam is not really a bad idea, *IF* we do it prudently. Which includes avoiding the appearance of unilateralism.

In your opinion, soph will we eventually need to do the same to the Saudis and the Iranians?

on a tactical level, we have a stronger military than we did in 1992, and iraq has a weaker, significantly so, military. i think that if we can get sadam, the people will turn, they way they did, for the most part, in Afghanistan.

The conquest of Iraq will be easy. The occupation and re-building will be difficult. What do we do about the Kurds - the largest ethnic group in the world without their own nation? What do we do about the Iranians? The Saudis? George Bush Sr. had some really good reasons not to remove Saddam back in 1990 and many of those same reasons still exist.

Who decides how Iraq will be governed? If we set up a pro Washington puppet government, within a few months or years US soldiers will start getting killed by rebels opposed to that puppet government. Remember the Shah of Iran?

The people haven't turned in Afghanistan - IMHO - they are just waiting to see if we keep our word. Send in billions of dollars in foreign aid and re-build the country, then they will turn in our favor. Same for Iraq.

Dubya had better learn all about "nation building" because we will need to be doing lots and lots of it in the years to come.

soph · 2002-12-20 15:56:59

this was probably the same guy who said the iraqis had a million man republican guard in 91

and the guardian is one of those sources i dont trust. they lean far to the left. way too far for me to base an objective opinion on.

Cobra Commander · 2003-10-30 20:02:24

I firmly believe that history will judge Dubya favorably over Iraq. Despite strong disagreements with some of Bush's policies, in Iraq we have achieved a tremendous victory for human rights and established a foothold for freedom and the rule of law in a part of the world awash in hate and terror. Casualties are unfortunate, but if we've grown so soft we can't stomach them then we've already lost, the American dream is over.

Bill White · 2003-10-30 20:19:52

I firmly believe that history will judge Dubya favorably over Iraq. Despite strong disagreements with some of Bush's policies, in Iraq we have achieved a tremendous victory for human rights and established a foothold for freedom and the rule of law in a part of the world awash in hate and terror. Casualties are unfortunate, but if we've grown so soft we can't stomach them then we've already lost, the American dream is over.

Its still the first half. The game isn't over yet.

Our real enemy in Iraq never was Saddam. He was always vulnerable to quick US elimination, as we saw. Yet Saddam's secret police, as vile and loathsome as they were/are, also were very effective at suppressing recruitment by the Islamic radicals. Now, the Islamic extreme-ists can recruit in Iraq with relative impunity. The US will never be as brutal as Saddam and therefore our ability to suppress a radical Islamic insurgency is that much harder.

bin Laden wanted Saddam gone as much as we did, IMHO. Now, al Qaeda has a whole new discontented population to draw recruits from. Only a peaceful, stable, contented Iraqi population will allow us to win the battle for Iraq. And that will be VERY expensive for the US taxpayers..

To win the battle for Iraq we need to win TWO totally different wars.

First, get rid of Saddam. Mostly done, although many Baathists simply melted into the countryside to snipe later. But the second war has barely begun, and that war is about winning Iraq away from the al Qaeda elements who now see instability in Iraq as a way to attack the US directly.

The US =MUST= win this second war as well even if it costs the US taxpayers many hundreds of billions of dollars and many years and lives.

No "Mission Accomplished" - - more like "Mission Barely Begun"

Bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons and did it in a way that will cost the USA far more than should have been necessary. But now we are in the game and dare not quit.

Alt2War · 2003-10-30 21:00:53

Cindy, that seemed a little harsh and... vehemently rhetorical I guess is the best way to put it. Not to be insensitive to those who have lost people in Iraq, but in a historical perspective things are going remarkably well. I'm not a huge GW fan myself, but the cause is just and our conduct has been honorable.

Remarkably Well?

In what context?

The funny thing about a war is, it's the losers who decide when the winner wins.

We tried this in Viatnam, we said "hey we won, and were pulling out! Go USA." And south viatnam went to hell in sort order afterwards.

Womens rights are lower than they were pre-gulf war 1. Unemployment is astronmical, pre gulf war 1 bagdad had a better employment rate than current NYC.

Pre gulf war 2 Iraq was virtually Al'Quida free. Religious Fanatacism has a rarity. Now all forms of radicalism are abundant. In fact Iraq now is a magnet for jihadists all over the world.

In the middle east currently many many people who formally would not give a second though to islamic radicalism, who shunned and considered them radicals, now believe the "Western Imperialism" propoganda. Infact to may americans it seems to no longer be propoganda but realty.

There is a real and urgent fear within both the Democratic party and the NeoCon's that the current administration might see Iraq as too much of a political liability. We may see bush and co cut their losses, declare victory and hand the nation over to the nearest available dictator. that is a real threat.

Put in a historic context, sure Iraq is nothing compared to WW2 or even the Civil War in terms of carnage.

But the modern world is much more different. The world expects so much from us, and often follows our lead. The world is globaly connected through sattilites and cables.

This is the Information age, and the battle is over Ideas.

That is the war we are losing.

The US military Psy-Ops program combined with it's Public relations program for this war.

In this war, we failed to make the progress we had hoped because the Propoganda we spewed was nowhere near as effective in Iraq and the Middle East as it was on us at home.

Alt2War · 2003-10-30 21:05:24

However, the fact that you seem surprised by it, as though it's something that shouldn't be happening in a country described as humanity's 'last best hope', is an endearing demonstration of your ingenuous idealism. I understand it and admire it.

The formation of Democracy here in Amercia was thought of the same.

Thank god the world has Idealists.

Democracy is a lame duck; the best system among an altogether bad lot of systems. One of the few things it has going for it is that people like you, Cindy, can at least blow the whistle on corruption (albeit uselessly) without being imprisoned or executed for it!

The nice thing about democracy is that this is only true if you let it be so.

Alt2War · 2003-10-30 21:14:20

I firmly believe that history will judge Dubya favorably over Iraq. Despite strong disagreements with some of Bush's policies, in Iraq we have achieved a tremendous victory for human rights and established a foothold for freedom and the rule of law in a part of the world awash in hate and terror. Casualties are unfortunate, but if we've grown so soft we can't stomach them then we've already lost, the American dream is over.

I firmly believe that history will judge Dubya favorably over Iraq.

I firmly believe otherwise.

Despite strong disagreements with some of Bush's policies, in Iraq we have achieved a tremendous victory for human rights

I thought the war on iraq was about Nukes, or was it WMD? Or was it cutting a head off a potental future threat? Where was the call to support the human rights of the people of Iraq before the war? it was virtually non existant until we were already there, and all the other fits of bullshit played out to be false.

The UN has all but pulled out, and now the Red Cross.

Where is the bastion for Human Rights in Iraq? the US Military?

The US Military is not a hman rights force, not a peace jeeping force, and certianly not a police force. the US Military has no such training in these matters. none.

the US military knows how to kill people and break things and god bless em they know how to do it well when it matters.

But if you think we went to iraq for human rights issues, than your eating more bullshit pie. It was not the agricultural or economic or health ministries that the us sent commandos into to protect from day one of the war. It was the Oil ministry. All the other were blown to hell. Where do you think the priorities lie?

Casualties are unfortunate, but if we've grown so soft we can't stomach them then we've already lost, the American dream is over.

If we do not see the value in the human lives were losing, both american soldiers and innocent iraqi civilians, than THAT would be the end of the american dream my friend.

Alt2War · 2003-10-30 21:19:05

The cyinic in me looks at Iraq as the 'center front in the war on terror'. Just like Afhganistan is a 'side front in the war on terror'.
So here is something to consider, something the pundits don't neccessarily say out loud, that this adminstration new full well that going into Iraq, like Afhganistan, would draw terroists into the country. Like a magnet.
Now, why on Earth would they invade a foreign country, knowing that terroists would flock there?
Why would they be 'surprised' by the number of extremists sneaking through the borders? Isn't the US the same nation with the much vaunted 'aerial recconaisance' that allows us to watch just about anywhere, at anytime?
Wouldn't they expect for foreign terroists to try and get into the country through Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, and Kuwait?
Now, say what you will about this administration, but they do have a few bright cookies who can see a bit further than their own nose.
So perhaps, just maybe, quite possibly, they decided to go into Iraq, like Afghanistan, in order to draw the terroists there.
It's a sad thought, but if you're a leader of a certain country, and are faced with two options, one, being to lock down your own nation, and your own populace, from small bands of terroists who may or may not strike at any time, or two, go into another country, drawing the terroists there, so they are less likely to strike your own nation. Which would you choose?
Car bombs in Iraq are horrible for the people there, and for us, since we bring this chaos to them, but Iraqi people don't vote for the US president.
A plane explodes, or an embassy is destroyed in Iraq, our nation dosen't have a billion-dollar economic hiccup.
Just something to think about.

Now, say what you will about this administration, but they do have a few bright cookies who can see a bit further than their own nose.

This administration has been at warfare between the state dept and the defense dept sence long before the first tank rolled on bagdhad.

The state dept had long and exhaustive meetings about the post war problems that needed to be dealt with, brought in dozens of experts and spent millions of dollars. In the end they were ignored.

The Defense dept put all it's hopes in an ignoramous exile named Chalibi, in fact he was the source of most of the bullshit intelligence.

Machivelli said "Never trust the Exiles"

They expected Chalibi to come in like a hero and lead Iraq into democracy. Chalibi got laughed out of Iraq as an untrusted outsider.

No, this administration does not know what its doing.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-31 01:58:07

Looks like our erstwhile, resident political correspondent for the 'Socialist Worker' has re-emerged with his usual flare!
:laugh:

I wonder where he goes when he's not here at New Mars explaining the true, clear, non-propaganda realities of world politics to us benighted sheep?
:;):

If only Alt2(To?)War were in a position of power. Then, with his remarkable political omniscience, he could lead the world in the true path to a sociali.. , oops sorry, Utopian paradise!
Chuckle chuckle !!

Bill White:-

But now we are in the game and dare not quit.

I would suggest the 'game' has been afoot for some decades. Even if that assessment is found wanting, I suggest the levelling of a significant fraction of downtown Manhattan in 2001 could be construed as the start of play, at least in America. I think it was seen as the starting whistle by the vast majority of Australians, and the few who disputed that were probably persuaded when 88 Aussies were incinerated in Bali late last year.

I think it's still not entirely clear to everybody that this 'game' is too important for party politics (hence my little jest with Alt2War). Regardless of how it started ... please spare me the breast-beating about Western guilt and how nasty we all are ... we are in a slow-burn war against a ruthless, illogical, and implacable enemy called Fundamentalist Islam. The objective of the war is to replace democracy, with all its faults, with rule by religious zealots called mullahs, sheiks, or ayatollahs.
[It's fascinating that left-leaning journalists and other socialists, who so relish the Israeli-Palestinian impass, the re-emergence of Taliban thugs in Afghanistan, and the murderous difficulties faced by Coalition forces in Iraq (and make no mistake, 'relish' is exactly the right word), seem unable to grasp the fact that muslim religious extremists have no time for socialists either! They see no distinction between George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Gore Vidal, Ayn Rand, Donald Rumsfeld, or Fidel Castro for that matter. We will all have to wear beards or burkhas and pray to Allah 5 times a day - even Alt2War - if these lunatics have their way!]

I think Clark's hypothesis is probably right inasmuch as the Fundamentalist war is not going to go away. There has to be a 'front' somewhere and it looks like Iraq is it for the moment. And I have no doubt that, if the front in Iraq is abandoned, and even if Afghanistan and Israel were to be abandoned, the enemy would simply modify the grievance list and shift the front somewhere else. At most we might buy a little time.
The only way to deal with a group of people who see your death as not only essential but somehow a holy duty, is to eliminate them first. And I make no apology for that apparently cold-blooded statement.
Iraq must be secured before we can move on to the next battle. And there will be a next battle because that's how the enemy operates. And the last battle will occur when one side or the other is destroyed.
The United Nations reneged on its duty once with the Iraq situation. If it does so again by petulantly failing to assist America and Britain in restoring peace and prosperity to the Iraqi people, just to save itself some money and to delight in America's discomfort, then I believe the UN is finished as a serious force in world politics ... if it was ever one in the first place.

As I've said before, my heart goes out to the brave American and British personnel, doing their damnedest to restore order and give Iraq a real future free of terror. I thank them, and especially the U.S. tax payer, for assuming this heavy duty on behalf of the rest of us.
And I condemn the weasels who sit on the side lines and try to score cheap political points while a war is being waged against liberal democracy.

Alt2War · 2003-10-31 04:17:16

Looks like our erstwhile, resident political correspondent for the 'Socialist Worker' has re-emerged with his usual flare!
:laugh:
I wonder where he goes when he's not here at New Mars explaining the true, clear, non-propaganda realities of world politics to us benighted sheep?

The question is, with such a response, It's a wonder I ever come back.

Bill White · 2003-10-31 06:06:44

So here is something to consider, something the pundits don't neccessarily say out loud, that this adminstration new full well that going into Iraq, like Afhganistan, would draw terroists into the country. Like a magnet.

In Iraq, al Qaeda pays $50 or $100 to some unemployed mope and he fires an RPG at a Hummer just to buy some food for his family. Yup, we sure are draining al Qaeda resources by letting them do that.

Great plan, now we have al Qaeda right where we want them.

Sadly, until every Iraqi has a full belly and a good job and personal security al Qaeda will have a wide open field to recruit, recruit, recruit.

So long as deputy mayors are shot at and killed in drive by shootings, Iraq will not be secure. We can't stop gang bangers in LA - - how are we going to stop them in Iraq?

It's a sad thought, but if you're a leader of a certain country, and are faced with two options, one, being to lock down your own nation, and your own populace, from small bands of terroists who may or may not strike at any time, or two, go into another country, drawing the terroists there, so they are less likely to strike your own nation. Which would you choose?

How does the US going to Iraq make it harder for terrorists to come here? If anything, it increases their motivation.

Any al Qaeda operative skilled enough to hi-jack an airplane or who speaks sufficiently good English to operate in the United States will never be "wasted" on a suicide operation in Iraq. No "US passport eligible" al Qaeda operative will be sacrificed in Iraq, IMHO of course.

Byron · 2003-11-08 07:48:27

I just can't believe the levels of hatred and murder in this world.

Me neither. If there really is a God or a super-advanced race of beings out there watching us, it's a wonder that He/She/It/They haven't tossed a comet down our way to snuff us out of existence...lol...

Oh well At least we have this little something called "protest" that may very well redeem the human race once and for all someday.

When I was a kid, I used to play "Time Machine" within the wide-ranging realm of my imagination. Except that I didn't go back in time to play with the dinosaurs like most kids would..lol.. Me, I imagined myself in an invincible fighter jet with unlimited fuel and ammunition, and starting from the Middle Ages forward, I would imagine going back and blowing up each and every person or group of persons that oppressed the majority, like the feudal lords that lived in their castles. Each time a king rose to power, BOOM!, gone. Every time that people tried to make slaves out of each other, WHAM!, they were obliberated. I would envision myself going up and down through the centuries, ensuring that the little guy would always come out on top by constantly taking out their oppressors. In my mind, I made sure the soul-sapping Industrial Revolution never happened, as I used my magic fighter to snuff out the cruel factories and coal mines just as soon as they came into production. Each time a palace was built in England, it was quickly reduced to rubble, and so on and so forth to the modern era, such as knocking off Stalin and Hitler just as soon as they came into power.

Of course, I never thought about the *consquences* of playing God like that...like halting the advancement of civilization to the point that we would have never made it to the Machine Age....lol...but it was awfully fun to play those kind of mental games nonetheless. Even today, I still have daydreams of a "leaderless" world where everyone is equally in charge of his or her own destiny, and having power over others is something that simply doesn't exist in the realm of the human mind. No evil bosses, no corrupt CEO's, no evil despots, no more village idiots for President, no more schoolyard bullies.

Just think how peaceful things would be in a world like that...

B

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-08 09:42:47

Just think how peaceful things would be in a world like that...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Thomas Jefferson

True today as it was then. I'll take the constant fight for freedom over boring utopia any day.

Besides Byron, your invincible fighter jet destroying oppressors is essentially what we did in Iraq.

See, childhood dreams really can come true.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-11 18:06:52

Dubya has not prepared the country to accept the considerable sacrifice that lies ahead if we are to win Round #2 of the Battle for Iraq. The more radical neo-cons are already complaining that Bush is making promises he can't/won't fulfill.

We are engaged in war against stateless terrorists. It is a war that will in a very real sense determine whether the past few centuries of the expnsion of freedom will continue or become a historical anomaly. Either we change them or they will most certianly change us in a very negative sense. This war will entail the invasion and occupation of a few more countries if we are to succeed. The sooner the American people come to grips with the task at hand the better. Dubya hasn't fully prepared the country, but we've never been truly prepared for any of the great accomplishments throughout our history. There will be setbacks, but we'll accomplish something worthwhile.

Bill White · 2003-11-11 21:04:18

Dubya has not prepared the country to accept the considerable sacrifice that lies ahead if we are to win Round #2 of the Battle for Iraq. The more radical neo-cons are already complaining that Bush is making promises he can't/won't fulfill.
We are engaged in war against stateless terrorists. It is a war that will in a very real sense determine whether the past few centuries of the expnsion of freedom will continue or become a historical anomaly. Either we change them or they will most certianly change us in a very negative sense. This war will entail the invasion and occupation of a few more countries if we are to succeed. The sooner the American people come to grips with the task at hand the better. Dubya hasn't fully prepared the country, but we've never been truly prepared for any of the great accomplishments throughout our history. There will be setbacks, but we'll accomplish something worthwhile.

I agree completely and disagree totally. How = WE = react to stateless terrorism will be the crucial turning point you describe.

If we support Ashcroft's suppression of historic liberties in the name of "security"

If we come to believe it is our right to kill anyone, anywhere, once we and we alone decide they are a terrorist;

If we believe the security interests of the United States (defined to benefit the narrow political interest of one man or one party) rise above all else and justify the trashing of historic alliances;

then the world will unite against us and the days of the United States will be numbered.

The historic strength of the United States has been its restraint and decency in the deployment of its power. Unrestrained arrogant use of military firepower will only foster resentment and anger and we cannot conquer the world single handedly.

How many Brits have died in Basra? There, the occupation forces have shed their helmets and wear berets (berries they call them). But there the Brit officers show humility and respect towards the native inhabitants while we US-ians shower the Sunnis with contempt and JDAMs.

And the Sunnis respond in kind.

Has Dubya ever shown humility and respect to anyone who is not a big time Republican campaign contributor?

Anyway, look at this quote from this article concerning the British occupation of Basra:

"We have gathered a lot of experience, you might say, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, rather bloody experience. An iron fist can lead to violence. The point is to defuse problems. It's tempting to describe it as, well, the British know empire."
But, he added, the British military force's declining numbers have forced it to be more practical and to make do with comparatively limited resources.
"We don't have a heavy footprint, and I think that actually can be beneficial," Synnott said. "It forces our generals to think a different way. They have to always be thinking about solving problems."
There are many examples of the British agility in what it takes to successfully administer an occupied land.

The Brits want to solve problems. The Yanks want to kick butts. I am worried, very worried.

Palomar · 2003-11-12 06:29:32

If we believe the security interests of the United States (defined to benefit the narrow political interest of one man or one party) rise above all else and justify the trashing of historic alliances;
then the world will unite against us and the days of the United States will be numbered.
The historic strength of the United States has been its restraint and decency in the deployment of its power. Unrestrained arrogant use of military firepower will only foster resentment and anger and we cannot conquer the world single handedly.
Has Dubya ever shown humility and respect to anyone who is not a big time Republican campaign contributor?
The Brits want to solve problems. The Yanks want to kick butts. I am worried, very worried.

*I agree, Bill. And just last evening, on a news program, a British journalist (with the BBC? I can't remember) spoke out quite clearly the sentiment and opinion that many Europeans seem to have: America wants to do it all on her own, and wants to play by her own rules. "We don't need you; we'll do what we want, when we want."

That message keeps coming to us from "across The Pond." I suppose it'll be ignored again.

As for your question about Dubya: No, not that I've seen.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-11-12 07:50:15

The Brits want to solve problems. The Yanks want to kick butts. I am worried, very worried.

If it's just that, put Iraq under british admisnistration.

I am not like Dubya, I don't see a bright future so easily. I don't see what's the point on the long term. It's too bloody expensive. Are the Iraqi and the arabs gonna "love" the US more after all that ? even in 10 years.

For me, oil independance (H2 cars, nuclear powerplants etc) was the solution. Strange that Dubya already forget about it. Oil ruined the good in the arab civilization.
87 billions, yes, but to convert 5% of the US car park in electric/hydrogen/alternative.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-12-19 14:29:14

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#2 2002-12-19 17:28:07

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#3 2002-12-20 13:07:41

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#4 2002-12-20 13:35:44

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#5 2002-12-20 13:55:43

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#6 2002-12-20 13:57:51

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#7 2002-12-20 14:43:16

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#8 2002-12-20 14:44:54

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#9 2002-12-20 14:54:07

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#10 2002-12-20 15:56:59

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#11 2003-10-30 20:02:24

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#12 2003-10-30 20:19:52

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#13 2003-10-30 21:00:53

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#14 2003-10-30 21:05:24

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#15 2003-10-30 21:14:20

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#16 2003-10-30 21:19:05

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#17 2003-10-31 01:58:07

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#18 2003-10-31 04:17:16

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#19 2003-10-31 06:06:44

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#20 2003-11-08 07:48:27

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#21 2003-11-08 09:42:47

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#22 2003-11-11 18:06:52

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#23 2003-11-11 21:04:18

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#24 2003-11-12 06:29:32

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#25 2003-11-12 07:50:15

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

Board footer