Bullies Basically - Somone help me with this please ?

[Sovietsky Souyuz]

Okay, if any of the right-wingers can explain this to me without sounding like G.W.Bush. i'll be surprised.

1950's , cold war, US and the CCCP face off against each other, the US considered Stalin to be a rouge nut with nukes, but never invaded russia.......................

Saddam Hussein, with a tiny probably non-existent nuke stockpile, and a country not even a quarter the size of russia, the US promptly decide to pick on him .... plus this with the arabian oil in his country, and you have the age old schoolyard problem ;

bully "gimme your lunch money"
little kid "no, piss off"
bully then pummels little kid, saying "got the money anyway"

replace 'bully' with bush, money with oil, and little kid with iraq, and you see my point.

and finally, if saddam did set the oil wells on fire and blow them up, would your little capitalist war have been in vain ??????

[Tkinter1]

It was a different adminstration, and a different time.

It's not tactically wise to invade a country that could decimate yours in minutes.

I love how you refer to Iraq as a "little kid", harmless, defensless and peaceful.....which is utter bullshit.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 10:16 pm on Mar. 18, 2003
It was a different adminstration, and a different time.

It's not tactically wise to invade a country that could decimate yours in minutes.

I love how you refer to Iraq as a "little kid", harmless, defensless and peaceful.....which is utter bullshit.

In the war that will ensue, I would suggest that actually Iraq will be akin to a little kid, no one even knows if most of their soldiers will fight.

[Anonymous]

"I love how you refer to Iraq as a "little kid", harmless, defensless and peaceful.....which is utter bullshit."

Tell that to the victims of the upcoming war.

[Solzhenitsyn]

It's not tactically wise to invade a country that could decimate yours in minutes.

You're right but the U.S. had a window of 4 years in which they could have attempted a conventional military conquest of Russia and did not do so. It has no relationship to any Soviet military policies. The Tsars were quite adept at defeating numerous invasions by much better armed and skilled opponents. If Hitler's policies toward the Russians and Ukrainians had been only marginally less idiotic, he would have defeated Stalin walking away. The real reason is the U.S. simply would not prevail in a military conquest of Russia largely because of geographical and logistical concerns.

[Pete]

The West also failed to crush the Revolution and payed for it in the early 1920's. They did not want to cover up another failed invasion.

[Solzhenitsyn]

The West wasn't serious about stopping the revolution. The Americans and British troops only function was to keep major shipping ports open for food and what little material aid was sent to the Whites.

The Reds won the Russian civil war largely because the White Armies were too disorganized to develop a coherent common strategy to defeat them. The fact that the Whites had no heavy weaponry didn't help either. They almost won though. Adm. Kolchak gave Trotsky the fright of his life.

(Edited by Solzhenitsyn at 8:26 pm on Mar. 18, 2003)

[Pete]

Ahh. Thank you. I also read that the West only sent troops who were told they would be going home, but they ended up in Russia. Or atleast many of them.

[Kapitan Andrey]

Solzhenitsyn...

Íå ïèçäè-êà!!! Áåëûå áûëè õîðîøî îðãàíèçîâàíû, íî êðåñòüÿíå-äóðàêè ïîääåðæàëè êðàñíîçàäûõ!!! Çà, ÷òî âïîñëåäñòâèè ïîïëàòèëèñü!!! À èíîÑÐÀÍÖÀÌ ýòà âîéíà, íàõåð íå íóæíà áûëà!!!

If you are really Russian, you'll understood that.
If you are not, I willn't repeat that on english!!!

[Solzhenitsyn]

First, It's came out as ASCII gibberish. Secondly, I don't recall making a claim that I'm an ethnic Russian only that I'm Russian Orthodox or pravoslavnya if I'm correct in my suffix. My knowledge of the russian language is limited to a few terms that are primarily religious or domestic in nature.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Neither the USSR wanted to directly confront the USA or vice versa. There was too much at stake, and it would have meant the end of the world.

As for a conventional confrontation, the two nation's size, power, and geographic seperation would have made an invasion attempt by either against the other a very tall order to fill for the aggressor.

The US was always at an even greater disadvantage, because in the most likely scenario, the battefield would have been central europe, which is tilted a bit more in favor of the USSR logistically. Even though the US had Sattelite bases there, main bases and factories were still on the North American continent.

If America herself was in a defensive position, then the advantage would be with the US, as the only way too effectively invade the US conventionally would be to use ships, and the US Navy was always vastly superior to the Soviet Fleet.

[Pete]

A question: Are American and exCCCP nukes still aimed at eachother with the fallout zone over Canada?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 3:52 am on Mar. 19, 2003
A question: Are American and exCCCP nukes still aimed at eachother with the fallout zone over Canada?

Probably

Well, actually, Russia has probably lost a lot of the funds needed to maintain a certain number of theirs, and I'm sure that we have diversified ours a little and have trained a few more on the DPRK, China, and perhaps even Iraq.

I think that France should be the next on the list.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 4:02 am on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Pete]

Well the DPKR and China would still go over Canada, and Iraq as well. I guess I still live in the fallout zone for American nukes. *shakes fist*

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:04 am on Mar. 19, 2003
Well the DPKR and China would still go over Canada, and Iraq as well. I guess I still live in the fallout zone for American nukes. *shakes fist*

Its the price you pay for protection

[Pete]

Trudeau did not see this as protection, but the result of a scared nation going on the defensive (CCCP) because of an agressive nation now at its doorstep (U.S. in Japan). Well I do not know if that is how Trudeau saw it, but he did not see it as protection. RIP Trudeau.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:15 am on Mar. 19, 2003
Trudeau did not see this as protection, but the result of a scared nation going on the defensive (CCCP) because of an agressive nation now at its doorstep (U.S. in Japan). Well I do not know if that is how Trudeau saw it, but he did not see it as protection. RIP Trudeau.

We never put nukes in japan like the soviets tried to in Cuba

[Pete]

I niether said nor meant that. At the end of WWII America had a vetran (sp) Army sitting on Russia's eastern frontier. Fully armed and battle experienced against the hardest foe in the war. The CCCP never saw battle on that front, so their peasants there would be slaughtered if America invaded and the CCCP put up a resistance. The situation was like a thorn in the Soviet's side.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:21 am on Mar. 19, 2003
I niether said nor meant that. At the end of WWII America had a vetran (sp) Army sitting on Russia's eastern frontier. Fully armed and battle experienced against the hardest foe in the war. The CCCP never saw battle on that front, so their peasants there would be slaughtered if America invaded and the CCCP put up a resistance. The situation was like a thorn in the Soviet's side.

We needed to send a preemptive message to the soviets that we would not tolerate their expansionism like they projected into eastern europe

also, because of the US's geographic isolation, we had to establish bases around asia and europe, because the USSR was already there

We were merely evening the odds

[Pete]

Which would explain the CCCP going into Cuba. But that still was not that point. The CCCP saw America with nukes right at thier weakest point. They had to do something, so they developed nukes. America made NATO. 5 or 6 years later the CCCP made the Warsaw Pact. The cause/effect of the cold war plays America as an agressor. But that is for another thread.

[Uhuru na Umoja]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 4:17 am on Mar. 19, 2003

Quote: from CrazyPete on 4:15 am on Mar. 19, 2003
Trudeau did not see this as protection, but the result of a scared nation going on the defensive (CCCP) because of an agressive nation now at its doorstep (U.S. in Japan). Well I do not know if that is how Trudeau saw it, but he did not see it as protection. RIP Trudeau.

We never put nukes in japan like the soviets tried to in Cuba

Yeah, but you did put them in Turkey.

[notyetacommie]

It was contrary to what you, Capitalist Inferior, are saying! USSR put the nukes in Cuba AFTER US installed theirs in Turkey. As always, imperialists try to twist history to serve their benefit. Check this out: http://members.aol.com/bblum6/cuba.htm
On this page you will find a more or less complete list of US "preventive" actions against the humankind:http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
I tell you this: US and this dickhead Bush wouldn't dare to talk in such a manner to the world community, leave alone Iraq invasion, if the USSR was still there with communists in power. Anyway, who were the first to create AND USE AGAINST CIVILIANS nuclear weapons? Who sold WMD to Iraq in the first place? Who still has the biggest stock of WMD in the world? Who has strived hard to disarm the former USSR while violating the agreement signed more than 30 years ago, increasing the military budget to $400000000 with illegitimate "president" still complayning it was too little?
If this world needs a preventive strike against an aggresor threatening the world peace, it should be USA!

[Pete]

*sighs* civility down the toilet.

CI never mentioned the time frame of who put bombs where when. Just that after WWII the CCCP was in a position of vunerablity so they wehre constantly on the defensive.

[notyetacommie]

Well, he mentioned that US were "evening the odds" with the USSR, which is not exactly the thing.

[Ghost Writer]

I have a question for you. Saddam's son has rejected the ultimatum (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=Z53ZE0XHB0ZWSCRBAELCF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=2398261) offered to him by our President saying, "The wives and mothers of those Americans who will fight us will cry blood, not tears," he said. "They should not imagine that they will have a safe spot inside the land of Iraq or outside it." Does this not confirm the suspicions that we have had all along about Iraq's ties to terrorism? Isn't this a direct threat to the American people? Is he not saying that they will use terrorist networks to harm the families of the soldiers that are there to liberate Baghdad, by unleashing one of the deadly poisons they have been manufacturing? Furthermore, there has been an intelligence report that provides information about Saddam's order to use chemical weapons (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81466,00.html) in the field, against an U.S. led invasion. Do these revelations convince you that you are backing the wrong side in this conflict? Can you not see that we have been right, all along? Iraq has these weapons (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm), and is now making statements alluding to the fact that they are in fact connected to various terrorist organizations. These connections have been detailed over the years:

1.) Iraq and Iran fund Palestinian Terrorists. (http://www.factsofisrael.com/load.php?p=http://www.factsofisrael.com/blog/archives/000407.html)

2.) WashingtonPost.com reports Al Qaeda was given nerve agents by Iraq. (http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02278.html)

3.) Ex-director of the CIA, Woolsey, believes that Al Qaeda played a role in the 9-11 attacks. He points to the refined anthrax attacks, which occurred shortly after 9-11 to support the idea that 9-11 was state sponsored. (http://multimedia.belointeractive.com/attack/investigation/1023iraq.html)

4.) Terror camps in both Afghanistan and Iraq were run by Zarqawi. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5461-568307,00.html) These camps dealt with poisonous material specifically. The kind of poisons that were probably given to the terror networks by Iraqi Intelligence. Zarqawi is being harbored by Hussein in Northern parts of Iraq, and has since received medical treatment in Baghdad. The terror group that operates in Northern Iraq has ties to Iraqi Intelligence, and is one of the strongest links recently named by Colin Powell in his address to the U.N. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.09/).

5.) Iraq has long been a state sponsor of terrorism, and was the only Arab country that did not condemn the 9-11 attacks. Iraq has an extensive training program in Salman Pak, where they train both Iraqi agents and foreign terrorists. The training includes the hijacking of various public transportation modes, explosives in urban areas, and assassinations. Iraq has a complete Boeing 707 on sight to aid in their training program.

source: The State Department (http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/war.htm)

6.) Spain recently linked 9-11 suspect to Baghdad (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/4188.html) "An alleged terrorist accused of helping the 11 September conspirators was invited to a party by the Iraqi ambassador to Spain under his al-Qaeda nom de guerre, according to documents seized by Spanish investigators."

7.) Czechs confirm the belief that Atta had met with a key member of Iraqi intelligence. (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_02/4189.html)

8.) Evidence indicates that Iraq planned to conduct attacks on U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf. (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/835.html) Strikingly similar to the an actual attack that occurred in the Gulf of Yemen in late 2000, the Christian Science Monitor reported the allegations made by a former smuggler. "The alleged plan involved loading at least one trade ship with half a ton of explosives, and - sailing under an Iranian flag to disguise Iraq‘s role - using a crew of suicide bombers to blow up a U.S. ship in the Gulf."

9.) Ramsey Yousef was the mastermind that attempted the first World Trade Center Bombing. His ties to both Al Qaeda and Iraq have been well documented.

10.) In 1995, Manila police arrested Ramsey Yousef. His co-conspirator Murad admitted links to Al Qaeda, and discussed a plot to use planes in a suicide bombing, targeting CIA headquarters (http://www.sltribune.com/2002/may/05192002/nation_w/nation_w.htm). Murad spoke of the fact that Al Qaeda operatives were being trained in U.S. flight schools for a conspiracy that included blowing up 12 U.S. planes over the Pacific Ocean.

Obviously, there exists a long history of Iraqi terrorism, their ties to Al Qaeda, and even evidence that suggests Iraq was involved in the 9-11 conspiracy. Saddam has placed great importance on his chemical, biological , and nuclear programs. Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person, approximately 1.5 million. Saddam tried to assassinate Bush, after he left office. Saddam celebrated the attacks on 9-11, and was probably behind it. None of these crimes could have been committed without the use of Iraqi intelligence and top leaders in Iraq's upper echelon. Not only are we after Hussein, but also the command structure that implements the dreams of a madman. Even if he were to leave today, it is necessary to remove all those who have a vested interest to the current Iraqi government.

We have three reasons for removing Saddam and his regime. First, the liberation of the Iraqi people is important. Secondly, we must further disrupt the Al Qaeda network, which has gotten plenty of support from Hussein in the past. The connection between Iraq and terrorist networks makes the possibility of a chemical or bioterror event more likely, as he has developed these weapons. In fact, there is a belief among experts in biological weaponry that the Anthrax used in the variety of attacks on news agencies, Washington officials, and postal workers has an Iraqi fingerprint. Last, Saddam had a role on September 11, whatever the degree.

Trust in the U.S. armed forces to eliminate this threat with minimal civilian casualties. Already they have been broadcasting instructions to the Iraqi people, detailing what they can do to avert disaster. Our armed forces are the most professional military organization in the world. We can trust in this professionalism, and be comforted in the fact that only Saddam Hussein will be responsible for the loss civilian lives. Why some would defend his position is beyond comprehension.

(Edited by Ghost Writer at 7:18 am on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Pete]

The guy who supposivly shot Kennedy has ties to both the US Amry and Soviet Russia. Does that mean that the Americans and Soviets are tied together?

[Ghost Writer]

My argument was laid out better than that. Your failure to recognize the difference speaks volumes about your ability to think logically.

If you were to dig into the Kennedy assassination, like I have done with regards to Iraq's connection to 9-11, you might come to the conclusion that Lee Harvy Oswald was a double agent, that was used as a patsy to take the fall for a wider conspiracy to kill Kennedy. A link between Russia and the Unites States for this purpose is highly unlikely. You are missing many key pieces to the puzzle, and drawing a broad conclusion based on a little amount of fact. Your argument in inductively weak.

[Pete]

I know I didn't dig into it deeply. That was the point. The link between a secular muslim and a crazed religous fanatic is highly unlikely. They hate each other. bin Laden has tried to assissinate Saddam.

I did not put it up as a serious arguement. Do not insult my capabilities based on that sentence which I could problay prove if I cared to in the formatt hat you presented. I will not waste my time.

[Ghost Writer]

Is your imagination really that limited that you would continue to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt? To me it is obvious. Read throught the twelve sources I gave you and draw your own conclusions, if you refuse to consider my point of view. Why are you so easily convinced about the evils of the U.S., yet still you remain skeptical over whether or not Saddam is a likely suspect?

[Pete]

I have never said that Saddam was a decent guy. I made a thread stating the complete opposite. You claim that Iraq must be destroyed because of its terrorism links. The problem is your nation was unable to prove it to the world. If they were, Jean would have been onboard. Yes Saddam deserves to be ousted, but the after effects should not be played purely for America and her allies benifit. This is all rhetoric and why I oppose the war.

Ok. America is a state terrorist. Kill Bush. We must go in and kill Bush before more innocents die.

That would never happen. Both are genocidal, one gets away with it. There is no justice in a killer killing another.

[Ghost Writer]

I provided you with the evidence that exists. It is well known that Saddam is a supporter of terrorism. What the f*ck do you want, a signed affidavit by Hussein himself.

Have you ever read "To Kill a Mockingbird"? The book uses rabies as a metaphor for racism. I think this same metaphor can beapplied to liberals. In human cases neurological symptoms appear, including insomnia, anxiety, confusion, partial paralysis, excitation, hallucination, hypersalivation. Unfortunately, the disease of liberalism is chronic and does not relieve the afflicted's suffering as quickly as rabies.

[Pete]

I am not saying that Saddam is not a terrorist. I am saying he cannot be linked iwth the Al Queda. But thta is not the only terrorist organization in the world. America is terrorist. Iraq is terrorist. I never said Iraq was not. I just told you that your beloved country is.

I have read to Kill a Mockingbird about 4 years ago, and I remember that metaphor. I am not liberal in the modern sense. The metaphor of rabies=racist is better used on conservatives who see their nation as superior to others. Not leftists.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from notyetacommie on 4:51 am on Mar. 19, 2003

I tell you this: US and this dickhead Bush wouldn't dare to talk in such a manner to the world community, leave alone Iraq invasion, if the USSR was still there with communists in power.

LOL, look at history, sir.

The US foreign policy was never dictated by Soviet influence. How about Vietnam? The soviets obviously didn't want the US there. Did we care? No. How about North Korea? We maintained a liberated South Korea, while fighting both the communist north and communist china, much to the chagrin of the USSR. Did we care? No. We had several naval batles with Iran in the early eighties, and we also supplied the mujahaddeen in afghanistan directly against the Soviets (just like the USSR helped the NVA in vietnam). Not to mention we also faced down and completely embarassed Kruzchev and the Soviet union in a direct standoff during the cuban missle crisis.

Do a little basic thinking and take history into account before you make stupid, incorrect statements like this.


As for the bully comments that started this thread, I ask:

Were we bullies during the revolution?

Were we bullies in the war of 1812, when we took on the world's most powerful Navy, and beat them?

Were we bullieds in WWII, when we were the only nation to fully commit to 2 theatres (and fight the empire of japan in the pacific almost totally alone)? And the only nation to conduct daylight raids over berlin, because the other allies would onlt bomb at night?

Were we bullies when we took on both North korea and china in the korean war?

How about when we faced down the USSR durung the cuban missle crisis?

It is amazing to me that leftists will focus merely on our smaller operations and deem us bullies, conveniently leaving out times when we were well matched or were underdogs.

At least be objective if you are going to post claims like this.



(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 2:56 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Pete]

Were we bullies during the revolution?

The tar and feathering of loyalists, the burning of their famrs, the terrorizing of thier communities. No I guess those are not considered bullying. Yes the British did the same, but so did America.


Were we bullies in the war of 1812, when we took on the world's most powerful Navy, and beat them?

Unfortuantely when you invade a country and are thrown back you are not the victor. Britian won this war, they lost the last battle, sure, but that was after the Peace of Ghent. Go Laura Secord go!
And yes you where the bullies. Britian had given America the access they requested, a few weeks later you declared war. That is found in history texts.


Were we bullieds in WWII, when we were the only nation to fully commit to 2 theatres

You did drop nukes on an enemy that was screaming 'uncle.' Although Japan was going through the Soviet Union, America did know of these messages and could have ended the war without dropping the bombs, and possibly have avoided the Cold War (or extended the Second World War through aggression against the Soviets).


How about when we faced down the USSR durung the cuban missle crisis?

CCCP missiles in Cuba was a result of American missiles in Turkey. Aswell of the continued embargo and support of terrorists proves that America is still a bully to Cuba.

I am leaving your claim of North Korea alone, I only have baises sources such as speeches of a war vetran who spoke of the 'damned commies.'

[Saint-Just]

'Were we bullies when we took on both North korea and china in the korean war?' -Capitalist Imperial

'While disregarding the efforts on the part of the DPRK and DFRK to achieve Korean reunification by peaceful means during the late forties, Washington increased its military build-up in South Korea in the prelude to the outbreak of hostilities. Clashes with the North Korean People’s Army (NKPA) along the 38th parallel became frequent and on 4-5-1949 South Korean forces launched an attack towards Kaesong, resulting in a total of 4,000 North Korean soldiers, 22 South Korean soldiers and about 100 civilians killed. The Rhee regime in the ROK, in the meantime, was attempting to repress peasant and labour disturbances and to stamp out guerrilla activities that had developed in the south on a large scale. These repressions, aimed at "annihilating rebels", reached their peak in early 1950, as thousands were murdered and many more were wounded or displaced and their homes were completely or partly destroyed.
On 25-6-1950, at dawn, the attack from the south - all along the 38th parallel in the direction of Haeju, Kumchon and Cholwen - eventually initiated the war against the DPRK, prompting the NKPA’s subsequent military offensive towards the south. Thus, the Korean people began their three-year-long Fatherland Liberation War against the military might of the allied forces of imperialism led by the USA. With the aim of reducing the whole Korea into an American neo-colony, US official propaganda was presenting the Koreans’ struggle for their reunification as civil war. Most Western sources still refer to an alleged "communist invasion" from the north to the south. But as to which Korean side would have been to blame for the outbreak of hostilities, British historian Geoff Simons noted the following differences:
"The aggressive intentions of Syngman Rhee towards North Korea were well known, copiously documented, and often an embarrassment to the United States government and the US military authorities in South Korea. The North too was equally interested in the possibility of reunification, though necessarily its interpretation of events was somewhat different to those emanating from Washington and Seoul. It would however be a mistake to assume a simple parity of pro-war rhetoric in the South and the North: even the usual anti-communist sources cite few rantings from Kim Il-sung to match those of Syngman Rhee and his bellicose supporters. Statements emanating from Pyongyang allow for the possibility of a militant (or military) reunification, but the temper is different to that of Rhee; and emphasis is sometimes given to the need for a peaceful reunification."
Geoff Simons, Korea: The Search for Sovereignty, London, 1995, p. 192. Emphasis in the original.'

Obviously the view of some leftists is that the U.S. were 'Bullies' in that war.

[Just Joe]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 2:50 pm on Mar. 19, 2003

Quote: from notyetacommie on 4:51 am on Mar. 19, 2003

I tell you this: US and this dickhead Bush wouldn't dare to talk in such a manner to the world community, leave alone Iraq invasion, if the USSR was still there with communists in power.

LOL, look at history, sir.

The US foreign policy was never dictated by Soviet influence. How about Vietnam? The soviets obviously didn't want the US there. Did we care? No. How about North Korea? We maintained a liberated South Korea, while fighting both the communist north and communist china, much to the chagrin of the USSR. Did we care? No. We had several naval batles with Iran in the early eighties, and we also supplied the mujahaddeen in afghanistan directly against the Soviets (just like the USSR helped the NVA in vietnam). Not to mention we also faced down and completely embarassed Kruzchev and the Soviet union in a direct standoff during the cuban missle crisis.

i love how someone called Capitalist Imperial uses such collectivism in his posts. we did this and we did that.

the invasion of Iraq is totally unlike those situations you mentioned. it is an act of agression against an independant country. its not supplying rebels or backing coups, its outright INVASION! its like the last 60 years of international law mean nothing anymore. we've gone pretty much since Hitler without imperialist invasions by countries. minus the Russians in Afghanistan. to me, the Americans now lose any status as the 'good guys'. i think, imperialist speaking, they were always the lesser of two evils in the Cold War. but now? i hope Bush really knows what he's doing here. this invasion is gonna totally change the world.

[Tkinter1]

Joe, The US isn't invading iraq to expand its borders or influence, so it really isn't Imperialism.

[Just Joe]

yes they are. there expanding there influence by removing one regime and installing there own. with Iraq as a mid east ally, it strenghtens the position of the USA and Israel.

they may not be incorperating Iraq into the United States, but the new regime, providing it survives - which is a big if, will be nothing more than a puppet.

[Tkinter1]

The US isn't installing its own, the Iraqi people are choosing their own leaders once post-war activites are over. The US having Iraq as an ally is a perk, it's not the main objective of the invasion.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 8:54 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)

[Pete]

Provide me with proof of the Tkinter.

[Tkinter1]

The war isn't over yet(or even begun).... I can't provide you with proof of something they haven't done yet.

[Pete]

Then I can say that Bush will set up a council of Appointed Iraq's to 'advise' an American leader over Iraq for the next 10 years.

[Just Joe]

the regime very well could be a military dictatorship for the next year. a US one, too. and after that? maybe what they did in Afghanistan. put in an ally as head of government and you know how things go in the mid east. he'll probobly be a 'President' who will be given 'special powers' to deal with the threat of 'islamic terrorism'. one things leads to another and you have a pro-Western despot at the helm. purely speculation of course, but you know the score.

[Just Joe]

and can i have a link for your sig? i'm not fan of Vlad Lenin, but that seems a bit of a stupid thing to say.

[Tkinter1]

"Then I can say that Bush will set up a council of Appointed Iraq's to 'advise' an American leader over Iraq for the next 10 years."

Go ahead.

Joe,

There is going to be a temporary government installed directly after the war, but this is known and neccessary. We'll have to wait and see how it all plays out.

[Tkinter1]

It's from a speech Lenin gave to fellow communists in 1923. It's not from a published written work or anything.


(Edited by Tkinter1 at 10:50 pm on Mar. 19, 2003)