An explanation for the anti-US sentiment in Europe

Scott J didn't compare WP to a frat prank -- he was referring to the Abu Ghraib photos -- a frat prank. I agree with him. In any case, WP is a legitimate ordnance at this time.

 

You're right, I personally don't care. Because no matter what, Iran is going to be "taken care of" by someone.

 

And you call Bush the fool... err, liar?

Think about it Matt. Bush is in a pickle right now. His influence in the world has been diminished and as well as at home. NO IDIOT OR LIAR would have told a lie they knew they'd lose on no matter what.

</font>[/QUOTE]A fool would because a fool wouldn't have the sense to realise he would be caught out. </font>[/QUOTE]&lt;personal attack deleted - LE&gt;. Even if Bush were the biggest dunce in history, the list of people who agreed with him about the intelligence included almost all of the top leaders in the US in both parties. It included people like Powell, Cheney, Dr Rice (if you think she is a fool I challenge you to look at her bio), Rumsfeld, and others who have experience and political savvy running out their ears.

[ January 30, 2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]

 

Matt
"each one of them who ever visited the Tower of London asked where the revolving restaurant was."
"
What you mean they don't?!

My favorite prejudice.... GONE!

 

No problem. BTW, WP is still a lawful weapon. It simultaneously provides concealment and disables/immobilizes the enemy.

Only if they have the wisdom and foresight to want to... you know, you share your philosophy with a great leader of Britain- Neville Chamberlain. He thought you could play nice with aggressors as well. He also thought revenge was a bad way to respond. He, not unlike the Jimmy Carters of the world, thought that all people had to do is talk and eventually they could be convinced to be at peace with each other.

You guys uniformly forget a very important fact. Peace is only possible when both sides want it. Saddam's whole career was marked by ruthless aggression and cruelty. Only a fool thinks he wouldn't have lashed out at the west with WMD's if given the chance... especially if he could do it anonomously through terrorists.

If radical Islamists get their hands on nukes... they'll probably use them. They don't consider coexistence and mutual respect for people who disagree with them to be an option.

 

Oh... and it wasn't folks like you that brought down the Berlin wall. It was folks like Reagan and Thatcher who believed you could only negotiate peace from a position of superior strength.

 

Well there was the one time when they put Atomic Balm in a guy's jock strap...

 

I find it slightly strange that someone who has a hard time categorizing Mustard and nerve gas as WMDs finds it so easy to condemn the use of WP, as Matt Black does.

 

Well, I have (I started in artillery and ended in infantry). Does it matter? Have you seen the effects of an IED? I used to be a staff member at the EOD school in Maryland. IED's do not discriminate from women, children, civilians, or military. We don't indiscriminately use WP to terrorize, we use it in limited ways on identified enemy, to obtain limited battlefield objectives. Further, it is legal.

I have also seen what .50 cal does, to -- would you have us avoid them, as well?

 

Matt, You are operating a) on hindsight and b) on the assumption that those weapons were not moved and hidden as many claim.

The point is that it was "shown". The intelligence agencies of both those who agreed with Bush and disagreed with Bush indicated that he had both the means and the will to attack the west if not immediately within a very short time. Saddam was kicking the inspectors out. He repeatedly resisted the no-fly zone.

Facing the evidence that was presented, Bush/Blair and the allies did the only prudent thing they could. They removed the threat before that threat was fully developed.

I would ask you also to remember that a decision was required in the spring. The military told the leadership that a delay into the summer would result in magnified casualties and prolong the conflict. I have attempted to work in a chem suit in 90+ degree weather, have you? You are virtually incapacitated.

If Saddam had been given those 6 or 7 months to prepare for an invasion, we can reasonably assume that it either would have been called off because he demonstrated his capabilities... or else it would have been much worse on both sides.

I frankly don't believe you. He gave good reason. He refused to allow the inspectors full access. He was manipulating the system and giving every indication of being guilty.

Probably. Our hands are tied and Europe sure doesn't show any will to lead.

Because he was presumed to be the ruler with the most will to develop and use WMD's. He had developed them before and used them.

Unfortunately, if it is left to Israel... all the world will condemn her and sympathize with the muslims... even though everyone knows it needs to be done.

 

I find it slightly strange that someone who has a hard time categorizing Mustard and nerve gas as WMDs finds it so easy to condemn the use of WP, as Matt Black does.
</font>[/QUOTE]Good point.

Matt, Have you seen or had detailed to you the effects of nerve gas? I have.

 

Yes. Up close and personal.

It's not in the same league with nerve gas and mustard gas.

It is patently ridiculous to suggest it is.

 

Scott,

Dr Rice (if you think she is a fool I challenge you to look at her bio)

I don't think she is a fool but just as an aside I would add that there are lots of fools with "PhD" beside their names. I am not as enamored of her as KenH is, though. But then, who is?

 

JB,

What'd you do, rip that poster from Ken's wall?


Johnv,

Just when I've resigned myself to always disagreeing with you, you come up with this. Ditto (though I'm not sure about the sit back part with Iran).