• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

An explanation for the anti-US sentiment in Europe

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And then there are ironies like the excuse of WMDs for invasion and the use of White Phosphorous. Or using Abu Ghraib as an example of the evil of Saddam.
This ranks right up there with comparing the incidental "theft" of someone's pen to a bank robbery.

Saddam used WMDs specifically for the purpose of killing men, women, and children indiscriminately. Our use of WP had a military intent.

Comparing something about as abusive as a fraternity prank to the unrelenting, gov't sanctioned physical torture under Saddam is a grotesque joke. Our people were found out and brought to justice by the power over them. The previous management acted at the behest of the power over them... huge difference.
</font>[/QUOTE]So WP is akin to a 'frat prank'.

Words fail me.
 

elijah_lives

New Member
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.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK I misread his post. Sorry, Scott.

To those of you who have replied "I don't care" to the OP, a question: presumably you won't care if Europeans don't want to help out next time Shrub embarks on another foreign adventure eg: Iran
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
You're right, I personally don't care. Because no matter what, Iran is going to be "taken care of" by someone.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The first was WMDs. Even before the war, I could tell that we were being lied to - or to be accurate, the politicians had asked the intelligence people to come up with evidence that Iraq had WMDs rather than to investigate whether Iraq had WMDs. If that was the best they could do (including Colin Powell's artists impressions presented to the UN), I was pretty sure that Iraq didn't have nukes or bio-weapons. (Chemicals were possible - but calling chemicals WMDs is a bit disingenuous as tonne for tonne, TNT tends to be a lot more dangerous).
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 ]
 

mioque

New Member
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!
tear.gif


;) :D
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK I misread his post. Sorry, Scott.
No problem. BTW, WP is still a lawful weapon. It simultaneously provides concealment and disables/immobilizes the enemy.

To those of you who have replied "I don't care" to the OP, a question: presumably you won't care if Europeans don't want to help out next time Shrub embarks on another foreign adventure
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.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by elijah_lives:
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.
Well there was the one time when they put Atomic Balm in a guy's jock strap... ;)
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by elijah_lives:
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.
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.
:confused:
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Have you ever seen the effects of WP, carpro?

And before you guys keep on accusing me of being a Chamberlain, let me assure you that if it could be shown that Saddam really did have weapons capable of attacking the West, I would be first to advocate taking him out. (I'm far more worried about Mr Madmullah Ahmalooni in Iran than I ever was about Saddam in that regard but fear we will have to leave it to the Israelis to sort that one out.) I don't in any way mourn Saddam's passing - as I've said, I fully accept he was a Bad Man but he's been a Bad Man for at least 40 years and President of Iraq for 24 of those years so I'm still not sure why he became a Bad Man Whom We Must Remove in 2002/3
 

elijah_lives

New Member
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?
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Have you ever seen the effects of WP, carpro?

And before you guys keep on accusing me of being a Chamberlain, let me assure you that if it could be shown that Saddam really did have weapons capable of attacking the West,
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 would be first to advocate taking him out.
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.
(I'm far more worried about Mr Madmullah Ahmalooni in Iran than I ever was about Saddam in that regard but fear we will have to leave it to the Israelis to sort that one out.)
Probably. Our hands are tied and Europe sure doesn't show any will to lead.
I don't in any way mourn Saddam's passing - as I've said, I fully accept he was a Bad Man but he's been a Bad Man for at least 40 years and President of Iraq for 24 of those years so I'm still not sure why he became a Bad Man Whom We Must Remove in 2002/3
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.
 

Scott J

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by carpro:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by elijah_lives:
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.
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.
:confused:
</font>[/QUOTE]Good point.

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

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Have you ever seen the effects of WP, carpro?

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.
 

fromtheright

<img src =/2844.JPG>
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?
 

fromtheright

<img src =/2844.JPG>
JB,

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


Johnv,

Originally posted by Johnv:

JB is correct. This is rather obvious in the affairs of world news. In fact, the great thing about the current Iran situation is that the US doesn't even need to do anything. We just need to sit back and watch everyone else get upset about Iran (I'm guessing that, if we had spoken out first, a lot of nations would be pro-Iran, just because we spoke out against them).

World politics is an ugly thing. With Iraq, we did the dirty work while most of the world denounced us (while at the same time toasting in secret that we're doing what they hoped we would). And now, the tables are turned, and we get to toast while the rest of the world partakes in the dirty work.
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).
 
Top