It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zife
Before any one calls the U.S.'s effort in Iraq a failure, you should first call U.S.'s effort in Germany and Japan after two years of American occupation a failure too.
Originally posted by Astronomer68
That was a refreshing change from most of what I see on ATS. It's good to know other americans hold the same basic attitudes and opinions I do. I have yet to talk to a veteran of the war in Iraq that believes we aren't doing the right thing.
[edit on 29-7-2005 by Astronomer68]
Originally posted by curme
Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.
Some Pics
Originally posted by Zife
"""
Originally posted by The time lord
More people have died in wars between 1990-2000 than the WW2 apparently. The world has not improved that much its just the wars are scattered and solitary.
"""
BS, you should recheck your information, less people die per year then they did years past. [/quote
Medicine has helped reduce death but the toll from war conflics over the 90s has killed more people than WW2.
I also read the world population is going down for the first time in ages, i read it somewhere. Then again what ever one reads its always second or hundreth hand information. Who do you believe unless you compile the evidence your self?
Originally posted by evanfitz
you could say the same exact thing the anti-war lads. Point out all the most terrible things in the conflict, much of isn't even the truth. Ahem, the war on terrorism board is an great example. From US soldiers use children as shields to 100,000 dead civilians.
Originally posted by curme
Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.
Originally posted by Seekerof
Baghdad "fell" during the 1st Gulf War, curme?
Which war you a 'veteren' of?
Clarify please?
seekerof
[edit on 29-7-2005 by Seekerof]
Originally posted by curme
[The most recent time a Bush started a war there.
Originally posted by deltaboy
Originally posted by curme
Hi, I'm curme. I'm a veteran of the Iraq war, and I don't believe we are doing the right thing. I didn't believe it while I was there watching Baghdad fall, and I don't believe it now.
Some Pics
so why were u standing there looking happy with thumbs up next Saddams sacred picture. u look more like a tourist than lookin mad that u are in the middle of hell.
Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote
Medicine has helped reduce death but the toll from war conflics over the 90s has killed more people than WW2.
Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote
I also read the world population is going down for the first time in ages, i read it somewhere.
Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote
Then again what ever one reads its always second or hundreth hand information.
Originally posted by The time lord
[/quote
Who do you believe unless you compile the evidence your self?
Originally posted by Expositor
Originally posted by Zife
Before any one calls the U.S.'s effort in Iraq a failure, you should first call U.S.'s effort in Germany and Japan after two years of American occupation a failure too.
Originally posted by Expositor
This is not a comparison that can be made, the occupations of Germany was a bigger coallition lead equally by the US, British and USSR administrations. They resulted in a country being split in half for almost half a century. In addition it created political, economic and military tension for most of the latter half of the 20th century.
Nor is Japan a comparison that can be made either, the local governement and leadership of the country was left intact. Local Administration decisions were made by the Japanese.
Originally posted by Expositor
"""This is not a comparison that can be made, the occupations of Germany was a bigger coallition lead equally by the US, British and USSR administrations. They resulted in a country being split in half for almost half a century. In addition it created political, economic and military tension for most of the latter half of the 20th century."""
So your saying that Germany was in a much worst situation than Iraq. I don't see Iraq having such major problems next to the limited insurgency that only really effective in the 'Sunni triangle'.
Originally posted by Expositor
Nor is Japan a comparison that can be made either, the local governement and leadership of the country was left intact.
You conventily left out post-war Germany, their leadership and government, cough cough, were tried and executed
Originally posted by Expositor
'Local Administration decisions were made by the Japanese'
under American supervision just like in Iraq. A lot of the Japanese Administartion were tried as Class A and B war criminals. Your local Administration were local, not head officials, just like in Iraq. You got dozens of local officials that kept there job and have been doing since the Americans came, because they are the only ones qualified.
Originally posted by Expositor
"""A better analogy would be the occupation of South Veitnam by US forces in the Sixties and Seventies; and the subsequent attempts to quell the insurgency by the Veit Cong."""
No it would be the easy analogy to get out of a debate about Iraq. Everytime some one mentions Iraq, they bring up Vietnam, both which are two completely different situations. For example Vietnam had the support of both the Soviet Union (A Superpower) and China (A conntinental Power) which supported the Viet Cong with both training and weapons, neither which the Iraqi insurgency is getting from nobody. Also it was a war in Vietnam, it was not an insurgency, because there were north vietnamese soldiers helping the Viet Cong to fight against the Americans, so you have a nation fighting a war against a nation with conventional and unconvential troops, the insurgents in Iraq are criminals, not freedom fighters nor soldiers. By the way, the Viet Cong were a inefficient force when the Americans left, the Americans had beaten the Viet Cong, but public pressure on the Administration changed American Foreign policy to withdraw the American troops from South Vietnam which was a corrupt government anyway. In South Vietnam you had President Ngo Dinh Diem, who was a basic dicator, who gave his family posts all over the government kinda like Saddam did. Currently in Iraq I don't see a corrupt President nor a corrupt administration.
Originally posted by Expositor
The most recent succesful foreign policy decisions by the US have been under the Clinton adminsitrations. These saw: a reduction of American involvment in world affairs, a growth in the US economy, low unemployment and a drastic reduction in the budget deficit.
All of this was throw away when the current adminstration seized power on 26th Nov 2000.
Originally posted by Expositor
These saw: a reduction of American involvment in world affairs,
Originally posted by Expositor
a growth in the US economy, low unemployment and a drastic reduction in the budget deficit.
Originally posted by Expositor
All of this was throw away when the current adminstration seized power on 26th Nov 2000.
Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Sadaam is gone. Through all of the obstacles worldwide that stood in the way of a butcher, we have overcome.
Originally posted by Zife
Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending...
Originally posted by vincere7
Originally posted by Zife
Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending...
If you're going to be comparing apples to oranges, don't use Clinton's effective budgetary policy to wage your argument. The man rode off the height of American economy. Bush entered into a downturn cake eaters. Let's get one thing straight, Bush spent the American surplus which, Clinton, RESPONSIBLY, saved for Americans. Bush spent the entire damn thing in one fell swoop. This was the largest Republican spend-off in American history. In one swoop, Bush eliminated social security reserves for you yong men, and raised commodity prices for oil due to OPEC backlash on the invasion of an OPEC member.
The reserves saved from the height of American economy, to be used over the next two decades was spent in less than four years. When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances. The best definition is from, Nixon, "I'm not a crook!"
"""don't use Clinton's effective budgetary policy to wage your argument"""
I didn't, I was responding to someones other statement, where long-term effects of Clinton's at the time effective bugetary policy was sound, but cost the American people dearly on 9-11 and in the war on terror as his effective cut backs in military spending.
This is the whole paragraph and not just a sentence. I love how people take things out of context and try to spin in it for their benefit.
"""""Until the internet bubble burst in 2000 and caused the recession that Clinton left for Bush, ohh and the 100s of billions of dollars Clinton used to reduce the budget deficit by cutting military spending and 100,000s of military jobs that are needed more than ever, all because of the 'successful foreign policy of the Clinton Administartion' that caused 9-11 by the way, all the crap that the Clinton Administarion did in the 90s pissed off a lot of people that wanted to harm the United States. Bin Laden had been planning 9-11 long before Bush even entered the White House. """
The United States Military is in a crappy posistion where its lacking troops because of the huge cut backs Clinton made during the 90s that helped increase your precious budget surplus that 4 odd trillion dollars. I wasn't talking about Pres. Bush's economic agenda or nothing to the contrary, just the military that has been getting the funding its needs for a war that it has been fighting for almost 4 years."""""
""" When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances."""
I don't even agree with the guy half the time. I'am Canadian by the way. I just hate how people compare Clinton and Bush, which is like you said comparing apples and oranges. I'm just trying to give you my unbiased view, Clinton and Bush had their own strenghts and weaknesses.
"""When promoting President Bush, do not use the words fiscally responsible, or guardian of American finances."""
I never did, and I think I never will use good economical polcies and Bush in the same sentence, but you have to at least look in the situation that he is in, 9-11 happened, 1.5 trillion dollars lost because of that, huge war that needs money, Iraq and Afghanistan rebuilding, recession that hit Clinton's last few months of office that overlapped into Bush's office term for some time, China-U.S trade deficiet that is just growing, exporting labor market to China, Mexico, India, etc. Gore might have down a bit better than Bush if he was president, but it still would look #ty for him too.
Ohh by the way, the reason oil prices are high, is not because the whole invasion of Iraq thing, Iraq wasn't exporting too much oil during the 90s anyway, so the invasion of Iraq would not have a impact of oil production in other countries. The problem lies in processing the oil into fuel for cars, rubber, etc, that's where the bottle neck lies not production. I can give you 100 million of oil a day, but if you can only process 70 million a day and people demand 100 million, than you have a problem. Plus the rise of China as an economical power and growin energy, industrial sectors, etc, is producing a huge demand for Oil, thats why China made a multi-billion dollar deal with Iraq, making one with Venzuala, buying oil companies in Canada, investing in Sudan, just to get the oil. By the way, the U.S. is wasting and using wayyyyyyyy too much oil, just seeing scenes of L.A.'s highways.
The American economy is growing well enough, by the looks of it, we'll see in the future what happens with the whole social security problem, the next pres might fix it for you Americans, maybe if you fix the trade deficiet with China, its huge and growing.