transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rez/index.html

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...rez/index.html

Kerry leads Bush in new poll
Bush's approval numbers dip

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry, the front-runner among Democrats vying for their party's presidential nomination, leads President Bush in a head-to-head matchup, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

There is hope for our country yet!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention


There is hope for our country yet!

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No. How long has guerilla warfare been around?

That's not terrorism, by definition. Guerilla warfare assumes that official hostilities have begun and is just unconventional engagement. Of course, the definition of "unconventional" has changed over the centuries as warfare has changed.

Regarding the British and their “red coats,” in hindsight, it seems like a bad idea but that red color was part of their intimidation factor. The Brits had the most powerful and well trained army in that time period and it was demoralizing for the enemy to see a line of red coats marching at it.

Of course, now, the Napoleonic military tactics (as seen in the Revolutionary and Civil War) also seems outdated, but it was the tactics of the times. Guerilla warfare was one of the major factors of the US winning the Revolution because they rarely could go toe to toe in conventional battle with the Reds.

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
That's not terrorism, by definition. Guerilla warfare assumes that official hostilities have begun and is just unconventional engagement. Of course, the definition of "unconventional" has changed over the centuries as warfare has changed.

Rob

Technicality.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Technicality.

Not really...blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people because of some fanatical belief that Allah will grant you 72 virgins, or whatever looney thing they believe, is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers (non military targets) killing thousands of innocent people is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Peace out,

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67
Not really...blowing yourself up on a bus full of innocent people because of some fanatical belief that Allah will grant you 72 virgins, or whatever looney thing they believe, is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Flying hijacked planes into skyscrapers (non military targets) killing thousands of innocent people is not guerilla warfare. It is terrorism.

Peace out,

Rob

These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

Lord, they've been fighting since the dawn of the century until the British stepped in during the late twenties.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Lord, they've been fighting since the dawn of the century until the British stepped in during the late twenties.

Actually, this region has been fighting in one way or another since the dawn of recorded history

[Rob67]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
These people have been fighting each other for years. The only reason we got mixed up in it was for the oil and a bit of our Israeli interests. That's why they are so pissed off at us. This is their method of fighting. The roots of terrah are in guerilla warfare. What other way would they fight us?

They have been fighting each other and the rest of the world for more then just years...let's talk centuries! I disagree wholeheartedly with the oil theory as the only reason. Yes, i believe we have become overly dependant on oil in this age of industrialization. But, that as it is, it isn't the sole reason for hostilities in the mid-east.

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

And, Arabs are pissed off that everyone for more complex reasons then just Israel. Perhaps it is a hate of the west that has been bred by their information controlling and totalitarian governments? They live in poverty while their Kings and Presidents live in luxury, and the government blames the "lazy and commercialized" West for dominating their culture....it's all BS. I hope another Democratic nation in the area will be like a wake up call for those people.

And, I hate to tell you, but if suicide bombing, hijacking planes and killing innocent people are the only ways you feel you can get your point across, then you have serious issues of credibility with the rest of the world. Like it or not. It is wrong.

Rob

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Actually, this region has been fighting in one way or another since the dawn of recorded history

Yup.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. It was because of Iran that we didn't take out Hussein in '91. Remember, he was our lapdog before he was our enemy.

http://www.idc-world-usa.com/importa...f-Hussein.aspx

"As a starting point for examining the bigger picture, ask yourself the following question: Who was the greatest threat to Middle Eastern peace before and immediately after Operation Desert Storm? Chances are you and almost everyone else will say Saddam Hussein's Iraq (but of course there are always a few odd-balls that will claim the U.S. was the greatest threat). However, contrary to popular opinion, the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East prior to and immediately after Operation Desert Storm was not Iraq but the Islamic fundamentalist government in Iran. At the time, Iran openly called for the destruction of Israel, and also advocated the overthrow of the governments of the moderate Arab states - such as Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia - and establishing in their place Islamic fundamentalist governments answering solely to Tehran. Please keep in mind that the Islamic fundamentalists we're talking about here are of the Shiite sect of Islam that is based in Iran and not the Sunni sect of Islam to which Al-Qaeda belongs and who has ties to Saudi Arabia. Iran's thirst for power and influence did not stop with the Arab states of the Middle East - it extended to all states with large Islamic populations including Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Afghanistan and the former Islamic Soviet Republics.

At that time, if Iran's military and economic growth continued and if it succeeded in seizing the majority of oil fields in the Middle East from its Arab neighbors; imagine the power it would have had over the entire Islamic world, to say nothing of the consequences for U.S. and world security. The growth of Iranian influence was a major factor in the development of U.S. policy towards Iraq immediately after Operation Desert Storm. There are also a lot of other factors that need to be considered if you really want to get an appreciation for the consequences of removing Saddam Hussein back in 1991."


Click the rest of the link for the article.

[strandinthewind]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Along with what gldstwmn posted, it also is widely rumored but not confirmed that the reason we did not annex Iraq or at least got into Iraq and oust SH at the time (which I and many other greater minds think we should have done) is because Saudi Arabia made a deal with Bush I not to go into Iraq. I am uncertain what that deal was, but Bush I sure has made millions consulting with Saudi Arabia since the end of his Presidency in the Carlyle Group (I think that is the name). It probably is not that accurate or at least that simple of a chain of event, but you gotta admit, it looks suspicious

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rob67

Why didn't we just annex Iraq in 91' and take over the oil fields then if that was our concern? I mean, all of our troops were right there, right? It would have made so much sense. Why? Because that wasn't our objectives then, and it isn't the objective now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Along with what gldstwmn posted, it also is widely rumored but not confirmed that the reason we did not annex Iraq or at least got into Iraq and oust SH at the time (which I and many other greater minds think we should have done) is because Saudi Arabia made a deal with Bush I not to go into Iraq. I am uncertain what that deal was, but Bush I sure has made millions consulting with Saudi Arabia since the end of his Presidency in the Carlyle Group (I think that is the name). It probably is not that accurate or at least that simple of a chain of event, but you gotta admit, it looks suspicious

The rest of that article that I posted covers the reasons why the Saudi's didn't want us to take Hussein out as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
The rest of that article that I posted covers the reasons why the Saudi's didn't want us to take Hussein out as well.

And the funny thing is I do not disagree with alot of these reasons when put into context of the times, etc.

But, don't you think Bush I made a deal/understanding on some level for financial gain? I mean, the Saudi's were the main reason we did not go into Iraq then. Then all of a sudden Bush I is making millions in bed with the Saudis two years later.