Countdown

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:58 pm

Um, Unknown, you're forgetting that we fought the Revolutionary, Mexican, 1812, and Civil war on our own soil.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:15 pm

John The Ax wrote:Um, Unknown, you're forgetting that we fought the Revolutionary, Mexican, 1812, and Civil war on our own soil.

The revolution was faught before we were independent

The mexican war was faught in mexican territory alone

The war of 1812 was mostly a battle on water with some land action (burning the capital etc, pretty much a small war since england was busy with napoleon at the time)

The civil war was our bloodiest, but that was american vs american

None of these wars involving foreighners happened during the last 190 years. The technology and destrucctive power of warfare has advanced quite a bit since then. I think we dropped more bombs (tonnage) on iraq during the 30 days we were fighting then we dropped total in WW2 over 4 years on multiple continents. I am sure you have all seen what german cities looked like after WW2. Even during the civil war only a few cities were burned to the ground and that was during the later stages of the war. Most actions happened in the countryside sparing cities destruction.

John The Ax · Post by **John The Ax** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:27 pm

All right, how is it that the fact that we weren't independent yet count? The American people were fighting the European (well, British) people. And how is American vs. American any different than America vs. Britian or Iraq? In fact, it's much, much worse.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Wed Mar 19, 2003 5:42 pm

The point I was trying to make is that alot of other countries have recently (last 100 years) been on the recieving end of large bloody wars faught in their country that directly affected them.

The only times in 190+ years that the US has seen its homeland attacked was by the japs taking a couple small unpopulated islands in alaska during ww2 and the crazy arabs attacking the world trade center twice in the last decade. None of these acts directly affected most of the poplation as a whole much from day to day life. There is no frame of reference in the US how bad wars really are since we watch them on tv in between servivor episodes and friends reruns. If we had a clue maybe we would be like the rest of europe and not be in such a big hurry to attack other countries that havnt attacked us (Iraq). If anybody should be after sadam its his own people and the countries around him he has invaded and threatened.

Stalin invaded other countries and killed many millions more people then sadam could ever dream about but we just built up and contained him and his succesors untill they fell apart 60 years later. Same with china, North Korea. We just pick on the small countries that cant do anything about it like Panama, Grenada, Iraq, etc.

I would feel a whole lot better if the president just said we dont like sadam and he threatens our oil supply then having him talk about what sadam is doing to his people like bush gives a shit about the iraqi people at all. Dont talk about freeing a people while at the same time other people are suffering worse but you dont care about them since they have no oil. I also think bush talking about the palestinians now that he wants to hit an arab country is making us any friends in the world, those people are not stupid you know.

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:24 am

Just in case you guys haven't posted it yet (I haven't taken the time to read all of the posts), the countdown is over and the US of A has attacked with stealth bombers.

nastypoisonspikes · Post by **nastypoisonspikes** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:57 am

Yes, that happened about 8 hours ago at the time of this post. But I think that they are still unsure if what exactly the land troops are going to be doing...but I may be completely wrong.

johpower · Post by **johpower** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:29 am

What bothers me about this "war" is that the Conress has handed off it's powers to declare war to the President because they didn't want the political fall out should things go wrong. Such a delegation is not one of the powers allowed in the Constitution. To allow the Pres to haul off and attack any nation he wants is, and should be, a violation of his oath of office. Some of you may have heard that 2000 of my fellow historians signed a document stating that fact.

This stems from the need of every democracy to prevent the rise of any man or small group of men to the station of king/dictator/emperor. Historically it has been a given that once a man has such power over the military he will be sorely tempted keep it and eventually use it. The end of the Roman Republic was precipitated by the slow transfer of such powers to the chosen commander of the legions by the Senate. They did it a few times and all was well. Eventaully Ceasar didn't give the legions back. He used their existance in his hand to force the patricians to do his bidding even though they likewise had legions to back them. Napoleon was even more quick to take the mantle and swap it for the crown. The nearly the entire army of France (oh that word again) was with him from the beginning.

Democracies die when the legislature refuses to accept it's burden and instead hands it to the false bargain of political expediency. This failure became acute after WW2. Our foreign policy has been uncoordinated at best. Our presidents and their attendant administrations since 1945 haven't made the greatest choices. They've muddled though by luck and by crook and, but for them, I'd had somewhat higher hopes for our world situation by this the year 2003 B.C.E.. Would we be going to war if Congress had to face the People and vote man by man to declare war by the book? Wouldn't our foriegn policy have been somewhat different were we to consider other nations and peoples more carefully? Indeed, would the world be in the current bizarre quagmire had a little more foresight existed all around?

Now I doubt that Bush has the balls of Julius or Marcus Aurellius. He will return the reins Congress has given him I have little doubt. Republica Roma faced it's challange between 100 and 40 B.C.E.. Note our 60 years from 1990 are beginning way too similarly to those to suit my taste.

So we are stuck with it. I harbor zero doubt we will win this war. But let us hope, now the decision is irrevocably made, that a proper job be done; as should have been the first time. That the casualties will be held low on both sides and our fine legions return to their barracks satisfied that they won't be called out to solve such stupidity again in our lifetimes.

Amen.

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:04 am

We will win this war, keep a few troops around, and then watch the country fall into warring factions and kill each other while we pack up and go home.

Look at afghanistan

Da_Goat · Post by **Da_Goat** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:40 am

We now know that it killed one and injured seven, though none of the injured or deceased were their target

Unknown_K · Post by **Unknown_K** » Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:48 am

Da_Goat wrote:We now know that it killed one and injured seven, though none of the injured or deceased were their target

Could have nailed one of sadams sons or someone usefull to him.
We wont know untill the ground forces visit the bunker. Im sure sadam is hiding in schools and hospitals not in a bunker.

DOS Games Discussion

Countdown

Vive l'Guerre? Non! Vive l'Intelligance!!