1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

See "Junior's revenge": Gulf War ll

Discussion in 'Random Discussion' started by EdGreene, Jan 16, 2003.

Advertisement
  1. EdGreene

    EdGreene Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    Hi.

    The news from Washington is grim: we will attack Iraq in March, come hell or high water. This time the "war" (little "W") will last about six weeks unless Saddam abdicates and moves to Egypt first.
    If Bush Sr. and "Gulf War l" had finished the job, this one would not be neccessary but Junior, smarting from his father's humiliation, has vowed to kick Saddam's butt. Colin Powell, the so-called "Architect" of Gulf War l, also has egg on his face from the continuing beligerence of Saddam and Iraq.
    We will leave Iraq in shambles this time. More than 300 cruise missles have ben targeted on Iraqi assets, from Saddam's palaces to important structures left intact after "GWl."

    Of course Bush and his tainted presidency has to make up for the humilation he himself has suffered. The economy is in the toilet and nothing he and Cheney can divise will save us from the looming economic collapse.

    You heard it here first: after GWll, "Junior's Revenge", Bush will tank as president, his so-called "economic plan" sinking us into near oblivion. For Bush, with no morer "threats" from Saddam to cover up his ineptitude, having no Saddam will expose him as the bumbling idiot he has always been.

    His shouting "war on terrorism" is also wearing thin. He and his amateur advisors are afraid to admit Bin Laden and his "towelheads" frightened the **** out of them. So Bush continues to whip up his new "war" to cover up his fundamental inadequacies.
    Junior also continues to whip up a frenzy about his self-named "war on terrorism" to hide his and the Republican's attacks on civil liberties, the middle class in the form of insurance premium increases, the elderly and the poor as he and the Republicans reduce Medicare and Medicaid, people whom Bush and the Republicans despise.

    "It's the economy-Stupid" still resonates Junior, especially in the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of those who are losing their jobs.
    Yeah, what excuse are you going to use to cover up the bad economic news Junior, after your "war" is over and Saddam is gone?

    No one forgets that 9/11 happened. But the reality is that Bin-Laden fired off both barrels of a double-barrel shotgun and has no more shells to fire off. But Junior and the boys keep scaring Americans with false alarms, making Junior look more "presidential" than he could possibly be without Saddam.
    Once Americans discover that the "war on terrorism" is and was a hoax perpetrated and continued by Junior and senior Republican officals to keep them in power, Junior will fall, hoisted by his own evil petard.

    I'm angry because I voted for that stupid son-of-a-Bush.
     
  2. bassetman

    bassetman Moderator (deceased) - Gone but never forgotten

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2001
    Messages:
    47,973
    Stay tuned for the sequel "Back to Korea!"

    "We'll win this time!"
     
  3. plschwartz

    plschwartz

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2000
    Messages:
    11,451
    Ed Greene
    Thank you. The media manipulation by this administration is just unprecidented.. Problem is replaced by problem, the end result is to keep the country in fear.
    TV news is following Greshams Law ( bad money drives out good money). Fox has knocked out CNN in the ratings. Fox we may remember is owned by Rupert Murdoch, born an Australian ( Like Dick Chaney curcumvented the constitution by changing his state of residence, Murdoch took out US citizenship to buy Fox. He got his start in Enquirer-level papers). The TV media is not now independent, but owned by congloms. No one challanges this administration.
    It is smoke and mirrors like the great OZ (Baums, not Murdoch)
     
  4. Toddles18

    Toddles18

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    2,910
    I thought the purpose of Desert Storm was to liberate Kuwait, not remove a mad man from power??
     
  5. slipe

    slipe

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2000
    Messages:
    6,832
    I’m not thrilled about the logic behind attacking Iraq. But such biased and loaded rhetoric doesn’t contribute anything positive to the discussion IMHO.
     
  6. pyritechips

    pyritechips Gone but Never Forgotten

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2002
    Messages:
    26,907
    First Name:
    Jim
    Sorry pal: slice of reality here:

    The purpose of desert storm was NOT to liberate Kuwait. The purpose of Desert Storm was to liberate a large supply of oil. Most Americans had never heard of Kuwait and even fewer cared.

    It's called propaganda, a nice word for: "Your government lies to you."

    If the American government is so interested in liberating oppressed people why aren't they invading Tibet? Or Cuba?

    Because such invasions don't make economic $en$e.
     
  7. CyBerAliEn

    CyBerAliEn

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,209
    Our economy would not be so bad if everyone would not have been so "selfish" with their finances. Since Sept. 11, I have noticed that A LOT of people (nearly 9 out of 10) are caughting off certain luxuries to save what little money they can. If everyone would have continued their normal lives after Sept. 11 in terms of how they spent that money, are economy would not be as bad as it is right now. After a lot of people already stopped spending, we had some good job cuts, did not help, and most of these could more than likely have been prevent if everyone had continued their usual spending habits. A lot of people became scared of losing their jobs or such so started saving, which ends up resulting in lost jobs (there are of course normal circumstances due to poor business decisions in which lay offs come about), which seems to continue turning until the only word I can describe it all as is "catch-22". Economics is definately not as simple as I may have put it here, I know that, but a lot of the problems I have witnessed locally had EVERYTHING to do with just a lot of people simply cutting back. If everyone just continued on normally or picked it up now and kept it going, we might just get out of this rut we're in ;)

    (For example; imagine a restaurant. A 5 person family goes to eat dinner there once a week or so and spends about $50-$60 each time. Imagine hundreds to thousands of families coming in a week, some paying as little as around $10 each time or as much as into the hundreds. Enter the reality after Sept. 11 and you have hundreds less coming in, or if they do, they spend less. This hurts this business a lot whether or not you think it does, and just explode this up to cover all sorts of stuff other than just simple restaurants... this is a lot of money no longer circulating in the economy).

    I am sure I may get some arguments to this, but at the most simple economics and the vast amount of people and money involved with this, it should be apparent that just "eating out once a week again" can really help ;)
     
  8. ComputerFix

    ComputerFix

    Joined:
    May 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,953
    On Sept 20th I, along with a great many people in this country, lost our jobs (some before, some after).

    Like many others, I lost a huge chunk of my income (around 70%!) when I became re-employed.

    Let me tell you first hand, I LOVE to keep spending the money I was before 9/11 but I don't HAVE the money I did before 9/11.

    Selfish has not a darn thing to do with it.
     
  9. CyBerAliEn

    CyBerAliEn

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2001
    Messages:
    1,209
    I felt this would be coming, I am talking more about the people which I happen to know, which happens to be a lot, which are not under the same circumstances as you.

    Sorry to hear about the job and all, but as I said, I am commenting more on what I know of what is going in the area around me, and it happens to be a lot of people (have really no valid reason [such as losing a job, pay decrease, etc]), and I find it hard to believe it could be just people I know.

    But as I said, you may not have lost your job if these people I speak of kept "having their weekly dinners" (I find it odd to say this, I eat out at a restaurant nearly every night because I can't cook, lol... but EasyMac has literally opened a new world to me, just open, pour, add water, heat, add cheese, stir, eat).
     
  10. EdGreene

    EdGreene Banned Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,788
    _______________________________
    Our largest single employer, Boeing, has laid off tens of thousands of people since 9/11, due mainly to the number of loss aircraft orders because Americans have cut back on air travel and unfair, subsidized competition from Airbus.
    Boeing people make an average of $42,000 plus a year. Lose ten thousand folks like that and the local economy tanks no matter what.

    But why are Americans just now reacting to the economy? Because Junior has played magician, using political sleight of hand to distract us with his "war on terrorism" and now, "Gulf War ll", Junior's revenge.

    Even as we "win" in Iraq and probably Korea, the economy slowly sinks like Venice is sinking in the sea.


    Ed
    I get it done with my YAHOO DSL!
     
  11. maxximilian

    maxximilian Guest

    I have seen many similar characterizations following the completion of the Gulf War. I never agree with them because they are too simplistic to me. The Gulf War ended when it did for a number of reasons. First...the allied coalition that fought with Iraq had its basis in UN resolutions. Those resolutions made no stipulation for the removal of Saddam, but rather the liberation of Kuwait. Once Kuwait was liberated, essentially, the coalition was without a "legal" course of action. I use the word "legal" loosely to describe what authority the coalition had.

    Secondly....proceeding with the removal of Saddam would almost certainly have involved a military occupation of major cities in Iraq. This occupation would have to last long enough to install a new government. You can't do that overnight and it would take place in the most hostile environment possible for the soldiers patrolling the streets of Baghdad. The loss of allied soldiers to snipers, suicide-bombers, planted explosives, etc would probably have exceeded the ammount lost in battle. The chemical and biological weapons that weren't used during the conflict, would likely have been released had Saddam felt he was about to put in handcuffs. He is a fruitloop...remember. And the US was already on record as saying the use of nuclear weapons was the response to the use of these bio/chem weapons. Why would have occupation been necessary....that is reason #3. The was real fear amongst other arab states of a "power vacuum" in the region. An unstable Iraq would mean a civil war or power struggle...eventually widening and threatening and drawing in, neighbor states.

    Lastly....the arab member nations of the coalition may have dropped out of the coalition due to pressure from their home populations if the Gulf War started to look too much like an American agression and toppling of an arab regime. Maintaining the arab part of the coalition was the main reason for talking Israel out of retaliating for the SCUD missiles hitting Israel.

    Having said this...perhaps a gamble might have been better back then and proceed into Iraq proper. I don't know...hindsight always being 20/20.

    Sorry about the long post...but these things are never simple. :)
     
  12. GoneForNow

    GoneForNow

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    12,427
    I can tell you for a fact that Saudi Arabia told Bush, Sr. that if he didn't stop the troops before they got to Baghdad that Saudi Arabia would drastically reduce oil exports. Its one of the reasons the US has been pushing for a transcontinental pipeline across southwestern Russia to the Mediterranean Sea.
     
  13. GoneForNow

    GoneForNow

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    12,427
    Boeing has historically gone up and down like a yo-yo. Its the nature of the business its in. You should be more concerned with the subsidized Airbus competition then our current economy. As long as the French government is willing to spend whatever it takes to keep Airbus afloat, Boeing, Lockheed and the the rest are going to have a terrible time remaining competitive.
     
  14. Mulderator

    Mulderator

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 1999
    Messages:
    51,022
    I don't think he'll PULL HIS HEAD OUT OF HIS ARSE LONG ENOUGH to understand that point! :D :D :D
     
  15. GoneForNow

    GoneForNow

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    12,427
    Mulder...........That brings up another interesting point. Where is our socialist friend. He'd be Screaminggggggggggggg!!!!!!! right now about how the US government does subsidize Boeing with billions of our tax dollars just to support the military industrial complex (yes I know Eisenhower said that).
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/113605

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice