PDA

View Full Version : Russia adopts "Bush Doctrine," 'bout time.



Yonivore
09-08-2004, 03:00 PM
Russia prepared for pre-emptive strikes on 'terror bases' worldwide (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&ncid=732&e=4&u=/afp/20040908/ts_afp/russia_attacks_military)

bigzak25
09-08-2004, 03:05 PM
do you think the families of those lost in this tragedy would have liked this policy to have been in effect beforehand?

Yonivore
09-08-2004, 03:14 PM
It might have prevented it.

CommanderMcBragg
09-08-2004, 04:36 PM
Why not just declare a free-for-all war and let the bodies lay where they may?
Conservative neocons talk tough but would probably seek a deferment like their good friend Cheney when the time came to ante up.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-09-2004, 01:06 AM
And of course all the pansy liberals would go over, cut themselves three times, get three Purple Hearts, and come home to protest

:rolleyes

Would you step up McBragg, or flee to Canada to cover your ass?

Hook Dem
09-09-2004, 01:17 AM
At least the Russians have learned that appeasement wont work. The Dumbocrats never will!

Joe Chalupa
09-09-2004, 09:14 AM
Oh come on now. There are plenty of repugnicants who apposed the war.

This liberal democrat has no problem kicking some ass to defend the USA!!

Nothing bites my ass more!! :cuss

Ruby Ridge
09-09-2004, 10:32 AM
It would be nice if Bush would fight the war on terror rather than diverting valuable resources to his escapade in Iraq.

Osama mocks you Bush.

Ruby Ridge
09-09-2004, 10:40 AM
story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/world/main639914.shtml?cmp=EM8706)

Bush's doctinre must be do as I say, not as I do


Russia castigated the United States on Wednesday for its willingness to hold talks with Chechens agitating for independence and suggested the issue could harm bilateral relations, the Interfax news agency reported

bigzak25
09-09-2004, 10:56 AM
so do you agree or disagree?

take a stand and stop patronizing.

you do remember the diplomatic red tape the US went through prior to the war in Iraq, don't you?

Hook Dem
09-09-2004, 11:09 AM
Thank you Zak for trying to set the pandering straight!

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 12:05 PM
"It would be nice if Bush would fight the war on terror rather than diverting valuable resources to his escapade in Iraq."
A lot of us believe the two are related. More than don't, as a matter of fact.

"Osama mocks you Bush."
As the old saying goes..."It's hard to mock under a ton of rock." :o )

ClintSquint
09-09-2004, 12:32 PM
Mockity, mock, mock!!

IcemanCometh
09-09-2004, 12:58 PM
http://img75.exs.cx/img75/3266/coward.jpg

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-09-2004, 07:18 PM
The problem is so many democrats can't realize the bigger picture of Iraq.

that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all. :rolleyes

Ruby Ridge
09-09-2004, 07:25 PM
The war in Iraq is not shifting the front. Al Quada cannot have daily or weekly bombings in the U.S. (thank God). They take years to plan their attacks, WTC 1 (1993), Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies (1998) , U.S. Cole (2000) and 9/11 (2001).

Just because an attack hasn't happened on our soil since 9/11 doesn't have jack to do with Iraq.

Finish the war on those who attacked us and quite worrying about nation building in Iraq.

ClintSquint
09-09-2004, 07:28 PM
God forbid another terrorist strike should hit the USA.


But if it does, I'm sure Bush will find a way to blame anyone or anything other than his own selfish war mongering policies.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-09-2004, 08:20 PM
Ruby,

I don't give a shit about the time frame.

All things being equal, would you rather have them killing a couple thousand civilians every couple of years here or have thousands of them killed for every one ARMED troop they kill over there?

It's not just about location, it's about them having to face heavily armed US Armed Forces instead of flight attendants, people at their jobs in an office, families headed on vacation, etc.

spurster
09-09-2004, 11:32 PM
The problem is so many democrats can't realize the bigger picture of Iraq.

that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all.
Afghanistan was halfway around the world last time I checked.

MannyIsGod
09-10-2004, 01:23 AM
that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all.

i'm sure the 10,000 plus iraqi civilians killed over there appreciate this.

so, we liberated them in order to make a more convinient battlefield/

interesting.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 01:25 AM
Hey Manny, how many Iraq and non-Iraqi combatants have been killed since March 2003?

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 05:27 AM
Hey Manny, how many Iraq and non-Iraqi combatants have been killed since March 2003?

Irrelevant. We pursued a like policy in the Vietnam war only then we called it Vietnamization. We created a project called Phoenix which were paramilitaries that sought out to find insurgents in the general populous and eliminated them without prejudice. Unfortunately, the policy made more enemies faster than it could eliminate them and was a failure. In Vietnam, it was China supplying the Viet Cong forces with endless amounts of fighters, in the Iraq war it is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and Iran.

bigzak25
09-10-2004, 10:55 AM
God forbid another terrorist strike should hit the USA.


But if it does, I'm sure Bush will find a way to blame anyone or anything other than his own selfish war mongering policies.



and i'm sure the libs will find a way to blame it 100% on GW, as if he fucking flew the plane himself on 9/11.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 11:18 AM
"Irrelevant."
I don't think so. Why? Because the 10,000 number that's being tossed around doesn't say if it's civilians, combatants, or a mixture of both.

I want to know if that number represents non-combatants or combatants. It's definitely relevant.


I also want to know, of the non-combatant deaths, how many occurred in areas where the coalition forces pleaded with residents to seek refuge for days before they went in. Place like Fallujah or Sadr City or Tikrit, etc...

I think you'd see that 10,000 number drop sharply if you take out the combatants and stubborn.

Aggie Hoopsfan
09-10-2004, 02:35 PM
It's irrelevant because it doesn't jive with Dan's version of reality.:rolleyes

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 02:51 PM
Yeah, it's just a nice round figure that ignores all the vagueries of war.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 03:55 PM
I don't think so. Why? Because the 10,000 number that's being tossed around doesn't say if it's civilians, combatants, or a mixture of both.

The number is civilians deaths. Suspected combatant deaths are counted seperately. Quit trying to white-wash death with your indignation towards Arabs.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 04:07 PM
"The number is civilians deaths. Suspected combatant deaths are counted seperately. Quit trying to white-wash death with your indignation towards Arabs."
Two questions:

1) Who says so?

2) So, what are the combatant deaths? If you know they're counted separately, you surely know who's keeping count of the combatant deaths and what they are.

Also, last time I checked, al Qaeda, the terrorist insurgents, and most of the remnant Ba'athists weren't uniformed -- nor had they informed any international body of what qualifications their "soldiers" must possess to serve in their "army." No age restriction. No gender restriction. No restrictions on health condition or ideology or religion (Probably Islam though) or nationality. As far as I know they take all comers.

So just how do we know how many of those 10,000 are non-combatant civilian deaths?

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:11 PM
The exact number doesn't really matter does it? Without W's original justification for the war coming to pass, every civilian death is a murder that should be investigated by the International community.

Yonivore
09-10-2004, 04:15 PM
Okay, then we agree, it's a matter of whether or not the war is legitimate.

And, on that, we disagree.

Congress gave the President the authority. His Presidential opponent stands behind that decision...today, at least. Iraq was clearly in violation of a cease-fire agreement from 1991 and 12 subsequent UNSC resolutions. And, the Iraqi people have yet to make a final determination on whether or not the war was a good thing for them.

I'm comfortable with the decision.

Nbadan
09-10-2004, 04:29 PM
Congress gave the President the authority. His Presidential opponent stands behind that decision...today, at least. Iraq was clearly in violation of a cease-fire agreement from 1991 and 12 subsequent UNSC resolutions. And, the Iraqi people have yet to make a final determination on whether or not the war was a good thing for them.

All this happened only with evidence cooked up by the Office of Special Plans. They ignored evidence that countered their reasoning for attacking Iraq, and promoted the legitimacy of questionable evidence that proved otherwise.

scott
09-11-2004, 11:58 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It would be nice if Bush would fight the war on terror rather than diverting valuable resources to his escapade in Iraq."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A lot of us believe the two are related. More than don't, as a matter of fact.


How is this correlated with most people being idiots?

Yonivore
09-11-2004, 12:19 PM
Maybe you should do a study scott.

(You're in danger of losing my vote)