WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

plywoody · Jul 19, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Well, I am a whole lot busier than I was before, so I probably will not be that frequent a contributor, but I am glad to see that everyone is getting their information from seemingly the same source--Walt Disney's fantasy land. First of all, how can anyone dispute this appears to be the peace from hell in Iraq? Since the war ended we seem to lose a soldier a day over there, we cannot even get power and water back on, and we are heading toward a horribly explosive situation if we don't do something quick. And it is costing American taxpayers 4 billion a month with no end in sight. I don't know about safer, but I know I sure feel poorer. And I know most of you feel that mythical WMD, or terror connections, or nukes, or whatever else they used to justify this war, make no difference. I am sure the administration shares your view, as this war in Iraq was clearly planned long before they had reasons for it. My gripe is more why doesn't the administration just be honest with us? Just say, Saddam was a bad guy, we don't like him, and Iraq has lots of oil, and we need oil--we should just kick him out and take over! And don't say 9/11 ! There was absolutely no credible connection established, before or since the war, with anyone associated with 9/11. There is a better connection between the terrorists and Canada. There are lots of bad guys in this world. What is our new criteria for taking them out? Are we the world's policemen? That is specifically what Bush said he would not do in the last campaign. Or is it necessary that they have natural resources that we covet, and can make immense corporate profits with--and generate huge campaign contributions along the way, of course. We need our new foreign policy stated, and stated honestly this time.

Ralph 123 · Jul 19, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Plywoody you sounded like a businessman from one of your previous posts. Well as a businessman surely you understand that we could have just lifted the sanctions on Saddam and bought the oil on the open market a lot cheaper than this war cost us. Cheap oil was easy. Econmomics 101. lift the sanctions, flood the market, oil prices plummet. A direct connection to 911 is not the issue. The issue was a preventing a future 911. The nut hat a blood fued against this country after GWI. He had the wealth, the knowledge and the experience to hurt this country on a scale heretofore unimaginable. The man tried to have a former US President assisinated for heaven's sake. Bush himself said it best when he said trusting in the sanity of a madman with WMDs is not a strategy. As for a link to terrorists, well they found the the notorious AL ship hijacker living right there in Baghdad. They found terrorist training camps all over the place. They had that big Al Qaeda training camp up North. They found all sort of signs & murals praising the events of 911. Saddam personally paid the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. He paid Syrians, Palestinians, Leboneese and other Islamic barbarians to come to Iraq to fight Americas. One of the Senior Al Qaeda leader had his leg amputated in Baghdad after he was injured in Afghanastan....etc., etc, etc. Man, Canada must be a real crazy place if they are on par with Iraq. Better a hard peace than 100,000+ dead americans from a bio-terror attack. Better safe than sorry.

JGREGORY · Jul 21, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Amen Ralph

mellowyellow · Jul 21, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

without the "longview" from plywood, we never would have been privy to such a great post from Ralph... well done! M.Y.

JGREGORY · Jul 21, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Plywoody, Question did you feel the same way when Bill Clinton (Oop! I mean slick Willy) sent our troops to Somilia to try to get control from the warlords. We went in with no clear mission, with no support, and no real commitment to get the job done. And what happens when we get into trouble Bill tells the Military to tuck its tail between it's legs and run. Maybe, It's no wonder that Saddam didn't think we would do what we sent out to do. But at least we went in with a clear understanding and the commitment to get the job done. And the job is not done yet. Unfortunatly, we are still loosing men. If the entire country was against us we would be losing them at a much higher rate. For pete sake more people die over here to traffic accidents every day then we are losing our men in arms over there. Untill there is a viable and stable Government we need to stay put and support the men and women over there and that is not being accomplish when everyday the media tries to besmudge the President. Remember we still have not found Sadam and if we leave now we may have lost lives for nothing.

SeaMasterZ@aol.com · Jul 23, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

simply make a rule like saddam would, a "no arms" rule ... if you are caught with a gun, your arms get cut off period sound harsh? iraq people are used to treatment like this under good ol saddam there is a video snippet of an iraq kid getting drug into a room, and his HAND AND FOOT CUT OFF FOR STEALING wrapped in chux and thrown into the back of a truck hussein is a brutal and now bitter man I for one wouldnt want to be in iraq, and I feel sorry for the soldiers that are

mellowyellow · Jul 23, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

find Sadaam, take him to central square and turn his butt over to the people. he deservers to feel how all those people he tortured felt. we can put it on world-wide pay-per-view, would prob. pay for the war LOL. Sadaam was a WMD all by himself IMO.

plywoody · Jul 23, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

First of all, I am generally opposed to economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool, with some exceptions, of course. Weapons and military technology and the like should not be traded, of course. For the most part, they don't work, and what they achieve generally keeps the despot in luxury while starving the people--and he can of course claim that the citizen's plight is the fault of the US, of course. Cuba comes to mind, of course. Come to Canada to buy your Cuban cigars! And I am against military action unless it is a last resort. Afghanistan was a good move, although I do not feel it was handled particularly well during the fighting, and it is being handled horribly since the fighting. And no I was not in favor of what happened in Somalia--that was a confusing situation that was not very well planned or carried out--not sure whose fault it was precisely, but hopefully will not be repeated. Winning this war on terror, while I don't wish to over-simplify, will depend on educational and economic development. This is of course not easy to accomplish, and there will be fits and starts with any effort in this direction, but it should be the preferred tack that is tried, with a military option the last possible resort. However, if the people have nothing to lose, they can be a dangerous group. And easily led to believe whomever some leader wishes them to believe as far as who the enemy is. Most when they have a vested interest in something and something tangible that could be lost, they will fight to protect it. My fundamental problem with this administration was that from day one, they seemed to be calling for war, and inventing excuses for it. While Iraq was relatively weak, and offered little in the way of a real threat, places like North Korea are not quite the same. While we are not quite as vocal with the NK, if we are not careful, we are going to get ourselves in a real mess... And the idea of not negotiating with the North Koreans is folly. Call it something else if you wish, but in order to minimize the long-term threat from NK, we have to help them develop economically from where they are, which is effectively nowhere. Give the people something to lose, and they will not be as quick to cause trouble. Look what has happened in China, for example. While it is not perfect there by any stretch, economic development has rendered them much less a threat than they were 20 years ago or so. Just my opinion.

12Footer · Jul 23, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Now see what you went and done did, Kenny? LOL Anybody got an asperin?

12Footer · Jul 23, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Plywoody, of course, you are just stating your minions here , but I would be less than realistic not to try and steer you towards logic. Forgive me for disecting your post, piece-by-piece, and injecting some facts you may not be basing your opinions on-----and thereby, maybee help you in reforming them;

"First of all, I am generally opposed to economic sanctions as a foreign policy tool, with some exceptions, of course. Weapons and military technology and the like should not be traded, of course. For the most part, they don't work, and what they achieve generally keeps the despot in luxury while starving the people--and he can of course claim that the citizen's plight is the fault of the US, of course. Cuba comes to mind, of course. Come to Canada to buy your Cuban cigars"

Sanctions may ,or may not werk. You gave the example of Cuba. There are many, many you could've chosen from, that the United States chose to levy over the course of history (we do tend to use humanitarian forms of persuasion first). Example; Japan, circa 1941.The Japanese in thier infinite wisdom, chose to invade China (read the book, "The Rape Of Nanking"). In retaliation, and to persuade a more humanitarian response, the US emposed an oil embargo on them. Thier response? To attack Pearl Harbor,Sunday morning, December 7th, 1941. Plywoody, must we allways be the first to be attacked? And should we allways turn the other cheek?

" And I am against military action unless it is a last resort. Afghanistan was a good move, although I do not feel it was handled particularly well during the fighting, and it is being handled horribly since the fighting. And no I was not in favor of what happened in Somalia--that was a confusing situation that was not very well planned or carried out--not sure whose fault it was precisely, but hopefully will not be repeated."

Again, must we take it on the chin from every third-world scum-suckin dictator and his minions? Must we scale-back our military responses to meet the predicted threat, as opposed to assuring our victory before the the first sortie? Handled horribly? Chile please! We won soundly with MINIMAL loos of American life. and minimal colateral injuries. Is that not a desireable outcome? It is to an old american who lived-thru seeing countrymen die in Korea, Nam, Grenada, Bosnia, Mogadishu, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, amoung others.

"Winning this war on terror, while I don't wish to over-simplify, will depend on educational and economic development. This is of course not easy to accomplish, and there will be fits and starts with any effort in this direction, but it should be the preferred tack that is tried, with a military option the last possible resort."

You just-about nailed this one, Plywoody. It is what we are doing. But you got it backwards. See, they are still pickin-off the occasional US soldier. This is not an acceptable climate for a road crew to werk under, not to mention sewer,watter,electric. These tasks will be predominently taken care of by the Iraqi people, but until the streets are secured, the RPG's will make a mess outta road graders!

"However, if the people have nothing to lose, they can be a dangerous group. And easily led to believe whomever some leader wishes them to believe as far as who the enemy is. Most when they have a vested interest in something and something tangible that could be lost, they will fight to protect it. My fundamental problem with this administration was that from day one, they seemed to be calling for war, and inventing excuses for it. While Iraq was relatively weak, and offered little in the way of a real threat, places like North Korea are not quite the same. While we are not quite as vocal with the NK, if we are not careful, we are going to get ourselves in a real mess..."

09-11-01 Happened. Mass graves. And we are still uncovering new "suprises" every day. None of which, hold any meaning whatsoever to some folks...Astounding!! The previous admin launches 40 six-million dollar cruise missles at an asperin factory! Why? To destroy a biological weapons site!!! But this was ok?? I do not understand this logic at all!

"And the idea of not negotiating with the North Koreans is folly. Call it something else if you wish, but in order to minimize the long-term threat from NK, we have to help them develop economically from where they are, which is effectively nowhere. Give the people something to lose, and they will not be as quick to cause trouble. Look what has happened in China, for example. While it is not perfect there by any stretch, economic development has rendered them much less a threat than they were 20 years ago or so."

Negotiate? No. And for the same reason you don't negotiate with terrorists. We are not in a position to negotiate jack with NK under it's current regime. No, I'm not proposing we change it,but we should leave that to thier friends, USSR...Oh yea, that's right--- they bet on a failed system, and lost. Before a tense stalemate aas agreed-upon in the early 50's, they wanted south Korea too. Things are stamped "Made in Korea" only in SOUTH Korea, because we don't do bbuisness with bandits. Japan attacked us in '41, and so might NK. But they will not push America around because they choose NUKES before feeding thier masses!!! They pay the terrible cost, one way or another. And remember, freedom never has been free. It's just plain rude to assume our sacrifices to date were for the rest of the world to tear-appart! Aint happenin on my watch without an argument from hell! Just my opinions.

KennyKenCan · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

I love opening a bag of worms 12Footer. Especially when fishin! Kenny

JGREGORY · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Plywoody, while I may not agree with your position. I do respect your consititency of position. I get Frustrated when people change there position just because of a different political party in office.

plywoody · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

One comment about oil. Someone mentioned that we could have got all the Iraqi oil we wanted by eliminating the sanctions. That is incorrect, of course, but more importantly it misses the entire point. While we may want access to Iraqi oil, what we really covet is control of the oil market. Currently OPEC controls the production and price of the world oil market by controlling production among its cartel members. Once Iraq is under US production control, and capacity is dramatically increased (not necessarily ownership of the fields) we can counteract any decrease in supply that OPEC mandates with a corresponding increase in Iraqi production, thus leaving OPEC relatively powerless to control the world oil price. This is the big prize, and could not have been achieved any other way

12Footer · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

We are capitalists, Plywoody. which is the opposite of communist or socialist. Of course, we want control of all rescources. Us capitalists want to become independent,and independantly wealthy. But the ideal goal would be to include global ecomomies under the dollar,as oppposed to the Euro or Yen. This does not mean that we would stoop to taking control of Europe or Japan by siezing control of thier ecomomies, but it is nice to be able to trade with these regions. The Mideast ,in it's entirety, is given the same considerations, but they choose not to play (OPEC is the only real oil-market),and they don't like us. This battle is not about oil,never was, and I can prove it. We did not invade Palestine,Iran, or any of the other Arab emerates who are members of OPEC. Do you believe our "strategy" is to pick them off, one-by-one?! I didn't think so. If we want to steal something, we have the capability, as we have seen in other areas of the globe over our long history (care for a banana? Cuppa joe?) .. But you have yet to see these tactics here,that you cllaim motivates us to free Iraq. Amazing! We are capable, but we are also free, and know how to get what we want thru cooperation and trade. We still believe in the sovereignty of other nations ,and allways will.

Ralph 123 · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

OPEC is a failed Cartel. It has been ineffective for the last 10 years at least. All the members have too much incentive to cheat. OPEC couldn't stop the slide of oil prices even with Iraqi oil off the market. If the sanctions were lifted on Iraq which of the OPEC members would have cut production to accomodate the Iraqi oil? Right - no one.... Good try though...

mellowyellow · Jul 24, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

I may not aggree with a lot of your views Plywood, but you make a very interesting discussion. this type of debate raises the conciuosnes of all involved, regardless of which side they take and that's a good thing.... and why has no one laid any blame at the feet of the UN yet? as bad as OPEC!

aspeck · Jul 25, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

From today's "Federalist Digest": "Yesterday, in the city of Mosul, the careers of two of the regime's chief henchmen came to an end. Saddam Hussein's sons were responsible for torture, maiming and murder of countless Iraqis. Now, more than ever, all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back." --President George W. Bush U.S. troops, members of Task Force 20 and Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion of the 101st Airborne, surrounded a Mosul villa and demanded its residents surrender; they didn't, and they are now dead. Two aces from that dastardly Ba'athist regime deck onto the discard pile! Saddam's foul progeny, sons Odai and Qusai, met their deserved ends. Can Saddam be far behind? Odai, the elder son, headed the Fedayeen paramilitary forces keeping a murderous grip for his father on Iraqi citizens. Qusai, Saddam's heir apparent, held primary responsibility for the intelligence and security services, including the Republican Guard and Saddam's personal security detail. Both men delighted in torture and murder. On hearing the news, Iraqi citizens erupted in celebration, but back in Washington, Leftist Democrats, who have been promoting "failure" in Iraq as a political maneuver to undermine support for President Bush, were distraught. Typical of their refrain was this comment from New York Demo Rep. Charles Rangel: "We have a law on the books that United States should not be assassinating anybody. How can you get so much satisfaction out of the fact that two bums have been killed? We got bums all over the world and some in the United States." High on our list of "bums in the United States" ... Charles Rangel, et al. Memo to Chuck: To be perfectly fair, there were, amid all the Iraqi celebrations, a few Iraqis who, like you, wish the tyrants had not been killed. For example, Alaa Hamed, a producer at Odai's television station, complained, "I don't want him dead. I want to torture him first!" Alaa had been tortured by Odai for a programming mistake. Military planners had decided not to broadcast photographs of Saddam's dead sons so as not to appear boastful -- until the Iraqi Interim Authority insisted. After all, a photo is worth a thousand...Iraqi dinars, and this kind of imagery plays well on al-Jazeera throughout Jihadistan (link to -- http://www.federalist.com/news/vermin.asp ). Images of dead tyrants create real command and control concerns for neighboring tyrants. To wit, no sooner had news of the demise of Odai and Qusai been confirmed than the son of Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi told CNN: "I would like to send this message to the American people and the American government that we, the Libyan people, we want to have a more constructive and fruitful relationship with the Americans.... We don't want confrontation and aggression and, you know, to fight anymore. It's over. It's behind us now." President Bush again warned Iraq's neighbors: "Today, Syria and Iran continue to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable." Iran's intelligence minister has declared Mr. Bush is right, announcing that Iranian officials have in custody "high-ranking" al-Qa'ida members and some smaller fry, although not providing their identities. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, back from a five-day tour of Iraq, concluded, "What we are seeing eliminates any moral doubt about whether this was a war against Iraq, or a war for Iraq. This was a war for Iraq." U.S. civilian administrator for Iraq L. Paul Bremer was also in Washington this week, explaining the growing accomplishments in pacifying the remnants of the Ba'athist regime and their cohorts. Plans are now being accelerated for empowering the new Iraqi Governing Council and its requisite support structures as a democratic government-in-the-making. A civilian Iraqi police force will be assuming more law-enforcement and peacekeeping duties alongside coalition forces, expected to be thus freed for more appropriate missions -- like Tuesday's. In other news... Apparently Stephen Hadley, President Bush's deputy national security adviser, did not get last week's Federalist memo: "Don't swap spit with Jacque-asses!" Hadley is now in a contest with CIA director George Tenet to see who can take responsibility for those 16 words in President Bush's SOTU. As we noted last week, the Bush administration should never have given this issue legs -- unless they are prepared to deliver additional evidence that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger -- thus slaying the SOTU critics. Britain's MI-6 intelligence service has reconfirmed the planned acquisition -- and we hope that confirmation will be broadcast soon! A footnote.... The French have been uncharacteristically quiet about this whole matter. Perhaps that is because the uranium mines in Niger, a former French colony, are run by a French company, and the French secret service, the DGSE, knew about the contract but did not share that information with the CIA. Our sources suggest that the DGSE may be the British source, but MI-6 is protecting those DGSE agents because the information exchange was not authorized by the pro-Iraq Chirac. (We've been "frenched" again!)

plywoody · Jul 25, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

I am afraid you are incorrect about OPEC being a failed cartel. Ten years ago it was perhaps, but over the last few years they have been reasonably disciplined in production controls. The goal has been to keep oil prices between $28 and $35 a barrel, and that has been exactly where it has been. And while Iraq has reportedly the second largest known oil reserves in the world, they were only capable of producing a million barrels a day or so--hardly a substantial impact on world oil market in any event. We will attempt, if we can ever get that country under some semblance of control, which is very much in doubt, to get production capability to 10 million barrels a day or more. We don't need to pump that much, but we need to be able to in order to get OPEC under control. Which will not be lost on mid eastern oil producing OPEC members, so I expect a lot of resistance, in one form or another, to this. To quote an old song, "We have only just begun" As far as taking in on the chin from some scum sucking dictators, just which country has attacked us, exactly? The Saudis funded the 9/11 terrorists, and they were hiding and training in Afghanistan, with cells all over the world, with the only credible evidence of any cell in Iraq was in Kurdish country that Saddam didn't exactly control anyway. So why again did we attack Saddam? It makes no sense. As far as bombimg the aspirin factory, it was a precise and measured attack against a potential threat--Not at all the same as overthrowing a government by force. And I am glad you informed me that we recognize and respect the sovereignty of other nations. It is good to know, as I would have never guessed that by the available evidence.

Ralph 123 · Jul 25, 2003

Re: WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

OPEC got lucky with the Venezulan strike - that's what stopped the price slides. Not production controls.And, any production controls would have gone South the minute sanctions were lifted and Saddam pumped away. I repeat, cheap oil was easy. This had nothing to do with cheap oil. If we wanted Iraq we could have taken it the furst time around. It would have been a lot easier and cheaper. So if it was about controlling OPEC why didn't we just keep going the first time? Heck, we were sitting in Saudi already why didn't we just overthrough them if it was about cheap oil? We could have made a case that they were behind 911. Cheap Oil? Hardly....

WHAT HAPPENED TO PLYWOODY ?

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Captain

Lieutenant

Vice Admiral

Lieutenant

Lieutenant Commander

Vice Admiral

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Fleet Admiral

Fleet Admiral

Commander

Lieutenant

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Fleet Admiral

Captain

Vice Admiral

Moderator

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Captain