Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

  • fa_ques fa_ques Mar 31, 2003 12:15 PM Flag

    Stalemate in front of Baghdad!!

    we can ring our tanks around the city, and then what? rumsfeld did not think this through. What are we supposed to do now, walk up to the gates and yell, "emergency, everybody to get from street". franks is a big idiot. I could have taken baghdad a month ago with a den of cubscouts, some whistles, and a sling shot. NOW WHAT? The tanks are sitting ducks and so massed together that artillery couldn't miss. Who was the tactical genius that designed this war? MORON!!

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Michael,

      1974 is a bit late. Who did you lose it to? And who do you bed down with now? I sure hope you check out a little history, practice safely and worry about intents and motives. Otherwise, you should have kept that virginity.

    • Naziism and Hitler are overplayed as examples but lessons of that era should have been learned that were not.

      Following WWI, the League of Nations (failed forerunner of the UN), imposed disarmament requirements on Germany. As Hitler rose to power, his government systematically unraveled the requirements while stonewalling and lying to the League of Nations, which (as with the recent UN-Iraq experience) viewed the barter of liberty for some as a noble way to maintain peace during the 1920s-30s. The false and temporary peace of background rearmament and foreground pacification were equated with success.

      When Germany invaded Poland and began murdering segments of its and occupied countrys' populations, that the U.S. did not join was cited by pacifiers as the primary reason for the failure of the League of Nations. That the Germans felt the need to rearm and again threaten others was attributed by pacifiers to harsh disarmament standards imposed after WWI (which Germany circumvented).

      The fact remains that, then as now, there is evil in the world that cries out for attention. Some we can ignore or work around, other we cannot.

      The result of the League of Nations failures, starting in 1938 in Europe and earlier in Asia, was much greater violence, destruction, and loss of life than would have occurred had the League of Nations met its responsibilities.

      Founded after WWII, the UN supposedly incorporated the lessons learned during the League of Nations experience. It was also able to rely on the wealth and leadership of the large and relatively unscathed United States to enforce Japanese and German disarmament requirements, rebuild war torn countries, provide most troops in Korea 1950-present, etc. But, even with the participation of the U.S., the UN has become too polarized/politicized to be effective in maintaining a semblance of world order. Bush and Blair have made it clear the UN will have a strong role in the reconstruction of Iraq. A less threatening Iraq will have another opportunity for a positive place in the world community, and a good future.

      Unlike the League of Nations' demise, and thanks to the U.S.-UK initiative, the UN still has a potential future in enforcing resolutions to international conflict.

      Time will tell how it plays out, but the potential is more favorable than in early March.

      DiB

    • "Michael,

      I find your continual choosing of 'others', without studying them and learning their motives, morals and intents, in lieue of those around you, to be terrible. It is bad to view the present and future through the defects of a society you live within without also viewing such through the strengths. Instead, you go out, willy nilly, and embrace 'others' without knowing what you are getting into. When it is presented to you that the situation is not b&w, and you forgot to consider oh so much, you just go out and find another straw. That's terrible. There is nothing inane in my statement. Just the knowledge that I'd sooner trust an American leader than all others. I leave you with ex KGB man Putin, the corrupt Chirac, the weasely career beauracrat Kofi and the ineffectual Schroeder. Study them well before calling my trust in our leaders 'inane'!"

      Fooldetector wants to know if Mikey took a rubber bullet to the head. Mikey, how bad did it hurt?

    • The following is very entertaining. Notice how the "pot" calls the "kettle" black? Smoke, Keep up the laughs!

      REGARDING: You have a very poor knowledge of history and cause and effect. And you have little to support the above statement except innuendo. Please list your countries that compare with Saddam's leadership. And please list their crimes against their own population and neighboring countries. Then list if they signed a peace treaty and remained in power. I don't think your list has many, if any, names. Stop your innuendos and instead produce a well reasoned, supportable argument. This grade school gibberish is clutter on this site.

      Mikey Replies with RESPONSE: You have piss-poor debate techniques. You never specifically answer a question...., your technique is to create your own questions. Discussing a subject with you is no better than with a rock.

    • REGARDING: I'd sooner trust an American leader than all others.

      RESPONSE: I lost that virginity around 1974.

    • Michael,

      I find your continual choosing of 'others', without studying them and learning their motives, morals and intents, in lieue of those around you, to be terrible. It is bad to view the present and future through the defects of a society you live within without also viewing such through the strengths. Instead, you go out, willy nilly, and embrace 'others' without knowing what you are getting into. When it is presented to you that the situation is not b&w, and you forgot to consider oh so much, you just go out and find another straw. That's terrible. There is nothing inane in my statement. Just the knowledge that I'd sooner trust an American leader than all others. I leave you with ex KGB man Putin, the corrupt Chirac, the weasely career beauracrat Kofi and the ineffectual Schroeder. Study them well before calling my trust in our leaders 'inane'!

    • REGARDING: Michael, your conclusion is terribly devoid of human respect.
      RESPONSE: This Administration is terribly devoid of human respect!!!

      REGARDING: You don't hang out to dry the very people that risk their lives for you, or does Michael do such?
      RESPONSE: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Powell, et cetera are risking THEIR lives or are they using this Nation's military toys and the lives of our military men and women to advance their hidden agenda? It appears that their rationale is that it will either work or they will have causeed or accelerated Armageddon.

      REGARDING: There is no reason to reveal secrets when America was going to do most of the fighting for the UN anyways. The rest of the world can wait for proof, imo. Maybe you can't?
      RESPONSE: That is too inane for any response.

    • Michael,

      All these hours, ...you can't list much, eh? LOL!!

    • REGARDING: You have a very poor knowledge of history and cause and effect. And you have little to support the above statement except innuendo. Please list your countries that compare with Saddam's leadership. And please list their crimes against their own population and neighboring countries. Then list if they signed a peace treaty and remained in power. I don't think your list has many, if any, names. Stop your innuendos and instead produce a well reasoned, supportable argument. This grade school gibberish is clutter on this site.

      RESPONSE: You have piss-poor debate techniques. You never specifically answer a question...., your technique is to create your own questions. Discussing a subject with you is no better than with a rock.

    • THANK-YOU.

    • View More Messages
 
KO
43.85+0.05(+0.11%)Aug 23 4:00 PMEDT