Author Topic: THIS is progress!  (Read 1131 times)

Offline capt. apathy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4240
      • http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Bandits=danger.wav
THIS is progress!
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2004, 03:36:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saintaw
As I said... I could vote so that they send the Luxemburgish army :)

If the UN stays, I'm happy with that.


I know it's probably completely unfair.  but every time you mention "the Luxemburgish army", I get visions of that old Peter Sellers movie 'The Mouse that Roared'.

Offline Lizking

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2502
THIS is progress!
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2004, 03:45:05 PM »
It is an even older and better book.

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
THIS is progress!
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2004, 03:45:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
I guess this proves that the US is a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys.
Thank you in a advance for jumping into my boat.


Thrawn, how about sending the Canadian Army to Korea to replace ours?  Make yourselfs useful...

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
THIS is progress!
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2004, 03:59:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
I guess this proves that the US is a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys.


Thank you in a advance for jumping into my boat.


Dear Thrawn,

I surrender.

Yours truly,
VOR

PS: If I have erroneously categorized you as an invading army instead of a dictator seeking appeasment, please hit the reply button now and provide an appropriate list of demands, and your post will be answered in the order in which it was recieved.

storch

  • Guest
THIS is progress!
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2004, 04:04:31 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VOR
Dear Thrawn,

I surrender.

Yours truly,
VOR

PS: If I have erroneously categorized you as an invading army instead of a dictator seeking appeasment, please hit the reply button now and provide an appropriate list of demands, and your post will be answered in the order in which it was recieved.


I didn't know you were French!!!!

Offline Sparks

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
THIS is progress!
« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2004, 05:08:40 PM »
Your right on one point Toad - why do the USA still have forces based in Western Europe??  Huge bases here in the UK but for what purpose ?? We clearly don't see a threat locally as most of our forces are abroad or have been "downsized" .  As far as I'm concerned yeah send em home.

But you're an intelligent guy so I was baffled by this
Quote
.... We're rebuilding it for them better than it was under SH and basically, we'll get no more than any other country out of this deal. They'll be selling to everyone and we're not going to get any special price.

Your war/oil slogans are just more misdirection and baloney.
[/b]

I can't honestly believe that you think that the Iraq invasion was to secure a democratic and peaceful regime in Iraq.  You may not be going to get a special price on your oil but you will certainly get a "special relationship" with the incoming regime which gives you influence and maybe veto over the worlds second largest energy reserve.  My guess is it will look a lot like Saudi in a couple of years - a powerful upper class of "elected" people with strong business ties to the US helping them maintain their position and a large number of contract "advisers" and "consultants" propping up the military structure.

Iraq is not about price per barrel or whos label is on the barrel.  Its about strategic influence in the region and over the use of the resource.

The fact that it borders Iran who has the other major reserves is purely coincidental :rolleyes:

If this is such a humanitarian mission then why don't other deserving causes get a similar benevolent guiding hand?

Come on Toad you can't be that naive.

Oh and BTW if you look at my previous posts since the beginning of the conflict then you will see I'm not against it, I think we should just be honest about why we are there and get on with it.  We don't need the worlds short term major energy resource in the hands of Stone Age headslapping nutters.

Sparks

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
THIS is progress!
« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2004, 05:09:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
I didn't know you were French!!!!


:rofl
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
THIS is progress!
« Reply #37 on: June 07, 2004, 05:12:54 PM »
Ya maybe I dove too quick on that one. I aggree its good news either way.

storch

  • Guest
THIS is progress!
« Reply #38 on: June 07, 2004, 05:13:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
:rofl


what??? I didn't :confused:

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
THIS is progress!
« Reply #39 on: June 07, 2004, 05:41:51 PM »
Well, Pongo. One doesn't see that often around here.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
THIS is progress!
« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2004, 05:56:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Otto
Thrawn, how about sending the Canadian Army to Korea to replace ours?  Make yourselfs useful...


Like by helping our allies fight in Afghanstan, being in command of ISFOR in Afghanistan, helping our secure Haiti, all the while peacekeeping in Bosnia?  I'll tell the CF to get right on it...oops already done.  ;)

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
THIS is progress!
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2004, 05:56:53 PM »
Sparks,

I think we have forces in WE as a remnant of the Cold War. There was a time when there was a purpose. Now, even as a "forward deployment" they're in the wrong place IMO. I doubt any of us see major ground combat in Europe in the near term.

OTOH, as a "forward deployment" it's probably advantageous to have the heavy equipment and stores there rather than in US East Coast bases. We've all seen that every military spends more on combat equipment than transport equipment. We've all seen the problem of getting the combat equipment to where it's needed as a result.

So, perhaps there's minor justification but I feel it's long past time to address the issue. Bring them home, build more/better/faster transportation for them.


you think that the Iraq invasion was to secure a democratic and peaceful regime in Iraq.

I don't. Never did. This was an inevitable "byproduct" goal however. SH had to be replaced with something and it sure as heck wasn't going to be another dictator. They may end up there, who really knows. But it's not going to start out that way.

you will certainly get a "special relationship" with the incoming regime which gives you influence and maybe veto over the worlds second largest energy reserve.

Seriously doubt that. They're not THAT much in love with us and they seem pretty intent on asserting their independence and sovereignity. As well they should be.


Its about strategic influence in the region and over the use of the resource.

It is about strategic influence, true. I think events in Libya have shown that. No, I'm not one of the one's that believes Ghadaffi was begging for raproachment for the last 10 years. Sorry, Lockerbie and buying uranium from NK show an unbroken line of intent over the years to me.

Surely it's meant as a statement to Iran as well. They weren't named in the "Axis of Evil" speech on a whim. They saw a force much smaller than the GW1 force roll up SH's military in an amazingly short time. I doubt that was lost on them.

If this is such a humanitarian mission then why don't other deserving causes get a similar benevolent guiding hand?

Because no one is willing? Basically no one was willing to do Iraq, were they? The US, GB, Australia and a few others.

Do you have any doubt that, given the desire, the "world" as represented by the UN has the ability to go into dungholes like the Sudan and clean out the people doing the genocide?

Sure, we all could do that. But people would die. It's pretty clear there's a lot of folks willing to bemoan the state of affairs but dang few willing to die to change them.

Not a condemnation there, just an observation.

Use of the resource?

Unless I seriously miss my guess, Iraq will simply return to being another OPEC member with oil to sell on the world market. We'll be paying the going rate to them just like everyone else.

Possibly they'd do us the favor of pumping more oil to moderate prices like the Saudis just did. That's about all I'd hope for or expect.

Come on Changing World Technologies! Biodiesel from turkey blood!!  ;)
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
THIS is progress!
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2004, 05:58:42 PM »
I'm not French, I was merely in appeasement/surrender mode. In light of Thrawn's unequivocal proof that I live in a nation of dictator appeasers and surrender monkeys, I felt overwhelmed by the facts, and therefore compelled to adhere to my new niche.

In retrospect, perhaps his outburst was not based on factual information and was merely an unqualified internet defection, in which case I may have surrendered prematurely.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
THIS is progress!
« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2004, 06:03:52 PM »
Yeah,

Nearly 500 Canucks in Haiti, 2100 in Afghanistan, 650 in Bosnia, 200 in the Golan Heights.

Altogether ~3800 of your total 8000 deployable troops are already overseas.

So, no way you guys could replace the 37,000 we have in Korea alone. It'd have to be a bunch of UN countries just to fill that slot, wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2004, 06:06:06 PM by Toad »
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline VOR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2313
THIS is progress!
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2004, 06:54:19 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by capt. apathy
as to the last of your post I couldn't agree more, I see no reason for us to provide support above and beyond our allotment of troops to the UN.

it would benefit us on many levels.
1.   we aren't spending our tax dollars to secure other countries.
2.   as Iron posted earlier, having our troops stationed here instead of overseas would have them spending their pay to boost our economy.
3.   if our involvement was just through the UN, then (proportionately) we wouldn't be any more or less involved in other countries affairs than any other UN member-nation.  I think this would go a long way twards lessoning our status as a target.  when people go through political upheaval and their lives are lost, in danger, or at the very least seriously disrupted, we always seem to be there, right in the middle of things.  I makes it pretty easy for the opposition to convince some guy who lost everything that we are the cause, it doesn't matter if it's true or not, if a man believes it he's now our enemy.  

when did we take a vote and decide to be this worlds cop?   I didn't vote on it, my fathers 83 he doesn't remember voting on it either.


I agree with you here Capt Apathy. Good post.