Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sparks on December 02, 2004, 10:24:40 PM
-
In Rude's post in the thread about the bill board he said Iraq was about winning the war
What we now undertake in the Middle East is no different than what we undertook in the pacific against Japan....many similarities, from the suprise attack to them trying to force US influence out of the pacific so as to allow them to mandate their doctrine against innocents throughout the area.
One thing for certain....I want our boys home, sure....I want a future for my kids even moreso....it's time stand up as a nation against this threat, even if it means doing so without our so called friends in Europe.
.
If the Iraq venture is all about "winning the war on terror" and "finally ridding the world of the threat of terrorism" then the administration must have a point they are looking to where they can say "We've won!! - there is no terrorist threat".
In previous wars which have been compared to the Iraq campaign (Vietnam, WW2 etc) it has been easy to define the victor and loser. So define victory in the War against Terror.....
No more Muslim extremists alive in the world?
No more Muslim controlled states in existence?
When will victory be declared ??
If the threat is to be removed then presumably there should be:-
1. No place of refuge or residence for a terrorist to base from
2. No means for a terrorist to gain possesion of weapons
3. No means by which a person can be taught the methods of terrorism.
If you argue that Iraq COULD have become a place for terrorism and so the campaign in Iraq is to prevent this then victory in Iraq is presumably viewed as the point where a democratically elected government has such a control over the Islamic faith in the country that fundamentalism cannot operate or be taught and the control of arms is such that terrorists cannot arm themselves. Realistically is that an achieveble goal ????? I doubt it.
Even if the eutopia above is achieved there are many other places terrorism can spawn from, so victory in Iraq can hardly be called the point that the War on Terror ends. So is this campaign to continue country by country until Islam is subdued ????
Rude made an interesting point about his view of the Pacific campaign .....to them trying to force US influence out of the pacific so as to allow them to mandate their doctrine against innocents throughout the area.
I think we can agree that fudamental Islam is the basis of the terrorism and that fundamentalists see the west (primarily the Christian west) as the enemy.
With fundamentalism camped in many middle east countries and others round the world and Iraq likely to elect a muslim freindly government then how can victory be declared.
GWB was elected largely on a promise to deliver security for the USA - victory over the terrorists - so define victory........
-
Interesting writing.
Victory to me is letting the militant arab muslim world know that if they ever attack the united states again we will vaporize them in an atomic cloud that will turn their holy land into a place humans will never again be able to live in.
During our little 40 year spat with the UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, we let them now that if they ever attacked us we would destroy them completely as a society, a culture, a form of government. And they let us know they would do precisely the same, and we knew they could as they knew we could. All was good.
The big difference was that the Kremlin was filled with athiests, people that, by and large, like us preferred life over death. It was our common binding reference of understanding.
Here, with militant ignorant islam, we have a bunch of backwards thinking God is Death infected pukes that would be all too happy to aquire nuclear weapons not for deterent but for prophetic world ending ALLAH AKBAR suicide. A totally different ballgame.
The fact that pakistan and north korea have nuclear weapons is unacceptable to me. The fact that Iran wants them is even more unacceptable to me.
If a nuclear weapon is detonated in the united states of america, EVER, the world we live in will change drastically, immediately.
Victory is the lack of that detonation.
-
Like anything else, if we have more points at the end of the game than they do, we win.
duh.
-
Metallica had it right on their first album.
Kill Them All.
-
Iraq is but one battle in the war on terror. Success in Iraq is a government, success in the war on terror is an end to government supported international terrorism.
-
during the cold war , when first time i read the profecies of Nostradamus, was hard to belive those poems, to imagine WW3 betwen muslim and cristians,
The Biblie has also lot of profecies Daniel, Apocalips,..about this war and Anticrist, all are talking about Babilon,Midle east,
Now i think ww3 already started, just need more nations to get involved in Midle East,
-
Kill them with kindness. If we give them provisions and aid, then I believe the whole world will act on them.
-
Crush your enemies, have them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.
-
When we convert all the hethen ******* and get them to stop bombing checkpoints and start bombing abortion clinics like good christians.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Crush your enemies, have them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.
Hard to break with fifty years of tradition.
-
So no real ideas yet as to when we can call ourselves "secure" and the war is won .................
Liz on a sensible answer Iraq is but one battle in the war on terror. Success in Iraq is a government, success in the war on terror is an end to government supported international terrorism.
OK to take both of your points together - if the government which is to take over in Iraq is to meet the criteria for sucess then I would assume that it should meet the aim of not being involved in "government supported terrorism". To that aim I would expect it to be active AGAINST fundamental Islamic teachings etc. Considering the make-up of the population and the hold of the religious clerics on the population do you believe that is realistically acheivable ? If in 5 years the country has gone by way of elections to a govrnment on the lines of Iran what then ??
Now if all governments pledge no sponsorship of terrorism and the intelligence community can find no proof of it but terrorism continues then is the war still over.
This is not an anti-US sentiment BTW - politicians on both sides of the pond are spouting about victory on "The war on Terror" but few seem to be able to say what it means.
For me they are avoiding the issue that the Islamic religion is basis of the fundamentalist movement and that these beliefs are not based on nationality or territory. How do you wage war on a belief ?? How do you declare victory in overcoming a religious movement ??
-
Yeager - apologies - you are were on my ignore list and so I missed your answer. I think that is a viewpoint many would agree with but find frightening. As you say the previous major conflict in our age involved beliefs that wanted to keep us alive.
The opposition this time is different.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Hard to break with fifty years of tradition.
What happened in 1954 that started a tradition?
Conan was 1982... or '83
-
In the days after 911 _we_ were very close to winning the war on terror when alomost the entire world supported america.
Then america fumbled and invaded Iraq...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
If a nuclear weapon is detonated in the united states of america, EVER, the world we live in will change drastically, immediately.
Who would be responsible for that armageddon?
-
You will not find this administration nor any other put forth a definition of victory for the war on terror, drugs, crime, poverty etc. .. that would totaly wreck politics as we know it in this country.
shamus
-
well.... historicaly they do seem to understand force.
lazs
-
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.... historicaly they do seem to understand force.
lazs
wow! what a prophetic statement!! Of course they understand force.. Who doesn't?? I thought you'd been around a few years Lazs.. Not familiar with the last few decades of history??
It is not if they understand force. It is their reaction to said force that matters..
-
Originally posted by Shamus
You will not find this administration nor any other put forth a definition of victory for the war on terror, drugs, crime, poverty etc. .. that would totaly wreck politics as we know it in this country.
shamus
amen... the end
-
It is not if they understand force. It is their reaction to said force that matters..
====
Your only half smart frog. Its their understanding of OUR REACTION TO FORCE that matters.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In the days after 911 _we_ were very close to winning the war on terror when alomost the entire world supported america.
Then america fumbled and invaded Iraq...
Yep you are right,
i was born in Transilvania, live in Canada but in my oppinion those who hate America are wrong
i think in all history wasn't any other superpower to help the world as much as America did in last 100 years: UN, charity, ww1,ww2, rebuilt europe,japan and many more.
If americans would't get involed in ww2, all Europe would speak deutch or russian now .
But now after this invasion in Irak,most of the world hate America, maybe is stupid war(like the war in Vietnam, 50.000 americans+2 000 000 vietnameze died for what? just to show the muscle to red empire)wrong decision, but why the world forget the good thinks done by US soo fast?!
-
Who would be responsible for that armageddon?
====
HIMMLER!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by ghi
Yep you are right,
i was born in Transilvania, live in Canada but in my oppinion those who hate America are wrong
i think in all history wasn't any other superpower to help the world as much as America did in last 100 years: UN, charity, ww1,ww2, rebuilt europe,japan and many more.
If americans would't get involed in ww2, all Europe would speak deutch or russian now .
But now after this invasion in Irak,most of the world hate America, maybe is stupid war(like the war in Vietnam, 50.000 americans+2 000 000 vietnameze died for what? just to show the muscle to red empire)wrong decision, but why the world forget the good thinks done by US soo fast?!
Nobody forgets the good things america has done, but the fumble in Iraq is not a small insignificant mistake... Alot of people are getting killed and its making the world a more dangerous place to live.
Also remember that when america has helped the world, it has not only been to be nice either. It has been in their own self interest, protecting trading partners, stopping communism and nazism to get to close to its own borders etc.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody forgets the good things america has done, but the fumble in Iraq is not a small insignificant mistake... Alot of people are getting killed and its making the world a more dangerous place to live.
"MOST" of the people that are being killed in Iraq are either Bathist, Jihadist (spl) or plain old criminals and yes some innocents have died. In your world is it ok if Saddam were still in power? He killed a lot more people and would still be doing so. Ask Kuwait, Iran, the Kurds or why not ask the millions still alive what they think of Saddam and his kids running their lives for a few more generations.
By your standards WWI and WWII could not be fought because people would die. As far as making the world a more dangerous place I will accept your opinion but I doubt you will ever be able to prove it with facts.
Also remember that when America has helped the world, it has not only been to be nice either. It has been in their own self interest, protecting trading partners, stopping communism and nazism to get to close to its own borders etc.
You really don't understand Americans or American history do you?
I fully understand that the European view is myopic on this issue, but to be honest We did not need to be in Europe and Asia for 50 years only to protect our self interest. My Father, brothers, Uncles all spent time in Europe or Asia to protect Democracy. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died for more than "protecting our own self interest"
After WWI and before WWII we stayed out of Europe and guess what, Europeans started a world war, not Americans EUROPEANS. If you want to think of Americans and American participation in history as mainly a selfish endevour, feel free.
But to be clear FYYFF !
-
Originally posted by Krusher
If you want to think of Americans and American participation in history as mainly a selfish endevour, feel free.
But to be clear FYYFF !
I don't think its all selfish and i fully expected that kind of reply. However... if there were _no_ "benefits" for america, you would have done nothing to stop communism or nazi germany for that matter.
No idea what FYYFF means but i guess its a typical response when a nerve is struck ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Who would be responsible for that armageddon?
====
HIMMLER!!!!!!
Don't go back into YeagerTardBot mode.
-
what people find a little wierd is that you went for Saddam using Terrorism in your justification...
To me Saddam was an Iraqi problem, hmm more or less a regional problem that MUSLIMS should of taken care of with our support, not our problem though, nor yours for that matter, trying to blind us to the fact that Usama Bin Ladin is so-so important in the big picture, bite me you freaks, he is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for 9/11, he is the one carrying that Religeous Nuthood to a whole new level when dealing with GOD's enemies.
You have NO proof of a relationship between SADDAM & OBL, yet you persist in your justifications that the Iraqi invasion was for 9/11 and the war on terrorism...sorry BOB, I don't bite so easily.
Afhganistan and OBL were related, hence the support for that action. But your boys are dying on foreign soil for greed, mis-direction of morales and a lack at communication as a whole, you should have listened to Colin Powell, but the Hawks won that one.
Long live National Interests
-
Actually, Slo, the reason for the invasion was Saddams violations of the treaty terms laid down by the UN. You can ignore it all you like, but the historical record is there, and it is plain. Quit being an bellybutton and accept it.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Actually, Slo, the reason for the invasion was Saddams violations of the treaty terms laid down by the UN.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
There were many reasons Liz, that was just one of them. WMD, support of terrorists (not necesarrily Al-Qeada) etc.
Bush never declared war on just AQ, he declared war on ALL terrorism. Iraq had at least 2 terrorist training camps. One was just outside Baghdad and the other was in the north iirc.
I think Liz had it right when he said we win when there is an end to state sponsored terrorism. When that will be, I have no idea.
Many people seem to forget that we had more reasons than just WMD for invading Iraq (especially Europe) and that Saddam did have ties to terrorists but not necessarily to AQ.
-
OK - to get back to the question which most seem to be avoiding - when can we say "We've won" .
It seems ridiculous to me to be carrying out a campaign where we can't associate a specific action to a specific goal in the campaign and whether even the specific minor goal is achievable.
Example :- WW2 - invasion of Italy - goal to take troops from the France invasion effort and to give another avenue of access to Germany - oh and to liberate Italy (side issue). A specific and achievable operation towards the end point - invasion of Germany.
But in the "War on Terror" we haven't even got a clear end point so, although we can ligitimise certain aspects of the invasions of Iraq and Afghaistan for other reasons, we have no clear idea on how or even IF they will be achieveing the victory we are seeking. It is quite possible the eventual outcome in Iraq will worsen the situation of fundamentalist Islam worldwide as it is more than likely that an Islamic Cleric controlled government will be in power by the end of 2005 - hardly unfreindly to fundamentalists if maybe not directly supportive.
So what IS the goal - what is victory. When can ALL our troops come home ??? 10 years, 20,30 ???
Fundamentalists are being indoctrinated the world over , Europe, Asia, East Asia (look at the Phillipines and Thailand), and even the USA so do we have to kill them all ? Imprison all fundamental Muslims? Ban the teaching of Islam ? What needs to happen?
WHAT IS VICTORY IN THE WAR ON TERROR ??????
-
Victory = Ending govt. supported terrorism...
That way terrorism can be left to be funded by rich saudi's....you know, the old fashioned way...
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by SLO
what people find a little wierd is that you went for Saddam using Terrorism in your justification...
To me Saddam was an Iraqi problem, hmm more or less a regional problem that MUSLIMS should of taken care of with our support, not our problem though, nor yours for that matter, trying to blind us to the fact that Usama Bin Ladin is so-so important in the big picture, bite me you freaks, he is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for 9/11, he is the one carrying that Religeous Nuthood to a whole new level when dealing with GOD's enemies.
You have NO proof of a relationship between SADDAM & OBL, yet you persist in your justifications that the Iraqi invasion was for 9/11 and the war on terrorism...sorry BOB, I don't bite so easily.
Afhganistan and OBL were related, hence the support for that action. But your boys are dying on foreign soil for greed, mis-direction of morales and a lack at communication as a whole, you should have listened to Colin Powell, but the Hawks won that one.
Long live National Interests
hehe, dont let your blood boil too much SLO. The Propaganda machine here in the US is remarkable. And for those that can see it, it is terrifying.
Use this theory whenever you try to see why the US is doing something in the middle east. OIL.
And see if everything falls into place.
The big oil corps are running our military with every intention on controlling the 75% of the worlds oil reserves that would be controlled by the muslims within 20 years.
If the muslims control the oil, they control the trillions. The shift of wealth and power is unacceptable to the christians in high places and hence, the war on terror will be won when and only when, the controll of the middle east oil is firmly in the hands of the chrisitans! Wait and see.
The Saudi oil fields is in christian friendly hands, the Iraq oil fields will be shortly, the caspian sea oil reserves are being piped through afghanistan to pakistan, a christian friendly govt., even though before 911 they supported al queada as well as other anti US terror groups.
Wait and see !!!
I am not saying I am opposed to this objective. Quite the contrary. But I am opposed to the deception.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
There were many reasons Liz, that was just one of them. WMD, support of terrorists (not necesarrily Al-Qeada) etc.
Elfie, ummm, what WMD's were there? Which terorrists groups were in Iraq? Why not pakistan? Saudi arabia? (home of the 911 hijackers). How about N korea? We dont care about lunatic dictators threatening to throw around a cupple nukes if his denmands werent met, but we are going in to see if saddam has a can of mustard gas buried in the desert? hehe, go back to sleep dude. the real world is a scary place.
-
WH... I am not sure there was any real deception... for what? because Bush is business partners with osama or some such? The sadman had a nuke program and he would have had another... plenty of countries with bad people do but this guy was invading neigbors and under sanction by the allmighty UN.. he was a bad man and if he didn't have the WMD's and got rid of em or hid em before we got there then he would have em sometime soon.
So long as there is no ecomomic or any other type of freedom... so long as the region is ruled by despots and fanatics who torture and kill their people.... they will create terrorists. The real war on terror will end when the economy of those countries improves and the religious or other despots no longer buy gold toilet seats while their people grub around in the sand hoping to not get arrested or worse.
If there was a "deception" then it was a good one.. the intelegence community as a whole... the world one.... was fooled
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
WH... I am not sure there was any real deception... for what? because Bush is business partners with osama or some such? The sadman had a nuke program and he would have had another... plenty of countries with bad people do but this guy was invading neigbors and under sanction by the allmighty UN.. he was a bad man and if he didn't have the WMD's and got rid of em or hid em before we got there then he would have em sometime soon.
So long as there is no ecomomic or any other type of freedom... so long as the region is ruled by despots and fanatics who torture and kill their people.... they will create terrorists. The real war on terror will end when the economy of those countries improves and the religious or other despots no longer buy gold toilet seats while their people grub around in the sand hoping to not get arrested or worse.
If there was a "deception" then it was a good one.. the intelegence community as a whole... the world one.... was fooled
lazs
"we were decieved!" US intelligence community, after the invasion of Iraq.
"You aint foolin nobody!!!" World, prior to the US invsion of Iraq.
-
I don't think victory on ''war on terror'' means, control over last huge oil reserve around Caspian sea, just stabile flow on the market. If tomorrow the west world discover new energy sources,who's going to buy their oil? those turbanez will go back from mercedes to camel.
because in last 50 years they made lot of money out of oil but did't use them for technologic, industrial progres, to create jobs in other sectors, or ecomony independent of oil revenue
On the other side of the oil bussines, our western goverments make more money/barell in taxes than those selling crude oil.
this world is fk up
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In the days after 911 _we_ were very close to winning the war on terror when alomost the entire world supported america.
Then america fumbled and invaded Iraq...
I seem to remember alot of you folks whining about the
"thousands" of Afghan civvies we were supposedly killing.
Of course America was the darling of the world as long as
we acted like victims. The moment we decided to act, the true
sentiments were expressed, no real surprise there.
-
A definition was asked for. Here's one:
Ex-wife dying. (http://jollyrogers.info/music/hopeudie.wav)
-
Wheres the WMD?
-
She's still in town. I'm bribing milk truck drivers and giving a description.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Elfie, ummm, what WMD's were there? Which terorrists groups were in Iraq? Why not pakistan? Saudi arabia? (home of the 911 hijackers). How about N korea? We dont care about lunatic dictators threatening to throw around a cupple nukes if his denmands werent met, but we are going in to see if saddam has a can of mustard gas buried in the desert? hehe, go back to sleep dude. the real world is a scary place.
First of all, I listed WMD as a reason we went into Iraq, which it was. So far that reason hasnt panned out for us. Otoh there is a significant amount of chemical weapons that were known to have existed but have yet to be accounted for. (That has been discussed in previous threads)
I have no idea which terrorist group(s) were using the training camps in Iraq. The fact that there were terrorist training camps is enough for me.
You ask...Why not Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia? I have no idea, maybe you should ask the gov't?
Not all of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudis, the one thing they ALL had in common was Al-Qeada. Iirc 11 of 19 hijackers were Saudi, no idea what nationality the others were, nor do I care.
Once we are done in Iraq you can bet the government has the next target already selected.
You also asked..why not North Korea? The answer there is obvious. NK would use nukes on our troops.
Go back to sleep? Maybe you should wake up. Saddam had MiG's and huge weapons cache's buried in the sand, maybe some of those unaccounted for chemical weapons are there as well. Only time will tell.
When can ALL our troops come home ??? 10 years, 20,30 ???
Sparks, I have no idea on that one. I'm not sure if anyone has an answer. I think victory is acheived when there is no more state sponsored terrorism, when nations no longer harbor terrorists. When that will be I have no idea.
-
Elfie, that last post of yours is a testimonial for NOT going to war in Iraq. You are absolutely correct on every point. The logical conclusion is, we are either the lamest bunch of intel goofs on the planet, or we are getting the OIL.
Oh, we will find WMD's, AFTER we have secured the oil for the christian forces. After we find the WMD's, we will pull most of our troops out. We cannot find the WMD's before that because, there would be no reason whatsoever to be in Iraq anymore, just like if we found Bin Laden, there would be no reason whatsoever for us to be in afghanistan. Its the OIL, its the OIL, its the OIL.!! cut and paste brother, time will tell.
-
Over two bucks a gallon. Where's the gorram oil? Heh.
-
Originally posted by ghi
I don't think victory on ''war on terror'' means, control over last huge oil reserve around Caspian sea, just stabile flow on the market. If tomorrow the west world discover new energy sources,who's going to buy their oil? those turbanez will go back from mercedes to camel.
because in last 50 years they made lot of money out of oil but did't use them for technologic, industrial progres, to create jobs in other sectors, or ecomony independent of oil revenue
On the other side of the oil bussines, our western goverments make more money/barell in taxes than those selling crude oil.
this world is fk up
ghi, good points you make. However, put this in the equation. The reason that we connot use corn alcohol right now is that is too costly to produce in comparison with gasoline. I believe about 6 dollars per gallon if we were to go pure corn alcohol for the amount of fuel required to power the US. So a large investment in process would be required to bring that down to about 3 dollars per gallon. Why arent the govt working to make this happen? why would we spend $500,000,000,000.00 in iraq on a war to secure the oil fields?
Control, man, control. Oil fields are controlable, corn fields aint.
He who controls the energy resources controls the world. And that is what it is all about! World domination! Isnt that what it is always all about? Everybody wants to rule the world!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Over two bucks a gallon. Where's the gorram oil? Heh.
They are not interested in bringing us CHEAP oil. They are still business men. They are getting what they can for it, but they are still getting it.
-
Uh huh. :lol
p.s. Corn fields are controllable. ;)
-
Those morons were trying to colapse the world economy crashing planes in WTO towers,but did't work.
The oil price was stabile after 9/11,(25-35$/barell) untill the real War on Terror started, with invasion in Irak,and after 2 years is double 50$/barell.
How much higer oil price can the world economy take?!
Yes China need more oil , but in my oppinion the main reason of 50$/barell is the war in Irak
Soo ,who screw up the economy? B Laden or the War on Terror??
The US $ lost 25-30% of the value in last 4-5 years,
I hope not, but 9/11 can be for the world economy like a bomb with delay 5-10 or more years, is still not to late for BLaden to reach his goal
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Nobody forgets the good things america has done, but the fumble in Iraq is not a small insignificant mistake... Alot of people are getting killed and its making the world a more dangerous place to live.
Also remember that when america has helped the world, it has not only been to be nice either. It has been in their own self interest, protecting trading partners, stopping communism and nazism to get to close to its own borders etc.
So you're saying that the was safer BEFORE 9/11?! It is isn't any safer now than it was 50 years ago. As long as two human beings occupy Planet Earth, there will be conflict.
So the US was supposed to bend over for the Terrorists when the Trade Center was attacked? The thing that escapes me is the FACT that whilst the Towers were on American soil, the terrorists attacked the International Community. They figured we'd leave them alone, they were wrong.
You are hopping on the "Hate the US" bandwagon, but people like yourself do not realize. When you need help in future, you will find yourself crying by yourselves. But even then you will blame the US and not yourselves. Just like the Americans take the heat on the issue of slavery, you Europeans, had more than the US.
Originally posted by Nilsen
I don't think its all selfish and i fully expected that kind of reply. However... if there were _no_ "benefits" for america, you would have done nothing to stop communism or nazi germany for that matter.
If "and's, If's and but's" were beer and nuts we'd have a hell of a party!
Your "theory" has NO BEARING whatsoever. Bottom line, We came to the defense of Europe, on two wars that were started in Europe. BTW, you are a selfish person, just for record.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
So the US was supposed to bend over for the Terrorists when the Trade Center was attacked? The thing that escapes me is the FACT that whilst the Towers were on American soil, the terrorists attacked the International Community. They figured we'd leave them alone, they were wrong.
Karaya
You attacked Afganistan as a result of 9/11, and everyone was fine with that...
I cant belive you guys still are mixing up 9/11 and Iraq.
You should have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq if you go with your logic Karaya.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
You attacked Afganistan as a result of 9/11, and everyone was fine with that...
I cant belive you guys still are mixing up 9/11 and Iraq.
You should have attacked Saudi Arabia, not Iraq if you go with your logic Karaya.
I never mentioned Iraq, must have been a "knee jerk, nerve pinch" on your end.
I use logic.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I never mentioned Iraq, must have been a "knee jerk, nerve pinch" on your end.
I use logic.
Karaya
No, but Nielsen did.
Nice logic.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Elfie, that last post of yours is a testimonial for NOT going to war in Iraq. You are absolutely correct on every point. The logical conclusion is, we are either the lamest bunch of intel goofs on the planet, or we are getting the OIL.
Oh, we will find WMD's, AFTER we have secured the oil for the christian forces. After we find the WMD's, we will pull most of our troops out. We cannot find the WMD's before that because, there would be no reason whatsoever to be in Iraq anymore, just like if we found Bin Laden, there would be no reason whatsoever for us to be in afghanistan. Its the OIL, its the OIL, its the OIL.!! cut and paste brother, time will tell.
I seriously doubt its for the oil fields. From the beginning the Bush administration has stated (repeatedly) that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people. If it was all about oil why didnt we stay in Kuwait and hijack the Kuwaiti oil fields as our own?
With new technologies emerging (google for waste to oil for one technology) I seriously doubt that we will be dependent on foreign oil in the next 20 years. In fact I believe the Arab countries will lose their single largest cash export due to these new technologies and they will become a non-issue on the world scene.
-
And still no-one can say exactly WHAT our troops are fighting towards ...........................
The US just voted a President in based in large part on delivering security and "victory" in the war on terror. In the UK the current PM facing elections next year is pushing the same approach. But just what "victory" are they looking for ?? How can you say one administartion has done better than another when the goal isn't defined ????
The reasons for going into Iraq have been talked to death - fact is we are there. But what is the desired outcome.
Some have proposed that the end of state sponsored terrorism is the victory but how do you confirm that ?? If a state is Islamic then couldn't it be said to be sympathetic towards fundamentals ?? And what is the plan when we have declared the world has no states sponsoring terrorism and the bombs keep going off??
Iraq and Afghanistan can no longer be considered "states sponsoring terrorism" and yet the fundamental movement seems to have no problems finding RPG's rifles, ammunition and explosives.
I think we can agree that Fundamental Islam is the basis for the terrorist movement we are facing. Within an Islamic nation (e.g. Eygpt) there will be a spread of beliefs from moderate to fundamental - how do we as outsiders decide when the line has been crossed between non-threat and threat ?? Delivering security would mean removing the threat BEFORE an attack which means pre-emptive strike. How far are we going to take this ??
In the US you have already voted so what do YOU think GWB's definition of the victory is that you elected him to achieve with your family and freinds in the military ?? I would certainly like to know what Tony Blairs ideas are before we vote in May.
-
And still no-one can say exactly WHAT our troops are fighting towards ...........................
Reason no one can say exactly what our troops are fighting towards is because you are asking the wrong people. People on this board arent privy to the tactical and strategic discussions in our gov'ts.
All we can do is give a best guess, which we have done. :)
-
victory? well sparks.... for me, victory is the end to dictators and despots who use gold toilet seats whole they torture and starve their countrymen and blame the whole mess on affluent countries... it is the end to the funding these despots come up with and the terrorist training camps..
With no funding I don't care that much that some small groups of disenfranchised hate all that is affluent and happy and free.... let them sit around broken down dinnette sets fondling 30 year old AK 47's and cursing all things not in their religion...
Better that than the gold toilet seat guy setting them up in a condo in a city near me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
victory? well sparks.... for me, victory is the end to dictators and despots who use gold toilet seats whole they torture and starve their countrymen and blame the whole mess on affluent countries...
lazs
Soo why didn't you invade Cuba first ?
-
Soo why didn't you invade Cuba first ?
====
GLOBAL THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR.
The end of life on earth is coming bro. the end is near so party hardy and get it on!
Pump up the jam!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Better that than the gold toilet seat guy setting them up in a condo in a city near me.
I like this point of view.
BTW Lazs, why do you always write 'Lazs' at the end of your messages?
Neubob
-
Yeager says
"The fact that pakistan and north korea have nuclear weapons is unacceptable to me. The fact that Iran wants them is even more unacceptable to me. "
I say the fact that anyone at all has them at all is unnacceptable to me.
I'd rather have seen the money wasted on nukes now put into the space program. Give us all something to cheer about! maybe Something that would bring the world together a bit like Apollo did.
lazs2 says
"victory? well sparks.... for me, victory is the end to dictators and despots who use gold toilet seats whole they torture and starve their countrymen and blame the whole mess on affluent countries..."
If this is so we should send troops to nearly every country in Sub saharan africa, the former soviet republics, middle east, far east , hell even Europe, we have poverty homelessness, too. hell perhaops we should declare war on the whole world!
Sheesh! remember allot of our affluence is based on the exploitation of the other parts of the world!
-
neubob... I don't know... why do you write neubob at the end of everything you post?
ghi.... I don't see cuba as much of a threat. I think we have neutralized them pretty well allready.
tinpot... I think we have to prioritize.... so long as the despot is simply making life misserable for his people and not funding terrorism against us... we save our resources for the real fanatics. the lesson most despots are getting these days is, like syria....we let you keep the gold toilet seats and the snazzy uniform and ugly chicks and stetch mercedes and don't kill your family while trying to get at you.... so long as we don't catch you messing with us.... don't mess with us and we will put you further down on the list of "things to do" help us and we might even take you off the list for some indeterminate length of time.
lazs
-
We don't want a victory on the war on terror. It's physically impossible, to claim victory over an ideology.
Do you know what would happen if we won the war on cancer? drugs? crime? The US economy would collapse, defense contracts would go up in flames, and politicianss wouldn't have anything to foam at the mouth about. Same goes with Terror.
We're not getting out of Iraq. Period. Start liking it. It's a big business/ defense spending cash cow, and we're gonna milk it for all its worth.
Look on the bright side, maybe we'll carpet bomb arkansas next time some nut fire bombs a church or abortion clinic.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
We're not getting out of Iraq. Period. Start liking it. It's a big business/ defense spending cash cow, and we're gonna milk it for all its worth.
Whos paying for it?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Better that than the gold toilet seat guy setting them up in a condo in a city near me.
lazs
Of course, "Them" is rather ambiguous when it comes to determing who is a them, and who isint a them. But I'm sure you'll let God sort em out, eh?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
[
ghi.... I don't see cuba as much of a threat. I think we have neutralized them pretty well allready.
lazs [/B]
But are you sure Irak was a threat?
Irak need another mild dictator to keep 2 crazy nuts religious minoritys together
I used to live Romania under Ceausescu, one of the worst dictators of the east Europe,
From 1983 to 1989,I had to wake up at 4-5am and stay in line hours for bred,milk, ..The food stores were empty most of the time, we were not alowed to walk on the street in group of more than 2 persons, security was watching
Castro keep that country in poverty for 50 years, they make 10-20$/month,
soo if you were talking about dictators you have the worst one,verry close no need to find one half globe away
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Whos paying for it?
Our leader doesn't need to worry about such things. Why should you? A bit of advice, I would look pretty closely at any investments I had in U.S. dollars.
-
It is said that soviet russia had a very low crime rate and that musolini made the trains run on time.
red tail... when conservatives are in power we go after one group... when liberals are in power they go after another... like ruby ridge and waco.
There were no church burnings in arkansas... klinton made that up during his race.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It is said that soviet russia had a very low crime rate and that musolini made the trains run on time.
red tail... when conservatives are in power we go after one group... when liberals are in power they go after another... like ruby ridge and waco.
There were no church burnings in arkansas... klinton made that up during his race.
lazs
ruby ridge. The guy was a terrorist. White supremacy is a terrorist ideology. he was threatening anarchy, and needed to go. Too bad we missed him.
WACO. I'm sorry to hear David Koresh was one of your role models, but he was not exactly bringing kids in to watch barney and Mr. Rogers. I'll agree that the govt. moved in too fast, but hey..we warned him. Saddam should have watched this little skirmish and seen the light :)
Are you suggesting there were no church burnings in arkansas? ever?:rofl
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I seriously doubt its for the oil fields. From the beginning the Bush administration has stated (repeatedly) that Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people. If it was all about oil why didnt we stay in Kuwait and hijack the Kuwaiti oil fields as our own?
With new technologies emerging (google for waste to oil for one technology) I seriously doubt that we will be dependent on foreign oil in the next 20 years. In fact I believe the Arab countries will lose their single largest cash export due to these new technologies and they will become a non-issue on the world scene.
Well of course Bush would state that. He's hardly going to overtly admit to what amounts to armed robbery is he? I realise that some of the more knuckle-dragging posters on this BBS would support an blatant land-grab, but it wouldn't wash with the US electorate as a whole.
You didn't stay in Kuwait because US and British companies already have a large share of the concessions there. Iraq was a different story though, since Russia and France were the big players in that countries oil industry.
Link (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm)
Russian officials told the London-based Observer newspaper that they feared a post-war nullification of the large Russian contracts, with the most lucrative deals given over to US companies. The Observer quoted one official in Moscow as saying that the impending conflict could be called “an oil grab by Washington.” In France, it was reported that Total was actually in negotiations with the US government “about redistribution of the oil regions between the world’s major companies.”
The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National signed on for North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.44 Paris, Moscow and Beijing, as Permanent Members in the UN Security Council pressed for an easing of the sanctions, with support from a growing number of other countries. Grassroots movements, concerned about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, called on the UN Security Council to end the sanctions forthwith.
Plenty more background in the link supplied above.
-
So if the US gets some new oil contracts from the new Iraqi gov't wont the US companies still be paying for that oil? I hardly see that as armed robbery.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
So if the US gets some new oil contracts from the new Iraqi gov't wont the US companies still be paying for that oil? I hardly see that as armed robbery.
I believe that we will be getting the oil at cost to pay off their debt to us for bringing democracy to the country.
-
redbottom... I do not know if any black churches ever caught fire in arkansas or if any were deliberetly burned ever. If you can show me an example of one that was burned by anything but the owners I will believe it... No black churches were burned when klinton was growing up like he said he had witnessed... it never happened.
terrorists? how was ruby ridge a terrorist operation? the guy was pretty harmless as were the waco whacko's who, by the way, were in no way heros of mine but.... I do not condone The U.S. government burning alive allmost 30 children because their parents may or may not have broken some silly gun law. Ruby ridge was not about terrorism either... it was about the barrel of a shotgun being a couple of inches shorter than some law allowed... A woman and child were shot dead by my government over that idiotic law..
Children were burned to death because the government wanted to make a gun bust and make it look spectacular. They got "spectacular" allright. I don't condone the actions of the branch dividians but I think they had the right to open up on the balck pajama guys who were breaking in in th4e first place.
lazs
-
We win when the price of oil is controlled by us and not them.
At that point the essence of the war will change, and American insurgents will then carry the flag of jihad forward under the guise of anti-religion movements.
Want to win quickly? Develop ANWR and everytime an environmentalist stands up to complain knock him down.
-
Originally posted by Voss
We win when the price of oil is controlled by us and not them.
At that point the essence of the war will change, and American insurgents will then carry the flag of jihad forward under the guise of anti-religion movements.
Want to win quickly? Develop ANWR and everytime an environmentalist stands up to complain knock him down.
Look at what the cat dragged in.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by rpm
When we convert all the hethen ******* and get them to stop bombing checkpoints and start bombing abortion clinics like good christians.
You're a hateful person
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
In the days after 911 _we_ were very close to winning the war on terror when alomost the entire world supported america.
Then america fumbled and invaded Iraq...
That's your view from the sidelines I guess....a simplified view from the simpleminded....not an insult towards you, just a stated fact.
If indeed what you say was true, then the 30 years preceeding 9/11 would have been void of terrorist activities....not the case.
-
Originally posted by Rude
That's your view from the sidelines I guess....a simplified view from the simpleminded....not an insult towards you, just a stated fact.
If indeed what you say was true, then the 30 years preceeding 9/11 would have been void of terrorist activities....not the case.
Simple minded, from the sidelines...
Heh! funny.
And how are you more enlightned and "in the game" then the rest of us?
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Simple minded, from the sidelines...
Heh! funny.
And how are you more enlightned and "in the game" then the rest of us?
If I told you, you wouldn't believe me.....I have lived long enough and witnessed enough to know that those who shout the loudest, are most often the weakest and most uninformed.
Just my opinion, nothing to get upset over....if it makes you feel better about life to blame the US for the worlds woes, one thing for certain, nothing typed in this circus will ever change your mind.
O'Club=cheap entertainment.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If I told you, you wouldn't believe me.....I have lived long enough and witnessed enough to know that those who shout the loudest, are most often the weakest and most uninformed.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in the rain.
-
okie doke