Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on February 22, 2006, 06:06:41 PM
-
Now, if wuz a betting man with a strategic stake in the growing conflict between eastern and western civilizations and I wanted to deal the eastern civilization a crippling blow and to solidify my bet on western civilization without a direct east-west confrontation, how would I do it?
Divide the opposing team.. get them at each others throats in the most viscious and elemental way feasable. Of course.
Today, the Mosque of the Gold Dome was bombed.
What a surprise.
:D
-
Reprisals have already started. Lets hope somebody can get this under control before the whole thing decends into chaos. Ali al-Sistani may be the best hope for restraining the Shi'a.
-
Like it or not, Iraq was more stable with Hussein than without.
I predict decades of this.
-
Sunni vs *****ie = Iraq vs Iran.
-
after everything the U.S. did to get that country in order its goin to hell
-
I would post what the real problem is, but some here would construe it as racism.
-
First Iraq was a WMD haven, threatening world peace with biological, chemical and nuclear armageddon via it's undisputed, unshakeable friendship with Al Queada.
Then it was a stable strategic base of operations for projecting power around the region.
Now it's a chaotic battle-ground designed to drag the whole of the middle east into a big quagmire?
Amazing how quickly excuses are dreamt up these days and how equally transitory they prove to be.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sunni vs *****ie = Iraq vs Iran.
Iraq + Iran = Irate
I think the dislike they have for the West will subdue the dislike they have for each other. And even if it didn't the shia would probably win a civil war anyway, through superior numbers,which probably would not be an unwelcome result in shia Iran.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
First Iraq was a WMD haven, threatening world peace with biological, chemical and nuclear armageddon via it's undisputed, unshakeable friendship with Al Queada.
Then it was a stable strategic base of operations for projecting power around the region.
Now it's a chaotic battle-ground designed to drag the whole of the middle east into a big quagmire?
Amazing how quickly excuses are dreamt up these days and how equally transitory they prove to be.
Not that I want to feed your obvious troll....but have you actually read the news today? This actually happened....a VERY holey VERY old Shia holey site was bombed today by suni opratives. There's no reason to make this up.....unless you can conjure up some way out conspiracy theory that nutjobs can get behind.
-
Like it or not, Iraq was more stable with Hussein than without.
====
true but all you had with saddam was sunni violant repression of shi'ites. I say let the shi'ites have some fun with the sunnis then when they just about got each other wiped out we send in the japanese.
-
Brutal govt oppression is usually more stable than freedom. Tough. Put 10 lions in 10 separate cages for their whole life and they won't fight, but they're not really lions anymore either.
Plus it's fun to be able to express ethnic and religious hatred by blowing stuff up and killing people. Really fun apparently, judging from the thousands of non-Iraqi griefers traveling to Iraq to blow stuff up and kill people.
-
WWII Occupied france was pretty stable as well. At least until those pesky allies invaded.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Sunni vs *****ie = Iraq vs Iran.
Hmmm... I seem to recall Iraq sending military hardware over to Iran for safe keeping during the Persian Gulf war. Or am I mistaken?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... I seem to recall Iraq sending military hardware over to Iran for safe keeping during the Persian Gulf war. Or am I mistaken?
Yeah, some fighters. Then the Iranians said, "Ha ha! We're keeping them as war reperations...*****es.".
-
Originally posted by Excel1
Iraq + Iran = Irate
I think the dislike they have for the West will subdue the dislike they have for each other. And even if it didn't the shia would probably win a civil war anyway, through superior numbers,which probably would not be an unwelcome result in shia Iran.
Don't kid yourself, I've been there and they have plenty of hate to go around. And it's not just Shia and Sunni, though they be the major players, you've also got the wildcard of the Kurds, which noone else in the region likes or trusts, and Turkomen, and a few Christians, and some other small groups in Iraq. Then there are tribal and clan disputes on top of that, some of which go back many generations. Some of these disputes often result in small wars themselves.
A major Shia uprising against the Sunni may set off all their neighbors to the south and west who are mostly Sunni. They may find an ally in the Iranian Shia, but they are Persian, not Arab, so that throws a wrench in the works.
Then there's the economic equation: a Civil War, or multi-faceted war in the Persian Gulf will tank the U.S. economy, and the economies of several other countries such as Japan, and a few in Europe.
Iraq may have been under dictatoral rule, but it was at least stable and contained at the time, as well as being the most secular arab nation...then....now it's well on its way to being a nation under strict Islamic law and very likely Civil War.
Trying to invoke democratic rule in that secularly and triabally divided nation was a huge mistake. Firing 400,000 Iraqi military personnel after the Invasion was a second huge mistake. Those that did not become the core of the insurgency have turned to organized crime, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and black market operations. U.S. State Department has been screwing up by the numbers pretty regularly for a while now.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Like it or not, Iraq was more stable with Hussein than without.
I predict decades of this.
Many predicted this as a result when it was decided to take the bugger out. There will be a civil war there sooner or later and the occupation simply delayes that. The country needs to be settled from within. Staying in Iraq until one side or "govenrment" has the strength to deal with internal issues wont work either.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Trying to invoke democratic rule in that secularly and triabally divided nation was a huge mistake. Firing 400,000 Iraqi military personnel after the Invasion was a second huge mistake. Those that did not become the core of the insurgency have turned to organized crime, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and black market operations. U.S. State Department has been screwing up by the numbers pretty regularly for a while now.
How dare you say that !!! ??? I'm a send you a Cpt Virgil hiltz (how do i spell that?) and he's going to get all medieval on joo! Elitist scumm!!!111
-
:rofl Saw
Btw, Gunslinger, if you read Downding's post again, and with attention this time, you'll see that he never said that the bombing was part of a US tactic (or conspiracy). He just states that every time things go a bit more downhill over there, another great excuse comes up, most of times in total contradiction with previous excuses.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Don't kid yourself, I've been there and they have plenty of hate to go around. And it's not just Shia and Sunni, though they be the major players, you've also got the wildcard of the Kurds, which noone else in the region likes or trusts, and Turkomen, and a few Christians, and some other small groups in Iraq. Then there are tribal and clan disputes on top of that, some of which go back many generations. Some of these disputes often result in small wars themselves.
A major Shia uprising against the Sunni may set off all their neighbors to the south and west who are mostly Sunni. They may find an ally in the Iranian Shia, but they are Persian, not Arab, so that throws a wrench in the works.
Then there's the economic equation: a Civil War, or multi-faceted war in the Persian Gulf will tank the U.S. economy, and the economies of several other countries such as Japan, and a few in Europe.
Iraq may have been under dictatoral rule, but it was at least stable and contained at the time, as well as being the most secular arab nation...then....now it's well on its way to being a nation under strict Islamic law and very likely Civil War.
Trying to invoke democratic rule in that secularly and triabally divided nation was a huge mistake. Firing 400,000 Iraqi military personnel after the Invasion was a second huge mistake. Those that did not become the core of the insurgency have turned to organized crime, kidnapping for ransom, extortion, and black market operations. U.S. State Department has been screwing up by the numbers pretty regularly for a while now.
There's no substitute to eyeballing a situation fisrt hand to get a picture of it without all the clutter, as you have done. It reflects in your candid and informative post. As gloomy as they are, thanks for filling in some details.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
First Iraq was a WMD haven, threatening world peace with biological, chemical and nuclear armageddon via it's undisputed, unshakeable friendship with Al Queada.
Then it was a stable strategic base of operations for projecting power around the region.
Now it's a chaotic battle-ground designed to drag the whole of the middle east into a big quagmire?
Amazing how quickly excuses are dreamt up these days and how equally transitory they prove to be.
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
You guys crack me up.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
You guys crack me up.
Did I say that?
-
Yes... you did erm... sandman did.
BTW... your summary was pretty much spot on. You could apply it to most tribal nations. Many in Africa, some in the Middle east and a few up in the Balklands.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
You guys crack me up.
It's funny how you are so emotional about those pooooooor moslems murdered and oppressed* by the evil SH while at the same time wanting to nuke the whole islamic world.
You guys baffle me.
* btw, this was the worst excuse evar. At least, the 'imminent WMD threat' could have done a decent James Bond movie: not realistic at all, but entertaining.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Did I say that?
Sorry I quoted the wrong person.:aok
-
Nope, but keep spinning it ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sorry I quoted the wrong person.:aok
That explains it.. now explain it to Mini :D
-
I edited a little before your post nilsen. Sorry about that. Or... do I have to explain the edit to you?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
Rip, I believe you could say that about our civil war, minus the dictator. The problem, imo, is that we are interfering with the process that settles a civil war. They have to settle it themselves, and alot of people are going to die.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I edited a little before your post nilsen. Sorry about that. Or... do I have to explain the edit to you?
No its good thx.
My record of 10547 flawless posts still stands :aok
-
I'm still pulling for Iraq. This was almost certainly an Al Qaeda attack. The partisan politicos who are hopeful to see their dire predictions born out are secretely satisfied to see trouble in Iraq, but they underestimate Iraqis and they're oblivious to the fact that most Iraqis are capable of putting two and two together.
If the government and various religious leaders can hold together after this bombing of the holy shrine, Iraq will be able to weather anything Al Qaeda throws at them. Long live Iraq.
-
"Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability."
Who really give a flying fugg if they do? Let them kill each other. If they got tired of it then it would be up to themselves to shed thier own blodd to change thgings.
IMO it's certainly much better than sacrificing thousands of US and UK "citizens" to stop them.
But we're not there to "liberate" them and bestow "democracy." Then again you knew that.
If Hussein was the target the he would have been brought back to the US post haste to stand trial, like Noriega did ,for the attempted murder on Bush Sr - unless the assination plot was a contrived and convenient story too.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
It's funny how you are so emotional about those pooooooor moslems murdered and oppressed* by the evil SH while at the same time wanting to nuke the whole islamic world.
You guys baffle me.
* btw, this was the worst excuse evar. At least, the 'imminent WMD threat' could have done a decent James Bond movie: not realistic at all, but entertaining.
Very nice summation!
-
Originally posted by deSelys
It's funny how you are so emotional about those pooooooor moslems murdered and oppressed* by the evil SH while at the same time wanting to nuke the whole islamic world.
You guys baffle me.
* btw, this was the worst excuse evar. At least, the 'imminent WMD threat' could have done a decent James Bond movie: not realistic at all, but entertaining.
I believe if you do a post search, you'll find a very small minority that have said that. This is just what sticks in your mind, so that's what you use for a blanket statement for the majority.
-
Are you are part of that 'very small minority', Rip?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Are you are part of that 'very small minority', Rip?
Nope.
-
Ripsnort is part of the balled and plentiful. They are badass! :D
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
You guys crack me up.
U.S. has a history of doing just that.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Ripsnort is part of the balled and plentiful. They are badass! :D
Ahem... bald jokes are not helpful.
;)
-
Well, I suppose you've changed your mind then from the time you said, "You know how I feel about it... I'd turn the whole friggin' middle east into a glass parking lot." I remember it very clearly. Your written comment above surprised me, since I distinctly remember you saying it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... bald jokes are not helpful.
;)
that's not what he said. he said 'balled' (as in tea-bagged). not 'bald'.
which, considering the subject; seemed entirely appropriate.
-
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Divide the opposing team.. get them at each others throats in the most viscious and elemental way feasable. Of course.
:D
Who said Bush didnt have a plan or exit strategy? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Well, I suppose you've changed your mind then from the time you said, "You know how I feel about it... I'd turn the whole friggin' middle east into a glass parking lot." I remember it very clearly. Your written comment above surprised me, since I distinctly remember you saying it.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Well, Reagan made a speech about tearing down a wall that many viewed the same....
My interpretation of that speech was "If something like this happens again, on the same scale or larger, we WILL be heard"...or in short, we'll turn your country into the worlds largest glass parking lot.
Thats what you remember. My statement still stands. Its a minority.
-
yah.. struck me as funny too... funny as in german troops dressed in polish uniforms attacking a german radio station funny.
-
No, Rip. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. The phrases, "You said..." and "I remember you saying..." denote spoken language. Do you understand? Spoken, not written. You said those words on the local vox channel.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
No, Rip. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. The phrases, "You said..." and "I remember you saying..." denote spoken language. Do you understand? Spoken, not written. You said those words on the local vox channel.
Huh? I've not been on AH for something like 3 years...either way, my statement still stands. Minority.
-
Yes, it was a few years ago and you did say it. I remember it very clearly. You flew as a Knight and I even remember the people you were talking to. It's uncanny how the quote you pulled up about Reagan's speech used the same imagery and similar phrasing, isn't it?
I remember it so well because I thought is was such a 'Ripsnort-esque' thing to say. As if you were a caricature of yourself. It got a lot of laughs and chuckles at the time.
Well, there we have it. Either you've changed your mind, or maybe you just play to the audience.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Yes, it was a few years ago and you did say it. I remember it very clearly. You flew as a Knight and I even remember the people you were talking to. It's uncanny how the quote you pulled up about Reagan's speech used the same imagery and similar phrasing, isn't it?
I remember it so well because I thought is was such a 'Ripsnort-esque' thing to say. As if you were a caricature of yourself. It got a lot of laughs and chuckles at the time.
Well, there we have it. Either you've changed your mind, or maybe you just play to the audience.
Don't bother to refute the fact that its a minority voice, continue on with your assault on me. :rofl
-
Assaulting you? :D
We better get you to a victim counseling clinc soon. ;)
-
a government run one would be appropriate.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, we should have just let them sacrifice a few thousand citizens to brutal dictatorship each year in order to have stability.
You guys crack me up.
Prez Bush made a statement a couple months back that I simply loved. He mentioned that some 30,000 Iraqis had died in the pursuit of freedom and democracy in that country since the invasion (possibly a low figure too from what I saw in my little slice of hell while there), and he felt "it was worth it". :aok
I have to wonder how many dead is not worth it.....
Now if the CIC of the USA is willing to sacrifice Iraqis in job lots to get the job done, what have you got against a few thousand sacrificed for stability? :huh
Fewer Iraqis died each year and Iraq was THE most secular Arab nation under Saddam, and even though he was robbing the treasury blind, the public services were still in better shape before we blew them to smitherines. Torture, abuses, squalid prisons, cruellity.....sure that existed.....want to take a look at the world map at where else such "bad things" are taking place, and no one is doing much to change things (read as: no oil)?
Taking out a dictator was not one of the original reasons the USA went in to Iraq (and none of the official reasons given have ever realy tracked), and would be a very poor reason to give now, considering conditions in many other countries today.
Course, Saddam's two boys were FAR worse than the old man, and would taken things to a whole new level over there had they lived to take power..... even fans of Saddam are glad those two are dead and gone.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I'm still pulling for Iraq. This was almost certainly an Al Qaeda attack. The partisan politicos who are hopeful to see their dire predictions born out are secretely satisfied to see trouble in Iraq, but they underestimate Iraqis and they're oblivious to the fact that most Iraqis are capable of putting two and two together.
If the government and various religious leaders can hold together after this bombing of the holy shrine, Iraq will be able to weather anything Al Qaeda throws at them. Long live Iraq.
I dunno....most people in the region love to believe in conspirocy theories. A lot of Iraqis I met actually believed we could have ended the Insurgency in a couple months, but allows them to continue to justify occupying their country.
:noid
It is Gar-Un-TEED some Imams or Muftis have already made statements blaming the United States for the bombing.
:furious
And regadless of what they do or do not believe, how they choose to use the bombing to their own benefit will also come into it. There's a huge resentment of the Shia for the years they suffered under the Sunni, in a society that takes blood fueds and revenge very seriously --- almost the national sport. That includes those in government.
Originally posted by Westy
Who really give a flying fugg if they do? Let them kill each other. If they got tired of it then it would be up to themselves to shed thier own blodd to change thgings.
All about the oil. The Coallition Governments don't want the Middle East to implode because of ...(wait for it...) OIL. Iraq desolves into civil war, neighboing countries get dragged in on religious grounds, Persian Gulf is shut down. World economies collapse. Can we say "Energy Crisis"? I thought we could.
Nope, those in power are far more willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers and even civilians on the alter of self interest and commercialism. "And men with tall hats will thump their chests...." :confused:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I believe if you do a post search, you'll find a very small minority that have said that. This is just what sticks in your mind, so that's what you use for a blanket statement for the majority.
(looking at your avatar)
Clearly you have no interest in helping Muslims, your sole purpose is to be the blind-to-reality-GOP-puppet that you've always been:aok
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Taking out a dictator was not one of the original reasons the USA went in to Iraq
Yes it was. Its called Freedom from a dictator. You'll find it in the national archieves under Speeches given by President Bush.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
(looking at your avatar)
Clearly you have no interest in helping Muslims, your sole purpose is to be the blind-to-reality-GOP-puppet that you've always been:aok
Calling names doesn't help your arguement. :rofl
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
All about the oil. The Coallition Governments don't want the Middle East to implode because of ...(wait for it...) OIL. Iraq desolves into civil war, neighboing countries get dragged in on religious grounds, Persian Gulf is shut down. World economies collapse. Can we say "Energy Crisis"? I thought we could.
Nope, those in power are far more willing to sacrifice the lives of soldiers and even civilians on the alter of self interest and commercialism. "And men with tall hats will thump their chests...." :confused:
:noid :noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I'm still pulling for Iraq. This was almost certainly an Al Qaeda attack. The partisan politicos who are hopeful to see their dire predictions born out are secretely satisfied to see trouble in Iraq, but they underestimate Iraqis and they're oblivious to the fact that most Iraqis are capable of putting two and two together.
If the government and various religious leaders can hold together after this bombing of the holy shrine, Iraq will be able to weather anything Al Qaeda throws at them. Long live Iraq. [/B]
In Diyala, a religiously mixed province northeast of Baghdad, 47 bodies were found in a ditch. Officials said the victims appeared to have been stopped by gunmen, forced out of their cars and shot in an industrial area near Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. Most were aged between 20 and 50 and appeared to include both Sunnis and sh-i-i-tes, police said.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Huh? I've not been on AH for something like 3 years...
Off-topic, but.......
Damn, freakin' lurkers that don't even fly AH
:p
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes it was. Its called Freedom from a dictator. You'll find it in the national archieves under Speeches given by President Bush.
Getting rid of an "evil" dictator that was actively seeking to produce WMDs for the purpose of using them against the United States and was said to be considered a real and imminent threat, I think would be a little more accurate statement of one of the many original reasons given..... If it was simply freedom from a dictator, we'd have to invade another 20 countries or so.....
Besides....Bush sez many things in his speeches.... I personally like those that can be interpreted along the lines of "I'm going to do whatever I want" and "trust me, I know what I'm doing". :huh