HANS BLIX: A war of utter folly

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You know, it's bad enough that you're so ignorant - but that's ok if you are willing to listen. But when you're instead obnoxious about it, it's about as attractive as a nasty drunk.

Is it as nasty as someone suffering from BDS, who runs around screaming BDS while BDS'ing about BDS? I think not. Possibly the only thing worse would be a BDS'ing RPbot...

The word ignoramus isn't a name to throw around at random, it applies to you and not to me. You make a fool of yourself when you respond as you did.

Oooohhh...the I know you are but what am I routine....original, very original. Man, I didn't see that one coming... :shocked:

You clearly lack any understanding of the issue of the Iraq War, the UN and the US. You mix up unrelated issues when trying to discuss it and fail to show any awareness of the relevant issues. Are you aware of the concept of International Law, of the fact that the US has signed the UN's Charter which places restrictions on our use of our military to invade other nations (whether you like it or not), of the role of the UN in Bush's justification for invading Iraq, of the issue of the precedents we're setting for 'preventive war' by any nation?

What I'm aware of is that Iraq was controlled by a fruitcake. I'm aware he was smack dab in a region of vital importance to the US. I'm aware that radical Islamists, who get that way because they are brainwashed/mind F'd by people who were brainwashed/mind F'd and so on, killed 3,000 of our own civilians - on purpose - on 9/11...and scores more before. I'm aware that short of what we just did in Iraq, in no way will real change EVER happen in the ME so they get out of their mind F'dness. I'm aware that you'd trade long term progress in the ME - all the while letting the oppression and hate there build and build and build for however long it takes them to get out of it, if ever - until your precious UN did something about it...which means never. You'd gladly keep taking 9/11's in the face w/o doing anything to really solve the problem because unless you or yours were personally affected, you just don't want to offend anyone....civ deaths of your own population are much more preferable to that. I'm aware you have absoF'inglutely no long term vision and cannot objectively look at the risk/sacrifice vs. reward factors...in short, you fail at anything other than appeasement.

International Law...I LOL'd. Tell me Craig234, which law was going to go out after 9/11 and drag those responsible in to face trial? Which law was that? Oh? No such law? You mean, wait, laws don't actually do anything??? God...I...I just didn't realize that. Wow...thanks there for straightening me out. Man, I really thought laws or the UN would go and get OBL... Laws...god, that was funny.

Let someone who had a little idea about the military, the US's politics, and war say something that may give you a clue there's a little something wrong with Bush policy:

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[/quote]

Tell you what, you go wake Dwight on up, let him be POTUS in todays day and age, and then have him make the same quote. Then when he does, you can quote him here again. Until then, it does not apply.

Chuck

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Iraq hit pieces are coming out in numbers this year, just in time for our election season.

This isn't the first, and it won't be the last.

Uh oh. Must divert attention from Iraq debacle. Here come the stories about same sex marriages and right to life.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Iraq hit pieces are coming out in numbers this year, just in time for our election season.

This isn't the first, and it won't be the last.

Uh oh. Must divert attention from Iraq debacle. Here come the stories about same sex marriages and right to life.

Think that card is played out. 38 states banned gay marriage as of last election. The remaining 12 aren't likely to do so. Guess they'll have to find a new boogeyman. And given McCain's stand on immigration it won't be the Mexicans.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
All I see in this thread is a lot of ignorant American chest-beating.

Then you need to go back and read it again. I'm pretty sure many of those who are against the war are from the US. I know I am.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: chucky2
The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

Number one, I thought this wasn't a war about oil? Number two, don't you see a problem with that statement? Since when do we (the US) have a right to invade a country because we *think* it might become unstable and interfere with our precious oil supply? Number three, the price of oil has done what since we invaded? Your argument doesn't hold any water.

Originally posted by: chucky2
Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Tried 3 times and still can't make sense of that.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

Saddam had nuclear weapons now?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

Saddam had nuclear weapons now?

He's getting the Koolaid via IV

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: chucky2
The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

Number one, I thought this wasn't a war about oil?

Specifically about acquiring oil? No, I doubt very much it was about that. But we didn't choose Saddam to on, he chose himself, again, for the 14th time. But we for sure didn't go in because just on a UN resolution and that's it. The reality is that Iraq is right smack dab in oil country.

Number two, don't you see a problem with that statement? Since when do we (the US) have a right to invade a country because we *think* it might become unstable and interfere with our precious oil supply?

All things added up (14 UN resolutions, intelligence (some faulty, some not) about WMD, Saddam thumbing his nose at #14 - like he did the past 13 - while we're trying to show we're not F'ing around with sh1tpot dictators anymore on terrorism, long term change in the ME, Iraq being in the ME where we get the majority of our oil from, etc), No, I don't see a problem with what should be your revised #1 statement. Iraq could have/should have been dealt with the other 13 times...but no one called Saddam's bluff and he laughed all the way to his next oppression of his people.

Number three, the price of oil has done what since we invaded? Your argument doesn't hold any water.

I wasn't aware that was us being in Iraq...I thought that had a little something to do with peak oil output, demand continuing to grow, oil speculators driving up the price of oil artificially, etc.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: chucky2
Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Tried 3 times and still can't make sense of that.

Let me try and make it simple: Going into Iraq is the big time, not some backwoods redneck bet on a $500 POS pickup truck. We make Iraq work, the ME can be made to join the Western world someday in the next century. We keep having this internal We're bad because we're imperialists BS debate, and take our eye off the long term opportunity, then we'll have yet another Vietnam on our hands, only this time it's in a place we're the suicide bomber is revered and they're radically nuts (not the majority, but then you don't need the majority to cause a 9/11 or other future event). The oil is nice to have if it can be made to work...it's not the most important thing.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

Saddam had nuclear weapons now?

He's getting the Koolaid via IV

It appears he didn't. That said, What is the sit on your @ss crowd's solution to when in 5, 10, 15 years he did? Then Iran gets them. Then maybe SA, and/or Egypt. You've got a culture of big ego's, radical fruitcakes, and right now basically the major sole source of our energy for transportation sitting there.

So, when - not if - it happens and Saddam and others are holding Aces instead of 3's...

...where's your solution to counter that?

Don't say "Diplomacy". That's a cop out, it don't work...diplomacy got 13 meaningless UN resolutions. Give me your real options as POTUS when that happens...

P.S. In the meantime, you still haven't touched the brainwashing in that entire region to produce radicals, which then go bread new generations of radicals. So that's two long term issues that haven't even started being touched. Better get busy...the water is getting deep...

Chuck

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

Saddam had nuclear weapons now?

He's getting the Koolaid via IV

It appears he didn't. That said, What is the sit on your @ss crowd's solution to when in 5, 10, 15 years he did? Then Iran gets them. Then maybe SA, and/or Egypt. You've got a culture of big ego's, radical fruitcakes, and right now basically the major sole source of our energy for transportation sitting there.

So, when - not if - it happens and Saddam and others are holding Aces instead of 3's...

...where's your solution to counter that?

Don't say "Diplomacy". That's a cop out, it don't work...diplomacy got 13 meaningless UN resolutions. Give me your real options as POTUS when that happens...

P.S. In the meantime, you still haven't touched the brainwashing in that entire region to produce radicals, which then go bread new generations of radicals. So that's two long term issues that haven't even started being touched. Better get busy...the water is getting deep...

Chuck

the answer is diplomacy.

if you don't like it too bad. Your alternative of "shoot first fvck things up later" didn't work out so well in Iraq I doubt it would be much more successful in the future.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: OrByte

the answer is diplomacy.

if you don't like it too bad. Your alternative of "shoot first fvck things up later" didn't work out so well in Iraq I doubt it would be much more successful in the future.

Somehow I knew that'd be the answer given...diplomacy... Well OrByte, when Obama gets elected, you'll get your wish.

I can't decide what I'm going to have stronger feelings about the most: Watching our country get played all day, or, watching you moron appeasers make lame-o excuses on why "diplomacy" will fail us miserably with people who have absolutely not common intentions to let diplomacy work towards.

Either way, it'll be entertaining...

Chuck

P.S. If the Iraqi's and foreign terrorists (who are Islamic) would stop killing each other in Iraq, just maybe, maybe the country could get on a better track. It's been doing better than the cr@p it was doing before, but, still a long way to go.

P.P.S. We didn't shoot first...Saddam could have complied the other 13 UN resolution times, and on the 14th, had options presented to him. He instead chose on all those 14 occassions to play the World...looks like on #14 it caught up with him.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: chucky2
...
What I'm aware of is that Iraq was controlled by a fruitcake. I'm aware he was smack dab in a region of vital importance to the US. I'm aware that radical Islamists, who get that way because they are brainwashed/mind F'd by people who were brainwashed/mind F'd and so on, killed 3,000 of our own civilians - on purpose - on 9/11...and scores more before. I'm aware that short of what we just did in Iraq, in no way will real change EVER happen in the ME so they get out of their mind F'dness. I'm aware that you'd trade long term progress in the ME - all the while letting the oppression and hate there build and build and build for however long it takes them to get out of it, if ever - until your precious UN did something about it...which means never. You'd gladly keep taking 9/11's in the face w/o doing anything to really solve the problem because unless you or yours were personally affected, you just don't want to offend anyone....civ deaths of your own population are much more preferable to that. I'm aware you have absoF'inglutely no long term vision and cannot objectively look at the risk/sacrifice vs. reward factors...in short, you fail at anything other than appeasement.

International Law...I LOL'd. Tell me Craig234, which law was going to go out after 9/11 and drag those responsible in to face trial? Which law was that? Oh? No such law? You mean, wait, laws don't actually do anything??? God...I...I just didn't realize that. Wow...thanks there for straightening me out. Man, I really thought laws or the UN would go and get OBL... Laws...god, that was funny.
...
Chuck

Could you conflate 9/11 and Iraq a few more times, if at all possible?

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: OrByte

the answer is diplomacy.

if you don't like it too bad. Your alternative of "shoot first fvck things up later" didn't work out so well in Iraq I doubt it would be much more successful in the future.

Somehow I knew that'd be the answer given...diplomacy... Well OrByte, when Obama gets elected, you'll get your wish.

I can't decide what I'm going to have stronger feelings about the most: Watching our country get played all day, or, watching you moron appeasers make lame-o excuses on why "diplomacy" will fail us miserably with people who have absolutely not common intentions to let diplomacy work towards.

Either way, it'll be entertaining...

Chuck

P.S. If the Iraqi's and foreign terrorists (who are Islamic) would stop killing each other in Iraq, just maybe, maybe the country could get on a better track. It's been doing better than the cr@p it was doing before, but, still a long way to go.

P.P.S. We didn't shoot first...Saddam could have complied the other 13 UN resolution times, and on the 14th, had options presented to him. He instead chose on all those 14 occassions to play the World...looks like on #14 it caught up with him.

Sort of like the moron war mongers and their excuse for a false war.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: chucky2
lets let Hans find nothing - again - and pass yet another resolution that won't be enforced (unless of course the US enforces it, because, well, we're such imperialists), and then in 5, 10, 20 years, Surprise!!! Saddam/Saddam's sons have nukes!

Now what?

Nothing. They bark a lot and do not do anything else because they know we will vaporize them if they do. We always hold the trump card. Unless we piss off the rest of the world so much they stop supporting us.

The last time I checked, oil from the ME was sorta an important US interest. The last time I checked, it is a matter of ease to transport anything anywhere in the world once you have it.

So when you're talking about a nutjob that's sitting right smack in the middle of the ME, and he's a nut, and he's got The Bomb, that's really not a good situation for US to be in. You want to really prevent that if at all possible.

Once he's got a nuke, it can be deployed anywhere....you're overwhelming military advantage just got reduced to who's willing to sacrifice very expensive and very high profile assests first. You as POTUS are going to push a carrier group or two into the straight with Iraq - and then Iran, because once Iraq gets one+, Iran has to have one+ - to project power? I don't think so. Next time Saddam/whoever wants to take his military for a walk you think you as POTUS are just going to freebie buildup in Kuwait/SA? I don't think so. Not when the prospect is they'll be ash. Unlike the US, the rest of the world isn't held to the spotlight, nor do they give a F...especially when they're sitting on a commodity that they've got and everyone wants.

Get real here. This is hedge'ing at an international level...you don't come out behind and lose just you beat up pickup truck on an errant pool shot.

Chuck

Saddam had nuclear weapons now?

He's getting the Koolaid via IV

It appears he didn't. That said, What is the sit on your @ss crowd's solution to when in 5, 10, 15 years he did? Then Iran gets them. Then maybe SA, and/or Egypt. You've got a culture of big ego's, radical fruitcakes, and right now basically the major sole source of our energy for transportation sitting there.

So, when - not if - it happens and Saddam and others are holding Aces instead of 3's...

...where's your solution to counter that?

Don't say "Diplomacy". That's a cop out, it don't work...diplomacy got 13 meaningless UN resolutions. Give me your real options as POTUS when that happens...

P.S. In the meantime, you still haven't touched the brainwashing in that entire region to produce radicals, which then go bread new generations of radicals. So that's two long term issues that haven't even started being touched. Better get busy...the water is getting deep...

Chuck

Well it looks like the Iraq war certainly hasnt stopped Iran from pursuing the nuclear option. So will be invade them next? And if every country in that region starts its own WMD program, are we going to occupy them all to prevent it?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2
...
What I'm aware of is that Iraq was controlled by a fruitcake. I'm aware he was smack dab in a region of vital importance to the US. I'm aware that radical Islamists, who get that way because they are brainwashed/mind F'd by people who were brainwashed/mind F'd and so on, killed 3,000 of our own civilians - on purpose - on 9/11...and scores more before. I'm aware that short of what we just did in Iraq, in no way will real change EVER happen in the ME so they get out of their mind F'dness. I'm aware that you'd trade long term progress in the ME - all the while letting the oppression and hate there build and build and build for however long it takes them to get out of it, if ever - until your precious UN did something about it...which means never. You'd gladly keep taking 9/11's in the face w/o doing anything to really solve the problem because unless you or yours were personally affected, you just don't want to offend anyone....civ deaths of your own population are much more preferable to that. I'm aware you have absoF'inglutely no long term vision and cannot objectively look at the risk/sacrifice vs. reward factors...in short, you fail at anything other than appeasement.

International Law...I LOL'd. Tell me Craig234, which law was going to go out after 9/11 and drag those responsible in to face trial? Which law was that? Oh? No such law? You mean, wait, laws don't actually do anything??? God...I...I just didn't realize that. Wow...thanks there for straightening me out. Man, I really thought laws or the UN would go and get OBL... Laws...god, that was funny.
...
Chuck

Could you conflate 9/11 and Iraq a few more times, if at all possible?

I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - it wasn't.

The point is that 9/11 events are going to keep happening in the future until the ME changes as a whole. Oppression is going to keep happening over there until the ME changes as a whole. Iraq is central to all the powerhouse countries there - minus Pakistan - so "fixing" Iraq is as good a place to start as any.

It's not going to be short. It won't be deliverd in the McDonald's timeframes American's want to see things happen in. It's going to keep the 15 seconds of bad images on TV/Internet that so inconvience 99% of Americans, oh the horror. Even worse, it may cause some of us to not be able to afford teh $9 double choco moca latte everyday...might cause some of us to not max out the credit cards and drive a 17mph SUV 50 miles to work and back each day.

But, in the long long long run...it'll have been worth it........if it's handled correctly.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Sort of like the moron war mongers and their excuse for a false war.

I like the catchy phrases you all come up with...illegal war...false war...immoral war...

...when is there a "true" war? Or "moral" war? Just want to get it straight from you...it's when it serves the purposes you want right? Just wait till Obama goes into Sudan/Africa and we start losing people left and right...I cannot wait for you "illegal war" types to come in here and start throwing around the BS excuses...it'll be fun to watch and painful to see on TV...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Well it looks like the Iraq war certainly hasnt stopped Iran from pursuing the nuclear option. So will be invade them next? And if every country in that region starts its own WMD program, are we going to occupy them all to prevent it?

Invade Iran? Unlike Iraq, people other than Iran actually care about Iran...so that's never going to happen. Most that will happen there will be any military equipment we run across of theirs will be easily sold by them to salvage companies as scrap...after we destroy the living sh1t out of it. Iranian Leadership just needs to keep having pressure put on it, and just play a waiting game. Once the younger generations get older and start having influence, Adwhateverhisnameis will be gone, as the rest of the majority of hard liners. In the meantime, the Iranians will get to enjoy the effects of their Leaderships decisions...how's that going for them right now?

Short of SA, no other country other than Iran would even want to go the nuke route...just wouldn't benefit them. Egypt could...but they won't. Turkey...No. What would the little guys there do/want with a nuke? Just not worth the expenditure for them, especially when they can't protect it like Iran could.

What other unlikely scenarios are next that you come up with to try and get away from the fact that not ever having to worry about Saddam doing something stupid and reckless again is a good thing? That, properly supported and handled, a good relationship with Iraqi's is a good thing for the ME?

You can't, I know...it's much easier to pull an EU and bitch...

Chuck

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Well it looks like the Iraq war certainly hasnt stopped Iran from pursuing the nuclear option. So will be invade them next? And if every country in that region starts its own WMD program, are we going to occupy them all to prevent it?

Invade Iran? Unlike Iraq, people other than Iran actually care about Iran...so that's never going to happen. Most that will happen there will be any military equipment we run across of theirs will be easily sold by them to salvage companies as scrap...after we destroy the living sh1t out of it. Iranian Leadership just needs to keep having pressure put on it, and just play a waiting game. Once the younger generations get older and start having influence, Adwhateverhisnameis will be gone, as the rest of the majority of hard liners. In the meantime, the Iranians will get to enjoy the effects of their Leaderships decisions...how's that going for them right now?

Short of SA, no other country other than Iran would even want to go the nuke route...just wouldn't benefit them. Egypt could...but they won't. Turkey...No. What would the little guys there do/want with a nuke? Just not worth the expenditure for them, especially when they can't protect it like Iran could.

What other unlikely scenarios are next that you come up with to try and get away from the fact that not ever having to worry about Saddam doing something stupid and reckless again is a good thing? That, properly supported and handled, a good relationship with Iraqi's is a good thing for the ME?

You can't, I know...it's much easier to pull an EU and bitch...

Chuck

Well its not different than the unlikely scenario that Saddam would have gotten WMDs...

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Sort of like the moron war mongers and their excuse for a false war.

I like the catchy phrases you all come up with...illegal war...false war...immoral war...

...when is there a "true" war? Or "moral" war? Just want to get it straight from you...it's when it serves the purposes you want right? Just wait till Obama goes into Sudan/Africa and we start losing people left and right...I cannot wait for you "illegal war" types to come in here and start throwing around the BS excuses...it'll be fun to watch and painful to see on TV...

Chuck

What evidence do you have that Obama supports such actions? The Afghan war was one that was needed to rid the country of the Taliban. Iraq posed to danger to us and should have never been invaded.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2
...
What I'm aware of is that Iraq was controlled by a fruitcake. I'm aware he was smack dab in a region of vital importance to the US. I'm aware that radical Islamists, who get that way because they are brainwashed/mind F'd by people who were brainwashed/mind F'd and so on, killed 3,000 of our own civilians - on purpose - on 9/11...and scores more before. I'm aware that short of what we just did in Iraq, in no way will real change EVER happen in the ME so they get out of their mind F'dness. I'm aware that you'd trade long term progress in the ME - all the while letting the oppression and hate there build and build and build for however long it takes them to get out of it, if ever - until your precious UN did something about it...which means never. You'd gladly keep taking 9/11's in the face w/o doing anything to really solve the problem because unless you or yours were personally affected, you just don't want to offend anyone....civ deaths of your own population are much more preferable to that. I'm aware you have absoF'inglutely no long term vision and cannot objectively look at the risk/sacrifice vs. reward factors...in short, you fail at anything other than appeasement.

International Law...I LOL'd. Tell me Craig234, which law was going to go out after 9/11 and drag those responsible in to face trial? Which law was that? Oh? No such law? You mean, wait, laws don't actually do anything??? God...I...I just didn't realize that. Wow...thanks there for straightening me out. Man, I really thought laws or the UN would go and get OBL... Laws...god, that was funny.
...
Chuck

Could you conflate 9/11 and Iraq a few more times, if at all possible?

I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - it wasn't.

The point is that 9/11 events are going to keep happening in the future until the ME changes as a whole. Oppression is going to keep happening over there until the ME changes as a whole. Iraq is central to all the powerhouse countries there - minus Pakistan - so "fixing" Iraq is as good a place to start as any.

It's not going to be short. It won't be deliverd in the McDonald's timeframes American's want to see things happen in. It's going to keep the 15 seconds of bad images on TV/Internet that so inconvience 99% of Americans, oh the horror. Even worse, it may cause some of us to not be able to afford teh $9 double choco moca latte everyday...might cause some of us to not max out the credit cards and drive a 17mph SUV 50 miles to work and back each day.

But, in the long long long run...it'll have been worth it........if it's handled correctly.

Chuck

So we defeat opression by occupying a country and causing the deaths of a 100,000+ of its citizens?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: chucky2
...
What I'm aware of is that Iraq was controlled by a fruitcake. I'm aware he was smack dab in a region of vital importance to the US. I'm aware that radical Islamists, who get that way because they are brainwashed/mind F'd by people who were brainwashed/mind F'd and so on, killed 3,000 of our own civilians - on purpose - on 9/11...and scores more before. I'm aware that short of what we just did in Iraq, in no way will real change EVER happen in the ME so they get out of their mind F'dness. I'm aware that you'd trade long term progress in the ME - all the while letting the oppression and hate there build and build and build for however long it takes them to get out of it, if ever - until your precious UN did something about it...which means never. You'd gladly keep taking 9/11's in the face w/o doing anything to really solve the problem because unless you or yours were personally affected, you just don't want to offend anyone....civ deaths of your own population are much more preferable to that. I'm aware you have absoF'inglutely no long term vision and cannot objectively look at the risk/sacrifice vs. reward factors...in short, you fail at anything other than appeasement.

International Law...I LOL'd. Tell me Craig234, which law was going to go out after 9/11 and drag those responsible in to face trial? Which law was that? Oh? No such law? You mean, wait, laws don't actually do anything??? God...I...I just didn't realize that. Wow...thanks there for straightening me out. Man, I really thought laws or the UN would go and get OBL... Laws...god, that was funny.
...
Chuck

Could you conflate 9/11 and Iraq a few more times, if at all possible?

I'm not saying Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - it wasn't.

The point is that 9/11 events are going to keep happening in the future until the ME changes as a whole. Oppression is going to keep happening over there until the ME changes as a whole. Iraq is central to all the powerhouse countries there - minus Pakistan - so "fixing" Iraq is as good a place to start as any.

It's not going to be short. It won't be deliverd in the McDonald's timeframes American's want to see things happen in. It's going to keep the 15 seconds of bad images on TV/Internet that so inconvience 99% of Americans, oh the horror. Even worse, it may cause some of us to not be able to afford teh $9 double choco moca latte everyday...might cause some of us to not max out the credit cards and drive a 17mph SUV 50 miles to work and back each day.

But, in the long long long run...it'll have been worth it........if it's handled correctly.

Chuck

That... Wasn't... Our... Mission.

It's still bullshit.

 

[NeoV]

is it just me, or is it HIGHLY unlikely that an active, deployed captain in the SAS is posting in the AT P&N forum?

Also, I would argue that Iraq was the least 'central' country in the ME if you want to talk about reform - Saudi Arabia, far and away, is at the top of that list IMO.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: NeoV
is it just me, or is it HIGHLY unlikely that an active, deployed captain in the SAS is posting in the AT P&N forum?

Also, I would argue that Iraq was the least 'central' country in the ME if you want to talk about reform - Saudi Arabia, far and away, is at the top of that list IMO.

Internet tough guy, that's what he is.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Well its not different than the unlikely scenario that Saddam would have gotten WMDs...

I didn't say Saddam would have got them next week...eventually - 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road - he would have. That is in now way a prospect we should be rolling dice on. We already have the N. Korea cat out of the back F'up...at least that's not in the #1 area of strategic importance to the US though...

Chuck