HANS BLIX: A war of utter folly

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: 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.

Please now....lets keep it real. Do you seriously think that after all the black voters in the US get Obama elected, that he's going to abandon Africa??? Hahahahahahahaha!!! If you think that, you are beyond hope. We'll be going into Africa for absolute certain, you can bet on it. How long do you want to wait until Iraq did pose danger to us or our interests? Would that be before or after our military advantage was cut to nothing?

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

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

I wasn't aware US troops had killed 100k civilians??? What??? You mean it's the Iraqi's themselves and their brother Muslims from neighboring countries doing so??? Ahhh....so, it's not we doing it, it's they to themselves. Got it.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

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.

I totally agree. But:

Do you think the rest of the world was going to let us go into SA? No. Did the rest of the world really care about Saddam? No. Pick another country that's significant that we could go into over there without the world actually taking a real stand...there isn't one. Saddam trying to play the international community yet again just happened at an opportune time...and post 9/11...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.
They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

How long do you think we should "help" them? And at what cost? If things are the same a decade from now, do we still stay?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

You sound a lot like Osama bin Laden. He, too, knows what's best for the US, and doesn't care about the violence needed to pursue what he thinks should happen.

You're an ignorant, immoral citizen to think the US should run around starting wars against anyone who you aren't comfortable being in power.

That's not defense, that's not freedom, that's tyranny and empire and murder. Somehow, our nation didn't have a need to conquer England, merely to defend against England's attacks. Somehow, our nation got through the cold war without having to rule the world, without having to put people we wanted having weapons in charge of every nation in the world. Is any one nation being able to put people it wants in charge of every nation in the world what's best for the world? Ever hear 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'?

We're having enough trouble with our own 'elites' increasing their own wealth and power at the expense of the American middle class, and rolling back the middle class gains since FDR, if not Teddy Roosevelt, and something the world doesn't really need is further concentration of power - something it's wrong to see so-called conservatives who don't know the meaning of the word fighting to get in an increasingly corrupt fashion, as barriers to starting wars, torture and more are taken down.

It's not the US's task to remake the Middle East as it wants it to be, any more than it's the extremists in the middle east's role to try to dominate the US.

We need cooperative government between the regions, not war, and make no mistake, you have an agenda of war.

Yes, it's right for us to push for more democracy and freedom in the Middle East - but you don't seem to know how much the west was involved in setting up undemocratic regimes there already, and continuing to support them. For example, Egypt is well known to have a large torture program - and yet we usually give them aid perhaps second only to Israel, and even have been known in recent years to use their torture program for our prisoners.
We can push democracy peacefully.

Face it, Chucky - you are not pursuing any principled policy, but you are instead simply pursuing the same sort of misguided, evil empire the US has opposed since its founding.

In the same way a weakened population in Germany found themselves seduced by someone offering power and strength, who gave them a target for hate, you are a member of a weakened population who is easily seduced with the offer for power for your tribe, and screw the price others pay for it, and you have a nice group to hate, too, who you just happen to be happy to see killed by the hundreds of thousands, with (more) millions possibly to come (you haven't complained about the million Iranians in the 80's have you?)

The Middle East won't be any peaceful region anytime soon if the US corrects its policy, but that doesn't justify our policies of causing and exploiting the situation's getting worse any more than the US's civil war would have justified France using the opportunity to come in and reshape the US to suit its desire for power, including by broadening the war and increasing the casualties, occupying our nation with talk of a military presence ready to act if we make them nervous for '100 years and longer'.

Your side has not learned some of the most basic lessons - such as why the US was mistaken to arm Saddam with WMD's in the early 80's, under Reagan; why the US was wrong to encourage Saddam's war with Iran, the longest war of the 20th century, and create enemies who understand the only defense against the US you are pushing for of empire is a nuclear weapon. What we won't do for cheaper oil - since replacing democracy in Iran with the Shah, and the British for decades before that, *creating* the very radical Muslim organizations you are so worried about, because it served their interests of empire to have those radical groups fighting the nationalists who opposed the British domination.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: 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

What do you base this one? Through what means would he have gotten those weapons? Doesnt seem like its somthing he could hide from the international community (ALA the Korean & Iranian nuclear programs) and we could have dealt with it when the time came.

The sanctions seemed to have worked...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: 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

What do you base this one? Through what means would he have gotten those weapons? Doesnt seem like its somthing he could hide from the international community (ALA the Korean & Iranian nuclear programs) and we could have dealt with it when the time came.

The sanctions seemed to have worked...

Saddam only needed 6 months! XMas 2003 would have been Nuclear for sure!!!!

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

Yes, giving them good reason to hate you is the best strategy of all!

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

You dont we can prevent another 9/11 with improved security measures? This boogeyman argument is ridiculous.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.
They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

How long do you think we should "help" them? And at what cost? If things are the same a decade from now, do we still stay?

You need to backup a little. First, the average person over in Iraq or Afghan wants our help. They may not want to die for our help, and if/when it gets that bad, they're going to want us to leave because they just want to stop dying, no matter the long term cost to themselves as a people. If they're not dying, or living in sh1thole conditions, then they will take our help.

So the immediate concern first is it stable enough to begin helping them. Up to now, the answer largely has been No. It's not been us running around and shooting up the place, it's the insurgents/terrorists...their own people. They know this, we know this. So until you get the insurgents/terrorists to stop causing problems, real progress there isn't going to happen. To defeat the insurgents/terrorists, we cannot do that all on our own. We need their help.

Why would someone who doesn't have 50 Marine's parked next to her going to put her and her kids @sses on the line to tip off that she knows something about someone we need to go take care of? What assurences does she have that she'll be protected, her kids will be protected? We're asking her to take that leap of faith - in a society where mistrust and repression has reigned for decades upon decades - and believe in US. That's a very big leap of faith to make...yet many many of those people over there make it, and many pay with their lives - which they know can happen...yet they still do it. Contrast that with the insurgents/terrorists living right there with them...they are the same population, they are there the entire time. What kind of faith does it take in someone to take that leap with POS's living right there, and put theirselves and their families on the line? Not the line at Starbuck's, or Wendy's, or the day spa. It's not because they think we're imperialists there for their women and oil, that's for sure...

So back to your first question, "How long do you think we should "help" them?" I'll answer that by saying, As long as they're reaching out for it in even a significant minority, we should help. When you ask people directly in the fire to make that leap of faith, you d@mn well better be there for them. When you're not, it's 1000x worse than never being there for them at all.

At what cost? Well, for us, there's the rub. It's not the money...the US is rediculously rich. If we didn't lose one life but it cost $2T for Iraq to be long term stable and friendly to the US/West, it'd be worth the whiny people here having to cut back and maybe not get that $9 Starbuck's coffee each morning, and maybe they'd have to get an Explorer instead of an Expedition to drive their sole self to work on the highway each day...oh, the horror...

But it's not just money, it's our own people going to die...so that's a good question. The realistic sh1t answer is that as long as the death rate is low, as it's been, it's probably long term worth it to us as a nation. It will never be truly worth it to the families who lose family, but as a nation, it is. If the numbers start going up significantly, then we get forced to make the lose-win/win-lose choice of abandoning a people who put theirselves on the line for us vs. us not taking more casualties.

The same things apply to the Afghani's as to the Iraqi's...

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Yes, giving them good reason to hate you is the best strategy of all!

Who's the "them" again? The radicals? They already hate us...they're not going to be changing their opinions.

The "them" certainly isn't the mainstream Iraqi population. I want the Leadership (both political and religious) over there to change guard. With them comes the population. Your way will never accomplish that. Eventually, if handled correctly, the way we're going now will.

Long term, it's worth it.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

You dont we can prevent another 9/11 with improved security measures? This boogeyman argument is ridiculous.

We can't prevent illegals we know are coming across our borders by the hundreds/thousands each day...do you honestly believe we'd be able to prevent another 9/11 type attack if we just sat back and improved our own domestic security measures????

We will never "win" this fight if we just do the typical American least amount of effort so I don't have to be inconvienced thing...it will take actual effort, you know, spine. I know it's lacking in a lot of people now a days, it's been PC'd out of so many, but, that's what it's going to take.

I guess we'll see if we still have it as a country....the radicals have it and recruits that have it in spades....

Chuck

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

You dont we can prevent another 9/11 with improved security measures? This boogeyman argument is ridiculous.

We can't prevent illegals we know are coming across our borders by the hundreds/thousands each day...do you honestly believe we'd be able to prevent another 9/11 type attack if we just sat back and improved our own domestic security measures????

We will never "win" this fight if we just do the typical American least amount of effort so I don't have to be inconvienced thing...it will take actual effort, you know, spine. I know it's lacking in a lot of people now a days, it's been PC'd out of so many, but, that's what it's going to take.

I guess we'll see if we still have it as a country....the radicals have it and recruits that have it in spades....

Chuck

There are radicals Islamists in virtually every middle eastern country. Do you intend to occupy all of those nations in order to reform them? Do you not realize they use the US occupation for further their hatred towards us and recruit more people for their cause?

How many Al Qaeda members were there before we invaded Iraq vs after?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that pressure from us (and by implication attacking them in Iraq, etc.) will somehow solve the problem of radical islam. I see absolutely no reason to believe this. In effect, your argument is invalid. Outside pressure on a culturally cohesive group tends to radicalize people further, not the other way around.

This is the false choice that is presented to us all the damn time. Either A.) Do nothing or B.) Attack Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc. This is a load of shit. How about C.) Engage them culturally, economically, and politically. That's how we make enemies into friends, we attack them with our culture and we make them like us.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

You sound a lot like Osama bin Laden. He, too, knows what's best for the US, and doesn't care about the violence needed to pursue what he thinks should happen.

You're an ignorant, immoral citizen to think the US should run around starting wars against anyone who you aren't comfortable being in power.

That's not defense, that's not freedom, that's tyranny and empire and murder. <snip>

Maybe in a weird way it is somewhat OBL like...certainly he has vision, it's just at total odds with what the West or even mainstream Muslims want. The difference Craig is that I don't want any civ's to die. I don't want them to submit before us. I don't care if they wear 5 burkah's instead of 1.

I do care however when they fly planes into our civ buildings on purpose. I do care when they kidnap and behead people. I do care when they stone a woman to death because she wasn't escorted by a male family member and happened to get a ride home with a friend. I do find it completely F'tard to riot over a cartoon, or want a teacher (who exists there to help their own people be learned) to be hung because their own kids were allowed to name a F'ing stuffed bear Mohammed.

The difference between you and I Craig is that you would have everything - and more - in my "do care" section keep continuing for as long as they wanted until they changed...if ever. You prefer that course of action instead of taking steps to try and change it. Which makes you a complete and utter moron. In total. You also get a Fail on human rights. You get a Fail on your kids, grandkids, etc. future. And you get a Fail on national responsibility, because, as you correctly stated, the West/US has had in that region in a F'd up manner for many years before Iraq.

I know it inconviences you to have to watch the TV/Internet images flash for a total of 1 minute a day. I know instead of another 1000 points on the Dow while you're slurping down your Starbuck's you see that another Marine died...god, that must be really hard on you. Then you turn the page and Britney is pregnant again and it's all better. Don't worry Craig, there are those who are sacrificing for your/our/West's long term security, all the while trying to help the non-radical's over there.

What a mind warper huh? :roll:

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that pressure from us (and by implication attacking them in Iraq, etc.) will somehow solve the problem of radical islam. I see absolutely no reason to believe this. In effect, your argument is invalid. Outside pressure on a culturally cohesive group tends to radicalize people further, not the other way around.

This is the false choice that is presented to us all the damn time. Either A.) Do nothing or B.) Attack Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc. This is a load of shit. How about C.) Engage them culturally, economically, and politically. That's how we make enemies into friends, we attack them with our culture and we make them like us.

Cool, that sounds ideal! (I actually agree with you).

So, go ahead and engage Saddam, radical Iranian Leadership, radical Taliban, and radical NW territory Leadership. After that utterly fails, get back to us on your next idea.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

You dont we can prevent another 9/11 with improved security measures? This boogeyman argument is ridiculous.

We can't prevent illegals we know are coming across our borders by the hundreds/thousands each day...do you honestly believe we'd be able to prevent another 9/11 type attack if we just sat back and improved our own domestic security measures????

We will never "win" this fight if we just do the typical American least amount of effort so I don't have to be inconvienced thing...it will take actual effort, you know, spine. I know it's lacking in a lot of people now a days, it's been PC'd out of so many, but, that's what it's going to take.

I guess we'll see if we still have it as a country....the radicals have it and recruits that have it in spades....

Chuck

There are radicals Islamists in virtually every middle eastern country. Do you intend to occupy all of those nations in order to reform them? Do you not realize they use the US occupation for further their hatred towards us and recruit more people for their cause?

How many Al Qaeda members were there before we invaded Iraq vs after?

No, that's impossible. Iraq was basically the only country we could do what we've done to. It's center to the region...if it can be made to positively work, then that will be our in. If it can't, we're F'd. Afghanistan was another, but no one in the world gave even a 1/10th of a sh1t about the Taliban, so no one was getting in our way on that one...

Chuck

 

[cliftonite]

Maybe in a weird way it is somewhat OBL like...certainly he has vision, it's just at total odds with what the West or even mainstream Muslims want. The difference Craig is that I don't want any civ's to die. I don't want them to submit before us.

So why are we occupying their country

I do care however when they fly planes into our civ buildings on purpose.

What did Iraq have to do with this?


I do care when they kidnap and behead people. I do care when they stone a woman to death because she wasn't escorted by a male family member and happened to get a ride home with a friend. I do find it completely F'tard to riot over a cartoon, or want a teacher (who exists there to help their own people be learned) to be hung because their own kids were allowed to name a F'ing stuffed bear Mohammed.

And we are now the thought/moral police? Will be invade every country that has these obscene laws? I hear they cane people for littering in Singapore, perhaps we should invade them next? And what about China? They have a despicable human rights record as well.

The difference between you and I Craig is that you would have everything - and more - in my "do care" section keep continuing for as long as they wanted until they changed...if ever. You prefer that course of action instead of taking steps to try and change it. Which makes you a complete and utter moron.


So waging war and occupying nations is a better alternate to diplomacy? Whats with the personal attack?

In total. You also get a Fail on human rights. You get a Fail on your kids, grandkids, etc. future. And you get a Fail on national responsibility, because, as you correctly stated, the West/US has had in that region in a F'd up manner for many years before Iraq.

As opposed to the imperialistic doctorine that you propose? You would rather have the blood of hundreds of thousands or even millions (if you intend on invading all the countries that need change) than working out a peaceful solution.

I know it inconviences you to have to watch the TV/Internet images flash for a total of 1 minute a day. I know instead of another 1000 points on the Dow while you're slurping down your Starbuck's you see that another Marine died...god, that must be really hard on you. Then you turn the page and Britney is pregnant again and it's all better. Don't worry Craig, there are those who are sacrificing for your/our/West's long term security, all the while trying to help the non-radical's over there.

What a mind warper huh? :roll:


He would rather not see that marine die for a cause that is not worthy.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: cliftonite

You dont we can prevent another 9/11 with improved security measures? This boogeyman argument is ridiculous.

We can't prevent illegals we know are coming across our borders by the hundreds/thousands each day...do you honestly believe we'd be able to prevent another 9/11 type attack if we just sat back and improved our own domestic security measures????

We will never "win" this fight if we just do the typical American least amount of effort so I don't have to be inconvienced thing...it will take actual effort, you know, spine. I know it's lacking in a lot of people now a days, it's been PC'd out of so many, but, that's what it's going to take.

I guess we'll see if we still have it as a country....the radicals have it and recruits that have it in spades....

Chuck

There are radicals Islamists in virtually every middle eastern country. Do you intend to occupy all of those nations in order to reform them? Do you not realize they use the US occupation for further their hatred towards us and recruit more people for their cause?

How many Al Qaeda members were there before we invaded Iraq vs after?

No, that's impossible. Iraq was basically the only country we could do what we've done to. It's center to the region...if it can be made to positively work, then that will be our in. If it can't, we're F'd. Afghanistan was another, but no one in the world gave even a 1/10th of a sh1t about the Taliban, so no one was getting in our way on that one...

Chuck

So we invaded a country out of convieniance so we could begin this great crusade to reform the muslim population...

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: manowar821

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

It's still bullshit.

In the grand scheme of things, looking at the long term picture...I don't care. It's abundently clear that the ME is going to take another 2000 years at the pace they're going to finally drag themselves into the modern world, which is just totally unacceptable. The need a push, and it looks like we're going to be giving them that push.

They can either push back, or, walk into a new age for themselves....it's their choice. It seems most have accepted that...not surprisingly, the hardcore radicals have not.

Chuck

It's the new white man's burden! We must civilize these backwards people!

Note: The white man's burden didn't work out too well the first time. See: Africa.

OK, lets do it the other way then:

We'll ignore the problem of radical Islam, a problem perpetuated by out of control religious wacko's (who are just as bad if if not worse than our own, except our own don't go on killing spree's), and just let that continue infinitum.

Then, the next few 9/11 type attacks, we'll all bemoan why our Gov. isn't doing enough to protect us, blah blah whine whine whine. Eventually, 10-40 years down the road, when we've lost many more people than we'll ever loose on the WoT, we'll be right back to where we are now, except that lots more of our own innocent civ's will have died, and the religious wacko's over there will be that much more powerful.

Good strategery there...I'd rather start sooner than later, but hey, I guess there's always your way...

Chuck

Your argument is predicated upon the assumption that pressure from us (and by implication attacking them in Iraq, etc.) will somehow solve the problem of radical islam. I see absolutely no reason to believe this. In effect, your argument is invalid. Outside pressure on a culturally cohesive group tends to radicalize people further, not the other way around.

This is the false choice that is presented to us all the damn time. Either A.) Do nothing or B.) Attack Iraq/Iran/Syria/etc. This is a load of shit. How about C.) Engage them culturally, economically, and politically. That's how we make enemies into friends, we attack them with our culture and we make them like us.

Cool, that sounds ideal! (I actually agree with you).

So, go ahead and engage Saddam, radical Iranian Leadership, radical Taliban, and radical NW territory Leadership. After that utterly fails, get back to us on your next idea.

Chuck

Well it would have been chepaer (in terms of $$$ and lives) than the disaster we are in now.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: chucky2


Cool, that sounds ideal! (I actually agree with you).

So, go ahead and engage Saddam, radical Iranian Leadership, radical Taliban, and radical NW territory Leadership. After that utterly fails, get back to us on your next idea.

Chuck

So go ahead and invade Saddam, when that utterly fails get back to me and we'll try my idea. Hey, looks like that's now!

It might not work, but it would be hard pressed to fail more miserably then our military interventions have so far, and it would certainly be far cheaper. Killing our enemies with kindness actually can work really well. As countries become richer and more affluent, as they are exposed to more and more of our culture, they become more like us. Do you know anyone who lives/has lived in Iran? I do. He says there is tremendous unrest there, the exposure to American culture that they have gotten has sewed the seeds of discontent there and is far more threatening to the mullahs then some sort of invasion by us. If we invade them, they will fight us to the death. If we subvert them from inside with our culture, sooner or later the mullahs are swept away by their own people.

The goal is the same, remove the climate from which radicalism, etc is spawned. One way just involves a lot fewer dead people, has a better chance of working long term, and costs about $3 trillion (and counting) less.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: 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?

If Saddam Would have Killed 1,000,000 I'd call that a 900,000 savings. Face it Abu Ghrab prison was usually a one way prison. You never checked out...

In a Revolutionary War Freedom isn't handed to you it's earned. Do you not think our revolutionary war had no any casualties?