Saudi Warns U.S. That Iraq May Face Disintegration

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: vitoprimo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If the Arab countries like SA are so concerned about Iraq disintegrating, why don't they pitch in on the effort instead of standing back in judgement?

Why should the neighbors "pitch in"? None of Iraq's neighbors ever requested that Iraq be invaded.

None of them ever requested that Kuwait be invaded either. But they wanted the US to come in and bail them out and then begged us to leave Saddam in power after he did so. In hindsight it was a mistake to do so. That mistake has now been corrected.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So you agree this is nothing but faux alarmism from the Saudis, wrapped up in crocodile tears?

What do you mean by "faux alarmism" and "crocidile tears"? The Saudis seem to be expressing a legitimate concern that events in Iraq might destablize their country and other countries in the Middle East.

It was a response to somenoe else. Read the context of what they wrote and you might understand my comment.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... it's time to move on.

Good idea.

Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

Apparently you're another deluded waste of time, much like a couple of others in here who actually are so puffed up with themselves they think I'm running from them. How moronic. :roll:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

Apparently you're another deluded waste of time, much like a couple of others in here who actually are so puffed up with themselves they think I'm running from them. How moronic. :roll:

Why do you keep avoiding this question:

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

Apparently you're another deluded waste of time, much like a couple of others in here who actually are so puffed up with themselves they think I'm running from them. How moronic. :roll:

Why do you keep avoiding this question:

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

Don't pull your Answer the question! crap with me conjur until you start responding to mine and other people's questions that you've avoided in this forum.

It's always - Do as I say but not as I do with you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
There's nothing left for the US in Iraq. They despise everything about us. We set their country on fire and now we stand around and complain, that they don't know how to extinguish the inferno. We did it, all by ourselfs and the Iraqi's hate our guts. They should. Iraq does not face disintegration.... Iraq is disintegrating.

Oh, so I don't sound like a hater; here's the solution. Remove every single American from Iraq, leave them all of our military equipment and give them 100 billion dollars in cash.

Hopefully this solution is sarcastic.

Leaving them the equipment - Allow you ever takes control to have the ability to be a miliatary muscle in the area. Easy to generate genocide on the opponents. (Because we should not go in and stop it).
Whom should the funds be given to. Indivigual people, local village government. According to many here, there is no Iraqi government; therefore there is no one at that level.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

Apparently you're another deluded waste of time, much like a couple of others in here who actually are so puffed up with themselves they think I'm running from them. How moronic. :roll:

Why do you keep avoiding this question:

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

Don't pull your Answer the question! crap with me conjur until you start responding to mine and other people's questions that you've avoided in this forum.

It's always - Do as I say but not as I do with you.

Why do you keep avoiding the question vitoprimo posed of you SEVERAL times?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
... Iraq was hurtling toward disintegration...

AKA everything going as planned

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

Apparently you're another deluded waste of time, much like a couple of others in here who actually are so puffed up with themselves they think I'm running from them. How moronic. :roll:

Why do you keep avoiding this question:

Originally posted by: vitoprimo
...

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

Don't pull your Answer the question! crap with me conjur until you start responding to mine and other people's questions that you've avoided in this forum.

It's always - Do as I say but not as I do with you.

Why do you keep avoiding the question vitoprimo posed of you SEVERAL times?

Why don't you answer my question in the other thread you squirmed away from and let vitoprimo worry about himself?

Besides that, I've already addressed vp's points in here. If he can't see what I'm saynig then I'm not going to answer it aqain simply because he keeps rephrasing the question.

 

[conjur]

Yet more duh-version. If you're worried about other threads, bump them. Perhaps I missed a question posed of me. I'm talking about THIS thread.

Answer vito's question:

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

What's the matter?? Chicken?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Yet more duh-version. If you're worried about other threads, bump them. Perhaps I missed a question posed of me. I'm talking about THIS thread.

You didn't miss it. You responded to the thread after I had already bumped it and refused to answer my question as well as the questions of another in that thread.

Answer those questions instead of looking like a massive hypocrite with your lame little routine.

Besides that, you didn't even ask the question in this thread, so it's not even yours. So where the fvck do you get off even pressing it in the first place, troll?

 

[conjur]

Because I'm curious to see what your answer is. It's a very valid question and one you seem intent on ignoring. If that's trolling, then, damn, you've got some fvcked up logic.

 

[lozina]

It's always funny when TastesLikeChicken calls someone a troll :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm curious to see what your answer is. It's a very valid question and one you seem intent on ignoring. If that's trolling, then, damn, you've got some fvcked up logic.

Excuse me?

You refuse to answer my questions then demand I answer a question that isn't even yours in the first place?

It seems you're the one with the fvcked up logic around here.

It's not a tough question to answer so I can't even imagine why you'd think I'd avoid it in the first place? But since you're being both a troll and a hypocrite about it, and for no other reason, I will now refuse to answer it. So vitaprimo can thank you for being a jerk in his stead and for prompting my refusal.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
... vito's question:

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

An Iraqi neighbor could have a few scenarios in mind.

1) The US should prevent a civil war in Iraqi by cracking down hard on the problem
2) The US can not control the situation, therefore let an Arab coalition straighten out the issue.
3) Allow some other country to come in an attempt to solve the problem.
4) The US gets out and let the situation solve itself; even if that entails an Arab "white knight" riding in to annex Iraq.

Responses to such scenarios:
1) Part of the problem is internal and most is external agitators support the insurrgents.
Any crackdown will require either a massive use of force and/or punishement of the outside assistance.

2) The Arabs have never been able to coordinate and sovle their problems since before WWI. Too many egos and religious issues.

3) An country that replaces the US coalition will either have to have the strength (militarily and polically) to handle the situation. No matter what color the spots are, there will be some faction that will not tolerate an outsider. Iraq may need an iron fist to being things under control.

4) The Arab white knight will more than likely have ulterior motives and will be willing to harshly put down any opposition and fulfill Option #3. Most countries that border IRaq will not want to have independent groups and/or an unstable government next door.
Iraq would be difficult to seperate into a mulitple "areas" because of internal economic concerns. Iraq is no Yugoslovia.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: lozina
It's always funny when TastesLikeChicken calls someone a troll :laugh:

Not nearly as funny as when conjur does it though.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
... vito's question:

One of Iraq's neighbors alerts the nations responsible for the invasion that Iraq is spiraling out of control and that this may lead to Iraq's disintegration. The neighbor expresses concern that such a development could drag the region into war.

Do I understand you to suggest that Iraq's neighbors should now join hands with the invading nations?

You realize that such action (i.e. "join hands") on the part of Iraq's neighbors would be perceived by the Iraqi's and others in the Middle East as condoning the actions and motivations of the original invaders.

Where do you suppose this might lead?

An Iraqi neighbor could have a few scenarios in mind.

1) The US should prevent a civil war in Iraqi by cracking down hard on the problem
2) The US can not control the situation, therefore let an Arab coalition straighten out the issue.
3) Allow some other country to come in an attempt to solve the problem.
4) The US gets out and let the situation solve itself; even if that entails an Arab "white knight" riding in to annex Iraq.

Responses to such scenarios:
1) Part of the problem is internal and most is external agitators support the insurrgents.
Any crackdown will require either a massive use of force and/or punishement of the outside assistance.

That's BS!

The 'myth' of Iraq's foreign fighters

The reason the US cannot do that would mean a huge deployment of troops and a very harsh policy in which many, many more would die.

2) The Arabs have never been able to coordinate and sovle their problems since before WWI. Too many egos and religious issues.

While there is truth to this, I have to ask why the U.S. deemed it their responsibility to intervene? Wouldn't be those huge reserves of oil in the ground, would it?

3) An country that replaces the US coalition will either have to have the strength (militarily and polically) to handle the situation. No matter what color the spots are, there will be some faction that will not tolerate an outsider. Iraq may need an iron fist to being things under control.

You mean like..oh...the way Saddam ruled? You are saying we should go back to that? Why take him out in the first place?!

4) The Arab white knight will more than likely have ulterior motives and will be willing to harshly put down any opposition and fulfill Option #3. Most countries that border IRaq will not want to have independent groups and/or an unstable government next door.
Iraq would be difficult to seperate into a mulitple "areas" because of internal economic concerns. Iraq is no Yugoslovia.

Things were a bit more stable back in the 50s. Too bad the U.S., Britain, and the USSR had to intervene.

 

[EagleKeeper]

My responses were not to justify a given policy, but to anwer a vague question

Where do you suppose this might lead?

that you posted/quoted.

I presented 4 scenerios on what the"unknown country" might be thinking.
And then responded to what each option would entail and the flaws in it.

With the country unknown, the political leaning and/or reasons for the statement lent only to theoretical situations and solutions.

 

[conjur]

I know, I was just providing some criticisms for the solutions offered. I guess once I saw the glaring misinformation in your solution #1 I got carried away. 😉


I see vitoprimo's point. Arab nations getting more involved with the U.S. lends a certain credibility to the mission in Iraq, even if that mission is ill-defined and certainly not accomplished. However, a stable and secure Iraq would be in their interests, as well. I would think the leaders of the Middle Eastern nations would be pushing harder and harder for the U.S. to withdraw and leave the security to the "sovereign" Iraq. At that point, they could step in and be working with a fellow nation, not an outsider like the U.S. As it is now, we're seeing the Mises Effect and we're even seeing heavy-handed tactics by the occupiers where it suits their agenda. History repeating itself so much we're dizzy from the spinning.

But, there are still problems there in that this administration is working to get permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq. I believe each one of the four holding something like 14,000-17,000 troops each. That's a damn sizable force of an outsider.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If the Arab world could not even handle the Palestinian problem; how would they handle the Iraqi issue.

Much bigger land mass.
Much more diverse population
Much more egos and reaching for wealth.
Much more hatred internally as a consequence of the past 30+ years.

That is a landmine that they would only pay lip service to.

 

[piasabird]

I believe we could just pack up and leave. Iran could just take over Iraq. They have wanted to in the past.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If the Arab world could not even handle the Palestinian problem; how would they handle the Iraqi issue.

Much bigger land mass.
Much more diverse population
Much more egos and reaching for wealth.
Much more hatred internally as a consequence of the past 30+ years.

That is a landmine that they would only pay lip service to.

Iraq is more of a self-contained entity. The Palestinian issue involves the creation of Israel out of formerly Palestinian (and others') lands. Two completely different situations.

The threat of an unstable Iraq is more along the lines of extremists gaining power and creating an Afghanistan 2.0 (at least in portions of Iraq if not all over). That would put pressure on a huge source of the world's oil and threaten the stability of oil prices around the world.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I love hearing about how it was a mistake to not take out Sadaam in the first Iraq war. The other Arab leaders knew that the U.S. would be perceived as an invading power if they did more than evict the Iraqis from Kuwait and cripple their ability to do it again. That this would have any good outcome.

GWB has made it clear that we are an invader and we wonder why things aren't going well. It is not like we were not forewarned by the people who should know.

And now some wonder why other Arab countries are not helping implement a course of action that they had already told us was stupid. Am I the one who is dazed and confused?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
If the Arab world could not even handle the Palestinian problem; how would they handle the Iraqi issue.

Much bigger land mass.
Much more diverse population
Much more egos and reaching for wealth.
Much more hatred internally as a consequence of the past 30+ years.

That is a landmine that they would only pay lip service to.

Iraq is more of a self-contained entity. The Palestinian issue involves the creation of Israel out of formerly Palestinian (and others') lands. Two completely different situations.

The threat of an unstable Iraq is more along the lines of extremists gaining power and creating an Afghanistan 2.0 (at least in portions of Iraq if not all over). That would put pressure on a huge source of the world's oil and threaten the stability of oil prices around the world.

My comments was that if the Arabs (as an entity) could not handle the Palestinian problem (which they actually requested authority over); how could they handle the Iraqi situation. The voltility of /withinIraq is much greater than the Palestinian/Israel situation.

No sane Arab leader wants to try to beard that lion. Lip service encouraging others to volunteer is the best that will happen.

 

[TheSlamma]

They hate us for our freedom!!!!

It can't be ANYTHING else!!!

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: techs
How can this be? Wasn't it about 6-9 months ago Cheney said the insurgencey was on its last legs? (hehe)

Could it be the Bushies are so out of touch with reality they really think things are going well?

Uh. . .hey, the phone is for you. . .it's Today. He says he wishes you were here.

 

[vitoprimo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: vitoprimo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... it's time to move on.

Good idea.

Yes, very good idea, particularly since the best you can seem to come up with is the infantile:

"Whatever happened to RunsLikeChicken?"

It was the best I could do to attempt to get you to answer my original question. Once again you chose to ignore it.

Hmmm... this is the second time you've "bailed out" of a discussion when I posed an inconvenient question:

Originally posted by: vitoprimo in Claims the President diverted funds for New Orlean's much needded levee repairs. on 09/01/2005 03:01 PM

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: vitoprimo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
:roll:

I don't deny there were budget cuts. Don't be an idiot.

Can you prove those funds would have prevented this from happening, particularly considering the levee was only designed to withstand a cat 3 storm?

Why were budget cuts necessary? When Bush took offer the national budget was running a surplus and was projected to continue to do so indefintely.

Decisions have consequences. People making those decisions should be held accountable for them, don't you agree?

Did you miss the burst of the tech bubble that happened before Bush even came into office? I guess we should blame the tech bubble bursting on Clinton simply because he was in office when it happened, eh? That seems to be the rule for the economic idiots in here.

Are you suggesting that Bush's tax cuts had nothing do with the subsequent budget deficits?

Remember, when Bush took offer the national budget was running a surplus and was projected to continue to do so indefintely.

Decisions have consequences. People making those decisions should be held accountable for them, don't you agree?

You have a habit of ignoring any question or line of argument that requires you to assess the consequences of actions from the perspective of those who don't slavishly accept the assumptions, motivations, decisions, and results of the Bush administration.

I read your interaction with conjur concerning my original question. Talk about infantile.

You choose to ignore my original question.

It's time to move on.