Staying vs Leaving the Middle East

Printable View

04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

<<split from: here>>

I suggest reading Mein Kampf, but it is not historically accurate. It will shape your sociological perspective, especially if you are interested in dictators and world war 2.

I also recently finished the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. It's written from the over 400 tons of documents captured by the Allies from Nazi Germany. I learned a lot from it and I highly suggest it. Might take a while to read however.

Quote:

The book is the ravings of a mad man. It should not be taken seriously.

That attitude allowed WWII to happen, in my opinion. From the back of my copy of Mein Kampf:

"Here in the pages of Mein Kampf Hitler presented the world with his dark vision for the future. Years would pass before he attained the power to reallize that vision, but Mein Kampf's existence denies the free world the excuse of ignorance. We dismissed him as a madman and we ignored his wretched book; the result was a tragedy of unprecedented proportions. This is yet another lesson to take from Mein Kampf: the lesson of vigilance and responsibility, of not closing our eyes to the evil around us. Since World War 2, our societies have taken promising steps in this regard. It is our responsibility to ensure the continued progress of that civilizing trend." - Abraham Foxman
04-24-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

That attitude allowed WWII to happen, in my opinion.

There is a difference with understanding and acknowledging the evil intentions of a mad man. There is also a difference with taking his beliefs as if they are valid opinions.

If you believe the rest of the world should have heeded the warning that Hitler's book should have sounded, then I should only hope you have the same feelings over the ramblings of the current leader of Iran.
04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

If you believe the rest of the world should have heeded the warning that Hitler's book should have sounded, then I should only hope you have the same feelings over the ramblings of the current leader of Iran.

It isn't just the ramblings, it's that Hitler had supreme power, was crazy, and on top of that started annexing territories via political means with no real interjection of the western powers until he finally invaded Poland. Had the Western powers intervened sooner the catastrophe could have been averted.

Note that I'm not using this to justify our current 'intervention' in Iraq. The first Gulf War did seem valid, however, because a) the US wasn't the only country involved in kicking Hussein's ass out of Kuwait b) it was clear who the bad guy was and c) Bush senior was just so much more talented and capable than his son...he knew better than to try and occupy an arab country. Those people are freaking crazy.

About the Persian issue, I really don't even know what I think should be done. I think it's silly that we won't even have direct diplomatic contact, much less negotiations. I think they're trying to build a nuclear weapon (why would a country sitting on oceans of oil need nuclear power to generate electricity? To protect the god damn environment?), but I also think that they're trying so hard to build a bomb to stand up to the U.S., and lets face it, it's the only piece of leverage they could have against invasion. It also makes Bush look silly(er)
04-24-2007
MacGyver

The Iranian leader has stated that he wishes to "wipe Israel off of the map" or something of that nature. He also stated he is willing to lose half of Iran in order to destroy Israel. In recent days, he's held an anti-holocaust conference where the participants engage in holocaust denial.

With all due respect, I'm amazed that someone who is willing to read Mein Kampf to learn what Hitler was thinking somehow has trouble accepting those statements at face value from the current wacko of the world.

And at the end of it, you somehow conclude he wants nukes to obtain leverage against the US? He's been saying he's wanting to destroy Israel, but let's take it as a given since he would probably save a few nukes for the US as well.

This makes Bush look silly? I suppose the same logic would mean that Hitler made Roosevelt look silly. No. Hitler made Chamberlain look silly, thinking that he could somehow reason with a mad man. Since you think that diplomacy could work, I assume you believe that you can reason with Ahmadinejad.
04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

He also stated he is willing to lose half of Iran in order to destroy Israel.

Back that up. I haven't heard that.

Quote:

With all due respect, I'm amazed that someone who is willing to read Mein Kampf to learn what Hitler was thinking somehow has trouble accepting those statements at face value from the current wacko of the world.

Did you consider that they might be saying things like that because it's an easy way to pis-s us off?

Quote:

And at the end of it, you somehow conclude he wants nukes to obtain leverage against the US? He's been saying he's wanting to destroy Israel, but let's take it as a given since he would probably save a few nukes for the US as well.

Do you really think that they would be silly enough to actually nuke Israel? How many nuclear weapons would Iran actually be capable of creating? The entire world would join the U.S. in taking control of Iran if this happened...there would be no Iran. Behind the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders know this. That's why the nukes are purely leverage against a U.S. invasion, they aren't going to actually nuke Israel.

We can't take effective military action against Iran without catastrophic repercussions. Americans seem unable to grasp the concept of the limits of our military power. In all honesty, given what I've read in the previously mentioned books, if we weren't in Iraq I would be in favor of delivering a few airmail packages via B2 bomber addressed to their enrichment facilities. Israel did it to Iraq (well, they used F16s) circa 1980. It worked.

What bothers me is that it seems you're willing to bomb a country based on rhetoric alone. Your reasoning and subsequent reply should contain things that the Iranians have actively done, because rhetoric alone doesn't justify war. Keep in mind the U.S. has no credibility, and our allegations are essentially meaningless to the world community, even though it does seem that Iran has had an active hand in funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and subsequent militias in Iraq. And they're just douchebags.
04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

This makes Bush look silly? I suppose the same logic would mean that Hitler made Roosevelt look silly. No. Hitler made Chamberlain look silly, thinking that he could somehow reason with a mad man. Since you think that diplomacy could work, I assume you believe that you can reason with Ahmadinejad.

You just made about 100 logical deductions that suspiciously align with your point of view. What I *really* think is that Adolf Hitler had his homosexual compadre Ernst Roehm executed due to his own insecurities, and that Bush and Ahmadinejad actually go on Yahoo Instant Messenger and watch each other beat off via webcam every Thursday, and that all of this political mumbo jumbo is just a cover up.
04-24-2007
Dave_Sinkula

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Do you really think that they would be silly enough to actually nuke Israel?

Well, yes.

A certain religious outlook desires to prompt the return of the 12th imam, or something. Of course I don't know the details at great length, but there may be some ideologies that may find the final apocalypse a desirable outcome. If a leader of a country with access to nuclear weapons had such tools, yes it is conceivable that that would be a desirable goal.

So if there is such a person running around, yes, I think they would be "silly enough".
04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

Well, I disagree. God help me if I'm wrong. Actually I'm atheist, but you get the idea.

>>some ideologies that may find the final apocalypse a desirable outcome

Does Bush believe in the Rapture? (I actually don't know)

EDIT:
and just so it doesn't seem like I'm too one-sided on this discussion (good discussion btw) I'd just like to re-quote myself and point out that I am perpetually confused and frustrated by world events:

Quote:

In all honesty, given what I've read in the previously mentioned books, if we weren't in Iraq I would be in favor of delivering a few airmail packages via B2 bomber addressed to their enrichment facilities. Israel did it to Iraq (well, they used F16s) circa 1980. It worked.

MacGyver is writing a reply!!!
04-24-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Back that up. I haven't heard that.

I apologize. You are correct; he did not say that. That was misread by me awhile ago (and/or my memory just got fuzzy on the subject). I originally saw the reference on Drudge, but this is the only article I can find on the subject:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...ticle/ShowFull

Anyway, he's said enough. I would recommend reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud...jad_and_Israel

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Did you consider that they might be saying things like that because it's an easy way to pis-s us off?

Mein Kampf wasn't written just to make the world angry. Iran has been sponsoring attacks in Iraq and in Israel. This coupled with what they're saying means they are serious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Do you really think that they would be silly enough to actually nuke Israel? How many nuclear weapons would Iran actually be capable of creating? The entire world would join the U.S. in taking control of Iran if this happened...there would be no Iran. Behind the rhetoric, the Iranian leaders know this. That's why the nukes are purely leverage against a U.S. invasion, they aren't going to actually nuke Israel.

And if they lose a few nukes to a "separate" terrorist organization that Iran would claim they have no connections to.....

Then what? The US takes Iran out? And you really think Russia and China and everyone else would be happy with that? No, I think every other nation would be demanding more time to investigate whether or not Iran really knew what was happening. And once the end of the investigations move on, if the US takes out Iran, there will still be many that claim that Iran was completely innocent of anything to do with the attacks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

We can't take effective military action against Iran without catastrophic repercussions. Americans seem unable to grasp the concept of the limits of our military power. In all honesty, given what I've read in the previously mentioned books, if we weren't in Iraq I would be in favor of delivering a few airmail packages via B2 bomber addressed to their enrichment facilities. Israel did it to Iraq (well, they used F16s) circa 1980. It worked.

And ironically, many condemned Israel at the time for doing it. When it comes to politics, many people are spineless about doing what needs to be done. I fail to see what catastrophic repercussions would emerge from forcefully stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons as opposed to the catastrophic repercussions of doing nothing.

The lesson supposed to be learned from the holocaust was "Never again", and yet so many people of this generation just do not see the correlation between that era and today's era, even though they are not that far removed. We are ending up in the same position that we were prior to WWII where we wish to engage in endless diplomacy, and where people such as yourself come to the conclusion that yes, the mad man is building up in preparation for war, and yet, no, we cannot do anything about it due to whatever reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

What bothers me is that it seems you're willing to bomb a country based on rhetoric alone. Your reasoning and subsequent reply should contain things that the Iranians have actively done, because rhetoric alone doesn't justify war. Keep in mind the U.S. has no credibility, and our allegations are essentially meaningless to the world community, even though it does seem that Iran has had an active hand in funding Hezbollah in Lebanon and subsequent militias in Iraq. And they're just douchebags.

Since when does world opinion ever matter? When has the world been right? What tragedy have we prevented? What goal have we accomplished? When has history shone brightly upon our united actions?

You have to realize that a sovereign nation has a right to act alone or else it is no longer a sovereign nation. The only reason why we should work together is if our interests coincide. At this point, unless nuclear warfare is desired, it is my opinion that the world will be much safer if Iran does not manage to obtain nuclear weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

You just made about 100 logical deductions that suspiciously align with your point of view.

You didn't expect me to argue my points from your point of view, did you? ;)
04-24-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

Since when does world opinion ever matter?

When they help by giving support by troops and money, and for political reasons. It wasn't just the US fighting the Nazis. Inasfar as Iraq goes, I don't think Bush is an evil sociopathic manipulator, I think he thought he was doing the right thing at the right time, it just like, isn't working, and we don't have cooperation from the rest of the world to help us clean up the mess that has emerged. I quite frankly don't want my friends dying to protect ........head arabs that can't get along, we got rid of Hussein, I think we should get the hell out of Iraq.

Quote:

Anyway, he's said enough. I would recommend reading this:

I have already, and thanks for providing sources, I appreciate that.

Quote:

Iran has been sponsoring attacks in Iraq and in Israel

Iran hasn't recently invaded another country as Hitler and Hussein did. It seems that those allegations are legit, but they are allegations at a time when we have no credibility, and it's difficult to actually make the connection between the ........head militants and the actual Government of Iran.

Quote:

many condemned Israel at the time for doing it

Who? How? what exactly was said? In politics everyone gets condemned by somebody for everything (the rule of absolutes in politics, which I just invented)...it likely wasn't anything more than that (there was no worldwide uprising against Israel was there? I wouldn't know, I was still a sperm).

Quote:

I fail to see what catastrophic repercussions would emerge from forcefully stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons

I can only agree with this statement if the U.S. is not tied down in Iraq. If the Iranians are getting bombed, they'll feel like they have nothing to lose and they will increase their efforts to kill US troops in Iraq tenfold, decrease their oil output to shatter the western economy (we don't buy Iranian oil, but prices worldwide would easily soar to $6/gal), and air embarassing John Wayne movies on state run television.

Quote:

You didn't expect me to argue my points from your point of view, did you?

Use yer own damn words to make yer points!!! Them words be mine!
04-24-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

When they help by giving support by troops and money, and for political reasons. It wasn't just the US fighting the Nazis. Inasfar as Iraq goes, I don't think Bush is an evil sociopathic manipulator, I think he thought he was doing the right thing at the right time, it just like, isn't working, and we don't have cooperation from the rest of the world to help us clean up the mess that has emerged. I quite frankly don't want my friends dying to protect ........head arabs that can't get along, we got rid of Hussein, I think we should get the hell out of Iraq.

This has been debated hundreds of times. Running away is not usually considered a solution. In war, that's known as "retreating in defeat". Operationally, it's known as "failure". :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Iran hasn't recently invaded another country as Hitler and Hussein did. It seems that those allegations are legit, but they are allegations at a time when we have no credibility, and it's difficult to actually make the connection between the ........head militants and the actual Government of Iran.

What does credibility mean to you? It means nothing in the arena of international politics at this point. You claim to want help from the world. OK. Which countries would not want to help, but yet are credible in their own right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Who? How? what exactly was said? In politics everyone gets condemned by somebody for everything (the rule of absolutes in politics, which I just invented)...it likely wasn't anything more than that (there was no worldwide uprising against Israel was there? I wouldn't know, I was still a sperm).

Reaction to Operation Ofra

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I can only agree with this statement if the U.S. is not tied down in Iraq. If the Iranians are getting bombed, they'll feel like they have nothing to lose and they will increase their efforts to kill US troops in Iraq tenfold, decrease their oil output to shatter the western economy (we don't buy Iranian oil, but prices worldwide would easily soar to $6/gal), and air embarassing John Wayne movies on state run television.

I've never understood the opinion that we should not attack Iran (or any islamofascist regime/group) because they might get angry. Aren't they angry at the West already? :rolleyes:
04-24-2007
whiteflags

It would be very convenient if you would provide sources at first when you rely on published media to make a point, MacGyver; especially when entering a debate on subject foo. Chances are the people that you debate with here will demand that you do anyway. Save the alphabet!
04-25-2007
BobMcGee123

>>Reaction to Operation Ofra
Thanks. The biggest thing in that section is the UNSC Resolution 487, otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an outcry against Israel's actions. The thing about the U.S. condemning Israel is laughable political maneuvering (the world opinion thing).

Quote:

This has been debated hundreds of times.

Everything that we're talking about has. What is the point in pointing that out?

Quote:

Running away is not usually considered a solution. In war, that's known as "retreating in defeat". Operationally, it's known as "failure".

The reality is the U.S. can't win in Iraq. We won't stop the insurgency, our military is gradually being worn down, we don't have allies contributing significant numbers of combat troops to get the job done. General Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, said that it would require several hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq in a Senate hearing of February 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Shinseki

This is where 'world opinion' might come in handy as far as other countries contributing as many troops as we have. we do not have the manpower to 'win,' similarly with Vietnam our troops are dying for a lost cause, it's just that the administration refuses to relent. The war is lost, not because of unpatriotic liberals pointing out that we can't win, but because we can't stop the insurgency.

Quote:

I've never understood the opinion that we should not attack Iran (or any islamofascist regime/group) because they might get angry. Aren't they angry at the West already?

It isn't about them just getting angry, it's about a massive military and economic retaliation that we likely wouldnot be able to control because we are tied down in Iraq:

"
If the Iranians are getting bombed, they'll feel like they have nothing to lose and they will increase their efforts to kill US troops in Iraq tenfold, decrease their oil output to shatter the western economy (we don't buy Iranian oil, but prices worldwide would easily soar to $6/gal)
"

When we are pulling out of Iraq FOX news will still be claiming that it's the fault of unpatriotic liberals for ruining the war. The reality is we can't win without added troops from other countries. The violence will be temporarily stemmed as the 'troop surge' gets progressively underway, but it will never stop and it will only come back. And I don't want my friends dying over there to babysit arabs that want to kill each other. If that's the type of society they want built in the wake of Hussein, then so be it. Western democracy cannot be established in a conservative, predominantly muslim arab, state.
04-25-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by citizen

It would be very convenient if you would provide sources at first when you rely on published media to make a point, MacGyver; especially when entering a debate on subject foo. Chances are the people that you debate with here will demand that you do anyway. Save the alphabet!

If you would like sources to anything I say, ask. I am well versed in Internet debates, and frankly, figured that most of what I was saying is generally accepted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

>>Reaction to Operation Ofra
Thanks. The biggest thing in that section is the UNSC Resolution 487, otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an outcry against Israel's actions. The thing about the U.S. condemning Israel is laughable political maneuvering (the world opinion thing).

I was under the impression that world opinion counted so much to you. In this case it does not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Everything that we're talking about has. What is the point in pointing that out?

That we will end up saying the same exact things. You will always offer an "alternative" which is to run away. I will say that you can't run away, that we need a real alternative plan. You will then say that running away is the only alternative option.

If we deviate from the above, then it might prove interesting. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

The reality is the U.S. can't win in Iraq. We won't stop the insurgency, our military is gradually being worn down, we don't have allies contributing significant numbers of combat troops to get the job done.

Wow, you're pesimistic beyond belief. Stop being so depressed about life, and realize that there is hope out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

General Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, said that it would require several hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq in a Senate hearing of February 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Shinseki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

My general is bigger than your general. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

This is where 'world opinion' might come in handy as far as other countries contributing as many troops as we have. we do not have the manpower to 'win,' similarly with Vietnam our troops are dying for a lost cause, it's just that the administration refuses to relent. The war is lost, not because of unpatriotic liberals pointing out that we can't win, but because we can't stop the insurgency.

We can indeed stop the insurgency, but let's pretend for a moment that we can't. If we can't, then what you're saying is that we will lose everything over there and the islamofascists will take over Iraq. It will then become a base for every other terrorist group and their sponsors, particularly Iran.

I think that's a stupid alternative. We can stop the insurgency, and we darn well better.

Vietnam was lost, but for some of the same reasons that some would lose the Iraq war. People just didn't give a care to stay there and fight it out to the end. In Korea, though, things were different. Look at the difference between both North and South Korea and then at Vietnam. Look at the good that came from the US sticking to their guns in Korea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

It isn't about them just getting angry, it's about a massive military and economic retaliation that we likely wouldnot be able to control because we are tied down in Iraq:

"
If the Iranians are getting bombed, they'll feel like they have nothing to lose and they will increase their efforts to kill US troops in Iraq tenfold, decrease their oil output to shatter the western economy (we don't buy Iranian oil, but prices worldwide would easily soar to $6/gal)
"

9/11 happened before Iraq. As I said, I don't think we can make them much angrier at us than they already are. :rolleyes:

I'm really disgusted with the attitude that we shouldn't retaliate because they might retaliate. That's war. Suck it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

When we are pulling out of Iraq FOX news will still be claiming that it's the fault of unpatriotic liberals for ruining the war. The reality is we can't win without added troops from other countries. The violence will be temporarily stemmed as the 'troop surge' gets progressively underway, but it will never stop and it will only come back. And I don't want my friends dying over there to babysit arabs that want to kill each other. If that's the type of society they want built in the wake of Hussein, then so be it. Western democracy cannot be established in a conservative, predominantly muslim arab, state.

Regarding the surge, I'd like to ask you first of all, what can other countries do at this point that US troops can't do? You're so wrapped up in recruiting other people that you're missing the end result that would possibly guarentee victory. You have no other plan other than to either leave Iraq and let the Iraqis get slaughtered by Iranians, or to get more non-US troops on board. But why do we need non-US troops? Numbers for numbers, the US can supply more troops than many other countries. So what is the point?

Here's what you said on the subject of the surge earlier in the past back in January:

Quote:

I think that an increase in the number of troops will lead to more US casualties.

I think that increasing the number of troops may be effective, for a while, but won't lead to any permanent results.

Would you be still willing today to bet that both of those statements of yours are correct? :)

Looks like you no longer agree with your first statement, so perhaps there's hope for you. :p
04-25-2007
SMurf

On a somewhat related note, does anyone have a good book on the end of the US occupation of Japan?

I get the feeling that when some people think about going to war and occupying a country they think it will end in the same way.
04-25-2007
psychopath

I think this sets a record as the longest running debate on CBoard that hasn't started a flame war.

Or maybe almost a record. There have probably been longer than I can't remember or don't know about.
04-25-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

I was under the impression that world opinion counted so much to you. In this case it does not?

It doesn't matter so much to me, the whole world already thinks I'm awesome! As for operation ofra I think that is a good case of unilateral action against 'the opinion of the world' where they were justified. But at least it was supported back home. Israel also didn't need the help of other countries, and there is a big ultra huge difference between a single air mission being undertaken in a single day vs a big occupation lasting perpetually.

Quote:

That we will end up saying the same exact things. You will always offer an "alternative" which is to run away. I will say that you can't run away, that we need a real alternative plan. You will then say that running away is the only alternative option.

If we deviate from the above, then it might prove interesting.

Which I won't, because I think that the only way out is to get out.

Quote:

Wow, you're pesimistic beyond belief. Stop being so depressed about life, and realize that there is hope out there.

Why is that pessimism? Blind hope is proving to be much more destructive, and I believe those 'pessimistic' statements are accurate. I also don't observe any events hinting towards any sort of 'success,' do you? Lets step away from blind hope and take a look at reality. Or maybe it's the liberal media just not reporting all of the positive steps in Iraq? Play that card, it's a good hand.

Quote:

My general is bigger than your general.

"Hey Shinseki, where's my beer?" In all seriousness, was there anything there that you wanted me to see in particular? What was wrong with me posting the bit about the opinion of the Army Chief of Staff at the time of the invasion? I can only assume I made an excellent point.

Quote:

If we can't, then what you're saying is that we will lose everything over there and the islamofascists will take over Iraq.

No, I didn't say that.

Quote:

Vietnam was lost, but for some of the same reasons that some would lose the Iraq war. People just didn't give a care to stay there and fight it out to the end.

It went beyond the threshold of what it was worth. How many more years would you have stayed in Vietnam? Are you actually trying to build the case that we should have stayed in Vietnam longer? Did the world come to an end when we lost Vietnam? We lost nearly half a million servicemen in WW2 when it was worth it, when we were partnered with the world, and when the existence of our homeland was threatened (Hitler had every intention of eventually invading the US). The U.S. is full of people that give a care, but only when it is worth it. Clearly it must not be worth it if 'nobody gives a care.'

Quote:

Look at the difference between both North and South Korea and then at Vietnam. Look at the good that came from the US sticking to their guns in Korea.

Yes, we were able to save South Korea, and North Korea and Vietnam are ........holes. Germany and Japan and all of Europe have turned out pretty decent. We were massively helped by the UN to save South Korea, we didn't want to deal with China which is why we didn't finish North Korea. The defeat and subsequent nation building of Germany and Japan was not done unilaterally. Vietnam was the most unilateral war and our biggest defeat. Iraq will come in second, and similarly with Vietnam the world won't come to an end.

Quote:

I'm really disgusted with the attitude that we shouldn't retaliate because they might retaliate. That's war. Suck it up.

I don't want war unless it's absolutely necessary. I guess I'm just a pansy eh? I'm disgusted with the attitude that our misfortune of Sept. 11th somehow justifies our unilateral involvement in Iraq.

Quote:

Would you be still willing today to bet that both of those statements of yours are correct?

Uhmmm...pretty much.

Quote:

Looks like you no longer agree with your first statement, so perhaps there's hope for you.

Okay you need to explain...how did I contradict myself? I am going to ask you to calmly clarify your points.

Quote:

I think this sets a record as the longest running debate on CBoard that hasn't started a flame war.

umm. Well. ........ you!!! YOU DON'T KNOW THE ISSUES!!! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! R3PUBL|k@NNN5 RUNOVER BABIES WITH LAWN MOWERS!!!
04-25-2007
Dave_Sinkula

Should we extract the OT posts into a separate thread?
04-25-2007
MacGyver
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

It doesn't matter so much to me, the whole world already thinks I'm awesome! As for operation ofra I think that is a good case of unilateral action against 'the opinion of the world' where they were justified. But at least it was supported back home. Israel also didn't need the help of other countries, and there is a big ultra huge difference between a single air mission being undertaken in a single day vs a big occupation lasting perpetually.

It was not officially supported in the US until after the fact, as Wikipedia has it recorded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Which I won't, because I think that the only way out is to get out.

We should give up the country to radical people that want to kill off Western Civilization?

How does that win anything? As others have pointed out, let's apply this idea conceptually to fighting crime. Let's pick a city in the US where crime is super high, and let's pull all law enforcement out, because according to this position it is obvious that we cannot contain the gang violence. What if we said the only way we can win the war against gang violence is to negotiate with the gang leaders and put them in charge of the city? What if we tried to solve the problem by just leaving the city?

It's a stupid idea, because you give up the city to the gangs. Same as leaving Iraq; you give up the country to the islamofascists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Why is that pessimism? Blind hope is proving to be much more destructive, and I believe those 'pessimistic' statements are accurate. I also don't observe any events hinting towards any sort of 'success,' do you? Lets step away from blind hope and take a look at reality. Or maybe it's the liberal media just not reporting all of the positive steps in Iraq? Play that card, it's a good hand.

I think it actually could be argued that the media does not report enough of the good that is happening, largely because of a bias in their reporting. I suppose it could be argued that they believe that bad news is better than good news, in terms of their ratings. Perhaps.

Anyway, I think the real problem is that people do not do much investigating on their own. I remember having a debate with someone that was totally surprised at some of the things I was able to back up over the war. He concluded things were not as terrible as he was led to believe when he listened to the media. It didn't really change his overall opinion from what I could tell, but that was never a goal of mine.

The information on how bad or good things are over there is more easily accessible in this day and age over the Internet. Don't just research what you want to hear. Do a good job of researching everything. ;)

Now with that said, I personally believe that the US will been a much different position by 2008 before the elections. Watch for it. Hopefully, my belief will be proven right. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

"Hey Shinseki, where's my beer?" In all seriousness, was there anything there that you wanted me to see in particular? What was wrong with me posting the bit about the opinion of the Army Chief of Staff at the time of the invasion? I can only assume I made an excellent point.

Do you even know who he is?

My point was that while we can wave Generals at each other, it doesn't matter. You can find opposing generals. I can find supporting generals. Big deal. Are we going to go by a majority of generals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

No, I didn't say that.

You're living in a dream world if you think we can leave right now and the wrong people won't take over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

It went beyond the threshold of what it was worth. How many more years would you have stayed in Vietnam? Are you actually trying to build the case that we should have stayed in Vietnam longer? Did the world come to an end when we lost Vietnam? We lost nearly half a million servicemen in WW2 when it was worth it, when we were partnered with the world, and when the existence of our homeland was threatened (Hitler had every intention of eventually invading the US). The U.S. is full of people that give a care, but only when it is worth it. Clearly it must not be worth it if 'nobody gives a care.'

An attitude of not caring is dangerous. To say something is not worth anything if people don't care is ridiculous. At the most basic level of an allegory, many people do not care to declare main() as returning an int. Many people do not care to switch from using gets() to fgets(). Too many people still use goto. That doesn't mean that lack of caring means that what is at stake is not worth it.

Leaving Vietnam in that condition was a terrible mistake. Hasty peacey treaty and then running away was the way to "solve" it. You ask if the end of the world occurred when the US left Vietnam. Ask the South Vietnamese that were left there to die when the North took over after that worthless peace treaty was signed. They would not like your ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Yes, we were able to save South Korea, and North Korea and Vietnam are ........holes. Germany and Japan and all of Europe have turned out pretty decent. We were massively helped by the UN to save South Korea, we didn't want to deal with China which is why we didn't finish North Korea. The defeat and subsequent nation building of Germany and Japan was not done unilaterally. Vietnam was the most unilateral war and our biggest defeat. Iraq will come in second, and similarly with Vietnam the world won't come to an end.

You seriously are ignoring facts. Iraq will not be Vietnam. It has no real similarities.

You keep stressing the fact that the US needs other countries, yet you have ignored all of my queries as to why that is a requirement, so I bring my points up yet again:
- Why does the US need other countries, when numbers for numbers, the US can supply just as many troops as anybody else?
- Since you believe the US has no credibility (a ridiculous statement), name a country that will currently refuse to help the United States, and yet has credibility in your eyes.
Going back to Vietnam, according to Wikipedia, more than a few countries participated in the war, but let's always ignore the other countries that are involved. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

I don't want war unless it's absolutely necessary. I guess I'm just a pansy eh? I'm disgusted with the attitude that our misfortune of Sept. 11th somehow justifies our unilateral involvement in Iraq.

Yes, you are a pansy, and this has nothing with your desire to avoid war. If you are scared of the enemy's response, you should not consider a military career. War is all about fighting to achieve victory. There is a reason for war, and there is a time for it.

What do you really think would have been necessary to receive justification to attack Iraq? Would we have had to wait until he did manage to obtain WMDs and then strike?

I'm really at a loss for words how you can rant and rave how the US need lots of countries to participate in Iraq, yet you totally discount the current efforts of the coalition members. This is so insulting to those members that are actually working together on this mission. My point is this:
1. This war is not unilateral, but....
2. If it is, so what?
04-25-2007
whiteflags

Yes I think this thread can be refactored into something with a more alarming title. Staying vs Leaving the Middle East.
04-26-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

Do you even know who he is?

Yes, do you?

Quote:

the US can supply just as many troops as anybody else?

No, we can't

Quote:

Since you believe the US has no credibility (a ridiculous statement), name a country that will currently refuse to help the United States, and yet has credibility in your eyes.

Why is britain pulling 4500 troops out of Iraq and not sending them to another hotspot in Iraq?

Quote:

Yes, you are a pansy

hahahahaha, this is great...yeah, I'm a pansy for not wanting war. Well, this is where I sign off on this conversation. I think you are gradually losing your cool. I sincerely hope that you are at least in the military, otherwise your statements just seems incredibly hypocritical. Granted, seeing as how this is an online discussion you'll probably try to convince us that you're actually a Navy Seal that has fought in every american war.

Good luck with your war mongrelling.
04-26-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

No, we can't

How many more troops do we need in Iraq that the US can't put up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Why is britain pulling 4500 troops out of Iraq and not sending them to another hotspot in Iraq?

Because the US is handling the main hot spot -- Baghdad -- with the troop surge. This has been explained before in the media if I remember correctly. If you insist, I shall google for it since my memory failed me once before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

hahahahaha, this is great...yeah, I'm a pansy for not wanting war. Well, this is where I sign off on this conversation. I think you are gradually losing your cool. I sincerely hope that you are at least in the military, otherwise your statements just seems incredibly hypocritical. Granted, seeing as how this is an online discussion you'll probably try to convince us that you're actually a Navy Seal that has fought in every american war.

Losing my cool? I think not. Perhaps faring too well in this discussion for your liking, but at least it's nice to see you're consistent; you pull out of the discussion before victory is achieved, just like you would do in Iraq. ;)

All that serves to do is declare me, your opponent, the winner of the topic's debate. And in like manner, if you had your way and the US pulled out of Iraq, the enemy would declare victor in Iraq and take over the country. Neither of the two situations provide you with anything but time and energy spent that did more for your opponent than it did for yourself.

But back to the subject, I make no claims about my past at this point. I will not claim to be a Navy Seal that has fought in every American war, just like you won't probably declare to be a peace activist through every American war. ;)

My comment to you that you took great offense at was given in the context that you are scared of reprisal attacks. Unable to explain how you expect victory by leaving, or why the US needs the assistance of outside forces, or even what context would have made the attack on Iraq justifiable, I believe that you have no real battleplan. This boils down to you wanting to run away with no goal and leaving things stay as they are. As I said before, that is failure. What else would you call it?

If that is not indicative of someone who is scared of war or ignorant of what is really at stake, I apologize. The ball is in your court. Argue my points, explain your logic, but do anything but just simply say we should pull out without coming up with a solution to prevent the catastrophe that a pullout would result in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Good luck with your war mongrelling.

The equivalent statement would be to wish you well with your rose-colored view of the world when the armies of the enemy march into your neighborhood. :)
04-26-2007
MacNilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

How many more troops do we need in Iraq that the US can't put up?

Who knows? Maybe you will like to go? :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Because the US is handling the main hot spot -- Baghdad -- with the troop surge. This has been explained before in the media if I remember correctly. If you insist, I shall google for it since my memory failed me once before.

Do you feel ok?
04-26-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacNilly

Who knows? Maybe you will like to go? :p

Perhaps. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacNilly

Do you feel ok?

I feel pretty tired at the moment. Other than, that, I'm doing good. Thanks for asking. :rolleyes:
04-26-2007
MacNilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Perhaps. :)

I feel pretty tired at the moment. Other than, that, I'm doing good. Thanks for asking. :rolleyes:

I just wanted to point out that your never going to be right. People will always disagree with you whether you roll eyes or not. If you feel so strongly, go over there and start killing some terrorists. Posting on a programming forum isn't helping operation freedom.
04-26-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

Read Mein Kampf? I haven't myself, but I've seen a few quotes. Interesting stuff if your into wars and dicatorships for sure.

Yeah, it's historically not accurate, but it gives excellent insight into the psyche of a madman, which I think is useful.
04-26-2007
twomers

Puts a whole new slant on "history is written by the winners", eh? How historically inaccurate is it, Bob? I never heard that, but I'm not really into history much so that explains that.
04-26-2007
MacGyver
Quote:

Originally Posted by MacNilly

I just wanted to point out that your never going to be right. People will always disagree with you whether you roll eyes or not. If you feel so strongly, go over there and start killing some terrorists. Posting on a programming forum isn't helping operation freedom.

LOL.

I'm never going to be right because someone will disagree with me? By definition being right implies an absolute standard. If there is such in a given context of absolute rules that excludes popularity, the agreement of others is irrelevent.

Perhaps if you feel I'm incorrect, you could attempt to argue the relevent points. I don't think I would take offense if you could come up with another solution to the Iraq war without just running away. Somehow, I do not think you can come up with one, however. :)

FYI, I debate issues usually for 3 reasons:
- Others that read may be swayed by my arguments.
- I think it is important to take a stand for what is right.
- It's a good exercise to keep me active and ready.
I do feel quite strongly over this issue. I think the war is going well enough at the moment to merit me staying where I'm at. I do think I'm doing a very minute part in the civilian front by trying to convince others to support the mission. :)
04-26-2007
BobMcGee123

MacGyver, please stop, we've lost interest in your little debate. You're right, you've won. Now please stop.

Quote:

history is written by the winners

Ahh yes, this is actually one of my absolute favorite quotes. I e-mailed this quote to my humanities teacher earlier in the semester, here's an excerpt from that em:

"
I just finished a book on Nazi Germany called 'The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich.' I read it because Hitler is often used by politicians, e.g.
calling each other Hitlers and Nazis when they disagree with what the
other party is doing; World War 2 is often used as a means to denounce the
practicality of pacifism. Rather than let the politicians educate me I
decided to read a book on the matter. I also have a copy of 'Mein Kampf'

I remembered a statement by Hitler (I cannot get the exact wording because
I loaned the book out). It ties into the concept of a subjective reality.

'It is not the truth that matters, so long as we are victorious. The
record will simply be written by the victors anyway.'

This was prior to the Nazi war machine invading Poland. All of Hitler's
war moves were done 'in the name of peace,' or simply as 'defense
maneuvers.' The Nazis justified the invasion of Poland by staging an
attack (they dressed up prisoners in Polish Army uniforms, shot them dead
in a field, and claimed they attacked the German army first).
"

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacNilly View Post
Who knows? Maybe you will like to go?
Perhaps.

This is probably what bothers me the most nilly. I am reluctant to tell people to go to war or support a war unless I am or was in the service. Out of high school I enrolled in university and ARMY ROTC, I really liked it and wanted more. I hated school and wanted to drop out so I told a recruiter I was going to enlist in the marines. I asked myself if I really knew what I was getting myself into, and I didn't, so I hesitated on joining. One day I woke up in the morning, hit myself in the face with a frying pan and decided not to. If I agreed with the war, I wouldn't be arguing on a programming forum on its merits while other people are dying for the cause I believe in. That's my definition of a pansy.

EDIT:
jverkoeoy can support that this picture is, in fact, me, for he's met me in person
ihatenature.thejefffiles.com/side.jpg
04-26-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

MacGyver, please stop, we've lost interest in your little debate. You're right, you've won. Now please stop.

Why don't we try this on the terrorists? Maybe if we beg them nicely, they'll leave us alone. :rolleyes:
04-26-2007
Govtcheez

This thread is retarded.
04-26-2007
BobMcGee123

So is my little sister, she calls her self santa anna and gets french fries all over herself :(

EDIT:

Quote:

Why don't we try this on the terrorists? Maybe if we beg them nicely, they'll leave us alone.

Hmm, we can try it your way then, I'm done being nice to you. What I really think is that I've done a lot more military type stuff than you have, if you had gotten yelled at by the types of people I have you'd probably start crying, that unlike you I really would join the service if I felt I had found my calling (I nearly joined anyway), I wouldn't claim to support the war by arguing on a programming forum online , few here agree with you, there is not support back home, we will be out within two years, Iraq is and will be a failed state similarly to Vietnam, and once we're out we can bomb Iran.

All I have to do now sit back and let events prove me right.

There, I've taken the retalitory approach, which is what you wanted. Now I'm taking the approach where I remove this thread from what shows up when I enter the general discussion forum.
04-26-2007
Govtcheez

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula

Should we extract the OT posts into a separate thread?

Can you just delete the whole thread past Mein Kampf? I don't think this discussion is worth continuing elsewhere.
04-26-2007
Dave_Sinkula

<<split from here>>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

Can you just delete the whole thread past Mein Kampf? I don't think this discussion is worth continuing elsewhere.

I'll wait to see if the interested parties still have any interest.
04-26-2007
brewbuck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

Can you just delete the whole thread past Mein Kampf? I don't think this discussion is worth continuing elsewhere.

Invoking a little Godwin huh?

Anyway, I was disappointed to see this wasn't a new thread. I thought it was going to be about somebody's personal decision whether to leave or stay. That would have been interesting.
04-26-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

Can you just delete the whole thread past Mein Kampf? I don't think this discussion is worth continuing elsewhere.

Aw, that's not nice. I thought the posts here were well worth reading. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave_Sinkula

<<split from here>>

I'll wait to see if the interested parties still have any interest.

From my end, I'd be more than happy to continue this discussion, although I think I've run out of political opponents already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Invoking a little Godwin huh?

Incidentally, is that not cool that there is actually a wikipedia page on Godwin's Law?
04-27-2007
redche

@MacGyver

I am confused ..can you tell me once again why Americans troops are in iraq??
04-27-2007
Govtcheez

To prevent this, apparently

Quote:

the armies of the enemy march into your neighborhood.

Which might be a valid point if we were fighting the Nazis or the Soviets or any other formal army, but we're not.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

@MacGyver

I am confused ..can you tell me once again why Americans troops are in iraq??

At this point, American troops are in Iraq to assist the Iraqis in taking control of their own country.

In addition, they are there to be fighting the very same terrorists that would be attempting to perpetrate terrorist acts on US soil and elsewhere if they were not otherwise preoccupied with Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

Which might be a valid point if we were fighting the Nazis or the Soviets or any other formal army, but we're not.

At this point, the enemy is not a formal one, although it is receiving the support and assistance of at least one such formal one.
04-27-2007
Govtcheez

> At this point, the enemy is not a formal one, although it is receiving the support and assistance of at least one such formal one.

It must suck to be terrified of Iran invading the US. Think about how ridiculous that is for a minute.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

> At this point, the enemy is not a formal one, although it is receiving the support and assistance of at least one such formal one.

It must suck to be terrified of Iran invading the US. Think about how ridiculous that is for a minute.

I'm not concerned with Iran invading the United States. I'm concerned with Iran sending nuclear weapons into Israel and the United States and causing major carnage.

The backing of a regime like Iran provides terrorist groups with means that they otherwise would not have, operating on their own. If a nuke goes off, I would not expect people like you to think it justifiable for the United States to launch one back at Iran, especially if Iran claimed that they had no connection with the group that set it off.
04-27-2007
Govtcheez

> I'm not concerned with Iran invading the United States.

You were the one to bring up "enemies marching through our streets"

> I'm concerned with Iran sending nuclear weapons into Israel and the United States and causing major carnage.

If I'm not mistaken, Iran doesn't have any nukes, much less one that can reach the US. Israel can take care of themselves.

> I would not expect people like you to think it justifiable for the United States to launch one back at Iran, especially if Iran claimed that they had no connection with the group that set it off.

People like me? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

edit: You know what? Forget it. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who disliked the TV show MacGyver (of all things) based on the "liberal message". You've clearly made up your mind and are too deep into your persecution complex to ever change it.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

> I'm not concerned with Iran invading the United States.

You were the one to bring up "enemies marching through our streets"

Yes, in response to Bob talking about "war mongrelling", which is an amusing term btw.

I was merely offering one extreme statement vs another extreme statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

> I'm concerned with Iran sending nuclear weapons into Israel and the United States and causing major carnage.

If I'm not mistaken, Iran doesn't have any nukes, much less one that can reach the US. Israel can take care of themselves.

They are working on it, but I'm glad you're confident that they will fail.

And yes, Israel can take care of themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

> I would not expect people like you to think it justifiable for the United States to launch one back at Iran, especially if Iran claimed that they had no connection with the group that set it off.

People like me? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

People like any of the Mayors of Awesometown. :)

Or perhaps I meant people that mock the threat that Iran poses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

edit: You know what? Forget it. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who disliked the TV show MacGyver (of all things) based on the "liberal message". You've clearly made up your mind and are too deep into your persecution complex to ever change it.

Your involvement of a discussion with me lasted from Today, 07:27 AM to Today at 07:54 AM, about 27 minutes.

Oh, well. At least you lasted longer than Bob did. :)
04-27-2007
redche

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

At this point, American troops are in Iraq to assist the Iraqis in taking control of their own country.

In addition, they are there to be fighting the very same terrorists that would be attempting to perpetrate terrorist acts on US soil and elsewhere if they were not otherwise preoccupied with Iraq.

so what happened to :
to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism.
and to free the Iraqi people.

Quote:

taking control of their own country.

but usa gives Iraq to shia so we start read headlines like this "Shia police' kill dozens in Iraq" etc..
and how could help Iraq by killing 655,000 ?!!
in addition they were no terrorist in Iraq before 2003.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/wtort16.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...5/ghraib_8.jpg
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

rap 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza and shot and killed her and an her family
http://www.rwor.org/a/053/iraqrape-en.html

just imagine that Abeer is your daughter, or you are one of the prisoners above in picture.what would be your reaction ?

Quote:

they are there to be fighting the very same terrorists that would be attempting to perpetrate terrorist acts on US soil

the SAME terrorists that created by the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland invasion of Iraq !!!
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

so what happened to :
to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism.
and to free the Iraqi people.

First one, no weapons found. Second goal, mission accomplished. Last one, we're working on it. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

but usa gives Iraq to shia so we start read headlines like this "Shia police' kill dozens in Iraq" etc..
and how could help Iraq by killing 655,000 ?!!
in addition they were no terrorist in Iraq before 2003.

Well, since there's a majority of shiite, that's how the votes will most likely be split up. Statistically, it just makes sense if everyone is divided under those lines. That's what voting does.

Under Saddam, you had the minority sunnis that were slaughtering shiites, so it wasn't all rosey before the war.

As far as your reference to no terrorists being in Iraq, I would have to challenge that. I know people keep saying that al-qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, as per the 9/11 Commission Report, but at the same time, Saddam was funding suicide bombings in Israel. He was definitely not helping the situation in the middle east, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/wtort16.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...5/ghraib_8.jpg
http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/I5628-2004May05.JPG
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib2.jpg

rap 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza and shot and killed her and an her family
http://www.rwor.org/a/053/iraqrape-en.html

Things like this happened under Saddam's rule. The difference is that the US tries those of their own that are charged with crimes. Saddam's government was explicitly behind the brutality of his regime, and did nothing to stop it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

just imagine that Abeer is your daughter, or you are one of the prisoners above in picture.what would be your reaction ?

If my daughter was raped -- God forbid -- I would want justice done, and those responsible to be punished and put to death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

the SAME terrorists that created by the United States, Britain, Australia and Poland invasion of Iraq !!!

I fail to understand this point. I keep hearing that the US is responsible for backing Saddam up in the past, and responsible for creating terrorists by formerly aiding the regimes that sponsor them.

OK, so?

Taking that statement to be true, to me that means that the US should be cleaning up their mess, which means that they did right in removing Saddam and invading Iraq, although I always hear it coming from the other side as if it's a reason why they never should have invaded in the first place.
04-27-2007
redche

Quote:

Things like this happened under Saddam's rule. The difference is that the US tries those of their own that are charged with crimes. Saddam's government was explicitly behind the brutality of his regime, and did nothing to stop it.

Doing better then Saddam is not something be proud of and nor is it a good defense: "We are doing better then the worst people in the world."

So 655000 means nothing to you, but 32 students who were killed in Virginia Tech university means a lot to you. Because you do believe that the American blood is more valuable than the Iraqi blood.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

Doing better then Saddam is not something be proud of and nor is it a good defense: "We are doing better then the worst people in the world."

So 655000 means nothing to you, but 32 students who were killed in Virginia Tech university means a lot to you. Because you do believe that the American blood is more valuable than the Iraqi blood.

LOL. Slow down a little.

I'm being quite consistent, even though you wish to paint it the opposite. I want both those under Saddam and those under the US government to pay for the crimes that they have respectively done. What part of that do you not understand? That is not favoring any side to commit crimes.

Perhaps you think it's cool to just throw in random items like Virginia Tech, but it's pointless to this discussion. Yes, the Virginia Tech shooting bothered me. It should bother people. I hope it bothered you, otherwise, I would say that it's possible you don't care about American lives. Do we really want to carry on a discussion this way? I don't think it's beneficial.

Now back to the subject at hand, as I said, I believe that the Iraqis stand a much better chance at having a brighter future with the Americans. The first step is to get full control of the country and close the borders.
04-27-2007
indigo0086

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

So 655000 means nothing to you, but 32 students who were killed in Virginia Tech university means a lot to you. Because you do believe that the American blood is more valuable than the Iraqi blood.

Who put sand in your virginia.
04-27-2007
redche

Quote:

I believe that the Iraqis stand a much better chance at having a brighter future with the Americans.

Yes, that's right especially after the new Iraqi OIL law.
Mission Accomplished: Iraqi Oil Effectively Stolen.

PS: Don't get me wrong, it bothers me what happened to civilians, not only in Virginia, but in every place.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

Yes, that's right especially after the new Iraqi OIL law.
Mission Accomplished: Iraqi Oil Effectively Stolen.

PS: Don't get me wrong, it bothers me what happened to civilians, not only in Virginia, but in every place.

If you wouldn't mind explaining how the Iraqi Oil Law is stealing oil from the Iraqis, I would love to hear your particular rendition of it. :)

Incidentally, has it even been passed yet?
04-27-2007
BobMcGee123

Yes.

Have you read the ISGR yet? Joined the ARMY/USMC yet? you believe in the cause...I'd rather it be you than my son
04-27-2007
MacGyver

;)

lol.
04-27-2007
BobMcGee123

It means that the people that believe in the cause don't have the balls, and the ........heads like you just stay online and argue over the internet. Well, it's stuff like that which is going to promulgate the end of this war.

I haven't made up anything I've said in this thread.
I think that Americans are too ready to send others into combat without considering themselves.
04-27-2007
BobMcGee123

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/me...sts/index.html
04-27-2007
brewbuck

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

I'm not concerned with Iran invading the United States. I'm concerned with Iran sending nuclear weapons into Israel and the United States and causing major carnage.

All of the states in the Middle East are aware that Israel has self-built nukes of their own, even though they have never admitted it, and the UN has so far been unable to prove it. In Israel, it is common knowledge that a computerized system is in place which will launch a nuclear attack against Mecca if the government of Israel is ever incapacitated. Once again, the state has never admitted as such. This is a very effective deterrent, since most Muslims believe that the destruction of Mecca is an impossibility, because Allah would surely never allow such a thing to happen.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is.
04-27-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

All of the states in the Middle East are aware that Israel has self-built nukes of their own, even though they have never admitted it, and the UN has so far been unable to prove it. In Israel, it is common knowledge that a computerized system is in place which will launch a nuclear attack against Mecca if the government of Israel is ever incapacitated. Once again, the state has never admitted as such. This is a very effective deterrent, since most Muslims believe that the destruction of Mecca is an impossibility, because Allah would surely never allow such a thing to happen.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's the way it is.

You brought up a good point.

Everyone has reason to believe that Israel has nuclear weapons and is ready to execute the Samson Option.

The question is whether or not Iran would take any threat of attack seriously. It could be that they would believe they will be miraculously protected from such an attack, and therefore think it would be OK to attack Israel and risk the threat of retaliation.

Either way, if Israel was attacked by a nuke, would you expect anything else than for the world to condemn Israel's response?
04-27-2007
brewbuck

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

Either way, if Israel was attacked by a nuke, would you expect anything else than for the world to condemn Israel's response?

My personal belief is that if a country suffers nuclear attack, they are within their moral rights to respond with nuclear force. A conventional (non-nuclear) attack against Israel could never succeed. Having spent time in Israel, and being that my wife's family are all Israeli citizens, this is a source of much heart-ache for me.
04-27-2007
Dave_Sinkula

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

My personal belief is that if a country suffers nuclear attack, they are within their moral rights to respond with nuclear force.

[me=Playing Devil's Advocate]
But what if the concept of the responsible party is divorced from a particular country? Where are you allowed to respond? So do you respond by doing nothing? Or what?
[/me]
04-28-2007
cboard_member

I know my Dad has Mein Kampf upstairs somewhere - I'll need something else to read after all quiet on the western front, so maybe that'll be it.
04-28-2007
redche

I don't know why we are talking about Israel ??

Quote:

Everyone has reason to believe that Israel has nuclear weapons and is ready to execute the Samson Option.

because Israel declined to sign Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.
04-28-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

I don't know why we are talking about Israel ??

Because Israel is Iran's target. Iran is looking to destabilize the region by making the US withdraw from Iraq beforehand. Once that is done, Iran will be in a better position to make Iraq a mess, as well as keep working on the nuclear project.

At the end of the day, a few nukes smuggled into Israel and the US by some terrorist group would be the next step.

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

because Israel declined to sign Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

And your point is?
04-28-2007
QuestionC

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacGyver

If you wouldn't mind explaining how the Iraqi Oil Law is stealing oil from the Iraqis, I would love to hear your particular rendition of it. :)

Incidentally, has it even been passed yet?

One, we have a pretty bad track record. With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question of whether the Gulf War was over oil.

Two, the bill obliges Iraq to open its oil reserves up for 100% foreign ownership. This is special because it's freakishly atypical for a middle eastern oil state. "Dear Opec... remember the 70s? Never again." While it's beneficial for America to weaken the Oil Producing States' bargaining power, it does so at the cost of Iraq.

Three, is there seriously -any- Iraqi support for this bill? I assume there is, but I sure haven't been able to find it.

And no, it hasn't been passed yet. Every time I hear a republican Congressman 'conceding' that progress Iraq still needs to make, the fact that this law hasn't been passed is the primary illustration of lack of progress.

Basically, the Iraq oil law is shamelessly self-serving, and the fact that it's so high on the administration's agenda is telling.
04-28-2007
MacGyver

Sorry for taking so long, I tried to write a reply two times previously, and something came up each time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionC

One, we have a pretty bad track record. With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question of whether the Gulf War was over oil.

I suppose that the UN has a better track record when oil is in the picture.

With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question as to whether or not the motives of the countries and UN reps opposing the Second Gulf War were about oil and money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionC

Two, the bill obliges Iraq to open its oil reserves up for 100% foreign ownership. This is special because it's freakishly atypical for a middle eastern oil state. "Dear Opec... remember the 70s? Never again." While it's beneficial for America to weaken the Oil Producing States' bargaining power, it does so at the cost of Iraq.

I'm not so sure that this is a completely bad thing to put the industry as part of the market instead of having it nationalized. In addition, I'm not so sure that American companies would necessarily be the ones that are benefiting from this. Even assuming that there is some profit for the US, I would put that down to "spoils of war". ;)

In the long run, this might turn out to be a really good plan for all involved, including the Iraqis.

Now with that said, does anyone have the full wording of the most recent version of the bill? Wikipedia has nothing on the bill, and google results in many news articles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionC

Three, is there seriously -any- Iraqi support for this bill? I assume there is, but I sure haven't been able to find it.

From what I can tell, I think the Kurds are well pleased with it. I read an article just recently that said how they were not happy with how Saddam was using money generated by oil sales, but that isn't surprising.

This law will distribute the wealth evenly according to population to all of Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionC

And no, it hasn't been passed yet. Every time I hear a republican Congressman 'conceding' that progress Iraq still needs to make, the fact that this law hasn't been passed is the primary illustration of lack of progress.

Considering how there are so many conspiracy theories about how the US is in this for the oil, I could see very well how the US government would want to lay it down in law exactly what will be done with the oil. That would finish once and for all what is to be done with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuestionC

Basically, the Iraq oil law is shamelessly self-serving, and the fact that it's so high on the administration's agenda is telling.

We'll see what happens.
04-30-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question of whether the Gulf War was over oil.

Why are we sending troops to Baghdad? That isn't where the oil is. Which Gulf War are you talking about?
04-30-2007
QuestionC

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Why are we sending troops to Baghdad? That isn't where the oil is. Which Gulf War are you talking about?

The Gulf War was the war against Iraq in the early 90s in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

That question about Baghdad sounds hopelessly facetious, but I'll entertain it...
We are in Baghdad because that's where police is most needed. We want to stabilize the region so we can install the new government.
04-30-2007
BobMcGee123

So it's not totally about oil then? You made it sound like we're trying to stop them from killing each other. If that's not where the oil is, then why should we care?
04-30-2007
redche

Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?
04-30-2007
Rashakil Fol

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?

What's with the boldage?
04-30-2007
BobMcGee123

Quote:

Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?

I think it would be worthwhile to stabilize a place like that, but the world needs to support it universally. It can't just be the USA always going in and being the good guys, we've been getting ........ed for it lately.
04-30-2007
MacGyver

Quote:

Originally Posted by redche

Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?

LOL.

Your questions reworded:

1) Why is the US not concerned with Africa?
2) Why is the US becoming concerned with Africa?

Very nice. Since I would hope you have a point in there somewhere, please bring it out.
04-30-2007
QuestionC

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

So it's not totally about oil then? You made it sound like we're trying to stop them from killing each other. If that's not where the oil is, then why should we care?

Ok, look... this is why I avoid political arguments... Everything I say you ........ers are just going to rationalize into your viewpoint, and I refuse to treat you like you don't have access to the same resources I do.

If you honestly want to understand where I'm coming from, learn the history of the Middle East over the past 30 years, especially focusing on Iran. Learn about how Hussein rose to power. Learn how "Islamo-Facist" friendly Saddam's government was. Now read about some other high-profile inhumane governments so you have some context.

If you honestly learn a meaningful lick of historical context and still believe what you do, then there's no way my limited powers will sway you.
On the other hand, if you're just committed to screaming your viewpoint without, oh I don't know... doing any actual research beyond listening to the talking heads on Cable news... then yea, there's also no way my limited powers will sway you.

You're never going to listen to my opinion, all I can realistically hope you do is get an educated opinion by educating yourself. No one who knew what he was talking about can honestly ask the question you did in the context of my reply.
04-30-2007
Dave_Sinkula

Okay, so educate us. Find facts that aren't doctored from a particular viewpoint. Point us to these easy-to-find resources. We seem to be lacking completely neutral sources.
05-01-2007
BobMcGee123

QuestionC,

All I asked was why are we sending our troops to Baghdad if the conflict is totally about oil, as you have seemingly claimed. The map in the back of the Iraq Study Group Report places all major oil reserves in the most peaceful areas (to the northern and southern regions). So, I ask again, why try to pacify Baghdad in the name of oil?

Very simple, very straightforward question. I'll listen to what you have to say.

EDIT: Here, I've found some sources. These aren't directly from the back of the ISGR as my copy has been sent home.

http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/maps/oil.jpg (shows a single large oil reserve outside east baghdad)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...oil_map355.gif (this one shows the oil fields as blobs, and shows no oil reserve near Baghdad, but only a refinery...also shows strategic pipelines)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meas...tory.pipes.jpg (this has nothing to do with anything)

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:45 AM.