Thread: Staying vs Leaving the Middle East

<<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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

Back that up. I haven't heard that.

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?

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.

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.

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".

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:

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!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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

Uhmmm...pretty much.

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.

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!!!

Should we extract the OT posts into a separate thread?

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.