If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
Sanctions are a joke. Sanctions have never worked and they will never work.
Are you sure about that? N. Kor.... to name a more recent example. Kadafi's government, one that's a little while ago
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
I'm using the same words that the government used then. People didn't bother arguing symantecs then if I recall. Just keep in mind Iraq only aided with the plot - there were others not at all associated with the Iraq government that were involved.
Isn't that sort of speaking to my point earlier about the countries surrounding Iraq?
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
I couldn't care less about what form of government Iraq chooses. But the US needs to stay to stabilize the country, or we WILL have another nutjob in control of the country. That is a guarantee.
Wrong.. You should care A LOT about what kind of a government that Iraq will have in the future. With what we've done there it's detrimental to our future security. The problem is, no matter what the government, you can be sure that it'll be a corrupted one. Saddam type of government will come to Iraq with in the next 15 years. I'm sure of it. I make this statement based on Iraq's past so I'm very comfortable in making it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
That sounds like something straight from the mainstream media. Iraq and Vietnam are so different I don't even know where to begin dissecting that argument.
No need to dissect that argument. Iraq and Vietnam may be in two different parts of the word but our fight is very very similar. We fought the Vietcong there and we fight the 'insurgents' here. At the end of the day you're fighting the citizens of that country. So the fight is very similar and it's a never ending one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
That's why we need to stay for now until the country can be stabilized. If we leave now, it is guaranteed to go to shit.
The country will not stabilize. There are 3 factions there and they are killing each other. Unless that country get divided into 3 separate sections, these people will kill each other. That is as certainty as the sun will rise tomorrow. The problem we created there is so far out of control that there is no reasonable way of resolving it. When you take into count the historical, cultural and religious conflicts there, coupled with it's neighbors, it's just waiting to explode. If we decide to stay there until that place stabilizes, then you're looking at a long long occupation and yes more American deaths.
Excellent question. Tough to answer though. IMO, I think that we continue to ride the sucess of the surge to its conclusion. While we keep the pressure up militarily, up the political pressure for Iraq to take over. Iraqi's have been volunteering in masses for the ministry of defense. By last Novemeber, I think the number was around 100,000 and growing. This change in strategy is working, pulling out now would be a bigger mistake than the way this war was managed through '06. Iraq needs the time to grow. Democracy (or a variant of it) is not dead in Iraq. With all the American soldiers lives lost to IED's and all the innocent lives lost because hiding extremists within their ranks, dont we have the responsibility to atleast see this through?
If its true that this conflict will last hundreds of years, then the "Iraq stage" will set the stage for the future. We must see this through.
I doubt this conflict, at least in Iraq, will last the 100s of years but we'll have to accept a government that is not exactly democratic. I don't think democracy is right for Iraq. It's just not going to have the right type of people or culture to make a government that is similar to ours work. What Iraq needs, IMO, is a much more tougher government. THAT government is what needs to be phased out gradually as the country develops. This country, as may other third world countries, have a huge issue with despair. When people are desperate they are easily persuaded to be radicals. For them that is the only open option for a 'better' life, albeit it's going to be in the after life. Believing in a religion that is radicalized definitely not helping things much.
Here is what I think we shouldve done. This is again my opinion and mine only.
We should have addressed Afghanistan issue much more forcefully than we have thus far. We needed to catch and kill Ben Laden and company in such a manner that will make people's nose bleed when they think about attacking us. If we showed so much force and completed our mission in capturing Bin Laden, we would've had so much more convincing power to many other rogue nations, including Iraq. When you realize that you'll be annihilated if you attack us, people will think twice about doing it. Right now we are a laugh of the world and that dumb ass is jumping from cave to cave, house to house and we are still chasing his tale.
Iraq is not about terror. It's all about big business and oil. You don't have to believe me. Just do some research and read all the information that is available to us. Hell, you can go to the white house web site and get all kind of contradicting information that makes you wonder if these guys actually read what they write. Welcome to the White House
For oil!!! No, wait, for world dominance!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are the great devil!! Shit, now I see. Is that better guys?
You notice how fast the brats start crying when someone doesn't see it the way they do? Start pissing and moaning, so affraid of someone not seeing the obvious truth of their omnipotence.
You really shouldn't be so easily shook up. Just be sure to vote for Ron Paul, he's the only one who thinks leaving Iraq tomorrow is a good idea (besides Dems).
Mani, I do believe your heart is in the right place. You sound very genuine. Your points have merrit. I just dont see it quite as black and white as you do.
Eyespeed is a joke though. What are you, 6 years old?
No need to dissect that argument. Iraq and Vietnam may be in two different parts of the word but our fight is very very similar. We fought the Vietcong there and we fight the 'insurgents' here. At the end of the day you're fighting the citizens of that country. So the fight is very similar and it's a never ending one.
Again, the fight is not at all similar. Stop listening to the mainstream media. In Vietnam, we fought against well-armed, well-trained, well-disciplined "soldiers" (there's a better word than this but it escapes me). Our opposition in Vietnam was directly aided by the Soviet Union, which includes intelligence in addition to arms. The opposition also had a chain of command which they followed, and the opposition had superiors that they reported back to. In Iraq, we are fighting radicals, fanaticals, etc. who all operate on individual, independent "cells". There is no chain of command and there is no outside aid from a superpower. Iraq is far from the disciplined military we faced in Vietnam.
The only thing that Vietnam and Iraq have in common (aside from trivial things) is that the media is hellbent on doing everything they can to make us lose the war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
If we decide to stay there until that place stabilizes, then you're looking at a long long occupation and yes more American deaths.
The fact that Iraq would not be over in a day was explicitly mentioned by Bush back in 2003. He said that we would be there for a long time, and that this war will be a long one. War inevitably means death on both sides. The bleeding hearts don't understand this for some reason. Yes, it sucks when an American dies, but it's a war, and that's what happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
We should have addressed Afghanistan issue much more forcefully than we have thus far. We needed to catch and kill Ben Laden and company in such a manner that will make people's nose bleed when they think about attacking us. If we showed so much force and completed our mission in capturing Bin Laden, we would've had so much more convincing power to many other rogue nations, including Iraq. When you realize that you'll be annihilated if you attack us, people will think twice about doing it.
I agree with you. I have always held this viewpoint. We need to make attacking the United States unthinkable. I believe John Travolta said it best in Swordfish when he said "They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city." I can only dream of a world where this is a reality. But, unfortunately, it is not realistic because humans are easily corrupted by power - legalizing these sort of attacks make it easy for a corrupt leader to kill. That's why I believe this stuff needs to happen under the radar. (and for the record, I believe in torture; but, like this ideology, there should be no law protecting or banning it because of how easy it would be for a corrupt individual to exploit it)
Dude, you really need to take a deep breath and relax dude, you are just way out of line on these replies...if you want to argue you points with someone, try not calling them a fucking moron to start, it tends to make the conversation deteriorate rapidly.....
You are a very angry person, seek some medical advice soon, paxil works wonders from what I have seen out there......
Also if I can guess you age, ......ummm....24.......
Again, the fight is not at all similar. Stop listening to the mainstream media. In Vietnam, we fought against well-armed, well-trained, well-disciplined "soldiers" (there's a better word than this but it escapes me). Our opposition in Vietnam was directly aided by the Soviet Union, which includes intelligence in addition to arms. The opposition also had a chain of command which they followed, and the opposition had superiors that they reported back to. In Iraq, we are fighting radicals, fanaticals, etc. who all operate on individual, independent "cells". There is no chain of command and there is no outside aid from a superpower. Iraq is far from the disciplined military we faced in Vietnam.
The only thing that Vietnam and Iraq have in common (aside from trivial things) is that the media is hellbent on doing everything they can to make us lose the war.
True to a point. While I agree with you in the chain of command, I disagree with you in that there is no support for these people. Syria, Iran and even Saudis are supporting some of these guys who fight against us. The main reason, IMO, is that these countries do not want a democracy there. It has to do with the religions and which sect they belong to among the major reasons. These insurgents are fairly well organized though. They hit and run just like Vietcong's have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
The fact that Iraq would not be over in a day was explicitly mentioned by Bush back in 2003. He said that we would be there for a long time, and that this war will be a long one. War inevitably means death on both sides. The bleeding hearts don't understand this for some reason. Yes, it sucks when an American dies, but it's a war, and that's what happens.
Yes, Bush did mentioned that. However, you have to also remember under which pretense that he said that. Back then we all believed that Iraq had WMDs. Had this been true, I would be all for this war. If Iraq had WMD, I think that we are in an eminent treat and fully support the President's decision. Unfortunately, we know this is not the case. Given this fact we are no longer in an eminent threat from Iraq so we are no longer fighting for our security. This is where I have a huge issue with our soldiers dying. I feel they are dying for nothing. This fact bothers me immensely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
I agree with you. I have always held this viewpoint. We need to make attacking the United States unthinkable. I believe John Travolta said it best in Swordfish when he said "They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city." I can only dream of a world where this is a reality. But, unfortunately, it is not realistic because humans are easily corrupted by power - legalizing these sort of attacks make it easy for a corrupt leader to kill. That's why I believe this stuff needs to happen under the radar. (and for the record, I believe in torture; but, like this ideology, there should be no law protecting or banning it because of how easy it would be for a corrupt individual to exploit it)
On the torture issue, I strongly disagree with you and I'll tell you why.
If we decide to torture a captured fighter, be it a soldier or an insurgent, we are no better than these animals. We MUST follow the Geneva convention. We are bound by it and even in war there are rules that need to be followed. The saying that 'when a dog bites your leg you don't bite the dog's leg back' holds true. The other issue with this is that it'll give the other side all the justification they need to torture our soldiers. This will be up for debate if they are actually following the Geneva convention but that is besides the point and we can argue this single point for a long time.
Lastly, I enjoyed this discussion. I'm not trying to change any one's mind nor do I expect it. I gave my opinion and you and others have given yours. We agree on some issue and disagree on other. That's what make this country so great.
That said, this is my last post on this subject.
Dude, you really need to take a deep breath and relax dude, you are just way out of line on these replies...if you want to argue you points with someone, try not calling them a fucking moron to start, it tends to make the conversation deteriorate rapidly.....
You are a very angry person, seek some medical advice soon, paxil works wonders from what I have seen out there......
Also if I can guess you age, ......ummm....24.......
Its cool, I suppose I am a moron
Hooray for old people!!
__________________
"What? Thats no country I've ever heard of, do they speak English in What?"
Wow, it must be easy to blame everyone except the one responsible.
Almost as easy as picking and choosing who you want to hold accountable for their actions.
Quote:
Maybe he did say that. In which case, I am wrong, and I apologize. But the philosophy still remains preemptive strikes (that has not changed).
Yeah. You know who else based their military policy on preemptive strikes?
Quote:
You are the only one debating that point. I have never, ever mentioned 9/11. Ever. I use the word terrorist because a) that was the word used at the time, and b) because the plot for the assassination was masterminded and help planned by people outside of any nation's government (as far as our current intelligence goes). The people behind 9/11 are not the only ones in the business of terrorism.
Let's not forget that "terrorism" is a word, and can be applied to just about any act that is against any group. I'm sure there are residents of Baghdad that would consider US bombing of civilians to be a terrorist act. All depends on which side you're on really.
Quote:
Necessary evil.
Define necessary. I don't quite understand how you can refer to a terroristic regime as a threat, yet defend a questionable alliance with it.
Yes, I understand the policy. I don't get your point.
Quote:
I've never said that the foreign policy for the last 50+ years was necessary to the survival of this nation. Again, you mince my words. What I have said is that the policy of Containment (the policy the encompasses the foreign policy you speak of) worked exactly as it was proposed. Hindsight may be 20/20, but it is downright arrogant to say that Ron Paul could've done a better job dealing with the Soviet Union.
You're advocating it. And it did NOT work as proposed if we now have an entire subcontinent of civilization suspicious of our activities. I fail to see how the policy was a complete success if we're now at moral odds with an entire region of people.
Look at it this way: Would you rather be competing financially and militarily against a foreign nation halfway around the world without firing a shot, or be battling a faceless, nationless enemy that can't be recognized or located, who fights with bombs and airplanes?
In that respect, the policy is a failure.
Quote:
I have only made a single statement that could even be considered an attack. That statement was directed at Mani-1. With that said, I apologize (you didn't seemed phased by it anyway). You have a much harsher tone in your posts than any of mine.
Because I have to constantly remind people here that our entire geopolitical situation goes beyond oil, Islam, and Saddam. And most people here find it hard to step out of their own shoes for a moment and look at things without bias.
Add to that the chore of having to correct half of what ARRA says and posting here could almost be a fulltime job.
Quote:
One day, the world is going to see all of this differently. And you can quote me on that.
Absolutely. They'll see it as a religious war between Christianity and Islam. Not that it's right, but I'm sure that's how it will be interpreted.
Absolutely. They'll see it as a religious war between Christianity and Islam. Not that it's right, but I'm sure that's how it will be interpreted.
Actually, that depends on large part on who "wins". And yes, I use that term loosely.
After all, the winners write the history books. Try finding an American-made history textbook from 1950 to 1990 (and perhaps today?) that has any information on the Japanese-American concentration camp system on the West Coast during World War II.
Dude, you really need to take a deep breath and relax dude, you are just way out of line on these replies...if you want to argue you points with someone, try not calling them a fucking moron to start, it tends to make the conversation deteriorate rapidly.....
You are a very angry person, seek some medical advice soon, paxil works wonders from what I have seen out there......
Also if I can guess you age, ......ummm....24.......
I have no intention of "arguing" points with you. Youve proven you are a condescending asshole.
P.S. Ive been a republican longer than youve been able to vote, spanky. Fortunately, i changed my affiliation in 2004. Obviously, you werent smart enough to do that.
1) well it is BIN not Ben Ladin.
2) I have spoken personally with Scout Snipers who watched Bin Ladin himself through their scopes. They had the opportunity to kill him many times, but good old Uncle Bill didn't want to give the word.
__________________
If you have to ask why I ride, you'll never understand anyways.
I have no intention of "arguing" points with you. Youve proven you are a condescending asshole.
P.S. Ive been a republican longer than youve been able to vote, spanky. Fortunately, i changed my affiliation in 2004. Obviously, you werent smart enough to do that.
Wow, I thought I was one of the older ones on here...LOL 40 plus seem to be the higher end from what I have seen on here..... occasionally I see some 50's even one 60 year old.........Its great don't get me wrong, but the modern age sportbike really started just 22 years ago........with the likes of the Ninja, the GSXR etc etc
So I noticed in your Bio you dont list a bike, what do you ride?
Man I'll tell you I thought my back and wrist hurt from all the crashes while racing some 17-19 years ago, but for you, if indeed you are that much older, sport bikes must really kind of make you ache..........huh?
Condescending asshole, I love that from the guy that addresses each and every poster on the P & R that he doesnt agree with.... as.... FUCKING MORON, now what would you call that comment? hahahahahahahhaahhah
to name a more recent example. Kadafi's government, one that's a little while ago
Linear Mode
