|
|
| Author |
Message |
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
 Posted: 12/04/05 - 12:51 Post subject: Victory in Iraq?
|
|
|
Since Bush has said we will settle for nothing less than complete victory in Iraq, I wondered, how are we planning to define victory in Iraq? And for that matter, how about the "War on Terror"? Or are these both going to be wars that never end?
| Quote: | | At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 12/04/05 - 16:21 Post subject: Re: Victory in Iraq?
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | Since Bush has said we will settle for nothing less than complete victory in Iraq, I wondered, how are we planning to define victory in Iraq? And for that matter, how about the "War on Terror"? Or are these both going to be wars that never end?
| Quote: | | At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. |
|
Why don't you figure it out and tell us all.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/04/05 - 16:24 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Remember when Nahualli tricked you into thinking he was Jack Crow?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 12/04/05 - 16:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | Remember when Nahualli tricked you into thinking he was Jack Crow? |
That depends on the facts.
Before you can claim victory, you have to come up with the real JC.
And before you do that, you have to figure out what victory means in iraq. You will be busy.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rennol
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 3741
Location: Charleston, IL
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 12:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
If you can't tell us what victory in Iraq is, Kbarr, then I doubt anyone can.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tura
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 4865
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 12:47 Post subject:
|
|
|
We've been at war for about 3 years with Iraq.
We have only lost a little over 2000 troops.
We have trained thousands of Iraqi security forces so that they can start to handle the burden of maintaining law & order.
Things are actually going rather smoothly if you look at the big picture. In 3 years we have come a long way, especially considering this is all taking place in a country like Iraq.
The war on terror will never end motherface....Stop putting words in the Presidents mouth and making it sound like something its not. Bush has clearly stated the War on Terror is something that all nations will have to fight for and continue to fight for.
The war in Iraq will end eventually. Maybe not this year or next year but when it is done, and the dust is settled, at least we can say we stuck it out and did it the right way instead of trying to go for the easy-out.
Either way, this war will end, and the responsible will drag the irresponsible kicking and screaming the whole way through it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 12:56 Post subject: Re: Victory in Iraq?
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | Since Bush has said we will settle for nothing less than complete victory in Iraq, I wondered, how are we planning to define victory in Iraq? And for that matter, how about the "War on Terror"? Or are these both going to be wars that never end?
| Quote: | | At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. |
|
I use that quote often, but most cant seem to understand how it could possibly apply to todays political culture.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
shinja mayoke
Luke Warm
Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 434
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 13:35 Post subject:
|
|
|
Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 15:30 Post subject: Re: Victory in Iraq?
|
|
|
Eventually the war on terror is going to have to shift directions in order to be successfull. For once dependancy on oil has to be severly reduced. You could force change with economic measures, but as long as we're all dependant on their exports, no such thing could happen. By putting more money into the development of alternative energy (it'll likely have to be a solution applying a mix of sources for different applications - definatly a LOT of research necessary. Still, when planning for the next 20-50 years, there's no way around it. (Gas is essential for the economy, but you can encourage conservation differently: Either a tax on cars that are especially fuel inefficient, or offering subsidies on hybrid/more efficient cars.)
The 1984 quote doesn't really apply, as the extend of involvement in the war effort by most Americans is limited to putting a US flag sticker on their SUV. That being said, the issue of surveillance and the hostility expressed by some politicians towards their opponents is troubling.
It becomes dangerous when the fear of a threat is exploited to restrict civil liberties. Thankfully the supreme court sees it that way too. (Enemy Combatants in guantanamo bay for example - holding people indefinitly without trial is irresponsible)
While we can't be paranoid about every proposal to increase security (for example biometric passports are a good idea) it's something that has to be looked at critically. You can go too far with everything.
As for the iraq situation in particular: Probably was a good idea to go in and take Saddam out. It has been widely reportet (and not just by US intelligence) that he supported financially the family of suicide bombers. That being said, any such invasion is obviously coupled with a LOT of rebuilding. Would have helped if the US had tried to convince more nations in the UN to support the war, by giving diplomatic means more time.
Not because I think the UN could have accomplished much, but it's possible the US could have gotten more support in terms of troops but also financially. Covering almost all the costs alone is a huge burden. That being said, it's unlikely to happen with another country, so might as well ride this one out and do it right, then take a different approach from now on.
Keep in mind that the majority of the iraqi army surrendered - something that would never happen in Iran, for example.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Occulis
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 13293
Location: Moral Relativity Central
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 16:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| shinja mayoke wrote: | Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!! |
The Germans huh
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 16:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Occulis wrote: | | shinja mayoke wrote: | Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!! |
The Germans huh |
Shh, he's on a roll.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
shinja mayoke
Luke Warm
Joined: 04 Jan 2003
Posts: 434
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 16:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: | | Occulis wrote: | | shinja mayoke wrote: | Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!! |
The Germans huh |
Shh, he's on a roll. |
8*)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
FockTop
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 1055
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 16:19 Post subject:
|
|
|
Ill tell you when the *war* will end.
It will end when Bush will or be ejected from his post or when he resolve himself to call back the troops.
because right now I doubt that he even know why he has troops in Iraq.
He prob know that he screwed up very badly but he just cannot find a good reason to call all the troops back without passing for a f*****g moron.
There will always be some sickos in Iraq ready to charge to kill a few soldiers/civilians.
The situation hasnt improved in more then a years we always see on the news a new bombing almost on a daily basis.
May as well tell all the soldiers in Iraq to invite their families they wont go back lol.
or maybe soon the American gouvernment will make an annonce that Iraq is now able to walk alone etc...etc...with some big words in the air and some home made documents with many facts that Iraq now go much better bla bla bla.
it cost billions a day to pay for the troops in Iraq so you can bet your arse that they wont simply say : okay folks mission done come back home.
At first the goal was to stop Saddam, find weapons etc...now its more like a trip to Iraq very expensive and soldiers still die without even knowing why the f**k they are still there.
So my opignon right now is that the supposed war goes on simply because some political idiots dont want to lose their face to the world.
The only thing that bothers me right now is the parents/family of the soldiers that die now...what are they thinking? why is my son still in Iraq? why did he died? to protect our contry? not at all, for freedom? not at all to protect Iraq people? in 10 years at this rate it will still be the same thing going on so no.
Its sad, very sad because those that die right now die because of some old fart's egos.
its one thing to be a proud person in life but when people die because of YOUR ego...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
sinrakin
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 7044
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Ishmael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 4446
Location: The US of A
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 17:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| FockTop wrote: | Ill tell you when the *war* will end.
It will end when Bush will or be ejected from his post or when he resolve himself to call back the troops.
because right now I doubt that he even know why he has troops in Iraq.
He prob know that he screwed up very badly but he just cannot find a good reason to call all the troops back without passing for a f*****g moron.
There will always be some sickos in Iraq ready to charge to kill a few soldiers/civilians.
The situation hasnt improved in more then a years we always see on the news a new bombing almost on a daily basis.
May as well tell all the soldiers in Iraq to invite their families they wont go back lol.
or maybe soon the American gouvernment will make an annonce that Iraq is now able to walk alone etc...etc...with some big words in the air and some home made documents with many facts that Iraq now go much better bla bla bla.
it cost billions a day to pay for the troops in Iraq so you can bet your arse that they wont simply say : okay folks mission done come back home.
At first the goal was to stop Saddam, find weapons etc...now its more like a trip to Iraq very expensive and soldiers still die without even knowing why the f**k they are still there.
So my opignon right now is that the supposed war goes on simply because some political idiots dont want to lose their face to the world.
The only thing that bothers me right now is the parents/family of the soldiers that die now...what are they thinking? why is my son still in Iraq? why did he died? to protect our contry? not at all, for freedom? not at all to protect Iraq people? in 10 years at this rate it will still be the same thing going on so no.
Its sad, very sad because those that die right now die because of some old fart's egos.
its one thing to be a proud person in life but when people die because of YOUR ego... |
I bet you would tell me, wouldn't you, but it would be in broken english, so odds are I wouldn't understand.
P.S. No I didn't care to attempt to read past the first line.
Last edited by Ishmael on 12/05/05 - 20:02; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Plat4PoP
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 14376
Location: USA
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 18:40 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rennol wrote: | | If you can't tell us what victory in Iraq is, Kbarr, then I doubt anyone can. |
The Bush administration cannot even tell us what that is.
As far as I can tell we will be there until the oil is all gone then the Iraqi people will have their freedom from the occupiers
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
lotek
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 1598
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 19:01 Post subject:
|
|
|
| FockTop wrote: | Ill tell you when the *war* will end.
It will end when Bush will or be ejected from his post or when he resolve himself to call back the troops. |
the war(on terror) will end when there becomes another convincing threat to shift public fears to. Then this one will never have existed.
Last edited by lotek on 12/05/05 - 20:05; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 19:10 Post subject:
|
|
|
US troops will be withdrawn from Iraq...when the Iraqi government is stable and they start taking care of their own people...unfortunately there may be coup attempts in the future also...as radical Islamists don't want democracy to prevail in the ME.
Don't be surprised if the US doesn't maintain a "forward" base in Iraq itself...whether it's an air base or desert training base.
The only reason demonrats want to pull out of Iraq now...is so they can say..."See the war in Iraq failed and it's Bush's fault."
Give it time and it will be over soon enough and the Iraqi people will thank us...especially the newer generations.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zonk
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 976
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 19:12 Post subject:
|
|
|
we have to have some order over there so we can leave and feel safe leaving them by themselves.
Army's take a while to make especially when idiots are trying to blow up the training bases all the time.
I cant wait til we can get our guys out but it will be 2x as good cuz we will have a puppet army in the middle east made up of arabs willing to pretty much fight for us whenever.
In the mean time we just have to keep killing the cells that are popping up everywhere.
The main economic thing though is the oil we have to build all the pipes and plants back better and give them security not just for us but the whole world once that happens the country will be getting more money.
It is alot less likely a person will blow himself up if he has food and shelter and a job even though alot of them still dont care about that and will continue to blow shit up thats the ones we have to keep after.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Docter
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 3420
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Zonk
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 02 Jan 2003
Posts: 976
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 19:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | As far as I can tell we will be there until the oil is all gone then the Iraqi people will have their freedom from the occupiers |
what are they gonna do with the oil eat it?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 19:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
Haha!
Idiots!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Frehya
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2398
|
|
Posted: 12/05/05 - 21:45 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Occulis wrote: | | shinja mayoke wrote: | Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the going gets tough . . . the tough get going. Who's with me? Let's Go! Come on! AAAAEEEEEGGGHHHH!! |
The Germans huh |
Is this breaking news??
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
xammer99
Luke Warm
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 336
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 00:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
I’ll take a stab at this one.
The Iraqi phase of the War on Terror will be over when…
a. Iraq is capable of maintaining its own internal stability.
b. Iraq is able to provide a strategic buffer against Iranian expansion/influence into the other Gulf States.
In criticizing the war, y’all are takin an incredibly shallow view of what the situation was in Iraq that just flat out ignores the majority of the regional problems there that are the reasons we went to war. That you take such a shallow view also goes a long way towards explaining why the WMD thing was used as justification for the war. It’s a way to simplify a very complex issue for the largely uninformed individual.
First, let’s look at what happened before the present War. In 1991 the US & Coalition booted the Iraqis outta Kuwait, but it is critical to note that at that time we did not take Baghdad and remove Hussein from power. This is because we wanted to leave Hussein there as a regional buffer against Iran, the same thing we’d been doing since 1979. Iraq was defanged and rendered incapable of mounting an offensive war, but its defensive capabilities were still in tact. This is why we put in the no fly zone, but still allowed the use of helicopters. To put it succinctly, this was a short term solution to a long term problem. The problem in question being Iran.
Why is Iran a problem? Because it is big, aggressive, rich, and run by largely irrational group of people (as are most religious fanatics). Further, it would very much like to spread it’s Islamic revolution to other states. As proof of this just look at what went on in Afghanistan. Also look at the rhetoric of Iranian leaders both before and during the current war. Further, Iran, given the chance, would gladly bump off Iraq. There are just too many incentives to do it. The large group of co-religionists, the large and relatively untapped oil reserves, and Hussein started a war with’em in the 80’s and they wouldn’t mind revenge. The oil reserves in particular are important because that would give a tremendous amount of global influence to a country that we do not want having it.
So, now the 1990’s we continue to defang Iraq, but there are a couple of problems with the policy. One, Hussein is getting old, two he’s pretty openly circumventing the restrictions put on him. The first is big because it is an exceedingly rare dictatorship that survives the present dictator, and so when he goes under normal circumstances a power struggle is all but ensured. With Hussein’s case it is guaranteed because of the two sons. So, had Hussein kicked off while still in power, you have a civil war in Iraq with no one there on the ground capable of preventing the Iranians from dipping their hands and possibly tanks into it quite openly. In the second case, his circumventing of the restrictions and from all indications that he was once more after WMDs as per the Clinton Administration and numerous other sources. So, in 2002 we were faced with an inherently unstable dictatorship in the middle of the world’s most important region that was increasingly incapable of fulfilling its strategic role.
This war, as all wars are, is complex. It is about terrorism, WMDs, balance of power, economics, oil, and most importantly it’s about the future. You see the Middle Eastern states are corpses waiting to realize they are dead pre-2002. The only thing of significant value from the region is oil, and as the case with all mono-economies they fail utterly in the end if left to their own devices. This is the route the entire Middle East was taking. Every single Arab government there offers no long term hope for its people because they refuse to diversify their economies. Instead they buy off their people with religious schools and propaganda while lining their own pockets. It’s a region run by Mafioso. So, in 20-30 years when the oil dries up, what would be left? Answer…nothing. It is arid there for it cannot feed itself, and we’d be facing a hundred million starving people. It’s unstable as hell, so you will have plenty of places happy to sell things to the Arabs, but no one will build a factory there to give them jobs, because that is a capital investment that can be destroyed. The Middle East has become dangerously over populated and it’s present mono-economy cannot sustain it past the failure of said resource.
So, the War in Iraq is about forcing them to confront this problem, to stop funneling the money into the hands of the Princes and Dictators and with a democracy getting it spread out more so that their economies can diversify and thus present them with a chance to survive when the oil runs out.
Further, the war is about a darker aspect of the future. Americans by nature are a pretty optimistic lot. We don’t like to think about the unpleasant consequences because history has been pretty good to us. It all works out in the end. Suppose this is the time that it doesn’t however. What if we cannot come up with an alternative to oil for our principle source of mobile energy? Right now everyone likes to talk about hybrid vehicles, but they won’t solve the problem. Should every car in the US be converted right now we’d be back at our present consumption levels in 5 years. Electric cars offer no alternative at the present with a hundred miles or so for every 4 hours of charging. Hydrogen, ignoring it’s dangerous side effects, is even less promising with 80 miles to the tank.
So, what if none of these things pan out? Then there are several likely scenarios. The most obvious one is a scramble by the major powers for the remaining oil supplies. That means China, India, Europe, and the US will all make a play for regional domination of the Middle East either directly or indirectly. At best we have a return to informal empires or at worst actual empire once again and we get to relive the joys of the 18th century. The others include outright conquest by the US of the Caribbean basin, a Russo-Chinese over Siberia, and the leveling of the Rocky Mountains for the Shale Oil there. In the advent of this dark day, Iraq once again makes sense because it allows us to pre-position our forces on top of the Gulf, just incase.
Even without the dark future aspect, there remains the undeniable fact that oil is THE natural resource in the world, and that we as a nation cannot allow another major country to dominante us through it. Thus we will maintain a significant military presence in the region. Currently however that is in Saudi Arabia and that has created all kinds of problems. Bush the Elder bought a world of crap with that one that he and his advisors flat out did not expect. By invading Iraq and upon the successful completion of it, we will be able to migrate those forces there and out of the Kingdom. This will take a very large amount of the wind out of the fundamentalist sail, because the us presence in Saudi has been his main rally cry.
So, the Iraq war lets us accomplish a whole lotta things. Then you can throw in the ties to terrorist groups ($25,000 checks on public TV to the family of Palestinian homicide bombers), and the war is just flat out in our interest to prosecute. Then on top of it are the whole domestic issues as well that are just downright unpleasant and that we faced at the end of the 19th century and don’t care too again.
Now, as for the opposition. That is without question the biggest b******t scheme in recent US politics. The leaders of both parties are not idiots and neither are the careerists in the government. They will know what will happen should the US government immediately leave. Iraq will collapse and the country will be handed to the Iranians. The Middle East will then be in a far worse situation all together, and with it our future economic prospects. The Democratic leadership knows this and are just playing the opposition game when in truth no serious democrat talks about cutting and running. Instead it’s just a bomb throwing game and a way to undermine the Republican Party. No more, no less. In fact, they know that they can’t get out and are not making noises as such. Look at Kerry, he never advocated leaving, instead he wanted more troops. Hillary is not advocating leaving either, just that we’ve taken the wrong policy and we need to do it better. Evan Bayh is doin the same.
It’s the same political game as with high tariffs. Democrats love to make the noises about protecting US jobs, but when it comes down too it, Bill Clinton was as big a free trader as any one else. He got NAFTA for godsake.
Finally, if any of ya anti-war folks get this far, I’ll be impressed and my hats off too ya. I hope you think about what I’ve said. This war is not a simple thing and no war ever is. The reasons for war are always boiled down by the politicians to make it understandable by you because they know otherwise you couldn’t hope to understand it. It’s just too complex. This has been going on for as long as there have been wars and will never end. More over, it’s how public politics works. It counts on you not having a damn clue and being sucked in by a catchy slogan while in the halls of power the real things are done by real people with a great deal of seriousness. If you don't believe me, I HIGHLY encourage you to read the Congressional Records or the Foreign Relations of the United States. Fascinating stuff that tells you a LOT about how Governments really work.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 01:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
1650 words.
Microsoft Word autosummary:
In criticizing the war, y’all are takin an incredibly shallow view of what the situation was in Iraq that just flat out ignores the majority of the regional problems there that are the reasons we went to war.
First, let’s look at what happened before the present War. Iraq was defanged and rendered incapable of mounting an offensive war, but its defensive capabilities were still in tact. To put it succinctly, this was a short term solution to a long term problem. The problem in question being Iran.
Why is Iran a problem? Because it is big, aggressive, rich, and run by largely irrational group of people (as are most religious fanatics). Also look at the rhetoric of Iranian leaders both before and during the current war. Further, Iran, given the chance, would gladly bump off Iraq. The large group of co-religionists, the large and relatively untapped oil reserves, and Hussein started a war with’em in the 80’s and they wouldn’t mind revenge. With Hussein’s case it is guaranteed because of the two sons.
This war, as all wars are, is complex. It is about terrorism, WMDs, balance of power, economics, oil, and most importantly it’s about the future. You see the Middle Eastern states are corpses waiting to realize they are dead pre-2002. Every single Arab government there offers no long term hope for its people because they refuse to diversify their economies. It’s a region run by Mafioso. The Middle East has become dangerously over populated and it’s present mono-economy cannot sustain it past the failure of said resource.
So, the War in Iraq is about forcing them to confront this problem, to stop funneling the money into the hands of the Princes and Dictators and with a democracy getting it spread out more so that their economies can diversify and thus present them with a chance to survive when the oil runs out.
Further, the war is about a darker aspect of the future. Americans by nature are a pretty optimistic lot. What if we cannot come up with an alternative to oil for our principle source of mobile energy? The most obvious one is a scramble by the major powers for the remaining oil supplies. Iraq will collapse and the country will be handed to the Iranians.
Finally, if any of ya anti-war folks get this far, I’ll be impressed and my hats off too ya. This war is not a simple thing and no war ever is. More over, it’s how public politics works.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 01:11 Post subject:
|
|
|
I'll save the typical anti-Bush crowd some time and say it for them:
"No Xammer, despite the facts and historical examples that you cited, you are wrong. We are at war in Iraq because Bush wants to kill our kids and take away our freedoms."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tura
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 4865
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 01:49 Post subject:
|
|
|
Seriously, people like plat and all you other nay-sayers need to take a step back and look at yourselves. You're all like broken records.
There are valid reasons we are in Iraq.
We will leave Iraq when they are able to keep order.
To criticize our Government for not pulling out now is assanine. If we were to leave right now it would not be prudent at all. Not for us, and DEFINATELY not for the people of Iraq.
You cannot honestly say you support our soldiers if you are outspokenly telling them they are there for plundering oil. Do you know how ludacris that sounds?
Move this thread to the political forum...its about to get fouled up.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
motherface
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 3407
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 02:14 Post subject:
|
|
|
Nice one.
Xammer's thing sounded mostly like "We need to take Iraq so we can take Iran, and yeah it's about oil, but we really need it."
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tura
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 4865
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 02:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
| motherface wrote: |
Nice one.
Xammer's thing sounded mostly like "We need to take Iraq so we can take Iran, and yeah it's about oil, but we really need it." |
Other than my lack of 'ous' is that all you can say?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Soriak
Toomuchtimeonhands
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 952
|
|
Posted: 12/06/05 - 02:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Tura wrote: | | You cannot honestly say you support our soldiers if you are outspokenly telling them they are there for plundering oil. Do you know how ludacris that sounds? |
How do you define "supporting the troops?"
Do you "support the troops" by putting a bumper sticker on your car? By running around and claiming you support the troops?
Neither does a soldier in Iraq any good, but can't beat the effort it takes. (ie none)
Supporting blindly every decission the military makes is more like 'supporting the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs or the president' - surely not anyone fighting in Iraq who isn't involved with the decission making process at all.
So what is real support?
You could send care packages or letters of support (http://www.anysoldier.com/ is what I found on google)
You can give that support while being a die hard communist and war-opponent and do more good than the blind war supporter who can't be bothered to do anything that requires thought or effort.
Then again - not surprising. A bumper sticker shows everyone that you're part of the good guys, whereas other things don't do you much good. But yes, it's all about supporting the troops...
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
