OT: Why are we fighting a ground war?

[thefyn]

Clearly you didn't read. The military didn't do this. The CIA did. The military has very limited operations in Afghanistan and none in Pakistan -- this is the problem. Keep going though.

 

 

Reading comprehension. Nice try nice try nice try.

[rememberduane]

So you look upon the Iraqis as EXACTLY the US government wants you to. As if they are going to run into bloodbath after bloodbath and start talking to the right people for weapons of mass destruction etc etc etc. Give them more credit than that. But I can see you are just programmed to fear them as a people.

 

 

No.

 

Learn about the history of the creation of Iraq and you'll see why sectional conflict exists and why it will descend into bloodshed without a strong government (or dictator). There was violent sectional conflict before Saddam and there will be once we leave, until there's another strong man. It stems from the arbitrary borders created and enforced by British colonialism.

 

And before you say, well why don't they separate into multiple nations -- its because populations are no longer cohesive, and the oil fields will become a reason for continuous warfare. And as much as it sound like a Washington talking point, Iran will get involved and it won't be nice for Sunnis and Kurds. Or for our interests.

[rememberduane]

Reading comprehension. Nice try nice try nice try.

 

 

Do you enjoy making yourself look like an idiot?

[thefyn]

It has nothing to do with an irrational fear of Iraq and everything to do with understanding the dynamic of the various cultural groups there, along with the entire region. Iraq is hardly a unified area, and I give Hussein credit for one thing - keeping that nation together and unified, albiet with a very heavy hand and human rights violations.

 

 

Didn't you block me? Or was it one of his other little piggies?

 

It has everything to do with American ego (They could not possibly sort it out themselves) and American propaganda (They are savages who's religious beliefs will end in Nuclear holocaust)

 

Consequences would be NOTHING like what the US gov have programmed TEACHERS, students and public alike. There are a other places in Africa that are already nightmares of infighting/corruption of a horrific scale.

 

But you have not been programmed to care about that. Just on the smokescreen covering the private contractors.

 

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

"Stay the course. Or all hell will break loose"

[thefyn]

 

No. Learn about the history of the creation of Iraq and you'll see why sectional conflict exists and why it will descend into bloodshed without a strong government (or dictator). There was violent sectional conflict before Saddam and there will be once we leave, until there's another strong man. It stems from the arbitrary borders created and enforced by British colonialism. And before you say, well why don't they separate into multiple nations -- its because populations are no longer cohesive, and the oil fields will become a reason for continuous warfare. And as much as it sound like a Washington talking point, Iran will get involved and it won't be nice for Sunnis and Kurds. Or for our interests.

 

 

If you want to dictate what a country does or does not do with its own resources and cultures then shame on you.

 

Do you honestly believe that Bush gives a {censored} what happens to the people?

 

It's about the MONEY.

[rememberduane]

Didn't you block me? Or was it one of his other little piggies? It has everything to do with American ego (They could not possibly sort it out themselves) and American propaganda (They are savages who's religious beliefs will end in Nuclear holocaust) Consequences would be NOTHING like what the US gov have programmed TEACHERS, students and public alike. There are a other places in Africa that are already nightmares of infighting/corruption of a horrific scale. But you have not been programmed to care about that. Just on the smokescreen covering the private contractors. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "Stay the course. Or all hell will break loose"

 

 

See above.

 

{censored} what the US government says, do you really think I listen to them or the media propaganda? Before a few weeks ago I hadn't watched TV except for downloads for like 2-3 years and I rarely, if ever, read American newspapers.

 

The former British Ambassador to Jordan, Kuwait, and former governor of Aden lectures regularly at our university. He still writes about the Middle East and researches heavily. Spends time there when he can, but still has tons of connections. He knows this stuff intimately. He said the first thing that will happen if the Iraqis are left is that they will split into three states on largely sectarian lines and then proceed to fight over the oil fields.

[Weathered]

Didn't you block me? Or was it one of his other little piggies? It has everything to do with American ego (They could not possibly sort it out themselves) and American propaganda (They are savages who's religious beliefs will end in Nuclear holocaust) Consequences would be NOTHING like what the US gov have programmed TEACHERS, students and public alike. There are a other places in Africa that are already nightmares of infighting/corruption of a horrific scale. But you have not been programmed to care about that. Just on the smokescreen covering the private contractors. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ "Stay the course. Or all hell will break loose"

Jesus.

Yes, I put you on ignore, but the message about you being on ignore is possible more annoying than your typical post. Plus, how could we have come to terms on the sound guy thread?


There is MUCH more at stake in the middle east than there is in Africa. Both, however, are a result of British colonialism drawing arbitrary borders and forcing people together who do not share a common ideal. If Iran gets involved, if Turkey gets involved, etc, it will result in something much more serious than simply civil war like it could be considered right now.

Care to show me where I said anything about it ending in nuclear holocaust? No? That's right - it's because I never said that. I'd apprectiate it if you could stop insinuating that I'm trying to make this mountain into Vesuvius.

[rememberduane]

If you want to dictate what a country does or does not do with its own resources and cultures then shame on you.

 

 

That's not the case at all. We toppled the government that was holding that country together. If we leave now, the violence that ensues is on us. I think we owe it to the Iraqi civilians to keep it from happening.

[rememberduane]

Jesus. Yes, I put you on ignore, but the message about you being on ignore is possible more annoying than your typical post. Plus, how could we have come to terms on the sound guy thread? There is MUCH more at stake in the middle east than there is in Africa. Both, however, are a result of British, American, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Abyssinian, and Arab colonialism drawing arbitrary borders and forcing people together who do not share a common ideal. If Iran gets involved, if Turkey gets involved, etc, it will result in something much more serious than simply civil war like it could be considered right now. Care to show me where I said anything about it ending in nuclear holocaust? No? That's right - it's because I never said that. I'd apprectiate it if you could stop insinuating that I'm trying to make this mountain into Vesuvius.

Fixed.

[Weathered]

If you want to dictate what a country does or does not do with its own resources and cultures then shame on you.

 

 

Think about it this way - if they were to divide the country, one would be VERY wealthy courtesy of the oil fields. This would lead to more and more violence, I'd be willing to be serious money that Iran would step in, and we'd have a regional war. A lot more lives would be lost through this, and it'd completely undermine any chance of stability in that region of the world.

[rememberduane]

Do you honestly believe that Bush gives a {censored} what happens to the people? It's about the MONEY.

 

 

No, I don't think he cares, but I do.

[thefyn]

Jesus. Yes, I put you on ignore, but the message about you being on ignore is possible more annoying than your typical post. Plus, how could we have come to terms on the sound guy thread? There is MUCH more at stake in the middle east than there is in Africa. Both, however, are a result of British colonialism drawing arbitrary borders and forcing people together who do not share a common ideal. If Iran gets involved, if Turkey gets involved, etc, it will result in something much more serious than simply civil war like it could be considered right now. Care to show me where I said anything about it ending in nuclear holocaust? No? That's right - it's because I never said that. I'd apprectiate it if you could stop insinuating that I'm trying to make this mountain into Vesuvius.

That is right. And look how well it went when the UK did what you propose the US do now.

History repeating itself is a well worn phrase.

If what you claim is true, then we need a LOT LOT more troops over there!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!!! WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN OUR POSITIONS!!!!

[rememberduane]

That is right. And look how well it went when the UK did what you propose the US do now. History repeating itself is a well worn phrase. If what you claim is true, then we need a LOT LOT more troops over there!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!!! WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN OUR POSITIONS!!!!

 

 

Do you not realize we've already screwed the pooch? The thing is now, we need to help with the abortion.

[thefyn]

No, I don't think he cares, but I do.

 

 

I thought you said minimal civilian casualties are acceptable in missile strikes if it gets to the heart of terrorism. You said so in your first post.

 

Didn't have you pegged as a flip flopper.

[thefyn]

 

Do you not realize we've already screwed the pooch? The thing is now, we need to help with the abortion.

 

 

By handing them the keys to their country.

 

Keeping a close eye.

 

Reparations in $$$$ and world trade.

[Weathered]

That is right. And look how well it went when the UK did what you propose the US do now. History repeating itself is a well worn phrase. If what you claim is true, then we need a LOT LOT more troops over there!!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!!! WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN OUR POSITIONS!!!!

 

 

And what exactly does the U.S. attempting to help Iraq create a stable government (regardless of whether it has a chance of working or not) have to do with colonizing regions and then forcing groups together for financial exploitation?

 

I'm not saying that we went in with the best intentions (actually, I said "we can't win this war" when I first heard about it), but the fact of that matter is, if we withdraw our troops now, it's going to add a whole lot of fuel to the already hot fire over there, and that region would be plunged into a war more serious than we've seen in a long, long time.

[thefyn]

Think about it this way - if they were to divide the country, one would be VERY wealthy courtesy of the oil fields. This would lead to more and more violence, I'd be willing to be serious money that Iran would step in, and we'd have a regional war. A lot more lives would be lost through this, and it'd completely undermine any chance of stability in that region of the world.

 

 

Do you know how hard it is to declare war these days? If you are not the US of course.

[Weathered]

I thought you said minimal civilian casualties are acceptable in missile strikes if it gets to the heart of terrorism. You said so in your first post. Didn't have you pegged as a flip flopper.

 

 

How are we doing at minimizing civilian casualties right now?

 

Seems like everything is a black and white issue to you, and that's hardly the way that anything in the world works.

[thefyn]

And what exactly does the U.S. attempting to help Iraq create a stable government (regardless of whether it has a chance of working or not) have to do with colonizing regions and then forcing groups together for financial exploitation? I'm not saying that we went in with the best intentions (actually, I said "we can't win this war" when I first heard about it), but the fact of that matter is, if we withdraw our troops now, it's going to add a whole lot of fuel to the already hot fire over there, and that region would be plunged into a war more serious than we've seen in a long, long time.

 

 

More serious than when we flattened entire cities and crushed their whole army?

 

Do you have a memory?

[Weathered]

Do you know how hard it is to declare war these days? If you are not the US of course.

 

 

A lot easier if you're in a dictatorship like Iran.

[Weathered]

More serious than when we flattened entire cities and crushed their whole army? Do you have a memory?

 

 

As Chris said, we're already there - the pooch has already been screwed. The path has already been started. Dwelling on what was done isn't going to provide ANY possible solutions for what to do now.

 

Edit: I've got memory - do you have any foresight?

[thefyn]

 

How are we doing at minimizing civilian casualties right now? Seems like everything is a black and white issue to you, and that's hardly the way that anything in the world works.

 

 

I see everything in green. To understand the war/peacekeeping you have to think like Bush.

 

I said I "wanted" them to come home. There is not a chance in hell it is going to happen before we put our little dictators in :-)\n

oh!

[rememberduane]

I thought you said minimal civilian casualties are acceptable in missile strikes if it gets to the heart of terrorism. You said so in your first post. Didn't have you pegged as a flip flopper.

 

 

I do think they're acceptable. Minimal. Why? Because terrorism happens just as much in their homes as it does in ours. If we don't fight back in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we render our national safety worthless (yes, these are the people responsible for 9/11). It's a bonus that we stop them from bombing the {censored} out of sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. Think the bombings on the PPP and the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan. Think ALL the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan except the Pashtuns. Admittedly that includes the Taliban, but there was a high amount of interplay between the Taliban and al-Qaida.

 

No, I don't advocate being world police, but I do advocate working against clear and present dangers to American security. If it has kickbacks for the local people, then all the better.

[Weathered]

I do think they're acceptable. Minimal. Why? Because terrorism happens just as much in their homes as it does in ours. If we don't fight back in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we render our national safety worthless (yes, these are the people responsible for 9/11). It's a bonus that we stop them from bombing the {censored} out of sites in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. Think the bombings on the PPP and the assassination of Bhutto in Pakistan. Think ALL the other ethnic groups in Afghanistan except the Pashtuns. Admittedly that includes the Taliban, but there was a high amount of interplay between the Taliban and al-Qaida. No, I don't advocate being world police, but I do advocate working against clear and present dangers to American security. If it has kickbacks for the local people, then all the better.

 

 

But, but, but - that would actually have yielded positive results for U.S. security. What good does that do?

 

Ah hell.....let's just bomb Sadaam.

[DoubleBarrel]

Which would further destabilize the entire region and would probably fracture Iraq into multiple warring sects. Yeah, good call. Edit: Not to mention create a similar situation as what created the violently anti-American government in Iran.

This was the best post, and made the most sense in the entire thread.