Is Everyone Underestimating Republicans?

Forums: Politics, Political, American Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

Think about it for a second....

Think about it militarily....

I was looking at a map of the Middle East....and it dawned on me!!!!

1. The republicans didn't invade Iraq for oil--Iraq is nearing peak production so another 10 years of productive oil flow wouldn't address the long term crises.

2. They didn't care about Iraq's WMDs because we sold some to him and Saddam didn't have the means to deploy large scale.

3. Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S.

4. They didn't have a hand in 9/11.

So why dammit!?!?!?!

And I think I have figured it out....

a. We have troops in Afghanistan and we installed their leadership.

b. We have troops in Iraq and we created their political infrastructure.

c. We are VERY friendly with the Saudis and Dubai (we are even selling Dubai military vehicles and weapondry).

d. We have troops in Turkministan.

So what right? Anyone play chess? Well, take a look....

This was a powerplay. A checkmate. A calculated move to isolate the one country who has the means, money, land mass, citizen loyalty and desire to be the next Superpower.

And they are enriching uranium.

I truly believe that the war in Iraq was the last component of a powerplay to isolate and surround Iran. And if so, it was strategic brilliance that the republicans kept it out of the public dialog.

I still don't agree with the war in Iraq. But from an academic standpoint, it would be interesting if it was revealed that the war was only a small part of a much larger military gambit--played out over 15 years of diplomacy, war and the like.

Keyser Soze.

Here is a great thread about how some think that the Republicans have a greater plan for the Middle East than just removing Sadaam and the Taliban.....

Is it just a coincidence or is it really taking place? As it is now they are now isolated by allies of the United States. Any action they take will have to involve going through countries that are allies of ours.

"I may Have underestimated the republicans" Pretty interesting...

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,329 • Replies: 16

No top replies

@Brent cv,

I've always said afgan and iraq make great staging grounds for future events. Preemptive in every sence of the word.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Brent;4544 wrote:

Here is a great thread about how some think that the Republicans have a greater plan for the Middle East than just removing Sadaam and the Taliban.....

Is it just a coincidence or is it really taking place? As it is now they are now isolated by allies of the United States. Any action they take will have to involve going through countries that are allies of ours.

"I may Have underestimated the republicans" Pretty interesting...

You gave me a virus? Nice for an admin to do to posters....I'd expect nothing less from republicans...

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent not waring condoms again? He's not just the admin he owns the joint. and the link you reference is his other site. So what virus did he send you and not me, i feel left out now, or maybe it infultraded my semantic/Norton system, damn and they said it was inpenatrable?

0 Replies

@Willie cv,

Willie;4592 wrote:

You gave me a virus? Nice for an admin to do to posters....I'd expect nothing less from republicans...

What the hell are you talking about? What virus?

2 Replies

@Brent cv,

What you say is certainly possible, and the USA can probably pull it of, but you have to consider the enormous anti-american propaganda that the whole world is being fed, as an american citizen you most likely havnt seen such things, but i can garntee that if the USA is actually preparing for such an intervention in the middle east, it should also prepare not only for a islamic-muslim revolt against such an atrocity, but possibly a war on a much bigger scale. I know this will sound like a very heartless thing to say, but the 9/11 tragedy proved to the world that the USA is not invunerable, it opened up a feild of possibility to any revolutionary looking to "stick it" to the "opressors" because that is how the USA is now seen around the world (or at least in Brazil), so of course if such preperations are being made they must consider that the world is in an extremely unstable era, and it can swing either way. What you present also makes alot to me because(this might be a completely delusional and wrong) I have been noticing that the USA has been backing up China on several issues that actually undermines American "authority" which of course has baffeled me until now because if there are such preperations then China would be an estrategical ally(the world might turn on the USA, but put it together with China and its a sure deal) of course I might be getting carried away, but imagine the pure carnage such a war would produce, so the question is not if they can do it, but should they do it?

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

I see it as a stuggle for our existence. If they have thought it out to this point i see them also thinking of perticular outcomes. 9/11 also proves we are willing to take the fight to them, where ever we find them. We as a country we will try diplomacy first, but as the world knows we act out our fustrations on the nearest likely threat. I also don't think we ask for world opinion of approval. If that were the case there would be alot less democratic countrys who to this point thrive on our system of government. The ensueing war couldn't be so bad, there very poorly armed. Unless we let them attain Nuclear weapons.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Wow, you guys figured this out a good 20 or so years after it occured to the
likes of Osama Bin Laden!

Shi'ia vs. Sunni, should have worked in out favor, but it isn't.

Iraq was a blunder: Hussein and his clique were the good old fashioned secular Arab nationalists... able to be reasoned and bargained with (and we'd done it tons in the past, selectively overlooking what we didn't care for) but mainly no more tolerant of the extremist fundamentalist Islamists than we. Saudi Arabia and some of the U.A.E. have a bubbling underground of radical Islamists who oppose the U.S., and to a certain extent their own rulers, and they're egged on by the clerics, who are employees of the state. So, the friendly government is fomenting U.S. dissent in their own country. Why? To distract the populace from the way the ruling family is robbing the national treasury blind. The Saudi people are kept ignorant and oppressed by Islam, and have a finger pointed at the west if ever they question the reason for their condition. Iran, other the other hand, is more like pre-invasion Iraq. There is an educated middle-class. Most are moderate in their views. The big difference between the two is that the rulers of Iran are extremists, who believe they are on a holy mission to do their distorted interpetation of the wishes of Allah.

So, should we have removed Hussein, who was evil... don't get me wrong, but could've been bought if it was in his personal best interests, or should we have positioned ourselves and aligned international support for addressing the growing threat in Iran? At this point the military isn't exactly in prime shape.

For that matter, should we consider if a country is an ally based solely on the opinions of their leaders or the citizenry? Can you change leaders more quickly than the opinion of the people?

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

The educated middle class moderates in Iran need to be heard , but that is not possible under the Mullahs who control Iran .
Democracy is the way to overcome these types of tyrants , and our methods , though not popular all over the world , are the best methods ever used to advance a policy .
Many moderate Moslems will not , or cannot speak out against their rulers , nor even oppose them from afar , as when they have resettled in the West . This is what needs to change and I don't pretend to have answers as to how to change it .
IMHO our government is the only one trying to bring about change . Who else is ?
If our methods are wrong , let us find better ones and pursue them .

0 Replies

@oleo,

oleo;4652 wrote:

Wow, you guys figured this out a good 20 or so years after it occured to the
likes of Osama Bin Laden!

Shi'ia vs. Sunni, should have worked in out favor, but it isn't.

Iraq was a blunder: Hussein and his clique were the good old fashioned secular Arab nationalists... able to be reasoned and bargained with (and we'd done it tons in the past, selectively overlooking what we didn't care for) but mainly no more tolerant of the extremist fundamentalist Islamists than we. Saudi Arabia and some of the U.A.E. have a bubbling underground of radical Islamists who oppose the U.S., and to a certain extent their own rulers, and they're egged on by the clerics, who are employees of the state. So, the friendly government is fomenting U.S. dissent in their own country. Why? To distract the populace from the way the ruling family is robbing the national treasury blind. The Saudi people are kept ignorant and oppressed by Islam, and have a finger pointed at the west if ever they question the reason for their condition. Iran, other the other hand, is more like pre-invasion Iraq. There is an educated middle-class. Most are moderate in their views. The big difference between the two is that the rulers of Iran are extremists, who believe they are on a holy mission to do their distorted interpetation of the wishes of Allah.

So, should we have removed Hussein, who was evil... don't get me wrong, but could've been bought if it was in his personal best interests, or should we have positioned ourselves and aligned international support for addressing the growing threat in Iran? At this point the military isn't exactly in prime shape.

For that matter, should we consider if a country is an ally based solely on the opinions of their leaders or the citizenry? Can you change leaders more quickly than the opinion of the people?

Quote:

So, should we have removed Hussein, who was evil... don't get me wrong, but could've been bought if it was in his personal best interests,

Don't tell me, like oil for food? Oh wait that was the UN.

Quote:

or should we have positioned ourselves and aligned international support for addressing the growing threat in Iran?

I think we already did position ourselves. Any body willing to join our cause is welcome. "International support" The people that need to be there will be there. As for who's left i'll leave that for you to speculate?

Quote:

At this point the military isn't exactly in prime shape.

Can you name a better force?

Quote:

For that matter, should we consider if a country is an ally based solely on the opinions of their leaders or the citizenry?

I think you want the answer to be "citizenry" But in a rebublic. The military is controlled by a civilian run government. No need for antichickenhawks. It's in the Constitution. Our chosen leaders represent us.

Quote:

Can you change leaders more quickly than the opinion of the people?

That depends if you succeed?

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent;4595 wrote:

What the hell are you talking about? What virus?

opening your website reference.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline;4673 wrote:

Don't tell me, like oil for food? Oh wait that was the UN.

I think we already did position ourselves. Any body willing to join our cause is welcome. "International support" The people that need to be there will be there. As for who's left i'll leave that for you to speculate?

Can you name a better force?

I think you want the answer to be "citizenry" But in a rebublic. The military is controlled by a civilian run government. No need for antichickenhawks. It's in the Constitution. Our chosen leaders represent us.

That depends if you succeed?

What? We are a constitutional government. OUr constitution represents us and this president is a temporary employee.

Best read up on your constitution and then you'll be able to better participate in the discussions on how Bush is out to destroy it.

1 Reply

@Willie cv,

Willie;4747 wrote:

opening your website reference.

There is no "virus" on that site.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent;4754 wrote:

There is no "virus" on that site.

Was when I opened it. Not saying you did anything on purpose, Brent, nor that you even knew...just saying I had to redo the computer after I did it and that's why I'm not back until now.

No harm meant to you.

2 Replies

@Willie cv,

Willie;4748 wrote:

What? We are a constitutional government. OUr constitution represents us and this president is a temporary employee.

Best read up on your constitution and then you'll be able to better participate in the discussions on how Bush is out to destroy it.

Quote:

What? We are a constitutional government. OUr constitution represents us and this president is a temporary employee.

I thought it was our reps that represented us. The Constitution is a piece of dead tree with some words that we live by on it.

Quote:

Best read up on your constitution and then you'll be able to better participate in the discussions on how Bush is out to destroy it.

Participate? I'm still waiting to meet the "Intellectual elite"? When is he coming? I think he may be able to prove all the bable your spuing cause lord know you ain't doing it.

0 Replies

@Willie cv,

Willie;4758 wrote:

Was when I opened it. Not saying you did anything on purpose, Brent, nor that you even knew...just saying I had to redo the computer after I did it and that's why I'm not back until now.

No harm meant to you.

Quote:

You gave me a virus? Nice for an admin to do to posters....I'd expect nothing less from republicans...

You write this?^^^

Quote:

Not saying you did anything on purpose,

From your first quote it sounds to me like you are making an accusation?

Quote:

nor that you even knew...

Why would we know when you "expect nothing less from republicans"?

Quote:

just saying I had to redo the computer after I did it and that's why I'm not back until now.

Good your puter is back up but i'd like some proof it was a virus for one, it originated here for two and three. Even if you did have some sort of proof, how could we take your word for it now that we know you are capable of lying to us?

Quote:

No harm meant to you

No harm? You accused him of maliciously damaging your computer, did you not? If you have no proof of your acusation i think you deserve your first warning? I as most in this forum, detest liars.

0 Replies

@Willie cv,

Willie;4758 wrote:

Was when I opened it. Not saying you did anything on purpose, Brent, nor that you even knew...just saying I had to redo the computer after I did it and that's why I'm not back until now.

No harm meant to you.

sounds to me like you already had some **** on your computer. I go to that site everyday as well and have never gotten anything like what you are describing.

0 Replies

Is Everyone Underestimating Republicans?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know