1
   

Iraq Study Group

 
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 07:48 pm
@oleo,
I just thought this was interesting

U.S. Declaration of Independence and a band played "The Star
Spangled Banner." Ho, who had been a member of the Third Communist
International since the early 1920s, hoped that the Americans would ally
themselves with a Vietnamese nationalist movement, communist or
otherwise. He based this hope on speeches by U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who opposed a revival of European colonialism after World War II.
Roosevelt, however, had moderated his position after the British — who
wanted to keep their own colonies — objected.


Similarly, Castro wanted so badly for the U.S. to embrace Cuba, and set it
up as a capitalist democracy, but a fair one. Loyal to the exiled Cubans we
didn't do that, and then tried to overthrow him a few times (after he seized
American businesses there and paid restituion to the corporations based on
the appraisals they supplied him for taxation purposes, which of course wasn't
accurate and pissed us off), so he turned to the Soviets and communism at
the advice of his brother (who's now in power) and Guevara. Batista had a
strange alliance with the communists in Cuba, so Castro had actually fought
them and opposed communism initially.

So, it's not a matter of these "enemies" of America being born, they're made...
and we usually have a big hand in their conversion.
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Dec, 2006 08:13 pm
@oleo,
The exiled Cubans have an influential lobby group that dictates our foreign policy towards Cuba. Our policies are for sale.

We need to put the 60's behind us.:cool:

We can use the revenue from trade to spend towards Iraq.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:35 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8268 wrote:
I was responding to the charge that "my kind" were helping terrorists, apparently
by seeking to understand exactly what motivates them instead of blindly
rushing into wars that aren't accurately planned or evaluated.



Vietnam was a French colony, and not happy about it and had been fighting
for its independance as well as fighting off invasions from China forever.
The Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh, fought the french for independance and
Japan, who invaded and occupied it during WW2. When the war was over,
the french and the Viet Minh, who the surrendering Japanese had handed
over the public holdings to, and the french struck a deal: Vietnam would
go back to the frenchin exchange for independance within the French Union.
Negotiations broke down and there was the French-Indochina war for 10
years. The french eventually decided to leave Vietnam, and the country was
split in half as a transistion. Ho Chi Minh, whose forces had repelled the french,
was appointed prime minister of North Vietnam. B?o ??i, the Emperor of Vietnam
and a puppet of the French colonialists, appointed a
prime minister for South Vietnam. It was agreed that an election would
take place to re-unite the country under one prime minister. The south later
decided to renig on the deal, and refused to hold elections to reunite the
country under one leader, because the public would've voted for the
commuinst Ho Chi Minh:


- President Eisenhower

So, democracy was denied by people in power who didn't want to lose it,
against the wishes of the public at large. That results in civil war and insurgency.

B?o ??i was a leader who lived like an Emperor and didn't actively do a
damned thing for his population against the interests of french colonialists.
A lot like Batista in Cuba. When the people at the bottom are starving
communism seems like a good option to them. This is where you tell
me that even though they were in the jungle they were supposed to realize
that if they worked hard they could have a mansion in Hanoi. Boy, we do
make the same wrong plays again and again.



The government of Afghanistan was leaning, out of desperation, to the
Soviet Union, who were supplying food, medicine and aid. We didn't like
that, so we fired up the mujahjadien about communism threatening Islam
and had them fight an insurgency against the government of Afghanistan,
who asked the U.S.S.R. to come help them.

CRG -- The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan



If nothing else I have the ability to see the blunders in history, and see the
parallels that exist today.

When faced with an angry populace that's uprising we send bombs, when
they go with whoever sends aid.

When faced with a country who democratically wants to go with an ideology
we don't want, we throw democracy out the window (look at the Iranian
government of the '50s).

When faced with a country that will fight for its independance to the end we
seem to think it's not a civil war but something else.

These are mistakes that dot American history...

"There's an old saying... fool me once, you fooled me... fool me twice...
you... uh... if you fool me once you... uh... don't fool me again is the point."

- W
Quote:
I was responding to the charge that "my kind" were helping terrorists, apparently
by seeking to understand exactly what motivates them instead of blindly
rushing into wars that aren't accurately planned or evaluated.

We know what motivates them, they want to kill and rule the world. Don't you listen to the words they write and the the speechs they give? Whether directly or indirectly they are being aided by certain groups. That may or may not include you.
You call 18 resolutions rushing, what about calling for a vote in which just about every body voted yes. Oh right, they were missled!
Quote:
Negotiations broke down and there was the French-Indochina war for 10
years.

So your saying Viet Minh renigged on the deal. Who appointed Ho Chi Minh?
Quote:
B?o ??i, the Emperor of Vietnam
and a puppet of the French colonialists, appointed a
prime minister for South Vietnam. It was agreed that an election would
take place to re-unite the country under one prime minister. The south later
decided to renig on the deal, and refused to hold elections to reunite the
country under one leader, because the public would've voted for the
commuinst Ho Chi Minh:

Did being a puppet make him less of an Emporer? How come the supposed Emperor didn't interceed? Ever think that they didn't want a rigged election and the fact the ho chi minh was communist? Not a good example for the democratic process is it when the installer is accepting aid from and is still communist to this day.
Quote:

Sounds like speculation.
Quote:
If nothing else I have the ability to see the blunders in history, and see the
parallels that exist today.

Yup and you still have the ability of being wrong. Of those parallels you see, would you still consider pulling out? Seems you like repeating a few as well.
Quote:
When faced with an angry populace that's uprising we send bombs, when
they go with whoever sends aid.

And alot of them still end up dead or staved to death, Kim jung (Mentaly Ill) comes to mind.
Quote:
When faced with a country who democratically wants to go with an ideology
we don't want, we throw democracy out the window (look at the Iranian
government of the '50s).

Why didn't you use the example we are talking about? The Communist regime that wanted south Vietnam to submit to a so called democratic election so they could take over the country.
Quote:
When faced with a country that will fight for its independance to the end we
seem to think it's not a civil war but something else.

Define civil war?
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Dec, 2006 03:49 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8270 wrote:
I just thought this was interesting

U.S. Declaration of Independence

Similarly, Castro wanted so badly for the U.S. to embrace Cuba, and set it
up as a capitalist democracy, but a fair one. Loyal to the exiled Cubans we
didn't do that, and then tried to overthrow him a few times (after he seized
American businesses there and paid restituion to the corporations based on
the appraisals they supplied him for taxation purposes, which of course wasn't
accurate and pissed us off), so he turned to the Soviets and communism at
the advice of his brother (who's now in power) and Guevara. Batista had a
strange alliance with the communists in Cuba, so Castro had actually fought
them and opposed communism initially.

So, it's not a matter of these "enemies" of America being born, they're made...
and we usually have a big hand in their conversion.
Pretty gulible on Ho Chi Minhs part. Just about one year into WW2, have to say that was a good time to start another communist country.
Quote:
and set it
up as a capitalist democracy, but a fair one.

Run by a dictator who was probably only looking for a source of cash. Fair is no where close.
Quote:
So, it's not a matter of these "enemies" of America being born, they're made...
and we usually have a big hand in their conversion.

Yup, when they couldn't get there way they look to our enemy. Are we to blame for there thought process, you seem to think so. Who's to blame for your tendency to socialism? Is it the big, bad US again?
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 06:21 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Niall Ferguson

Baker-Hamilton's fine print: Stay in Iraq

'PERSUASION involves both incentives and penalties," Henry Kissinger once remarked. "So there is an element of implied coercion." Last week saw the publication of a masterpiece of persuasion. But whom will it persuade? And with what sticks and carrots?


Most commentators have interpreted the report of the Iraq Study Group as a well-crafted admission of defeat. Predictably, that was exactly how President Bush himself reacted to it. "I … believe we're going to succeed," he told reporters Thursday. "One way to assure failure is just to quit." Addressing one of the report's key recommendations, he bluntly declared that Iran and Syria "shouldn't bother to show up" for negotiations about Iraq if they don't understand their "responsibilities to not fund terrorists" and if the Iranians don't "verifiably suspend their [uranium] enrichment program."


Yet anyone who bothers to read the report carefully — as opposed to skimming the executive summary — can see that it neither proposes "quitting" Iraq nor pins serious hope on Iranian or Syrian assistance. Quite the reverse.


Persuasion in the realm of grand strategy is more a matter of rhetorical art than science. The first essential step is to identify your target audience. Most readers of the report assume that it is directed at Bush. That is wrong. Its principal target audience is Congress, and particularly the new Democratic majorities in both houses. And the aim is not to persuade a stubborn president to admit defeat. Rather, the report's aim is to convince legislators that withdrawal from Iraq — no matter how much their constituents may yearn for it — is not an option. The report's other intended readership is Arab governments throughout the Middle East. The message for them is the same: A U.S. exit from the region is what you most have to fear.

_________________________________
Great article from a different perspective of the ISG.
0 Replies
 
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 07:19 am
@Curmudgeon,
I agree on that take on the ISG .
These are recommendations for every side , some reasonable , some not . I think the thrust of the group is to foster thought and results in the prosecution of the war , rather than suggestions to end it quickly .
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 07:48 am
@Curmudgeon,
Agreed!
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 11:35 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;8277 wrote:
We know what motivates them, they want to kill and rule the world. Don't you listen to the words they write and the the speechs they give? Whether directly or indirectly they are being aided by certain groups. That may or may not include you.
You call 18 resolutions rushing, what about calling for a vote in which just about every body voted yes. Oh right, they were missled!

So your saying Viet Minh renigged on the deal. Who appointed Ho Chi Minh?

Did being a puppet make him less of an Emporer? How come the supposed Emperor didn't interceed? Ever think that they didn't want a rigged election and the fact the ho chi minh was communist? Not a good example for the democratic process is it when the installer is accepting aid from and is still communist to this day.

Sounds like speculation.

Yup and you still have the ability of being wrong. Of those parallels you see, would you still consider pulling out? Seems you like repeating a few as well.

And alot of them still end up dead or staved to death, Kim jung (Mentaly Ill) comes to mind.

Why didn't you use the example we are talking about? The Communist regime that wanted south Vietnam to submit to a so called democratic election so they could take over the country.

Define civil war?


I'm not sure you know what motivates "them," because
you don't seem to understand we're not just fighting one group who wants
the same thing. Some insurgents just want U.S. out of Iraq. Some militias
are carrying out retribution on either groups who've attacked them or the
people they protect, and we get in the way since we can't tell who is who
and end up fighting them. The "terrorists," if you're talking about Al Qaeda
and their ilk, want to reclaim the historical lands conquered by Mohammed, from Spain
to the middle-east, and have a holy Islamist state. They want nothing to
do with Alabama, except to make sure it has no influence whatsoever in
its region. If it weren't for oil we wouldn't give a ****, truthfully, so don't
think this equates as some noble effort on our part. If Iraq had no oil
we wouldn't have invaded it.

You call out Dwight Eisenhower for "merely speculation?"
Okay, let me assemble about 200 pages of Bush and Cheney statements for
you to analyze.

The French renigged on their promises of letting Vietnam become an independant entity within the French Union. They still wanted to control
Vietnam, its resources and its people.

Who appointed Ho Chi Minh? The people who followed him and supported him.
Look into it. He was the good guy in that country's eyes, as opposed to
an Emperor who let the French do whatever they pleased with the country
and it's resources and populace as long as they let him jetset around and
get a cut to live like a king on. If he had fought for independance and been
a leader who did what was best for his people they would have followed him.
He wasn't. Things were bad for the majority of people, even in South Vietnam
after the split. There was no social justice, and they prefered Minh and
communism over an autocracy that offered them nothing.

We could still be in Vietnam today, and the fighting would still be going on.
That's what you don't understand. To the Vietnamese it was a war of
independance and a civil war... they were fighting for their lives and their
future, and they'd never give up.

We can speculate, as in Cuba, that if the U.S. had not viewed everything as
a proxy for it and the Soviet Union (which they inevitably drove everything
to) the government might have quickly evolved into a representative socialist
democracy. Marx stated that communism was merely a step, and one that
lost any validity unless it quickly morphed into a representative democracy.

Today we are borrowing money and making beneficial trade deals with China
and Vietnam, most of which seem to screw us and our people over in their
favor. These countries are still communist. We refuse to make any amends
with Cuba, which is not even one-twentieth of the threat either of those
countries are today. Something is inconsistant and insane.
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 11:51 am
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon;8304 wrote:
I agree on that take on the ISG .
These are recommendations for every side , some reasonable , some not . I think the thrust of the group is to foster thought and results in the prosecution of the war , rather than suggestions to end it quickly .


Thought and results... two things that have been absent from the prosecution
of the war up to this point, defintely.

Still, what if the country rejects staying? What if they elect whoever states
they will withdraw, even if they belong to the Green or Socialist party?

What if Saudi Arabia acts with money and armory to the Sunnis, thus supporting
a group whose sympathies are lying with Al Qaeda (and let's not forget where
most of the hijackers of 9/11 and Bin Laden come from, by the way). Cheney
seems to side with the Shi'ites, who are linked to Iran. If we do that, are we
opposing our great ally Saudi Arabia?
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 12:23 pm
@Curmudgeon,
I am afraid you are correct in submitting that we don't really know which side to support because as a nation we just don't understand how much the two sides hate each other in that region .
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 12:29 pm
@oleo,
I would say support neither, they can't be reasoned with because the same
prophet has given them contradictory missions to get into heaven. I say
side with the secular people in that region, who want modernization and
strong arab nationalism and unity without religion being a factor. Of course,
these people would probably have to oppress the religious zealots by force.
Nevermind, I just described who we liberated them from.

Yes, we don't as a country understand these people, at all.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 03:44 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8317 wrote:
I'm not sure you know what motivates "them," because
you don't seem to understand we're not just fighting one group who wants
the same thing. Some insurgents just want U.S. out of Iraq. Some militias
are carrying out retribution on either groups who've attacked them or the
people they protect, and we get in the way since we can't tell who is who
and end up fighting them. The "terrorists," if you're talking about Al Qaeda
and their ilk, want to reclaim the historical lands conquered by Mohammed, from Spain
to the middle-east, and have a holy Islamist state. They want nothing to
do with Alabama, except to make sure it has no influence whatsoever in
its region. If it weren't for oil we wouldn't give a ****, truthfully, so don't
think this equates as some noble effort on our part. If Iraq had no oil
we wouldn't have invaded it.

You call out Dwight Eisenhower for "merely speculation?"
Okay, let me assemble about 200 pages of Bush and Cheney statements for
you to analyze.

The French renigged on their promises of letting Vietnam become an independant entity within the French Union. They still wanted to control
Vietnam, its resources and its people.

Who appointed Ho Chi Minh? The people who followed him and supported him.
Look into it. He was the good guy in that country's eyes, as opposed to
an Emperor who let the French do whatever they pleased with the country
and it's resources and populace as long as they let him jetset around and
get a cut to live like a king on. If he had fought for independance and been
a leader who did what was best for his people they would have followed him.
He wasn't. Things were bad for the majority of people, even in South Vietnam
after the split. There was no social justice, and they prefered Minh and
communism over an autocracy that offered them nothing.

We could still be in Vietnam today, and the fighting would still be going on.
That's what you don't understand. To the Vietnamese it was a war of
independance and a civil war... they were fighting for their lives and their
future, and they'd never give up.

We can speculate, as in Cuba, that if the U.S. had not viewed everything as
a proxy for it and the Soviet Union (which they inevitably drove everything
to) the government might have quickly evolved into a representative socialist
democracy. Marx stated that communism was merely a step, and one that
lost any validity unless it quickly morphed into a representative democracy.

Today we are borrowing money and making beneficial trade deals with China
and Vietnam, most of which seem to screw us and our people over in their
favor. These countries are still communist. We refuse to make any amends
with Cuba, which is not even one-twentieth of the threat either of those
countries are today. Something is inconsistant and insane.
Quote:
I'm not sure you know what motivates "them," because
you don't seem to understand we're not just fighting one group who wants
the same thing. Some insurgents just want U.S. out of Iraq. Some militias
are carrying out retribution on either groups who've attacked them or the
people they protect, and we get in the way since we can't tell who is who
and end up fighting them. The "terrorists," if you're talking about Al Qaeda
and their ilk, want to reclaim the historical lands conquered by Mohammed, from Spain
to the middle-east, and have a holy Islamist state. They want nothing to
do with Alabama, except to make sure it has no influence whatsoever in
its region. If it weren't for oil we wouldn't give a ****, truthfully, so don't
think this equates as some noble effort on our part. If Iraq had no oil
we wouldn't have invaded it.

One point most will not get around is they are willing to kill to get what they want.

Quote:
The "terrorists," if you're talking about Al Qaeda
and their ilk, want to reclaim the historical lands conquered by Mohammed, from Spain
to the middle-east, and have a holy Islamist state. They want nothing to
do with Alabama, except to make sure it has no influence whatsoever in
its region.

So why did they attack us? The twin towers were not in Spain or any where in Europe. Either was the pentagon.
There were quite a few reasons for going in Iraq, oil is one of them. Had we not rousted him what mess's would have have caused up to now. Your excuse for invasion because of oil may of held up the first time we went in but not the second. Hussein liked pushing his luck but that soon ran out.
Quote:
You call out Dwight Eisenhower for "merely speculation?"
Okay, let me assemble about 200 pages of Bush and Cheney statements for
you to analyze.

Don't forget the rest of the world that speculated the same exact thing including quite a few libbys. Why no mention of there analyzations?
Quote:
Who appointed Ho Chi Minh? The people who followed him and supported him.
Look into it. He was the good guy in that country's eyes, as opposed to
an Emperor who let the French do whatever they pleased with the country
and it's resources and populace as long as they let him jetset around and
get a cut to live like a king on. If he had fought for independance and been
a leader who did what was best for his people they would have followed him.
He wasn't. Things were bad for the majority of people, even in South Vietnam
after the split. There was no social justice, and they prefered Minh and
communism over an autocracy that offered them nothing.

Sounds like there was no democratic election that put him in power.
But he wanted one so he could rule both sides even though the emeror was still around. Being the country was ruled by an emperor what makes him have to act in the interest of his people? That's why i suppose it was split in half and the north wanted the other half and was will to take it by force.
[quoteWe could still be in Vietnam today, and the fighting would still be going on.
That's what you don't understand. To the Vietnamese it was a war of
independance and a civil war... they were fighting for their lives and their
future, and they'd never give up.
[/quote]
Japan had the same mentality and look what happened to them.
Quote:
We can speculate, as in Cuba, that if the U.S. had not viewed everything as
a proxy for it and the Soviet Union (which they inevitably drove everything
to) the government might have quickly evolved into a representative socialist
democracy. Marx stated that communism was merely a step, and one that
lost any validity unless it quickly morphed into a representative democracy.

Sounds like a crock to me. A representative democracy that controlled every aspect of life including your status. Sounds like a good deal to me, I'm sure Cubans love it still. How was it the US stopped them from achieving this if they really wanted it? Marx was looking for a quick way out incase it didn't go as planned?
Quote:
Today we are borrowing money and making beneficial trade deals with China
and Vietnam, most of which seem to screw us and our people over in their
favor. These countries are still communist. We refuse to make any amends
with Cuba, which is not even one-twentieth of the threat either of those
countries are today. Something is inconsistant and insane.

That's politics.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 03:51 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8318 wrote:
Thought and results... two things that have been absent from the prosecution
of the war up to this point, defintely.

Still, what if the country rejects staying? What if they elect whoever states
they will withdraw, even if they belong to the Green or Socialist party?

What if Saudi Arabia acts with money and armory to the Sunnis, thus supporting
a group whose sympathies are lying with Al Qaeda (and let's not forget where
most of the hijackers of 9/11 and Bin Laden come from, by the way). Cheney
seems to side with the Shi'ites, who are linked to Iran. If we do that, are we
opposing our great ally Saudi Arabia?
Quote:
Thought and results... two things that have been absent from the prosecution
of the war up to this point, defintely.

In your opinion. They are free, they have a government, a Constitution, held elections, ratified said Constitution. No results there, no siree. You know how long it took us to get a workable draft just for our Constitution? Amazing you can bypass all that.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 03:56 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8324 wrote:
I would say support neither, they can't be reasoned with because the same
prophet has given them contradictory missions to get into heaven. I say
side with the secular people in that region, who want modernization and
strong arab nationalism and unity without religion being a factor. Of course,
these people would probably have to oppress the religious zealots by force.
Nevermind, I just described who we liberated them from.

Yes, we don't as a country understand these people, at all.
Quote:
Of course,
these people would probably have to oppress the religious zealots by force.

I would think you would be in favor of that.
Quote:
Nevermind, I just described who we liberated them from.

You also decribed a lot of libbys that are trying to do that to people in this country right now.
Quote:
Yes, we don't as a country understand these people, at all.

They too don't understand us as a country, doesn't stop them from trying to kill us.
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 04:02 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;8330 wrote:
In your opinion. They are free, they have a government, a Constitution, held elections, ratified said Constitution. No results there, no siree. You know how long it took us to get a workable draft just for our Constitution? Amazing you can bypass all that.


They have a government that can't control its own people (I was at a party
the other night with 2 brothers, one a marine and the other in the Army, home
on a break from Iraq, and they painted it as complete chaos).

They have a constitution based on religious law that strips women of many of the
rights they enjoyed under the previous constitution.

They are free, as long as they do what we tell them.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 04:24 pm
@oleo,
oleo;8332 wrote:
They have a government that can't control its own people (I was at a party
the other night with 2 brothers, one a marine and the other in the Army, home
on a break from Iraq, and they painted it as complete chaos).

They have a constitution based on religious law that strips women of many of the
rights they enjoyed under the previous constitution.

They are free, as long as they do what we tell them.
They can't control the terrorists, that is not all the people. Most would love peace and would prefer to be left alone. You know, probably most of who voted in there first elections even under threat of murder.
Quote:
They have a constitution based on religious law that strips women of many of the
rights they enjoyed under the previous constitution.

They were free to make there Constitution any way they saw fit. What stripped rights would you be talking about?
Quote:
They are free, as long as they do what we tell them.

Or you get your way and we pull out? What will happen to there freedom then.
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 04:36 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;8329 wrote:
So why did they attack us? The twin towers were not in Spain or any where in Europe. Either was the pentagon.


The Twin Towers were a symbol of the greed and influence of the west,
a symbol of the reason America meddles in the affairs of that region and
supports regimes that screw over their own people. The Pentagon is a symbol
of America's military might.

Terrorists deal in symbols. It's how they mentally manipulate people and
get their points across. If they wanted a sheer body count putting one of
those jets into the street in Manhattan at morning ruch hour would've
killed a lot more people.

They did want to provoke us into doing something foolish in the middle-east,
and we didn't let them down. We furthered their cause.

They want us out of Saudi Arabia, the holy land, in particular, so they can
overthrow the government there.

The Israelis were engaged in terrorism fiercely against the British during
WW2, even colluding with the Nazis at some points ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). Did I miss the point where they levelled Britain after
they got Israel?

Drnaline;8329 wrote:
There were quite a few reasons for going in Iraq, oil is one of them. Had we not rousted him what mess's would have have caused up to now. Your excuse for invasion because of oil may of held up the first time we went in but not the second. Hussein liked pushing his luck but that soon ran out.


It is why we went in this time, it's what the PNAC had been lobbying for
all along... it had been debated since Kissinger's time, at the beginning of
the first energy crisis.

As for the first Gulf War, where we went to the defense of Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia, we were stopped from toppling Hussein then by those countres
who realized it would destabilize the region to have the U.S. occupy an arab
nation, no matter what they had done. They know what they preach to their
own people when we're not looking, and what feelings it fosters.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 05:01 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Quote:
The Twin Towers were a symbol of the greed and influence of the west,
a symbol of the reason America meddles in the affairs of that region and
supports regimes that screw over their own people. The Pentagon is a symbol
of America's military might.

Yes, i understand that but you said.
Quote:
The "terrorists," if you're talking about Al Qaeda
and their ilk, want to reclaim the historical lands conquered by Mohammed, from Spain
to the middle-east, and have a holy Islamist state. They want nothing to
do with Alabama, except to make sure it has no influence whatsoever in
its region.

So to you, they are justified because of a symbol? What i get out of your words is that even if they suceeded at getting the holy grounds back they would still probably attack us because of said symbols?
Quote:
Terrorists deal in symbols. It's how they mentally manipulate people and
get their points across. If they wanted a sheer body count putting one of
those jets into the street in Manhattan at morning ruch hour would've
killed a lot more people.

They also thought the building would be full.Luckily there was less then five thousand.
Quote:
They did want to provoke us into doing something foolish in the middle-east,
and we didn't let them down. We furthered their cause.

We did what any one would do, when attacked. I'm glad we didn't let them down. We took the fight to them, there cause has not lead to a new attack attack on us but who knows with the dems in control. I'm sure they'll succeed sooner or later.
Quote:
They want us out of Saudi Arabia, the holy land, in particular, so they can
overthrow the government there.

They can try.
Quote:
The Israelis were engaged in terrorism fiercely against the British during
WW2, even colluding with the Nazis at some points ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"). Did I miss the point where they levelled Britain after
they got Israel?

All of them, wow. Not as bad as we leveled germany and japan.
Quote:
It is why we went in this time, it's what the PNAC had been lobbying for
all along... it had been debated since Kissinger's time, at the beginning of
the first energy crisis.

In your opinion, one of many. But not the only reason that will never change.
Quote:
As for the first Gulf War, where we went to the defense of Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia, we were stopped from toppling Hussein then by those countres
who realized it would destabilize the region to have the U.S. occupy an arab
nation, no matter what they had done. They know what they preach to their
own people when we're not looking, and what feelings it fosters.

You mean that one wasn't for oil, why did hussein blow them all up? We should of toppled him then, it would be closer to being over by now.
0 Replies
 
oleo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 06:07 pm
@oleo,
The region Hussein invaded in Kuwait has actually been a centuries long point of
ownership-dispute between the two countries, like Kashmir for the Indians and
Pakistanis. The Saudis and Kuwaitis called us for protection, we answered.
Ask someone you know in the military at that time how they were treated by
the Kuwaitis or Saudis if they were in the area then. The Kuwaitis viewed
American G.I.'s like the scum of the earth. These are some of the wealthiest
people on the planet, and we're merely "the idiots who fight when they pay us."
Other arabs hate the Kuwaitis for the most part, no one had their back except
Saudi Arabia, and that pissed off the likes of Bin Laden when they strengthened
ties to the U.S.

Al Qaeda will strike at us as long as we interfere in the middle-east, stop
their view of the natural order of things Allah wanted. Screw Al Qaeda, the
full force of the U.S. military should have been expended in snuffing them out,
but instead we opened up another country for them to breed in. We haven't
even prevailed in Afghanistan, since diverting efforts has resulted in a come-
back by the Taliban.

The mistake was invading Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, though
it's a wonderful spot for terrorist now because of US. If you deny that, at
least explain why we dismantled their military and left the borders open for
terrorists to flood in? That wasn't really smart, was it? What did we think
we were doing? Or did we not take the terrorist threat that seriously, and
don't unless it serves a political purpose?

We did the right thing in Afghanistan, I never said we didn't. Had we really
built-up that country and kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay we would've
triumphed, I believe. The entire world supported us in that, and we could've
used the opportunity to demonstrate what our ideals can really do positively for a society, since they've never seen that in actual practice
in that part of the world.

by the way, Al Qaeda threw a hail mary on 9/11. They didn't think it would
result in the damage it did.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Dec, 2006 08:02 am
@oleo,
oleo;8345 wrote:
The region Hussein invaded in Kuwait has actually been a centuries long point of
ownership-dispute between the two countries, like Kashmir for the Indians and
Pakistanis. The Saudis and Kuwaitis called us for protection, we answered.
Ask someone you know in the military at that time how they were treated by
the Kuwaitis or Saudis if they were in the area then. The Kuwaitis viewed
American G.I.'s like the scum of the earth. These are some of the wealthiest
people on the planet, and we're merely "the idiots who fight when they pay us."
Other arabs hate the Kuwaitis for the most part, no one had their back except
Saudi Arabia, and that pissed off the likes of Bin Laden when they strengthened
ties to the U.S.

Al Qaeda will strike at us as long as we interfere in the middle-east, stop
their view of the natural order of things Allah wanted. Screw Al Qaeda, the
full force of the U.S. military should have been expended in snuffing them out,
but instead we opened up another country for them to breed in. We haven't
even prevailed in Afghanistan, since diverting efforts has resulted in a come-
back by the Taliban.

The mistake was invading Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, though
it's a wonderful spot for terrorist now because of US. If you deny that, at
least explain why we dismantled their military and left the borders open for
terrorists to flood in? That wasn't really smart, was it? What did we think
we were doing? Or did we not take the terrorist threat that seriously, and
don't unless it serves a political purpose?

We did the right thing in Afghanistan, I never said we didn't. Had we really
built-up that country and kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay we would've
triumphed, I believe. The entire world supported us in that, and we could've
used the opportunity to demonstrate what our ideals can really do positively for a society, since they've never seen that in actual practice
in that part of the world.

by the way, Al Qaeda threw a hail mary on 9/11. They didn't think it would
result in the damage it did.
There you go again, using blanket statements. I have talked to many soldiers and marines and not all Kuwaitis treated them like ****. Some treated them very well, treated them as liberators.
Quote:
Al Qaeda will strike at us as long as we interfere in the middle-east, stop
their view of the natural order of things Allah wanted. Screw Al Qaeda, the
full force of the U.S. military should have been expended in snuffing them out,
but instead we opened up another country for them to breed in. We haven't
even prevailed in Afghanistan, since diverting efforts has resulted in a come-
back by the Taliban.

This tells me they will always have an excuse to attack and kill us. So do you think we will have to kill them all to stop them?
Quote:
The mistake was invading Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, though
it's a wonderful spot for terrorist now because of US. If you deny that, at
least explain why we dismantled their military and left the borders open for
terrorists to flood in? That wasn't really smart, was it? What did we think
we were doing? Or did we not take the terrorist threat that seriously, and
don't unless it serves a political purpose?
"Nothing" is speculation. No wmd's were found in suficient stockpiles but that does not mean they were not there. Oh i forgot we are there for oil, the one we are stealing from Iraqi's. Or maybe it was all those UN resolutions? We dismantled the military because that is what happens in a war. We won they got dismantled after getting decimated. There military was protecting only one border, the one they thought we were coming in on.
Quote:
We did the right thing in Afghanistan, I never said we didn't. Had we really
built-up that country and kept the Taliban and Al Qaeda at bay we would've
triumphed, I believe. The entire world supported us in that, and we could've
used the opportunity to demonstrate what our ideals can really do positively for a society, since they've never seen that in actual practice
in that part of the world.

The entire world supported us and it didn't matter, who cares what the world thinks, Oleo is my answer.
Quote:
by the way, Al Qaeda threw a hail mary on 9/11. They didn't think it would
result in the damage it did.

Think they will try again before we kill them all? One hail Mary worked.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq Study Group
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 09:13:01