Printable View
which is another reason why the invasion is a complete balls up:oops:Quote:
As has already been stated, having a democratic and friendly Iraq would be a huge plus for the USA, especially as Iran doesn't seem like it will settle itself any time soon.
why ?Quote:
The Middle-East is quite possibly one of the most vital strategic areas in the globe. We want it. We should be able to have it.
Actually it is quite scary that someone with that mindset is joining up and may get sent over there .
Most of all, our governments should remember they are beholden to us, their electorates. We pay the taxes that allow them to engage in whatever schemes they wish to play, they should make good use of that tax money, and not fritter it away on things that are counterproductive to their stated aims. If they wish to play at war, that most expensive of activities, they should make a good case for it beforehand, or else they should look to other solutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Apparently the Commonwealth was preparing a massive boycott of everything Pakistani before 9/11. The need to have easy access to Afghanistan stopped that idea.Quote:
We should target states that harbour terrorist organizations, and this does not mean that we need to send any soldiers to occupy the place, as our intent is to curb their actions, not dictate their lifestyles. That means we don't build schools for Muslim women, or help poor farmers with their crops. Poor farmers and Muslim women generally aren't the ones carrying out these terror raids. Rich pampered Saudi's and middle class educated Egyptians are the culprits. We need to target the states that allow this to go on, and too many of those are the nations we call "friend".
So what should be done about stateless organisations and franchises like al-Qaeda? As intelligence agencies all over the world have recognised, the heart of al-Qaeda is not harboured in any specific state, it is wherever Muslims sympathise sufficiently with their cause to take violent action.Quote:
For small/weak states like Libya, direct military action will serve nicely to prevent them taking further aggressive actions against us. For larger states who sponsor terrorism, like Iran and Syria, a naval blockade, and harbour mining would probably be the quickest, least costly method to get them to cease backing terrorist groups. They have little to no interest in paying a high price for their actions. Terrorism is used by these states due to its cheap cost to further their aims, and their being at arms-length when it comes time to portion out the blame. If we make it very expensive for them to engage in this activity they are unlikely to continue.
Personally, I think we should give in completely to their demands. They want western influence out of the middle east, we should withdraw completely from the middle east. More completely than they ever envisaged, by reducing dependency on middle east oil and not giving them a single penny. Let them rot in their cultural, social and economic poverty.
Come on, Iraq was never a threat, at most it was a nuisance. But it was one of the most stable regimes in the regio, Saddam was a dictator sure, but there was a fair degree of "liberty" and before the embargo it was fairly wealthy.
Terrorism was never a reason for an invasion, nor was WMD, there weren't any. Leaves only oil and a foothold for further control of the ME (and actions into Iran if necessary)
Europe could unite oneday but at the moment it's the only continent with such different traditions/religions/culture/history in every single country. Sure there's a lot of us-bashing in Europe, but besides that the lesser always has something to say about the stronger, the Us hasn't had the most friendly foreign policies ever and Europe has know terrorism because some leaders went to Iraq against the will of their own people.
Thats hilarious GC , don't you even realise that you shot yourself in the foot when you invaded .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: another example fo the invasion going balls up .Quote:
You say we went for Oil? Show me the oil. What about wealth, then?
Why not ???????why not ???? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
As for why? Tell me: Why not?
Because anyone with even the slightest flicker of brain activity could see what was going to be the result . :idea2:
Thats why not GC .
Which leaves the question , did you not see what was going to happen ?:2thumbsup:
Oil: A win win situation. Either you secure masses more, and American multinationals can go and hog it, or the instability causes the price to skyrocket, making oil companies richer.
Else how come other countries, equally in a mess for a lot longer have been ignored? Somalia, Sudan etc etc? They are dying too. And of course, it's merely peace and love, right?
~:smoking:
On the whole, Iraq was probably a mistake. (I won't bother continuing that train of thought into the realm of partisan battles; boring.) Terrorism is less organised now, but that has little to do w/ actions taken in Iraq. The post-war effort to build a stable government is probably going to be a failure, unless things have changed very significantly, which I have heard nothing about. It is seeming to me that in order for a good government, one that is stable, popular, and not corrupt, to be built out of the abolition of another government, there must be both popular support from within the country and generally similar sentiments among the populace. Both of these were not found in Iraq.
Although terrorism may continue regardless, I do not see the advantage of having invaded Iraq. If it causes more terrorism, we are not only losing by going there, but also harming the Iraqis with a less stable government, more violence, fewer commodities and necessities (although this part has been corrected to a degree), less safety, and generally more uncertainty through daily life.
The best possible solution that I can think of to curb terrorism is by increasing international relations, working cooperatively with governments to get intelligence on terrorist groups, and by making it a much larger priority than it has been. If there is no cooperation to fight terrorism from the nation harboring the terrorists, then war seems to be a spectre that cannot be avoided.
messed up post :P
The point about the oil is not to secure US access to it, but to deny it to others, principally China (also Russia and the EU if need be). Oil continues to be traded in dollars, meaning the US dollar will be subsidised as long as the oil market continues in this mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Precisely. So stop the BS about doing this for the good of the Iraqi people and admit that this is good old colonial era imperialism, and we'll be happier about your honesty.Quote:
We invaded Iraq because it was a genuine threat to our interests. The USA is a large country, with global concerns. Because of that, we have to take global actions.
I'm sorry the smaller and less powerful countries of Europe have to be so bitter about that.
The EU unites quite effectively against a common economic threat. Think steel. If the Dubya tendency spreads, even the traditionally yankophile British may tend more and more towards the continent rather than across the Atlantic, as they find the Americans increasingly alien and the Europeans increasingly familiar.Quote:
As for the EU? I'll believe it when I see it. I don't think Europe could ever unite except in the face of a very imminent military threat: i.e. War with Russia or the USA.
Why i can't tell US what to do?
I can't but because i am a citizen of Europe, i can act,we Europeans can act.I don't think the russians can make the mistake to attack european countries.They are the real power in the world.They stay low and they don't attract the attention of the world.They don't involve in wars where they lose a lot of me.The could destroy america ,they have a lot of nuclear weapons and submarines and everything.Although i hate the russians i must admit that they are not fools.You involved in the war in Iraq because your price for oil was a very VERY VERY VERY big.Your economy falls with the oil.US-OIL=Nothing.So you depend on oil.I don't think EU depends on it.My friend anti-Americanism is all over the world.There are more people that hate america than US's populations.
Europe can unite under one sign of threat,and in the face of europe nothing stands,so Europe RULEZ.In 2007 even Romania and Bulgaria enters in our big community Europe.Show me an empire that still exist.Your country has no history.So this are the words of a smart man that knew something.
"A country without history is a country without future"(like you USA)
Don't stand against Europe because you will fall
OK... The EU can not organise what language to speak. They've just managed to sort it out for battlefields (finally). Most people when asked don't want the EU. The government is unrepresentative, pretty undemocratic, unaccountable and unloved. It's OK as a trade bloc (a la the EEC with more bullshit)
Russia can cut off the gas / oil, tehn we'd collectively be buggered.
~:smoking:
Oh brother.~:rolleyes: Let me guess, paint chips were a regular part of your childhood diet?:freak:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)
English?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The primary driver of the EU is trade. If the US wants to keep the EU helpless politically, they would be well advised to keep it thus, and not give us cause to find other common links. Humiliating the traditionally pro-American countries as this government seems prone to doing is politically dumb.Quote:
Most people when asked don't want the EU. The government is unrepresentative, pretty undemocratic, unaccountable and unloved. It's OK as a trade bloc (a la the EEC with more bullshit)
Russia can cut off the gas / oil, tehn we'd collectively be buggered.
~:smoking:
Thats scarilly anti-american :2thumbsup: --> Europe as a group is famously useless (we all disagree with each other)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)
It's not the US that's obstructing action in the Sudan- better look elsewhere for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
the US isnt trying to act in Sudan though, if the US was to intervene things would move a lot quicker (for good, or bad)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
So we should get involved in another civil war involving Muslims? Sorry, our WorldPolice(TM) are currently occupied elsewhere (granted, in a mess of our own creation). If we act, we are damned, if we don't act, we are damned. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
On a side note, it's nice to see that Vlad Tepes has found the Backroom. This should be entertaining. :2thumbsup:
Get involved without using the army - the US have political power as well as military etc. Im sure a few pointers to the UN behind the scenes would work wonders - maybe a bit of finance too :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
Dont be mean to Vlad - i quite like his unbelievably anti-american posts
Me too, I went wee-wee laughing till the dew shook off my lily!!!:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
I was under the distinct impression that our political power in the international arena was somewhat diminished, especially at the UN. Recently, it's very chic to spout anti-American diatribes in front of the esteemed representitives gathered there, where they receive rave reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
I'm not being mean, I am genuinely looking forward to this. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Dont be mean to Vlad - i quite like his unbelievably anti-american posts
I suspect the US still has a lot of power, just slightly more subtle, you cant be that big a country and not have some political cloutQuote:
Originally Posted by drone
thats what im worried about :laugh4:Quote:
I'm not being mean, I am genuinely looking forward to this. :2thumbsup:
The problem there is that the current administration does not seem to understand the word "subtle". :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurvy
With comments like the one below I can understand many having anti american sentiment, if the only americans they were to come into contact with shared similar views to your's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
And the native populous? They don't have a say in this I suppose? If you want a piece of territory you believe that you can just go out and take it? The middle east is a "vital strategic area", so lets go and bomb it into submission, take it off them and invent a pretext for going in there, because we can. Sorry but that's how the US foreign policy often comes across, and if you couldn't care less about foreign policy and have no sense of cultural awareness, then maybe you shouldn't leave your own country, in either a military capacity or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
surely the amount of killing that goes on in Africa makes it important --> the "civilised world" can actually do something useful by helping itQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Seems we had a relatively decent relationship/understanding with many of the countries we are now fighting in until we were invited by terrorists to come and fight them in the countries they were hiding in. Had the countries harboring terrorists taken care of them, contained them or at least told them not to piss off the US too bad, everything would have been relatively the same. Instead they couldn’t control what was happening within their own boarders (or were encouraging it, $25,000 bonus to the family of a suicide bomber) thereby inviting the most hated country in the world to come over and make a stinking mess out of everything. Don’t want the US to stomp around your country, screwing everything up; don’t give us a reason to notice you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
No GC , that is the fullest and most correct reply you could possibly get to your question "why not"Quote:
That's nothing but pointless insults, T. No substance, and thus nothing to reply to.
Would you like the shorter simpler version so you can understand it ?
......think before you act......
understand yet ?
I doubt it since you had to ask the question "why not?" in the first place .:juggle2:
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
If so, pulling out is not the answer--re-working our occupation to better favor us is the answer.
yes , reinforcing failure is the answer , or do you have some bright idea that will take a hostile population , an "enemy" backed government and rework it in your favour ?
And the prize for understatement goes to ......:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
I don't know about outright annexation (that can get real messy)
Yes its fine , it also takes a very long time , a hell of a lot of money and most importantly a friendly population who are going to support both you and your imposed regime .Quote:
but toppling hostile regimes and replacing them with complacent ones is certainly just fine.
Sooooooooo, can you think of many countries that fit the bill ? Or more to the point , can you think of any country in that region that you want because ...well because you want it, that even remotely fits the bill ?
Clueless , absolutely clueless . :dizzy2:Quote:
Let's face it, nobody gives a damn about Africa when you compare it to the Middle-East. It's just not as important. In the future, if they ever stop killing eachother and decide to join the civilized world, Africa has the potential to be important.
OK GC , lets see if there is the faintest glimmer of cognative function there .
If you forget the complexities of the decades or even centuries of involvement in Africa for its unimportant resources . Can you explain the causes of the current conflict in Darfur ?
You know simple stuff like what do the rebels want and why do they think that rebellion will get it for them ?
No political decision can be made in full knowledge of both the intended and unintended consequences. It is impossible to "game" all outcomes in advance. You imply a standard of prior evaluation that would tend toward inactivity in all things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Were there opponents during the run-up to the invasion and conquest of Iraq who predicted a much greater degree of difficulty after the overthrow of Saddam than the Bush administration planned on? Absolutely. Yet there were just as many critics who argued that we:
Had no right to attack Iraq (despite UN resolutions and Saddam's failure to live up to the armistice agreement)
Would lose to Iraq because: we'd quit if Saddam's forces could cause massive casualties in a door-to-door attack on Baghdad
Would lose to Iraq because: we couldn't handle the local weather/climate conditions
and the list goes on.
None of these concerns proved correct. It's easy to "Monday-morning quarterback" and say we should have known. Hindsight is always so clear.
Ah, its so clear now. Perhaps, since you have determined that we've already lost and that no possibility exists for victory, it would be expedient of us to simply coordinate our withdrawals so that Iranian forces could take over the kasernes quickly. Since no matter what time or effort we put in, a civil war resulting in an Iranian puppet state is the only possible outcome. Do you "moonlight" as the oracle at Siwa or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I don't believe that the Iraqi population carries the degree of animus you assume. Numerous stories brought home by those serving in Iraq suggest that, for the most part, they'd like more personal security and better infrastructure and for everyone to get out of the way of them living their lives. Given time, that's plenty friendly enough. And the regime will no longer be an imposition if it serves their needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You could have avoided the personal attack and still made your point here Tribesy -- bad form.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
By-the-by, GelCube is much more of an isolationist than many yanks. His initial response tends to be -- let them deal with it themselves. His second thought tends to be -- what best serves the interests of the USA.
So you disagree with the USA pursuing its strategic interests but want us to spend money and blood being Paladins in an area of nearly endemic warfare?
Ah, but then you revel in labeling someone ignorant. I trust that you do so only to further the growth of knowledge and that you never take any pleasure in belittling someone else.
The thing is that America cares little about doing the utilitarian thing by actually quitely toppling sich a government if there is no oil in the country. Or if Bush hasnt made up false terror links or WMD's. As long as false stories are made up its OK for America to beat the shit out of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So do you propose that America intervene in such situations? How much oil is there, and by how much will it make the oil companies richer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Please, all this means is that Fox News is going Liberal. The Iraq War has, of course, decreased terrorism in all its forms and is completely justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You, sir, sadly forget that the Iraq War is not only completely justified, but completely effective, and morally righteous; and anyone who dares speak against the excellent results of the war is a mere traitor of the USA, of which capital punishment against them is leniency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
FOX News have shamed America by surrendering to the pressure of the Liberal Elite.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Have you read the interview Blair gave to Newsnight on the eve of the Iraq war in February 2003? Just about every worry voiced by the studio audience (general public, not professional analysts) has been proven true. Hindsight is always clear, but foresight can sometimes be equally obvious. Blair is hated not because he made a mistake (goodness knows we've forgiven him before), but because we had warned him, repeatedly, that this would be a mistake, even before the event, and he ignored us and mired us in this debacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Blair Iraq interview