quote:

And since this administration lied through its teeth about WMD as a reason for invasion as well as their post invasion plans, I'm not exactly in a trusting mood that they're translating what exactly is being said, or that it represents a majority of the people over there.

quote:

They need oil money more than the world needs their oil, it's just the folks running the show in this country that make more money this way. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

Hey Look Firmhand…..you and I have often been in disagreement in matters such as these….but we’ve always been cordial.  

I know that you are a former US Army officer……and I a former US Marine. Do you somehow think/feel my little quip was reflective of you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

I normally have a high degree of respect for all military brass, but in the upper echelons these days, political expediency-- for the purpose of an extremely rewarding afterlife-- seems to rule the day.  

I mean, lets face it…..The Generals of today are not like those of yesteryear ; they just aren’t satisfied with writing a few books—about ''Old Yeller'' and such--- and playing golf a five days a week after/during their retirement - they want to become part of corporate hierarchies and lead dynamic lives. And to accomplish that you need to play the game. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

With specific regard to General Pretraeus :  It’s my feeling he sold himself out by signing on with the Bush administration in his current capacity.  

As a renowned expert and author who penned the Army’s new official Counterinsurgency Doctrine, General Petraeus seems to have abandoned his own logic and strategic analysis with regard to defeating /controlling an internal rebellion of the current stature.  

By virtue of his own admission – The ''surge'' cannot succeed in its current form; they just don’t have enough manpower. This leads to me to believe General Petreaus will just become another sacrificial lamb in the Bush Administrations attempt to buy itself more time.

quote:

Not believing General Petraeus, an officer in the field, versus a politically motivated group such as Move-On.org contains in it a position disassociated with reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

It's difficult to debate with someone who only believes facts presented in agreement with his position.

Nope- I tend to do some of my own research.  I'm an industry analyst and was flabbergasted by the claim that the Iraqi's had chemical/bio WMD.  I talked to my contacts in industry and they confirmed that the chemical weapons (not WMD in my book- only nukes count.) used a decade ago were supplied by Western chemical companies such as DuPont and ICI. The Iraqis never had that capability- but try and find that in the press at the time.  Even the NYTimes wouldn't back off of the administrations position that the Iraqi's possessed WMD.

If you don't think that the translation from Arab speaking sites provides accurate quotes from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and a variety of other sources it will be difficult to go further in this discussion. But I can understand that. Not believing General Petraeus, an officer in the field, versus a politically motivated group such as Move-On.org contains in it a position disassociated with reality.

I have no idea where you're getting this idea.  As the OP- I was the one who pointed out that I thought Moveon was slinging mud at an honorable soldier- please check the first post I wrote on this topic.  I am however suggesting that we all remain skeptical of administration claims, especially those pertaining to secrecy.  The comment about not believing what the Arab commentators is saying is a bit tongue in cheek, but intended to be thought provoking.  Odds are though, it would require too much of a conspiracy, and hence can be dismissed quickly.

I don't believe and never stated that ALL Muslims, or all people following Islam are terrorists or want to see the death of the west. I only trust and believe their leaders when they are quoted as saying so. As US citizens, like it or not, are identified perceived by the actions of their leaders, I feel the same appropriate for the Islamic world. However, your position of not believing what they told directly from the source, unfortunately is shared by many.

My comment is that I don't care what people say- I care what they DO.  We believe in free speech in this country- why should we deny that right to the Iraqi's/Iranians?  I have yet to see a credible threat to the US from these countries- they simply don't have the means.  Hence, they can yap all they want about trying to kill us- it's irrelevant.  If they have the weapons to back up their threats, that's a different matter.  But rattling an empty saber scabbard shouldn't be cause to get turned to radioactive glass- it's an overreaction on our part.

Read my post again, nowhere does it say the US should initiate a preemptive strike. I only say a way to insure a return to "peace" in the region wrecked by was imparted to them by the west would be to give both sides the power for mutual destruction. I would think that the anti-Israeli faction would support the plan. Your point of comparison to the USSR is well taken. I suggest implementing the same at the local middle east level. I know they have no WMD's or nukes - I propose providing them. As far as how the weapons would be deployed - maybe they can get a group of children suicide bombers to carry them working together. It wouldn't be out of character.

Give each faction 10 or so 2 kiloton nukes and let them settle this 5000 year old issue once and for all .

OK- I can't believe that anyone would write such nonsense (maybe I'm missing your sense of humor?)- but let me ask one pertinent question.  Once you hand the Iraqis these weapons, how do you propose making sure that they only use them on each other?  Because it would be a simple matter to place a bomb on an airliner and fly into New York- then detonate.  Or place it on a ship- or on a yacht.  The hard part is getting the refined plutonium or uranium- after that it's easy.
 
"They need oil money more than the world needs their oil, it's just the folks running the show in this country that make more money this way." 

What better way to enforce a curtailment of the use of fossil fuels and end "global warming" in our time. All those people you claim I voted for representing the oil companies would be unemployed without access to Middle East oil. Maybe we'll finally be able to get GM to re-release the electric car! Think of the opportunity! Is would seem this idea works best for those who think as you do that big oil, big business, and military intervention with an indigenous people is wrong.

Let's see- we passed some legislation back in the 1920s breaking up Standard Oil and the country hasn't seemed to have suffered too much since.
 
Halliburton stinks.  Somethings up with that company- if you check Wikipedia- they claim to have $13B in sales, but over 100k employees.  Well, that's less than $130k in sales per employee- and this is a mature business.  Most mature businesses have between $250k to $500k sales/employee.  I don't know what's going on here, but it doesn't smell right.
 
Protecting big business weakens this country.  These seem to be the same folks who cry about corporate welfare, but are willing to accept forcing contracts at gunpoint.  If we included the costs of the Iraq war at the gas pump- we'd find that oil replacement technologies such as wind, solar, and biofuels are a bargain  (what's the national debt up to per head- something like $28k?)- but they're not big businesses now are they?  No political clout in this administration or in past administrations either.  (this is a separate topic and I've commented on it already on this board.)  However, my comment about a blockade was not facetious, it's a very successful military strategy used for centuries.  It just doesn't work if you want what the other country has though.  But if you think we'd be in for world chaos without Iraqi and Iranian oil, relax- the tar fields in Canada have plenty of oil that can be extracted for about 20% more expense than the Mideast oil and these fields are a lot larger than known Iraqi/Iranian reserves.  Does lead to more CO2 production though- in the short term, would probably be worth it, till other technologies come on line.  I still remember the oil crunch of '73- seemed to me that the problem miraculously solved itself when we opened our wallets further.
 
Like I said- if all you've got is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.  I'm asking you to try thinking out of the box for a little bit- and perhaps being a bit more skeptical about what this administration claims.  Your readiness to accept that oil replacements are immature technology is telling- it's simply not true.

Sam



< Message edited by samboct -- 9/12/2007 6:56:48 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

So in order to clean up a mess the United States started you would turn a sovereign nation and all the people who live in it into a radioactive glaze. 

Leaving with creating a balance of power between the factions would be a moral obligation. Should the fine civilized people of the region chose to use the weapons to turn themselves into a "radioactive glaze" would be their choice. Aren't you a fan of self determination?

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

And what does any of that have to do with a personal attack by two grown men, against a man they don't know, who is serving the pledge he took as an officer?

What's he supposed to do Fargle ... abandon the troops over there? What exactly is that going to prove or solve?

quote:

No, I didn't think your quip was reflective of me.  I didn't take offense, I was simply disappointed because I thought it unworthy of your normal high level of discourse on such subjects.

quote:

What bothered me most about your comment was exactly the points that sam was making.  It seems to me that you (and many others) first have chosen your position, and then can not conceive of anyone every associated with policies you disagree with, with anything other than evil, nefarious motives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The Iraqis have met, what THREE out of 18 criteria.

That's a 31 out of 100. On what planet is a fucking THIRTY-ONE a passing grade.

quote:


You beat me to the punch. I'm a former US Army paratrooper (Airbooorne!), and I was going to say that the higher echelons of the military are not to be trusted.

We all know how officers love to make up ribbons so they can award themselves with them. In airborne divisions, you get foreign jump wings if you have made a jump in that foreign country. However, officers have found a way around that, by making it so that if your jumpmaster is from a foreign country, then that also counts towards getting a neat little pair of foreign jump wings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger

quote:


You beat me to the punch. I'm a former US Army paratrooper (Airbooorne!), and I was going to say that the higher echelons of the military are not to be trusted.

We all know how officers love to make up ribbons so they can award themselves with them. In airborne divisions, you get foreign jump wings if you have made a jump in that foreign country. However, officers have found a way around that, by making it so that if your jumpmaster is from a foreign country, then that also counts towards getting a neat little pair of foreign jump wings.

First let me say that you ought to be proud of yourself for making it through both the physical and mental aspects of Para /Airborne training.

With that said, the post you are referring to,was in no way meant to be a blanket statement disparaging the US Military's commissioned officer class.

The officers I served under in the Marines, were both highly competent and tough as shit.

The specific group of officers I am speaking to… are high level Washington administrators and policy advisors.




- R

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
The officers I served under in the Marines, were both highly competent and tough as shit.

The specific group of officers I am speaking to… are high level Washington administrators and policy advisors. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The Iraqis have met, what THREE out of 18 criteria.

That's a 31 out of 100. On what planet is a fucking THIRTY-ONE a passing grade.

Hey, I know this is probably knit-picky, but I just.. wanted to point this out? In any case..

I'm just sort of curious what makes you say that "THREE out of 18" is a "THIRTY-ONE".

Edit: Nevermind. Looks like it was already corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger
The officers I served under in the Marines, were both highly competent and tough as shit.

The specific group of officers I am speaking to… are high level Washington administrators and policy advisors. 

And how do you know that the people you are speaking of aren't highly competent, and tough as shit?
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Because they are doing their jobs ... on a project which the posters don't agree with. 

Therefore, they must be either politically motivated, greedy, or [insert your favorite insulting descriptive term here].

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

I think the ad was counterproductive because it was preaching to the choir and what we need to do is convert the middle and that ad probably pissed off more than it converted.