RE: Iraq: For Solutions only

RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 7:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SirKenin quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Not so, A: There is such a thing as Popular Opinion and Popular Belief AND cries and hues of righteous indignation by ill informed hotheads and ignoramuses, and believe me, that carries alot more freight in this day and age of reason than any old fuckin' matter of truth. Ron They might carry more weight to a Republican. But to a Democrat? I do not buy that. Not a party that is so anti-war. Does not make any sense. Especially from a man they do not like. Over half the Democratic side of the Senate voted in favor. I am not a Bush fan, and I am not prepared to give him that much credit when he can barely spit two words out of his mouth without tripping over his tongue. Rather, I think he provided some compelling evidence that something was indeed going on. He had to have. The USA was not the only country that had intelligence and arrived at the same conclusion. The democrats are hardly anti war..the Mexican American war, world wars vol. 1 and 2, Korea, Viet Nam. thompson

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:26:54 AM)
It is a complete lie that "other countries thought the same thing" Germany told us that the source of "intelligence" such as the bioweapons trailers was a drunk and probably full of shit Everybody but Bush knew that Chilabi (the man they wanted to take over Iraq) was an Iranian double agent. Remember the big deal over the aluminium tubes? Our own Department of Energy, the one that overseas our nuke plants? They made it quite clear the tubes were NOT for centrifuges, but of course that all got left out. The forged Niger documents? The ones the CIA told them not to use but they included them in the state of the union address anyway? Sorry, but anyone who thinks other countries believed the deluded crap Bush fed you guys just isn't paying attention.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:58:05 AM)
This short term plan centers around a safe refugee zone in southern Iraq that would also serve as a deterrent to Iranian military incursions across the border. Contrary to what has been presented here on this forum, there are significant military assets in place in Iraq that are fresh, well equipped and have been in theater for only a few months. The July 27 deployment included: 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division RCT 2, USMC RCT 6, USMC 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team (currently in Baghdad) The June 20 deployment included: 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division 1st Cavalry Division HQ 4th Brigade, 25th Infantry Division 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division There is a plan in place to deploy the 1st & 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division, stationed in Friedberg, Germany. This should happen immediately. The refitted components of the 3rd Infantry Division are scheduled to be re-deployed back to Iraq in January 2007. This should be cancelled. According to the plan these fresh formations will establish a safe zone in southern Iraq, headquartered in Basra. The forward area of this zone would be Nasiriyah, extending east to the border with Iran and west on a line just south of Najaf, all the way to the border of Saudi Arabia. Our new air wing of F-22 fighters should be sent to Kuwait, in order to closely monitor any potential buildups in Iran. Iran will not like this, but will be powerless to prevent it. This plan would give us several things: A safe area for refugees from a civil war that will undoubtedly unfold in the rest of Iraq, once our forces pull back. A position to control an area where sufficient fresh troops are available to do an adequate job. This would allow other formations to pull back to Kuwait for refit, and possible deployment back to the United States. Additionally, we should probably anticipate a pull out by the United Kingdom in early 2007, if that ends up happening. Control of Iraqi oil fields, in a position to keep them free from sabotage. Iraq will need these assets once the ensuing civil war plays out. This area would serve as a strong buffer to the Iranian military. Moving in to Iraq would be a losing proposition under the watchful eye of the 1st Armored Division and various air assets. Within the established zone, naval air assets could participate without moving aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf. These assets are mostly fresh and would relieve the pressure on current Air Force assets. The long term goal would be to allow Iraq to establish a government of their own, which will probably be a messy process, while allowing an area of safety and humanitarian aid to those that need it. Once stability is restored, there is an option to pull out, or maintain the area of control.

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 9:42:24 AM)
a brigade is between about 1500 and 3000 souls, including cooks, admin and staff... so on average we are talking about 18k people, many of which have been restationed from other units and lets just say that each tour is 1 year till new orders... so subtract about a third for cooks(who also get shot at, by the way) and such and another third for rotations and even if you doubt either third, you are left with 12k or about 10 percent of the station, which is rather thin soup. The first armored has been in bhagdad for a couple moments, by example, they did the airport duty. The elephant in the room is the undoubted civil war (in my mind), why couldn't these guys have slaughtered each other like dogs before we got there to give them their democracy, it sure would have saved the airlines alotta free airmiles. Insofar as anyone moving into Iraq is concerned, you would have more to worry about from the Turks, but once again we are not so concerned with the Kurdish question, since they are heathens and not reformable like the ones with oil and vital interests of that sort.

WyrdRich -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 3:41:26 PM)
That's nice Bill, and yet those links work, you haven't been taken away in one of Homeland Security's unmarked white vans and aluminum foil is widely available. Or are you actually an agent of Thought Police trying to entrap dissidents?

farglebargle -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 4:48:25 PM)
SOLUTION: 1) Give EVERY Iraqi big enough to hold it, a RIFLE, cleaning kit, and crate of ammo. 2) TELL them a) Get to know your neighbors REALLY WELL, b ) Good Luck, and mAbm, c) Good Bye. 3) Come Home. If they DESERVE freedom, they'll EARN it. Otherwise, they won't value it. If they DON'T DESERVE freedom, why should our kids die? That pretty much end the topic.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 4:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle SOLUTION: 1) Give EVERY Iraqi big enough to hold it, a RIFLE, cleaning kit, and crate of ammo. 2) TELL them a) Get to know your neighbors REALLY WELL, b ) Good Luck, and mAbm, c) Good Bye. 3) Come Home. If they DESERVE freedom, they'll EARN it. Otherwise, they won't value it. If they DON'T DESERVE freedom, why should our kids die? That pretty much end the topic. I am waiting for the inevitable "we need their oil" whine by the apologists for the NeoCons. Sinergy

WyrdRich -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 5:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I am waiting for the inevitable "we need their oil" whine by the apologists for the NeoCons. Sinergy Didn't you hear about the test they just ran up at Edwards? We can now fly the B52's on a fuel made from coal dust. Let them eat their damn oil.

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 5:37:03 PM)
The only way to eliminate the problem in the middle east is to solve the problem that originally caused it. In other words, the middle eastern countries that have no oil need a real global economy based in something other than drug manufacturing. Also the catalyst for the terrorism, aka their religious devotion, needs to be curbed dramatically. I would recommend airdropping thousands of pro-atheist and buddhist books, transcribed in the arabic languages into the larger populated areas. Also dropping large amounts of images depicting Muhammad in various sexual positions with Bert from Sesame Street (in reference to the infamous support poster), and let the bastards stew in it for several decades until they either kill themselves or get a life and realize that killing other people of a ridiculous religious belief isn't going to solve anything. The American troops need to be pulled out of Iraq to a safer location where they can move back in, if neccesary - and by that I mean if they've got 4th and goal in the last seconds of the game. Going in and "accidentally" killing civilians only makes their children want to grow up and kill us again in 20 years. If we pull out and the terrorists are the only ones killing the innocent Iraqis, then in 20 years those children left behind will grow up and want to kill the terrorists instead of us.

CrappyDom -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 7:31:02 PM)
Caitlyn, Why on earth would you think the Iranians would be stupid enough to bother attacking us? Iraq is theirs far more than it is our already and that will only become more true after we leave. They are going to sit behind their borders and quietly build their nuclear weapons. If WE are stupid enough to attack them, they will remobilize Hezbolah and the Shia will rise up and shoot us in the back. I still bet you think El Alamein was a victory of Monty's.

WyrdRich -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 7:48:09 PM)
Valid points Crappy, but you are leaving out the Israeli factor. A nuclear Iran is a much more immediate threat to them than to us. I don't see them waiting around for it to happen.

popeye1250 -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 7:59:35 PM)
Iraq is going to have a civil war anyway. Get our guys out and let them have it. We'll still be there 20 years from now if we keep following this "strategy." Yup, let them Earn their freedom! Put our guys on a nice vacation along the Mexican border suntanning and put some swimmingpools and hookers down there for them.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:14:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper The only way to eliminate the problem in the middle east is to solve the problem that originally caused it. In other words, the middle eastern countries that have no oil need a real global economy based in something other than drug manufacturing. Also the catalyst for the terrorism, aka their religious devotion, needs to be curbed dramatically. I would recommend airdropping thousands of pro-atheist and buddhist books, transcribed in the arabic languages into the larger populated areas. Also dropping large amounts of images depicting Muhammad in various sexual positions with Bert from Sesame Street (in reference to the infamous support poster), and let the bastards stew in it for several decades until they either kill themselves or get a life and realize that killing other people of a ridiculous religious belief isn't going to solve anything. The American troops need to be pulled out of Iraq to a safer location where they can move back in, if neccesary - and by that I mean if they've got 4th and goal in the last seconds of the game. Going in and "accidentally" killing civilians only makes their children want to grow up and kill us again in 20 years. If we pull out and the terrorists are the only ones killing the innocent Iraqis, then in 20 years those children left behind will grow up and want to kill the terrorists instead of us. Hello A/all, What originally caused it? Arabia was the seat of educated civiliation long before any other country in the West. Only culturally predated by China in the East. They had culture, a written alphabet, mathematics, etc. Then it started to fall apart into bickering and fighting between different peoples who were different only in custom and name. When the area was "colonized" by the pale skinned barbarians, their internecine squabbles were used to keep them apart and separated. The only thing which kept them from resorting to violence and mayhem was the iron bootheel of European soldiers who moved in during the age of Imperialism. Then a commodity was discovered which they could sell to the rest of the world and make mind-boggling amounts of money. What ended up happening is the Western powers found the person who could consolidate power and make other people do what they wanted. Contrary to popular beliefs by many people in the United States, the United States really does not do well dealing with democratic governments. The US government wants one person they can go to, make a deal with, and get what they want. Witness the Bush administration's issues with Chavez (democratically elected leader) in Venezuala. The US Government is much happier with a militarily shored up monarchy like Saudi Arabia. We make a deal with them, and any Saudis object, they are beheaded and life goes on as the Saudi royal family dictates it to be. The problem the US had with Saddam Hussein is that he refused to "play ball" with the United States on any terms but his own. This tends to piss off people who have first strike nuclear capability or can shoot their own friends in the face and be considered the poor helpless victim by their countryfolk. The problem the US has with Iran is an inability to find common cause to work with a theocracy that hates us. I cant say I blame them for hating us. The Shah was not a nice man to his people, and we supported him. The Iraqi people are an educated and intelligent people. The general attitude shown towards them by the current US Administration is one of condescension and superiority. Their Islamic (Sunni) beliefs are not the problem. What is happening is that more militant parts of Islam are recruiting people from all over the Muslim world to be suicide bombers against the United States forces in Iraq. A significant majority of the suicide bombers who are currently blowing up Iraqis are not from Iraq at all. The problem with our efforts to stabilize countries we previously destabilized is the power hungry nutcases we put into power are more interested in personal greed than they are in making the lives of the people in their country better with education, hospitals, culture, etc. The US troops waltz in with our tanks and bombs, blowing up hospitals and nuclear power plants and the like, then start shooting people after searching their homes, and wonder why the locals hate us and dont trust that we will make their lives better. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagination to witness the sh*thole that Monkeyboy turned Texas into during his tenure as governor to realize that he has similar plans for the United States. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:28:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Sinergy: I am not sure I understand your logic. If Bush &co. send young people out to kill people so the rich can get richer then that is bad and I can refer to the military as fools. But if a demopub does it then it becomes some sort of bootstrap enterprise for the lowest economic fraction of our country. Hello A/all, Being involved in the military is a worthwhile enterprise for many people in our country. They go to dangerous places and stand guard and let the rest of us know that nobody is going to disturb our sleep at night. My issue is referring to the guy in the military who gets his marching orders to paint a target on his head and wait to get blown up in Tikrit as a fool. He is doing what he has to do. The one who is the fool is the Bible-thumbing, draft dodging, drunk driving, cocaine snorting, corporation fellating, environment destroying death penalty aficionado who sent him there. On the other hand, the last time I think we had much of a right to exercise our military in foreign countris might was World War 2. I am probably willing to make an exception to this in situations concerning widespread genocide such as Rwanda, but I would caveat that with the idea that we would need international agreement that it was appropriate to do so. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy Where are these dangerous places and who are they protecting me from while I sleep? I agree with your assessment of those who send the solders of to die so the rich can get richer. But that does not change the fact that the dead were foolish to go. And doood I was one of those fools. I just did not happen to die in the process. What exactly is there about WW II that you feel needed our intervention? thompson

juliaoceania -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:36:44 PM)
There were many young and idealistic people that signed up after 9-11 and made a commitment. Once you commit to the armed forces it is not that easy to uncommit. During the years where one is forming values they are learning military culture... I would not call them "fools". I would call them young idealists who believe in what they are doing.. or desperately want to.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 8:39:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Where are these dangerous places and who are they protecting me from while I sleep? What exactly is there about WW II that you feel needed our intervention? I am not sure how to answer the first question. I suppose I could talk about the Civil War, but the problem I have with that is that I can argue both sides of the issue. Given there is an enemy, people in the US military will defend me while I sleep. You may not have the highest level of respect for people who put their own personal safety ahead of the safety of the body politic, but I do. I was in a store once and a soldier shipping to Iraq the next day was trying to buy 2-24 packs of beer, but his paycheck had not been deposited. I told the clerk to put it on my tab. The guy asked how he could thank me, I replied to him "Come home safe, all of you." At the tail end of World War 2, after Russia had destroyed Germany's military ability to conduct war, the denoument would have been the soviet juggernaut invading and conquering most of Europe. Perhaps this would have been best for everybody. Perhaps we could have simply allowed Hitler to conquer all of Europe and everything would have ended up hunky dory. I am not sure it would have been in the United States best interest to allow Japan to control all of Asia, although I could probably argue convincingly why it would be wonderful thing. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

bills944 -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 9:00:55 PM)
Don't believe me, listen to George Carlin George Carlin - Who Really Controls America http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=935607276

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 9:15:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What originally caused it? Close, but no cigar. Go back about 750 years when trade routes between Europe and China were the only form of economic imports and exports between the two worlds. At this time, the people getting rich were the ones controlling the trading posts along the way. During this time, the middle east was prosperous and had no reason to attack each other outside of those petty squabbles you mentioned breifly. Then come forward about 250 years where Christopher Columbus dies in his bed thinking he has discovered a new way to the East Indies. Because it isn't the East Indies as Columbus beilieves, the routes through the middle east are still going strong. Another 250 years later and we have a settled eastern shore of the New world. The world is slowly expanding and trade is now being shipped from Europe in two directions. Trade through the middle east takes a toll, but it is still manageable since the only way to get goods from China to the New World is through Europe. Another 100 years later and the Gold Rush is bringing settlers out to California. Now China and all points east have a place in the New World to ship directly to. Traffic in the middle east slows down to only that which is going between Europe and China. Another 75 years and the Industrial Revolution is making things move fast. Planes, trains and automobiles are bringing goods back and forth much faster and trade through the middle east has slowed to nothingness. Tading goods on horseback through the middle east has become inefficient and obsolete. Since the area has only had the trading business to rely on, only those areas that will discover oil in the next 25 years will have any potential for a future. The rest is doomed to poverty. And in that economic desperation, the religious carpet baggers move in and gain political influence by pointing to the west and telling these people that the West is to blame for their lot in life. Its the West's fault that no one in the Middle East had the good sense in the past 400 years to see which way the wind was blowing and prepare for an economic downfall. It is economic desolation that has driven these people in the middle east into desperation. It is the religious whackjobs that had them believe that if they give all their power to the muslim faith, that their lives will improve or if they die in service to that faith, their posthumous rewards will be greater than anything they could gain in life (Sound familiar? its the same bullshit tele-evangelists tell our own people every day on those stupid "all god, all the time" networks). It is that economic desolation that we must fix if the people of that region will ever toss aside their extremist religious beliefs and move forward on their own.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 9:24:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZenrageTheKeeper quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy What originally caused it? Close, but no cigar. Go back about 750 years when trade routes between Europe and China were the only form of economic imports and exports between the two worlds. At this time, the people getting rich were the ones controlling the trading posts along the way. During this time, the middle east was prosperous and had no reason to attack each other outside of those petty squabbles you mentioned breifly. Then come forward about 250 years where Christopher Columbus dies in his bed thinking he has discovered a new way to the East Indies. Because it isn't the East Indies as Columbus beilieves, the routes through the middle east are still going strong. Another 250 years later and we have a settled eastern shore of the New world. The world is slowly expanding and trade is now being shipped from Europe in two directions. Trade through the middle east takes a toll, but it is still manageable since the only way to get goods from China to the New World is through Europe. Another 100 years later and the Gold Rush is bringing settlers out to California. Now China and all points east have a place in the New World to ship directly to. Traffic in the middle east slows down to only that which is going between Europe and China. Another 75 years and the Industrial Revolution is making things move fast. Planes, trains and automobiles are bringing goods back and forth much faster and trade through the middle east has slowed to nothingness. Since the area has only had the trading business to rely on, only those areas that will discover oil in the next 25 years will have any potential for a future. The rest is doomed to poverty. This wass mostly correct, but breaks down at the end. I would recommend you read up on US international relations since World War 2 with other countries, focussing on our involvements in Panama, Grenada, Iran, Venezuala, Ecuador, etc., but I suspect you wont. quote: And in that economic desperation, the religious carpet baggers move in and gain political influence by pointing to the west and telling these people that they are to blame for their lot in life. Actually, this sort of thing really did not start happening until the 1970s. quote: It is economic desolation that has driven these people in the middle east into desperation. It is the religious whackjobs that had them believe that if they give all their power to the muslim faith, that their lives will improve or if they die in service to that faith, their posthumous rewards will be greater than anything they could gain in life. It is that economic desloation that we must fix if the people of that region will ever toss aside their extremist religious beliefs and move forward on their own. The whole issue with the Muslim faith is a straw man argument. This religion is perfectly fine for 99.9% of the practitioners who dont try to destroy the United States as the Great Satan. One could make the great claim that the problem with the United States are Fundamentalist Christians who Bomb Abortion Clinics. By definition, the outliers in a statistical sampling do not really define the populations which exist within the standard of deviation.

ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Iraq: For Solutions only (10/5/2006 9:50:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Given there is an enemy, people in the US military will defend me while I sleep. Oh please. Since the end of WWII the conservatives in this country have been trying to objectify "evil" for the sake of "protecting family values". They've taken aim at communists, socialists, hippies, rock and roll, disco, marijuana, homosexuals, AIDS victims, the homeless, heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, Spongebob Squarepants, movies, rap, television, liberals and the Teletubbies. Basically anything that belongs to a subculture is fair game. There is nothing valuable in witch hunting the wrong cause for the sake of "family". So, for the first time in 60 years the conservatives have picked something that would actually shoot back given a chance, Muslim Terrorists. And they had to attack us before they would do so. Now are we supposed to support the government in its actions because they finally got something close to right? I don't think so. As for the troops. Screw them (and I've had two friends there and back and a cousin over there now). If they aren't smart enough to realize that Bush and his cronies are leaving them out there to die just to avoid taking blame for the inevitable outcome of a pullout of Iraq, they don't deserve to come home. Harsh, damn straight. Inappropriate, hell yes. But maybe a high enough death count on our side will be just what it takes to teach America, once and for all, that it can't trust a government that shoots first and asks questions later. Another religious apologist, sinergy? And yet you act so much smarter than that. Good and evil are subjective terms created for politicians by politicians. As such, those who use religion and other forms of magical thinking to support beneficial actions only pave the way for those who use it to justify the malicious and abusive events. It just depends on which side of the fence you're on and isn't amazing how many people on both sides think "god" is on their side? Atheism and other forms of godless spiritualities will always be inherently superior (oh please bring up Stalin like I know you want to) to theistic philosophies simply because they don't have the luxury of defending their beliefs because "my god said so".

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.785156E-02