RE: Iraq Withdraw

RE: Iraq Withdraw (Full Version)

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

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 9:15:15 PM)
quote: My lord man - is English your first language? - read the paragraph again and connect the dots. ... You very inelloquently stated in your last posting If I were dissing someone else's command of the language, I'd probably take care to spell ineloquently correctly. Just a thought.

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/9/2006 11:17:11 PM)
I was listening to the BBC World news this morning and one commentator said the US cutting and running is Britain's worst nightmare (perhaps he should have said, Blair's worst nightmare) and that such a policy would have every British politician with a memory (and one assumes intelligence) never to back another US enterprise and probably have them realigning Britain with Germany and France. Not a bad thing in my book since Britain is European and share their interests but is a nightmare for Britain's Atlanticists who are going to hear the words 'I told you so' for a generation.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 4:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail This is a little farfetched..........Iran will call calm as a benevolent father between these warring factions......... That is their plan - but, so far, (their man) Beni Sadr is behaving rather independant of their desires and doing things which are not to their liking. Most likely there will be a faction asking for intervention, and Iran shall intervene and slaughter all of those opposing - Sunni and Shiite alike. quote: The Kurds, who have been under the rule of other than their kin and kind for lo, these thousands of years, are argueably not going to start an uprising, even if Borat shall lead them. No - they will force out all people not ethnically Kurd and that will result in deaths... like the partitioning of India except without anyinfluence to "be nice" And, the Turks wil find the existence of an independant Kurdistan and the assured "terrorism they support" (real or imagined) to be too much to allow to occur... and, will invade the northern climes. Borat will be too busy with the sequel. quote: We have dabbled enough in both countries that one divided will for the sake of the disappointment of us, band together. Turkey will not press any issue, if we buy some dried apricots and slip them a 20, so in that case, the Kurds are safe, but you whining <snip>, <snip> and so forth are going to think that we owe them. But this is kinda like an old boyfreind, I hav seen your work, haven't been impressed as of late, know the bitch is a wanton whore, but don't really need your advice going forward and sit at your knee while you regale me with your lesson, know whadda mean, Vern? Ron And, you were doing so well up until this point....;) ~J

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 4:25:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx LordODisipline: Since you choose to be rude,insulting and non responsive to questions then this conversation is over. thompson I was very responsive and rational and directly to the point which you were dancing around... If you cannot defend your position, then don't use excuses where rudeness is something exchanged ;) ~J

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 4:28:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: My lord man - is English your first language? - read the paragraph again and connect the dots. ... You very inelloquently stated in your last posting If I were dissing someone else's command of the language, I'd probably take care to spell ineloquently correctly. Just a thought. Thank you School Marm - I do not have a dictionary function attached but knew I could count on you to pull me through *Though that is a legitimate question based on the response and it was ineloquently stated and was hence being clumsily avoided...* ~J *(double check this paragraph above for me?)*

cloudboy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 6:42:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I was listening to the BBC World news this morning and one commentator said the US cutting and running is Britain's worst nightmare (perhaps he should have said, Blair's worst nightmare) and that such a policy would have every British politician with a memory (and one assumes intelligence) never to back another US enterprise and probably have them realigning Britain with Germany and France. Not a bad thing in my book since Britain is European and share their interests but is a nightmare for Britain's Atlanticists who are going to hear the words 'I told you so' for a generation. Typically a nation pays for its gaffes.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 10:52:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Typically a nation pays for its gaffes. I agree, which is why I think we can't just withdraw, but must stay and do our best to prevent a bloodbath in a situation we caused with our foolish rush to war.

popeye1250 -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 11:02:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Typically a nation pays for its gaffes. I agree, which is why I think we can't just withdraw, but must stay and do our best to prevent a bloodbath in a situation we caused with our foolish rush to war. Caitlyn, to the tune of another $400 billion? This election was in my view a "mandate" to get us out of Iraq. If the Dems want to remain in power thay had better listen to The People unlike the Repubs. They have two years.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 11:51:59 AM)
That's awefully convenient. Dear Innocent Iraqi People: We know we started this, and have drawn ever radical group in the Middle East into your country, but we had this election see ... and now you will just have to fend for yourself. Best of luck ... The American People Maybe if it costs another founr-hundred billion, we will learn our lesson.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 12:11:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline The only thing implicit in your statements is an unrealistic political jingoism and desire to end the current happenings for the United States NOW - it is void of a real world solution to minimize the happenings there and extract in a viable manner - not to mention salvage influence where it is so poorly lacking. I will try to avoid political jingoism. There was a nursery rhyme I once sang in Kindergarten which applies to what Bush and his ilk have done to Iraq. The applicable lines are as follows. "All the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." There was a system space in place which had certain persistent aspects to it. These included oil rigs, a million man army, a dictator supplied by the US gassing his own people, etc. Bush invaded and knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall. Now we have a new system space with it's own persistent aspects. These include terrorists, sabotage, dead people, sucking chest wound on the US economy, etc. We cannot go back to what we had before. Nobody seems to have a workable solution to make a system space in Iraq with persistent aspects we would like to have. So what people seem to be doing is arguing with each other about whether to pull out, stay the course, etc. I have yet to see anybody come up with any sort of description of what Iraq should actually look like, much less any coherent set of procedures to get to that state. I will be the first to admit I dont have a clue how to fix it. All I am pointing out is that the approach currently being used is flawed, expensive, and unworkable. Psychosis is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. By this definition, the US' current activities in Iraq qualify as an example of psychotic behavior. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 12:17:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn That's awefully convenient. Dear Innocent Iraqi People: We know we started this, and have drawn ever radical group in the Middle East into your country, but we had this election see ... and now you will just have to fend for yourself. Best of luck ... The American People Maybe if it costs another founr-hundred billion, we will learn our lesson. But Caitlyn, you are hugging yourself over a 200-450k house? And all for cheaping the minimum wage to keep a grapefruit from coming in over a buck? Yet, you will fork out another 400B so you learn your lesson real good? I frankly don't need the fuckin' practice, I am chastised handily at the first........ You can better believe I am going to put you under a microscope when you come here and slave for me, and I have you balance the checkbook........ My little frugal (when trained properly) slave........ Jesus, I remember Sen. Everett Dirksen saying, a million here, a million there and pretty soon you are talking about some real money...........but he would stand in awe of your devil may care attitude. LOLOLOL, Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 2:21:48 PM)
Caitlyn is right on this one. Iraq is morally the US's responsibility from the moment it invaded, it's also is the US's responsibility according to the UN charter. The US has got itself into something of a Catch 22 position, if the US succeeds it will get little thanks but if it fails, its prestige in the world will be totally shot, its influence in the middle east outside Israel will be zero. With Latin America moving to the left and ganging up for protecting their mutual self interest, China beginning to grab African oil contracts, it seems at the moment Bush has only one card to play. Succeed in Iraq. After 9/11, he was holding a full house.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/10/2006 6:27:29 PM)
*Well -* *You avoided jingoism and you also avoided a viable solution or a recomendation.* *No one has stated that we (I?) want to place a dictatorship back in place in Iraq... not sure why or where you would come up with that.* *However, a viable and self sustaining form of government has to be in place to avoid all of these deaths...* *Now - please note: I did not say:* *1. We had to put it in place.* *2. We will put it in place* *3. We will be there to see it put in place* *4. There will not be a blood bath in order to get this put in place* *That would be predicting the future, and I cannot do that.* *However, I also know that:* *1. We owe it to the Iraqi people to try and get them stabilized* *2. We owe it to the region and our country to ensure that the area is not dominated by Iran* *3. We need to establish a means of getting the infrastructure on course for constant improvement.* *So - there you are... 'beliefs on the nutshell'...* *And, by the way:* I did in fact state that there has to be a different thought in how this is to be accomplished (and, that has nothing to do with incipid jingoistic politics and rhetoric that was severely dated in 1966 nor with the Republicans and/or Democrats in power or in office - there needs to be real leadership in both Iraq and the west in order to resolve this). ~J PS: Governments do not behave in psychological ways -that is a misplaced analogous association... they behave in systematic ways... there is a word and definition for the behavior seen - it escapes me for the moment.

dcnovice -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/11/2006 11:30:46 AM)
quote: 1. We owe it to the Iraqi people to try and get them stabilized. 2. We owe it to the region and our country to ensure that the area is not dominated by Iran 3. We need to establish a means of getting the infrastructure on course for constant improvement. Worthy goals. I wish I knew how we could achieve them, though.

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/11/2006 4:52:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Well -* *You avoided jingoism and you also avoided a viable solution or a recomendation.* *No one has stated that we (I?) want to place a dictatorship back in place in Iraq... not sure why or where you would come up with that.* *However, a viable and self sustaining form of government has to be in place to avoid all of these deaths...* *Now - please note: I did not say:* *1. We had to put it in place.* *2. We will put it in place* *3. We will be there to see it put in place* *4. There will not be a blood bath in order to get this put in place* *That would be predicting the future, and I cannot do that.* *However, I also know that:* *1. We owe it to the Iraqi people to try and get them stabilized* *2. We owe it to the region and our country to ensure that the area is not dominated by Iran* *3. We need to establish a means of getting the infrastructure on course for constant improvement.* *So - there you are... 'beliefs on the nutshell'...* *And, by the way:* I did in fact state that there has to be a different thought in how this is to be accomplished (and, that has nothing to do with incipid jingoistic politics and rhetoric that was severely dated in 1966 nor with the Republicans and/or Democrats in power or in office - there needs to be real leadership in both Iraq and the west in order to resolve this). ~J PS: Governments do not behave in psychological ways -that is a misplaced analogous association... they behave in systematic ways... there is a word and definition for the behavior seen - it escapes me for the moment. Thank you for letting me know I avoide jingoism. My sentence towards the end where I stated I did not have a solution probably indicated to you that I was not planning on offering one. I would agree with you that in a perfect world, we are responsible for putting Humpty Dumpty (Iraq) back together again. The world, however, is not perfect. What we have is a heavily armed country peopled largely with individuals who hate us and each other, that is currently under some degree of control of the US military. Allow me to use an analogy. Take a car (which would be the United States) filled with 10 gallons of gasoline (which would be our resources, money, industry, etc) and start driving (which would be occupying Iraq). If we drive long enough, we eventually run out of gas and our country goes bankrupt. The problem with staying the course is that it is analogous to refusing to get off the road and put more gas in the car. It is entirely possible that Iraq ends up under the control of Iran. It is also entirely possible that if we pull out, Iraq is rebuilt by the Chinese who then have full access to the Iraqi oil wealth. It is also possible that whoever we elect does exactly what Saddam threatened to do (force the US to buy oil from him with Eurodollars) to us if sanctions were listed. He knew he could outwait the rest of the world who needed his oil. These would all be bad, in a similar sense to the car running out of gas being bad. Monkeyboy should have thought of all this before he insisted we invade, but I have made the observation before that he is not the brightest of simian life forms on the planet. Sinergy

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/11/2006 8:00:25 PM)
*Next time when you explain your views on Iraq, pleae use Thomas the Tank Engine for me....* *You kinda lost me with the "car analogy" - it was tough to follow as I know more about Thomas than those car things-* *Let me show you:* One thing you forget about is that Mr Conductor (Iraq) has a vast resevoir of "coal" that might pay for a lot of their "tracks" should we (Thomas) ever get the freaking strip mining operations in "Cornwall" going properly through the use of independant "Mining Companys"... they are "mining coal" to their previous capacity - but, that is about 15% of their total (the infrastructure was shot previous to the "Invasion of Train Town By Thomas and his band of Bad Engines") *But, back to reality:* *As far as Iran and China and the scenario you are giving -* China buys most of it's oil from Khazikstan (formerly known as a portion of the Soviet Union - believe it or not - politics, bedfellows, pipelines, etc.) and Iran's biggest customer is the US seconded by Japan. *China does (indeed) want natural gas from Iran... and, they are working on a potential deal in that area... but, they are still not buying much (relatively) in the way of oil from Iran.* **They are (however, buying extensively from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - as they are more stable and less likely to develop nukes..* Oh yeah - China is involved in stopping the nuclear development in Teheran.. they need another neighbor with a nuke like they need more instances of Avian Flu to cover up.** And, generally speaking, China wants good neighbors (if wishes were wings, Mao would fly in that instance) - so they are using this gas deal as a means of pressutring them from the opposite side of the table... ~J quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Thank you for letting me know I avoide jingoism. My sentence towards the end where I stated I did not have a solution probably indicated to you that I was not planning on offering one. I would agree with you that in a perfect world, we are responsible for putting Humpty Dumpty (Iraq) back together again. The world, however, is not perfect. What we have is a heavily armed country peopled largely with individuals who hate us and each other, that is currently under some degree of control of the US military. Allow me to use an analogy. Take a car (which would be the United States) filled with 10 gallons of gasoline (which would be our resources, money, industry, etc) and start driving (which would be occupying Iraq). If we drive long enough, we eventually run out of gas and our country goes bankrupt. The problem with staying the course is that it is analogous to refusing to get off the road and put more gas in the car. It is entirely possible that Iraq ends up under the control of Iran. It is also entirely possible that if we pull out, Iraq is rebuilt by the Chinese who then have full access to the Iraqi oil wealth. It is also possible that whoever we elect does exactly what Saddam threatened to do (force the US to buy oil from him with Eurodollars) to us if sanctions were listed. He knew he could outwait the rest of the world who needed his oil. These would all be bad, in a similar sense to the car running out of gas being bad. Monkeyboy should have thought of all this before he insisted we invade, but I have made the observation before that he is not the brightest of simian life forms on the planet. Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/11/2006 8:11:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline *Next time when you explain your views on Iraq, pleae use Thomas the Tank Engine for me....* *You kinda lost me with the "car analogy" - it was tough to follow as I know more about Thomas than those car things-* *Let me show you:* One thing you forget about is that Mr Conductor (Iraq) has a vast resevoir of "coal" that might pay for a lot of their "tracks" should we (Thomas) ever get the freaking strip mining operations in "Cornwall" going properly through the use of independant "Mining Companys"... they are "mining coal" to their previous capacity - but, that is about 15% of their total (the infrastructure was shot previous to the "Invasion of Train Town By Thomas and his band of Bad Engines") *But, back to reality:* *As far as Iran and China and the scenario you are giving -* China buys most of it's oil from Khazikstan (formerly known as a portion of the Soviet Union - believe it or not - politics, bedfellows, pipelines, etc.) and Iran's biggest customer is the US seconded by Japan. *China does (indeed) want natural gas from Iran... and, they are working on a potential deal in that area... but, they are still not buying much (relatively) in the way of oil from Iran.* **They are (however, buying extensively from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - as they are more stable and less likely to develop nukes..* Oh yeah - China is involved in stopping the nuclear development in Teheran.. they need another neighbor with a nuke like they need more instances of Avian Flu to cover up.** And, generally speaking, China wants good neighbors (if wishes were wings, Mao would fly in that instance) - so they are using this gas deal as a means of pressutring them from the opposite side of the table... ~J You totally lost me with your analogy, but if it works for you, I say go for it. China uses draconian measures to prevent their people from using automobiles and gets most of their energy from hydroelectric and coal power. Of course, their government is trying to figure out a way around the fact that 1/3 of their GNP is spent on illnesses resulting from their addiction to coal. But that is not the issue. The United States is addicted to oil. Being forced to purchase oil from Iraq with Eurodollars would put the US over a nice barrel with no lubrication. I have no idea why you think I was saying that China is helping Iran develop nuclear power. But if that works for you, go you. My point, which it seems you missed, is not about what China is doing. It is about the potential future of the United States. I would suggest you look long and hard at where we get our oil from, and then consider what would happen if those people should run out of oil, and then mix that up with a simpleton President from the oil industry who has just been given control of the US military. I await your reasoned and educated analysis on this issue., iSinergy

Dtesmoac -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 6:25:16 AM)
When the USA pulls and runs from Iraqi those that supported them will be butchered. Message to the rest of the world - you can not trust the USA. Future US policy initiatives will be hampered, including attempts to protect the USA from futher terrorist attacks. If the USA applies a strategy to win in Iraqi such as it has used in the past e.g. "Kill the Buffalo and commit genocide" translate to Iraqi as lets poison the water and instigate forced migration it will loose all moral integrity and will loose all support from the rest of the world. i.e copy how Saddam did it. In either scenario unlike after 9/11 when most of the world rallied to the USAs support the next time there is a spectacular terrorist attack in the US it will not just be in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank that people dance in the streets at the death of Americans. For the US as unpalatable as it may seem they probably need to be thinking in terms of keeping significant numbers of troops in parts of Iraq for the next 10 years under the limited mandate of "We will create a few limited safe area where those wishing to live in security will not have civil freedoms but will have access to food, jobs and security". Whilst outside of those areas the Iraqi government and its supporters can fight a very dirty and probably ethnic / religeous based conflict for control of the country. There is no longer a morally equitable win situation for the US & Britain, what is possibly going to happen is failure in Afghanistan & Iraq with the lesson that supporting the Chinese or Islamic fundamentalists is the best option for your security rather than the West.

caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 6:49:40 AM)
I don't believe anyone has made a hard and fast rule, limiting anyone to these two scenarios.

LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 7:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy You totally lost me with your analogy, but if it works for you, I say go for it. China uses draconian measures to prevent their people from using automobiles and gets most of their energy from hydroelectric and coal power. Of course, their government is trying to figure out a way around the fact that 1/3 of their GNP is spent on illnesses resulting from their addiction to coal. Not at all sure why Chinese coal use was brought up, as it does not diminish the facts of China's energy need required from outside of their nation. And, I am not sure where you get the figures for health relatied issues and their GNP - it is unreasonably high for a sustained nation - and, not in generic character for a country that spends so very little on it's people's health to start with - but, "ok" - it is completely non-sequitor to their desire for gas and oil, however... quote: But that is not the issue. The United States is addicted to oil. Being forced to purchase oil from Iraq with Eurodollars would put the US over a nice barrel with no lubrication. *Where did this come from at all?* In th analogy (which had nothing to do with China) coal represented oil for the sake of trains... which was comparable to your "car" analogy and was my way of asking you to not be so simplistic... having graduated the third grade, I am confident I can read a spread sheet. *On US oil purchases:* *We would never "have to purchase" from any particular country (per se) - and (but), seldom let politics interfere with our business - look at Venezuala - we are their largest customer for their oil.* *But again - this is well beside the point.* quote: I have no idea why you think I was saying that China is helping Iran develop nuclear power. But if that works for you, go you. *Just the opposite - you need to go back and read what I said.* quote: My point, which it seems you missed, is not about what China is doing. It is about the potential future of the United States. I would suggest you look long and hard at where we get our oil from, and then consider what would happen if those people should run out of oil, and then mix that up with a simpleton President from the oil industry who has just been given control of the US military. *1. We get our oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala, Kuwait and domestic sources along with other dribblings here and there.* *2. An oft repeated slander on this board and others indicative of a poor means of communicating dislike for US policy:* The President is not a moron - just because someone does not agree with his politics and/or motives does not mean he is "stupid" and generic and subjective associations will not make it so. Let's face it - he was elected twice - and, IF he was as dense as purported, he would have said something something damning that would have ended it. *This is kinda like Gerald Ford presidency and his alleged clumsiness.* quote: I await your reasoned and educated analysis on this issue., iSinergy *There is really nothing more to say - you are bored with the conversation - did not really read what I wrote, and said nothing here.* ~J

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875