Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: The Influence Myth


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Influence Myth Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Influence Myth - 11/30/2006 6:03:37 PM   
AZIMUTH


Posts: 4
Joined: 9/17/2005
Status: offline 		I will try and put my point across as it is a delicate one. I think we are all talking about what is known publicly about the special relationship, what is known publicly about the true state of international power and international relations.

If we believe what our media tells us;  these are times when the economic power is shifting to a number of leading nations which will include, India, China and a resurgent Russia. I am aware that this is how our thinking is currently adjusted, a belief that this next century will be a process of down-sizing ourselves in relation to these emergent powers. I  suggest that this is only how things are presented to us. 

I can only hint that there is an awesome lead in terms of weapons technology held by those in the special relationship over all other nations of the World. We have seen a number of wars using conventional weapons in recent years that give us the impression that the military might of America is conventionally armed and can be readily limited by small nations with enough pluck to carry the fight on for long enough to exhaust the will of the folks back home.

This only tells us of the political  expedience for using limited conventional weapons and forces against regional enemies.  The US is only limited as long as it remains tolerant enough not to show its real hand which in my opinion is for a force of an entirely different magnitude that will be absolutely decisive against any adversary. This fact is not lost to the old adversaries who play the long haul international power games such as Russia and China. They do not dare challenge the US directly.

I pity the nation that is on the receiving end of the first strike of true 21st century warfare. The special relationship is far stronger than many of you will want to believe, even a word like superpower status is a gross under-estimation of the power of the US and its closest ally to hold final sway over the World's destiny.

Finally, I am in favour that our nations hold this power, rather than Mr Putin or the Iranian President or the Mahedi army for example. The very fact that these decisive weapons systems have not emerged tells us that the US is constraining itself in very unstable times.

Azimuth

(in reply to slaveMastery)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: The Influence Myth - 11/30/2006 7:18:10 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		As an opening remark, I would like to say that going to Iraq may have been the most foolish thing my country has ever done.
 
That said, objective people can't let opposition to a war blind them so completely, that they find defeat where there is none. With the utmost respect, that's what I believe is happening both on this board and within segments of our society. Some people are so opposed to this war (and rightfully so) that they can't see anything but defeat ... and see whatever happens, good or bad, as a small dedicated nation defying the might and power of the United States.
 
Two quick point, and then my conclusion (and I apologize in advance for the length of this post).
 
The jury is still out on Iraq, but certain factors can't be ignored. The conventional arm of the United States and Great Britian, proved to be a formitable foe. Iraq was taken quickly, and Saddam removed. The end game in Iraq is not going as smoothly as it could have, but that's completely different than outright losing. What I'm rapidly coming to believe is that there is no civil war and no real armed resistance to the United States and Great Britain. What exists is chaos and shooting, and bombing ... and since American and British troops are there, they are often involved in chaos, shooting and bombing. I find it ironic that so many people that aren't there, present a picture that almost looks like poor huddled western troops, surrounded by waves is angry warriors, as in a Rourke's Drift scenario ... but when you talk to people that have been or are actually there, they present a very different picture.
 
Point two, is strictly hypothetical. Lets say that everything John Murtha says it true, and we leave in shame, similar to what happened in Vietnam. Tell me, what happened to the United States after Vietnam? Complete loss of power and prestige? Economic collapse? Reduced to status as a has-been nation?
 
Iraq will not define the power structure of the United States, no matter how it turns out. This may sound cold (but it not meant to be) but it just isn't a big enough war to have that much impact. In my opinion, the British are a very smart and wise nation, very experience in the world. We should perhaps listen to them more, and dictate to them less. I think they understand that a coalition of the United Kingdom and United States is still the predominant conventional military power on the planet, and most of all, I think they understand fully that they are in the enviable position of being able to change their position if world events dictate.
 
Again, my apologies for the length of this post.

(in reply to AZIMUTH)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: The Influence Myth - 11/30/2006 8:26:22 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Caitlyn, no appology neccessary.
Whether people call it a "Civil War" or not that's what it looks like at this juncture.
You have the Sunnis and Shiites who absolutely hate each other and have for hundreds of years taking this opportunity to off each other.
Then, they both hate the Kurds up North.
They're not going to stop killing each other just because we leave.
If this (isn't) a Civil War I don't know how much closer to one it can get without "touching."
And there are some who are against having troops in Iraq but want to get us involved in another Civil War in Darfur!
Like some people used to say about Iraq, Darfur didn't attack us on 9/11.
I say we start letting foreign countries settle their own affairs.
I know that my congressman is opposed to being the "world's policeman."
As for "influence" our troops (and G.B.'s) are the best in the world at fighting. They, and no-one really is good at being an "occupation force."
After they got Saddam there should have been a very large and immediate draw down in the number of troops but for whatever reason Bush thought he'd "Rebuild" Iraq after 30 years of abuse and neglect by Saddam. (Nation building?)
I don't know about anyone else but I don't want 1 penny of my money going to "Nation Building."
Bush said Iraq's oil money would pay for all that.
Come January I'm going to be on the phones, computer, and writing letters telling my senators and congressman "no more money" for Iraq.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 12:02:02 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveMastery

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
...yet when old George W goes and gets rid of a homicidal vicious tyrant, instead of giving George his due the great thinkers etc etc
 

But financing his "King George" delusions of grandeur with my tax dollars  etc
but until you -or anyone else non-US tax paying- are willing to make a personal monthly paycheck-deducted contribution to these war efforts, I reserve my rights for ripping George W. all freaking day long.


Edited your quote to emphasise the the "financial bit"
Apparently believing that the Brit. Taxpayer has made no financial contribution to the military action in Iraq is taking Isolationist thinking a step too far !

Lots of other posters appear to believe that the US/UK alliance in Iraq has screwed things up. Nobody ever responds to the fact the real underlying problem is the hatred Muslim on Muslim. I know I am repeating myself but so do you anti Blair/Bush brigade.

How about explaining why you believe that Shias are killing Sunnis. Did George W and Tony tell them to do it ?  Or in the context of this thread did Tony tell Geoge it would happen and George ignore him. I dont think so.

No major public figure that I know of  made a great public fuss and predicted what is now happening in Iraq. After it started to happen  obscure experts then claimed they expected it all along.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 12/1/2006 12:18:09 AM >

(in reply to slaveMastery)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 5:47:04 AM   
slaveMastery


Posts: 77
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Lots of other posters appear to believe that the US/UK alliance in Iraq has screwed things up. Nobody ever responds to the fact the real underlying problem is the hatred Muslim on Muslim. I know I am repeating myself but so do you anti Blair/Bush brigade.

How about explaining why you believe that Shias are killing Sunnis. Did George W and Tony tell them to do it ?  Or in the context of this thread did Tony tell Geoge it would happen and George ignore him. I dont think so.



I am not anti-Blair - you simply cannot fault the guy for 1) sticking to his guns and standing loyally by an ally that treats him like a married man treats his mistress after deciding to return to his wife, and 2) for simply not being a Maggie Thatcher.

The ethnic feuding and fighting in Iraq between Shia, Sunni and Kurds is neither new, nor an isolated phenomenon. This type of infighting has happened throughout the world wherever different ethnities and religious backgrounds were competing for the same living space. The fighting ever only stopped when strong and/or maniacal leaders unified the various factions and groups. This happened with the Germanic tribes until Charlemagne came along (only there, it lasted after his death), this happened in former Yugoslavia where everything fell apart after Tito died - and this happened in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was removed.

My criticism on Bush 43 is that he is a moron who did not listen to the advice to Bush 41. Bush 41 was smart enough during Desert Storm not to go in and remove Saddam, because he knew what was going to happen in a power/oppression vacuum once you remove the dictator. Instead of asking the one advisor closest to him and already experienced in dealing with the Iraq situation, Bush 43 just put his little play-cowboy boots on, tried to dig Ronald Reagan's cowboy hat out of the moth balls (which only his ears kept above his eyes) and went apeshit on Iraq.

< Message edited by slaveMastery -- 12/1/2006 5:48:21 AM >

_____________________________

~ ~

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 7:04:01 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveMastery

2) for simply not being a Maggie Thatcher.



Maggie Thatcher wouldn't have allowed Britain to get into this state of affairs. As much as she was pro-American, she would never have put America before Britain and that is what is so unforgivable about Blair's blind, idiotic and foolish slavishness to Bush. Blair and as a consequence, Britain, have been well and truely fucked. Thatcher wouldn't have let Bush smell her knickers without him handing a fat wad of notes over first and certainly wouldn't have allowed him to get his dick wet without him knowing if he makes one wrong move she will buck him and head straight for the door.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to slaveMastery)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 8:16:54 AM   
slaveMastery


Posts: 77
Joined: 11/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mgdartist

*yawn*....it's finally over, although dozing twice, i have reached the end, and may now return to sweet apathy and a nap.



See!? Those are the results of violent artist binges while indulging in the consumption of alcohol and drugs!

[teehee]

_____________________________

~ ~

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

(in reply to mgdartist)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 10:25:34 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Has it ever crossed your mind that Tony Blair really did believe that Iraq possessed WMD. All of the anti Blair/Bush attitude is after the event opportunism in my opinion. Think back to the time before the invasion when wots 'is name, Hans Blicke, I think was searching for WMDs, nobody was sure then, after all Iraq is a big country and Saddam certainly stockpiled gas, tried to build guns capable of firing "all over the place" ,did have a nuclear reactor that "somebody" bombed and did attack Iran.

How about that gas, why was that never found, Saddam DEFINATELY had that ! Lots of Kurds know that for certain.

I remember Jesse Jackson making what was intended as an anti American joke when he said, "we know Saddam has WMDs because we have got the receipts"
Got rid of Saddam, good job George and Tony, in my opinion.

Something else has just crossed my mind, while searching for the WMDs several mass graves with large numbers of bodies WERE found.


< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 12/1/2006 10:39:05 AM >

(in reply to slaveMastery)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 11:24:26 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Has it ever crossed your mind that Tony Blair really did believe that Iraq possessed WMD.



No! Because Blair and Bush KNEW the intel was false. It is really that simple, Seeks.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 11:53:49 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
No! Because Blair and Bush KNEW the intel was false. It is really that simple, Seeks.


I don't think this is a proven fact. While not knowing all that much about Tony Blair, I've come to the conclusion that President Bush has the ability to talk himself into almost anything.
 
As an FYI (for whatever this may be worth), the Colonal that I know that is heading back to Iraq today, doesn't believe they still had WMD's. His opinion is that all they ever really had was gas, and the ability to deliver gas on rockets, and that this was all destroyed in Gulf War 1, because they didn't want to get caught with it.

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 11:56:49 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		Isn't it colonel?

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 11:58:52 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		I guess so ... and guess I've been spelling it wrong for days. Thanks.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 12:29:36 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
No! Because Blair and Bush KNEW the intel was false. It is really that simple, Seeks.


I don't think this is a proven fact. While not knowing all that much about Tony Blair, I've come to the conclusion that President Bush has the ability to talk himself into almost anything.
 


The main document in the British dossier (laid before Parliament) was forged. The CIA told the British Government it was forged and they still presented it because it was the only thing they had. Within minutes the International Atomic Agency proved it was a forgery (it was so ridiculously and blatantly complete rubbish).

What you read into it is your call.

To add, freedom for the Iraqis was never mentioned (in Britain) as a reason to invade prior to the invasion. The sole reason given was WMDs. The spread of democracy etc was a reason given after the invasion when they needed a new excuse.

What can I say apart from as a Briton it's a disgrace.



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 1:09:46 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		No, you're right of course NorthernGent. The moment I read your post, I remembered reading the same thing.
 
My apologies ... I guess there have been so many 'truths' lately, you can't tell one from the other.
 
Thanks ...

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 1:29:19 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Has it ever crossed your mind that Tony Blair really did believe that Iraq possessed WMD.

No! Because Blair and Bush KNEW the intel was false. It is really that simple, Seeks.


If this is true then they must have known that they would be found out. !!

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 1:41:03 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

If this is true then they must have known that they would be found out. !!


You'd think they might, Seeks, but then I think they imagined that offing Saddam would be the end of it all - not the beginning of something far worse. It was a (poorly) calculated risk. They hoped that the confetti at the victory parades would be made of shredded intel on Iraq.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 1:51:35 PM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		If Blair/Bush knew WMDs did not exist  I said...
If this is true then they must have known that they would be found out. !!

Zensee replied...
You'd think they might, Seeks, but then I think they imagined that offing Saddam would be the end of it all - not the beginning of something far worse. .

I agree with that but why are you and others so reluctant to point the finger at the those responsible for the situation as it stands. Thats what totally confuses me .

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 2:17:50 PM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline 		Not getting your point, Seeks. Who do you feel is responsible for the situation in this case? And which situation in particular; inter-tribal feuds in the middle east or the presence of western troops where they weren't needed (in Iraq)?

Maybe the encouragement of hostilities by the Military Industiral Complex and the "Armageddon tired of waiting for the Second Coming" movement in the USA are the real culprits?

For my part I have been pointing at George and Tony all along when it comes to the lying-sack-o-shit situation.

Z.


_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: The Influence Myth - 12/1/2006 3:57:49 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mgdartist

*yawn*....it's finally over, although dozing twice, i have reached the end, and may now return to sweet apathy and a nap. But first I'll share a diatribe below of how relevant and important i believe GB's amount of total influence with the U.S. is to either them, us, or in fact any entity or person worldwide:


Posturing is boring but then, it is done by boring people.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to mgdartist)
Profile   Post #: 59
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: The Influence Myth Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109