Political Crossfire Forums

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Ok, taking out the factor of the Iraq War of giving freedom to all those millions of people, why are we there now? Why not just do what we did and destroy the regime, and then let them fight it out in a civil war, and not really care who wins? I mean, even if another dictator comes into power, just say look, we don't care what you do, as long as you aren't a threat to us. And if he is a threat to us in any way, do to him what we did to Saddam.

Yes, democracies do not breed terrorism. But we can simply say to any dictator, "Look, you threaten us in any way or support terrorists against us in any way, and we'll destroy everything you have." I mean, that sounds like a good plan to me. Or is that just a short term solution that would end up with us striking Iraq constantly to get rid of governments which supported terrorism, and the long term solution would be to set up a democracy? The way I see it though, if the people of Iraq support terrorism against us and keep putting those people in power, then they are all our enemies.

So, my question is what are our interests there besides freeing people out of the kindness of our hearts?

*Note* I will disregard all posts from you leftists and conspiracy nuts who give answers like "for the oil" or "because the Zionists want to take over blah blah blah." That is unless of course you actually have something logical to back it up.

[JoeBen81]

For me it's just trying to undo what we caused... even if that is an impossiblity. We're obligated to at least try, as we are.

[Freemason]

I've already discussed this in rather great detail in another thread.

Concerning tactics - it's not wise to think you can just say "stop doing this or we'll destroy you" - Iran still does it, Syria still does it, so does North Korea.

Enemies find ways of attacking you.

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: *Note* I will disregard all posts from you leftists and conspiracy nuts who give answers like "for the oil" or "because the Zionists want to take over blah blah blah." That is unless of course you actually have something logical to back it up.

So you dont want to hear the truth?

Cause the truth is

A.) To secure the petro dollar.

B.) To give us a firm military holding the ME...in order to secure our access to oil.

C.) In order to creat a more economically western friendly ME..so we have better access to oil.

Sorry peeps..Black crude makes the world go round, and the governments of the world KNOW that in the very near future we either have enough energy to not throw your country back 100 years, or you wont. With China quickly gobbeling up as much oil and coal as humanly possible, and eastern European nations becoming increasingly enerhy hungry the compition for cheap energy is sky rocketing at a rate in which the US economy cannot abosrb.

This whole debacle that we have gotten ourselves into has VERY little to do with national security in the sense of being attacked..its has almost entirely to do with economic national security..and the retalition against the US VIA Muslim extremist has just as much to do with the western world keeping the ME countries economically repressed as it does for extremist reasons as it relates to religion.

I'm willing to bet you anything, that if the US pulled all its military out of the region, and stopped f***ing with ME governments terrorism would stop.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Freemason wrote: I've already discussed this in rather great detail in another thread.

Concerning tactics - it's not wise to think you can just say "stop doing this or we'll destroy you" - Iran still does it, Syria still does it, so does North Korea.

Enemies find ways of attacking you.

Yes, they can find ways of attacking us, and that is when we defeat them. Those other countries shouldn't do it because they are not strong enough, but how about us? Not like they can stand up to us, unless they have nukes, which is why at ALL COSTS we cannot let other countries who are hostile to us gain nuclear weapons.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: *Note* I will disregard all posts from you leftists and conspiracy nuts who give answers like "for the oil" or "because the Zionists want to take over blah blah blah." That is unless of course you actually have something logical to back it up.

So you dont want to hear the truth?

Cause the truth is

A.) To secure the petro dollar.

B.) To give us a firm military holding the ME...in order to secure our access to oil.

C.) In order to creat a more economically western friendly ME..so we have better access to oil.

Sorry peeps..Black crude makes the world go round, and the governments of the world KNOW that in the very near future we either have enough energy to not throw your country back 100 years, or you wont. With China quickly gobbeling up as much oil and coal as humanly possible, and eastern European nations becoming increasingly enerhy hungry the compition for cheap energy is sky rocketing at a rate in which the US economy cannot abosrb.

This whole debacle that we have gotten ourselves into has VERY little to do with national security in the sense of being attacked..its has almost entirely to do with economic national security..and the retalition against the US VIA Muslim extremist has just as much to do with the western world keeping the ME countries economically repressed as it does for extremist reasons as it relates to religion.

I'm willing to bet you anything, that if the US pulled all its military out of the region, and stopped f***ing with ME governments terrorism would stop.

Well if all that oil is as important to us as you say it is, then I'm all for what we're doing to secure it :wink:

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Yes, they can find ways of attacking us, and that is when we defeat them. Those other countries shouldn't do it because they are not strong enough, but how about us? Not like they can stand up to us, unless they have nukes, which is why at ALL COSTS we cannot let other countries who are hostile to us gain nuclear weapons.

Thats a pretty deep well your willing to dig, for a self assumed moral superiority.

[U seless N ations]

Quell wrote:

I'm willing to bet you anything, that if the US pulled all its military out of the region, and stopped f***ing with ME governments terrorism would stop.

Your truth statements I can't disregard because yea that had alot to do with it, but this part here about if we pulled out......
Ah that must be why 9 11 happened. I believe we had left them last time and did not finish Saddam off nor did we go into Afganistan yet isn't that considered not f'n with ME governments.... yet your saying if we just left you will bet terroism would stop... I don't see that one unless I have my timeline wrong with is unlikely but ok shame on me if I do :D

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Well if all that oil is as important to us as you say it is, then I'm all for what we're doing to secure it :wink:

How far into development towards renewable energy, do you think we could have gotten if we had poured say 1/2 of what we are going to spend in Iraq, on that? Say 1 Trill, in renewable research..

Understanding of course that oil, is not the exclusive be all end all of our military action (military strong holds played prolly the 2nd largest part IMO); however understanding that it is infact the primary driving force behind it, as I would bet you anything that if it were not for the oil, we would have never invaded..IE North Korea has always posed a much bigger threat, yet we did nothing (not that we should have IMO).

[U seless N ations]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Yes, they can find ways of attacking us, and that is when we defeat them. Those other countries shouldn't do it because they are not strong enough, but how about us? Not like they can stand up to us, unless they have nukes, which is why at ALL COSTS we cannot let other countries who are hostile to us gain nuclear weapons.

Thats a pretty deep well your willing to dig, for a self assumed moral superiority.

I doubt his statement was all about moral superiority.... he is talking about a 9 11 on a nuclear scale by some jihad fuc with a small dirty nuke on his back.... he is saying these little fuc rouge nations should not be allowed to achieve nuclear ambitions because out of jealousy of the US they will try to send fucers over here with that shi$. And if we catch one of them before they light one off I hope to god we nuke whatever country sent them into prehistoric times.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

U seless N ations wrote: Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Yes, they can find ways of attacking us, and that is when we defeat them. Those other countries shouldn't do it because they are not strong enough, but how about us? Not like they can stand up to us, unless they have nukes, which is why at ALL COSTS we cannot let other countries who are hostile to us gain nuclear weapons.

Thats a pretty deep well your willing to dig, for a self assumed moral superiority.

I doubt his statement was all about moral superiority.... he is talking about a 9 11 on a nuclear scale by some jihad fuc with a small dirty nuke on his back.... he is saying these little fuc rouge nations should not be allowed to achieve nuclear ambitions because out of jealousy of the US they will try to send fucers over here with that shi$. And if we catch one of them before they light one off I hope to god we nuke whatever country sent them into prehistoric times.

Yup.

[Kumar]

You care because you do not want it to be absorbed into Iran.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Well if all that oil is as important to us as you say it is, then I'm all for what we're doing to secure it :wink:

How far into development towards renewable energy, do you think we could have gotten if we had poured say 1/2 of what we are going to spend in Iraq, on that? Say 1 Trill, in renewable research..

Understanding of course that oil, is not the exclusive be all end all of our military action (military strong holds played prolly the 2nd largest part IMO); however understanding that it is infact the primary driving force behind it, as I would bet you anything that if it were not for the oil, we would have never invaded..IE North Korea has always posed a much bigger threat, yet we did nothing (not that we should have IMO).

That's the problem with that thinking though, you can't just take a set amount of money like we have for Iraq and throw it into something else bing bang boom just like that. Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but be realistic here - our government wouldn't do that. What we SHOULD being doing is starting a Manhattan Project of energy sources, then we might get something done.

But anyways, I see what you're saying. But if controlling oil is a need for our country, both to benefit us and to deny our adversaries of it, then what is wrong with doing that? It is akin to the European powers of colonial times fighting for overseas colonies, you do what is best for your nation and worst for your opponents. Iraq was a combination of a lot of factors; to take out the threat of Saddam, to make a show of force, to gain a strategic foothold in the ME against Iran (why we stayed), and to protect oil interests. I see no problem with it since it is party all of these. We have achieved taking out the threat, we have achieved the show of force. Now if we set up a friendly democracy there successfully, then we achieve the last two objectives. We have an ally in the ME to counter Iran besides Israel, and we have protected oil interests. So the way I see it, we've accomplished the first two (and two most important) objectives of going into Iraq. This means that we should either pull out and let em go into civil war and kill each other, because I really don't care, or we should up our troop levels to higher levels and flat out finish the democracy building. Put enough troops in there to keep the country together while the government finally becomes strong enough to stay together on its own and win its own civil war. I don't see why a combination of those four reasons for going into Iraq are considered bad, and so I'm in favor of either pulling out and letting the place go nuts in warfare or taking complete control and securing the country, just so long as we don't just do what we're doing now. What we're doing now will probably work, eventually, but upping troop levels will finish it much sooner.

Bah sorry I just kinda went on there for a while, it's a little disorganized, I'm kinda multitasking here.

[Quell]

U seless N ations wrote: Quell wrote:

I'm willing to bet you anything, that if the US pulled all its military out of the region, and stopped f***ing with ME governments terrorism would stop.

Your truth statements I can't disregard because yea that had alot to do with it, but this part here about if we pulled out......
Ah that must be why 9 11 happened. I believe we had left them last time and did not finish Saddam off nor did we go into Afganistan yet isn't that considered not f'n with ME governments.... yet your saying if we just left you will bet terroism would stop... I don't see that one unless I have my timeline wrong with is unlikely but ok shame on me if I do :D

Allow me to clarify..Im not saying that the very second we pull out, all terrorist would put down their arms, and start picking flowers..It would IMO take at least 20 years for it to self extinguish, but it would slow incrementally. In the mean time we could "turtle"

As for Saddam...we didnt go after him for a reason..that reason should be very clear by now to most people...Afghanistan was done essentially in retaliation.

IMO..This is the short and simple plan of what we should do.

1.) Pull out troops from the ME.

2.) Apologize profusely to the world, and in particular the ME.

3.) Announce this.

We will not screw with anyone in the world AT ALL. We will leave them to 100% themselves. With that said..If any country, or any people from that country (with the support or abivelance of the host) attack us, we will bomb the living s**t out of said country..We will make Shock and awe look like a day at the park, and will render their entire country a baron wasteland. If you are "cool" with us, you will be fine..you f**k with us, and you will unleash a living hell the likes of which have never been seen....Simple. This will include protection of our allies.

If I were president, that would be my first 5 min.

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: That's the problem with that thinking though, you can't just take a set amount of money like we have for Iraq and throw it into something else bing bang boom just like that. Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but be realistic here - our government wouldn't do that. What we SHOULD being doing is starting a Manhattan Project of energy sources, then we might get something done.


Do you understand now, why I presented my counter as I did? Seriously think about what you just rebutted, and how that applies..You may "get it" yet..you just may..

Step 1...Complete.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: That's the problem with that thinking though, you can't just take a set amount of money like we have for Iraq and throw it into something else bing bang boom just like that. Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but be realistic here - our government wouldn't do that. What we SHOULD being doing is starting a Manhattan Project of energy sources, then we might get something done.


Do you understand now, why I presented my counter as I did? Seriously think about what you just rebutted, and how that applies..You may "get it" yet..you just may..

Step 1...Complete.

I see what you are trying to say, but it's not that simple. You can't just flat out take the money that's going to Iraq and divert it to a kind of Manhattan Project. A much better way to do it would be to take out a lot of our government programs and put that money towards it, while staying in Iraq. :wink:

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: We have achieved taking out the threat,

No we havent..we made the threat worse, according to our own governmental agencies.

Quote: we have achieved the show of force.

No...we are the military laughing stock of the ME.

Quote: Now if we set up a friendly democracy there successfully, then we achieve the last two objectives.

Wont happen with-in 50 years no matter what we did.

Quote: We have an ally in the ME to counter Iran besides Israel,

A balless quasi ally, that has many more ties to Iran, than Israel.

Quote: and we have protected oil interests.

That we did sort of achieve.

Quote: we should up our troop levels to higher levels and flat out finish the democracy building.

1.) You cannot "build" democracy...Its like "building" a love of Vanilla ice cream.

2.) We do not have any more troops. The study recently release by the pentagon, essentially says that we would be able to greatly increase troop level on a very short term basis.

Quote: Put enough troops in there to keep the country together while the government finally becomes strong enough to stay together on its own and win its own civil war.

We are NO where near that point. The Iraqi government is 100% beholdnt to the militias, not the other way around.

Quote: I don't see why a combination of those four reasons for going into Iraq are considered bad,

Because they are imperilistic, and they almost always result in complete failure..As Iraq is..In the few cases that have succeeded through out history, it came at extreme cost to the invading nation...As it has the US.

Quote: and so I'm in favor of either pulling out and letting the place go nuts in warfare or taking complete control and securing the country, just so long as we don't just do what we're doing now. What we're doing now will probably work, eventually, but upping troop levels will finish it much sooner.

The time frame in which to achieve the success you are talking about is at least 50 years..We cannot sustain a presence such as we have for a time frame of that length..hell 10 years will cripple this nation militarily, politically, fiscally, and strip us of our will..THAT is what you need to understand. Analogy for you.

Its like the "pro-Bush"/"pro-war" people think that if you hit the tennis ball hard enough you can beat the wall. It seems to me, that all the screaming against the "anti-war" people is akin to..you Kitty Cats just dont want to hit the ball hard enoug, and the "anti-war" people are like...Dude...your trying to beat a f***ing wall...you cant win.

Quote: Bah sorry I just kinda went on there for a while, it's a little disorganized, I'm kinda multitasking here.

NP..I got the jist of it.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: U seless N ations wrote: Quell wrote:

I'm willing to bet you anything, that if the US pulled all its military out of the region, and stopped f***ing with ME governments terrorism would stop.

Your truth statements I can't disregard because yea that had alot to do with it, but this part here about if we pulled out......
Ah that must be why 9 11 happened. I believe we had left them last time and did not finish Saddam off nor did we go into Afganistan yet isn't that considered not f'n with ME governments.... yet your saying if we just left you will bet terroism would stop... I don't see that one unless I have my timeline wrong with is unlikely but ok shame on me if I do :D

Allow me to clarify..Im not saying that the very second we pull out, all terrorist would put down their arms, and start picking flowers..It would IMO take at least 20 years for it to self extinguish, but it would slow incrementally. In the mean time we could "turtle"

As for Saddam...we didnt go after him for a reason..that reason should be very clear by now to most people...Afghanistan was done essentially in retaliation.

IMO..This is the short and simple plan of what we should do.

1.) Pull out troops from the ME.

2.) Apologize profusely to the world, and in particular the ME.

3.) Announce this.

We will not screw with anyone in the world AT ALL. We will leave them to 100% themselves. With that said..If any country, or any people from that country (with the support or abivelance of the host) attack us, we will bomb the living s**t out of said country..We will make Shock and awe look like a day at the park, and will render their entire country a baron wasteland. If you are "cool" with us, you will be fine..you f**k with us, and you will unleash a living hell the likes of which have never been seen....Simple. This will include protection of our allies.

If I were president, that would be my first 5 min.

I wouldn't mind this course as a foreign policy except for the apologizing part. We don't owe anyone anything, especially the entire world or even the ME. Although this would have to include preemptive strikes against anyone who is trying to acquire nukes and if there is ANY chance that nuke will be launched at us, which is why of course we must finish our ballistic missile defense system. But I don't see why this should interfere with what we are going in Iraq, we can simply put up a stable democracy there and then put that foreign policy into place. Whether we pull out of Iraq now or after it is a democracy, we should still pursue this as our foreign policy. At least it seems we are in agreement there.

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: I see what you are trying to say, but it's not that simple. You can't just flat out take the money that's going to Iraq and divert it to a kind of Manhattan Project. A much better way to do it would be to take out a lot of our government programs and put that money towards it, while staying in Iraq. :wink:

Nope..your not getting it..

Look into the concept of what you and I wrote..not the words..You have said it, and understand it apparently, but Im not sure if your willing to apply the same concept elsewhere.

[Quell]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: I wouldn't mind this course as a foreign policy except for the apologizing part. We don't owe anyone anything, especially the entire world or even the ME. Although this would have to include preemptive strikes against anyone who is trying to acquire nukes and if there is ANY chance that nuke will be launched at us, which is why of course we must finish our ballistic missile defense system. But I don't see why this should interfere with what we are going in Iraq, we can simply put up a stable democracy there and then put that foreign policy into place. Whether we pull out of Iraq now or after it is a democracy, we should still pursue this as our foreign policy. At least it seems we are in agreement there.

The threat of unfetted retaliation will force other countries to police their own..Combine that with a streamlined, and effective intelligence agency, and we have very little to worry about IMO. The leaders of these countries may hate the US, but they love themselves more..A king without a palace is not a King..