Could it be.......the American are turning the corner in Iraq?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Oh I see. Sorry for being so dim. The current policies are in place so we can avoid a Middle Eastern superpower emerging in the year 2500. Fair enough.

If my numbers are off, do please give me a history lesson. How long exactly did it take for the Europeans to settle their religious differences? And did they have to do it after Europe was wiped out by a nuclear confrontation? The Pan-Arab superstate you are afraid of will have to start there, so it'll take a while.

Well you see, the religious differences in Europe are still not settled, and yet superpowers have come and gone. So that leads me to believe that religious differences need not be settled in order for one party to kick the other's ass.

Current policies are in place to maintain global stability by insuring instability in certain areas. The Middle East is just one of these areas.

[transplant99]

The single worst day of suicide bombings since the war began.....today. at LEAST 250 dead.

The victims were members of a small Kurdish sect — the Yazidis — sometimes attacked by Muslim extremists who consider them infidels

Ethnic cleansing rears its ugly head once again.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20274765/?GT1=10252

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well you see, the religious differences in Europe are still not settled, and yet superpowers have come and gone. So that leads me to believe that religious differences need not be settled in order for one party to kick the other's ass.

Current policies are in place to maintain global stability by insuring instability in certain areas. The Middle East is just one of these areas.

LOL

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

LOL

I'm not sure whether you're laughing with me or at me, though I presume the latter. However, "LOL" is not helpful to the discussion. You'll have to tell me why that's so funny.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not sure whether you're laughing with me or at me, though I presume the latter. However, "LOL" is not helpful to the discussion. You'll have to tell me why that's so funny.

I didn't think it needed explanation...

Securing global security by fomenting insecurity in other areas?

That's fancy talk for continuing to oppress those already oppressed, robbing them of their resources and jitterbugging on down the road.

When you refer to 'Global' stability, you mean western stability, which accounts for about 1/5th of the 'globe'.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Iraq invaded Kuwait because of kuwaiti slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and only after Iraq was told that the united states would not interfere in the internal conflicts of the middle east. Saddam was hardly out to form some pan-arabic/islamic empire.

The "slant drilling" idea is ridiculous. It holds no more weight than the WMD argument. It was merely a pretext. Its debatable whether it happened or not and has never been confirmed by an independent source. It allegedly happened a field which had joint ownership between Iraq and Kuwait anyway. Furthermore, the amount of oil they would have been sucking does not justify a full invasion of another country. There is, afterall, more than one possible course of action. Also, I dont think a US declaration of neutrality is an excuse to invade Kuwait. First of all Kuwait was a former British colony, so they would have been the ones to ask. It also doesnt change the fact that the Iraqis should have been able to realize what they were doing was wrong.

I think there is some truth to the pan-arabic empire argument. Saddam's party name translates into "return of a great pan-arabic empire". So it must have been in their idelogy somewhere. More specifically, the Iraqi governmetn publicly stated many times it considered Kuwait to be a natural part of Iraq that was split by British imperialism.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I didn't think it needed explanation...

Securing global security by fomenting insecurity in other areas?

That's fancy talk for continuing to oppress those already oppressed, robbing them of their resources and jitterbugging on down the road.

When you refer to 'Global' stability, you mean western stability, which accounts for about 1/5th of the 'globe'.

No, I really do mean global. Although South America and Africa have their own issues, certainly, and likely would be the only places left after a world war. It's not about oppressing anyone, countries manage to do that on their own. It's about ensuring there is no escalation of war into nuclear or just large scale warfare.

I'm by no means advocating what the US is actually doing in Iraq. Clearly, they have their own agenda, and that agenda does include robbing the area of their resources. Previous actions to destabilize the area would include supplying all sides with weapons to kill each other off, etc.

As the man in red underwear so eloquently stated, with or without the US in the area, they'd still fight. They've proven that time and again. The US has previously facilitated such infighting, and in this case, they're joining in on it. If you allow them to do nothing but amass money and power, where do they spend that money? Clearly, they haven't been spending that money on things like health care and education... all their money goes into the military. What do you suppose they'd do with that military if we left it alone long enough? Continue to just kill each other? And if we sit by and watch that, does that make it any better?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

When you refer to 'Global' stability, you mean western stability, which accounts for about 1/5th of the 'globe'.

Here, here! That's exactly what this is about, securing what is most important to the west, and especially the United States; oil reserves. Iraq's security means nothing, which is why the US doesn't give a rip about the thosands of Iraqis that die each month while they "control" the region. As long as oil continues to flow to America, security will remain in question. If security were really the issue, Iraq never would have been invaded. Hussein and the Iraqi military were completely contained and a non-threat to anyone in the region. General Anthony Zinni stated that emphatically before the whole mess started, and he would know, he was the man in charge of that theatre.

Interestingly enough, American security has continued to wane with the long term involvement in Iraq. The military is over-taxed. The reserves and national guard are all deployed and don't allow for their involvement in situations where they would normally serve. When local disaster strikes, like tornadoes in Kansas, no one is home to answer the call. The security of those regions is in question. Also, Iraq continues to be a breeding ground for terrorism and provide real world training scenarios for those wishing to develop an expertise in this regard. Again, the security of America grows weaker as we continue to provide a recruiting and training environment for those that wish to do harm to us. Claiming that this is about security of the country is pretty weak IMO, as it is just the opposite. We guard a natural resource, and let the country around it implode. We keep our eye on the security of that resource while ignoring the security of the country back home. When the borders are crossed illegally several thousand times a day, the claim that this invasion is about security rings very hollow.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Here, here! That's exactly what this is about, securing what is most important to the west, and especially the United States; oil reserves. Iraq's security means nothing, which is why the US doesn't give a rip about the thosands of Iraqis that die each month while they "control" the region. As long as oil continues to flow to America, security will remain in question. If security were really the issue, Iraq never would have been invaded. Hussein and the Iraqi military were completely contained and a non-threat to anyone in the region. General Anthony Zinni stated that emphatically before the whole mess started, and he would know, he was the man in charge of that theatre.

Interestingly enough, American security has continued to wane with the long term involvement in Iraq. The military is over-taxed. The reserves and national guard are all deployed and don't allow for their involvement in situations where they would normally serve. When local disaster strikes, like tornadoes in Kansas, no one is home to answer the call. The security of those regions is in question. Also, Iraq continues to be a breeding ground for terrorism and provide real world training scenarios for those wishing to develop an expertise in this regard. Again, the security of America grows weaker as we continue to provide a recruiting and training environment for those that wish to do harm to us. Claiming that this is about security of the country is pretty weak IMO, as it is just the opposite. We guard a natural resource, and let the country around it implode. We keep our eye on the security of that resource while ignoring the security of the country back home. When the borders are crossed illegally several thousand times a day, the claim that this invasion is about security rings very hollow.

This is actually the very reason that Japan is considering adding nuclear weapons to their arsenault; they know that were anything to happen in SE Asia, there would be no one there to 'police' the area. With the US being so overextended, they've come to the conclusion that they'll have to take care of themselves.

[FlamesAddiction]

I won't consider Iraq a success until it has its first presidential election without foreign troops controlling the country, or until there is at least 1 full year without a terrorist attack (even if it means having another dictator).

I think we are looking at several more years.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

No, I really do mean global. Although South America and Africa have their own issues, certainly, and likely would be the only places left after a world war. It's not about oppressing anyone, countries manage to do that on their own. It's about ensuring there is no escalation of war into nuclear or just large scale warfare.

Not quite.

There are certain racial understones to your post that i'm picking up on, whether deliberate or not.

Countries with propped up military dictators who sap their country of resources and funds while subjugating the vast majority to living in poverty do what you're saying.

You're acting like arabs are incapable of self-determination.

It's not like the Persian people voted the Shah into power.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by FireFly

This is actually the very reason that Japan is considering adding nuclear weapons to their arsenault; they know that were anything to happen in SE Asia, there would be no one there to 'police' the area. With the US being so overextended, they've come to the conclusion that they'll have to take care of themselves.

I agree. If the Japanese begin developing nuclear weapons and supplying them to Adrienne Arsenault, it could really shake up the power balance world-wide. And while personally I trust Arsenault`s relatively unbiased reporting, there`s no telling what would happen if the power went to her head. I certainly wouldn`t want to be in Peter Mansbridge`s shoes!

[Flash Walken]

Only the combined might of Neil MacDonald and Terry Milewski could stop her!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Only the combined might of Neil MacDonald and Terry Milewski could stop her!

Yup, many a plan for world domination has been thwarted by the Milewski `stache.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Not quite.

There are certain racial understones to your post that i'm picking up on, whether deliberate or not.

Countries with propped up military dictators who sap their country of resources and funds while subjugating the vast majority to living in poverty do what you're saying.

You're acting like arabs are incapable of self-determination.

It's not like the Persian people voted the Shah into power.

There is no one group of persons out there who are incapable of self-determination, however, history shows us that it takes a lot to get to that point and usually involves a lot of bloodshed. If you think I'm talking about Arabs in particular there, you're mistaken. Self-determination is not something we can force on people though, they have to want it for themselves. Western civilization has many instances of the exact same thing.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

There is no one group of persons out there who are incapable of self-determination, however, history shows us that it takes a lot to get to that point and usually involves a lot of bloodshed. If you think I'm talking about Arabs in particular there, you're mistaken. Self-determination is not something we can force on people though, they have to want it for themselves. Western civilization has many instances of the exact same thing.

Again, you're acting like they don't want self-determination. Who doesn't want self-determination?

History shows us that western powers have a vested interest in preventing that self-determination, and act accordingly to achieve those goals.

Again, the shah was not elected.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Yup, seems the Americans have indeed turned a corner, and run headlong into a brick wall. The latest attacks have been the deadliest since Hussein was removed from power.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/2007081...shortshelflife

So much for a change in tide. This is what the cheerleaders don't seem to get their heads around. The insurgents will never lose, because this is their home. They can wait this thing out and watch on as the Americans either tire of the bloodshed, or bankrupt their nation (the likely goal of groups like al Qaeda). This is a no win situation for the Americans. There is no way they will be able to restore Iraq to the state it was before the invasion with the insurgency the way it is. Just when they think they have taken a step forward, the insurgency hits them hard somewhere else, inflicting massive damage and setting the cause one step back. The adage of the game of whack-a-mole is right on the money. Time to cut the losses.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Again, you're acting like they don't want self-determination. Who doesn't want self-determination?

History shows us that western powers have a vested interest in preventing that self-determination, and act accordingly to achieve those goals.

Again, the shah was not elected.

I'm not acting like they don't want it, I'm acting like it's not easy to get. I'm a realist. You think if we waltz out of Iraq they'll start having democratic elections and everything will be peachy-pie? If we all just leave them alone, they'll figure it out, eh? I'm sure you're right. Eventually they will. How long do you figure it takes them?

Who doesn't want self-determination? Those who are scared of their oppressors. Ask any abused woman why she doesn't leave.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I'm not acting like they don't want it, I'm acting like it's not easy to get. I'm a realist. You think if we waltz out of Iraq they'll start having democratic elections and everything will be peachy-pie? If we all just leave them alone, they'll figure it out, eh? I'm sure you're right. Eventually they will. How long do you figure it takes them?

You're right, self-determination is really hard to achieve when everytime you do something to further that objective, and outside party terrorizes your country and disolves the changes you've made.

Again, the Shah was not elected. When Iran becomes an issue, and it invariably will, will you bleat about how Iranians didn't want self-determination bad enough, or were too afraid to seek it? They were actively persuing it before someone came along and screwed it all up for them.

How long will it take them? As long as western powers keep preventing it.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You're right, self-determination is really hard to achieve when everytime you do something to further that objective, and outside party terrorizes your country and disolves the changes you've made.

Again, the Shah was not elected. When Iran becomes an issue, and it invariably will, will you bleat about how Iranians didn't want self-determination bad enough, or were too afraid to seek it? They were actively persuing it before someone came along and screwed it all up for them.

How long will it take them? As long as western powers keep preventing it.

Ummmm... history is full of states overcoming odds to become self-determined in the face of oppression. European history goes from one war to another in exactly the same way... one country trying to suppress another's self-determination.