Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 03:46:10 PM
Quote
Give Hanoi Jane My best
I suppose that was meant to be an insult. However if by that you mean I dont blindly accept wars based on false pretenses then you are indeed correct. At what point did I say I supported or even respected what insurgents in Iraq are doing? When you have only to result to petty insults you have admitted defeat.Quote
glockfan
you are missing the whole point....no one thinks Iran is a threat and no one(in the USA) thought germany was a threat in WW2(or japan)..and the launching of satellites into space means that they(IRAN) have the rocket motor technology to launch a nuclear weapon into our country..ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles)These missiles fly outside the atmosphere...re-enter and hit their target. Best wishes to you...hope you figure it out sooner, rather than before it is too late.
I think the bigger threat is launching yet another unwinable war that will place more strain on our armed forces, create more enemies than we already have, drive our country futher into debt finacing an unjust war, and placing us at odds (more so than we are now) with the international community. But then again I guess that view point just makes me an unrational leftwing nut job.
you are missing the whole point....no one thinks Iran is a threat and no one(in the USA) thought germany was a threat in WW2(or japan)..and the launching of satellites into space means that they(IRAN) have the rocket motor technology to launch a nuclear weapon into our country..ICBM's (intercontinental ballistic missiles)These missiles fly outside the atmosphere...re-enter and hit their target. Best wishes to you...hope you figure it out sooner, rather than before it is too late.
Post by: mfree on January 27, 2007, 03:52:38 PM
All we've had to do... in Vietnam, in Somalia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq; All we've had to do to win and win fast outright is adopt a WWII fighting stance. Sacrifice from both sides. Total war will be made acceptable again.
We are very, very good at total war. We are middling otherwise, because our enemies will always push farther than we will.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 03:57:14 PM
Post by: Ron on January 27, 2007, 04:30:23 PM
Iraq is a strategic outpost in a broader conflict.
We are FUBAR without ME oil.
There is no alternative source of fuel for our vehicles or oil for modern materials.
Public education, leftist ideology and the softness that comes from our decadent culture has blinded us to the reality of our situation.
We are dependent on the free flow of oil for our security.
We need a source other than SA. We need a source other than The Republic Of Chavez.
Saddam was a convenient excuse for us to put a presence in the ME to show we will not tolerate a disruption in our security by Fing with the free flow of oil.
China, India and Russia all need the same oil we do, we better make sure we are the ones getting the oil.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 04:50:01 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on January 27, 2007, 04:53:12 PM
And for the record, anyone who doesn't support this war doesn't have a clue what's going on.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 04:58:56 PM
Quote
And for the record, anyone who doesn't support this war doesn't have a clue what's going on
What a blanket statement perhaps you would like to enlighten us with you wisdom.
Post by: Standing Wolf on January 27, 2007, 05:04:24 PM
It should have been an Air Force mission, not an Army and Marine war.
Post by: 280plus on January 27, 2007, 05:07:40 PM
Quote
There is no excuse to be heating your home with oil in this day and age.
I'd like more elaboration on this. What else do you have?Post by: Ron on January 27, 2007, 05:11:22 PM
Quote
It should have been an Air Force mission, not an Army and Marine war.
We were going to go in and win hearts and minds. Years of progressive whining made us think this was a better plan than destroying the enemy without mercy.
I bought into it myself. Not anymore.
Post by: 280plus on January 27, 2007, 05:13:23 PM
Post by: Harold Tuttle on January 27, 2007, 05:14:33 PM
Post by: 280plus on January 27, 2007, 05:21:25 PM
Well in that case then I'm still PO'd at England! Did ya see Prince Charles checking out the liberty bell?
I wonder if anybody said something like, "See that? Thats the bell we rung just before we kicked your British @$$es." Probably a good thing I wasn't there.
Post by: Kaylee on January 27, 2007, 05:25:21 PM
2. To pretend "we went in because of lies about WMD" is nonsense, and a lie.
Yes, some of the urgency of action was based on fears that Saddam had continued a WMD program... fears he intentionally encouraged, by the way (prolly to keep Iran off his neck). But the recent "Bush lied, people died" nonsense is a gross distortion of recent history.
While the WMD argument was the one that got all the press, it was hardly the only or even major reason for renewing hostilities in Iraq. If you will remember Saddam signed a peace treaty after Desert Storm. Among the many breaches of that treaty was the repeated firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone to keep him from butchering (more of) the Kurds in the north.
More importantly, kindly refer back to the "Axis of Evil" speech in full. The actions of the Bush administration were from the beginning an attempt to establish an ideological beachhead in the Middle East, in the belief that the people of the region seeing this example would continue agitating for a free society over one ruled by fundamentalist Islam.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
Nonetheless, that was the primary intention in renewing hostilities in Iraq, and in our remaining there while a new political order was being established. Why Iraq, and not a more fundamentalist regime like Iran or Saudi? Well, because Saudi was(is) nominally an ally despite their Wahaabist leanings, and unfortunately the flow of oil from them was too strategically important to disrupt. Iran for all their nuttiness didn't have the many many violations stacked up against 'em that Iraq did.. both UN resolutions and violations of the peace treaty.
So.. off to Iraq we went.
Bush's state of the union for all it's nonsense did summarize events there quite well. The new government was starting to work - elections, constitution, so forth and so on - while not perfect, things were generally improving.. until those gains made were largely wiped out in the last year by a combination of Sunni and Shiaa violence. What he wasn't as clear on was the extent to which external powers were aiding said movements. (Iran and Syria.. the very same players that the ISG recommended "negotiating with" in order to "provide stability" in Iraq.. an option patently absurd as they're the ones formenting and fuelling much of said chaos.). I believe the Bush adminstration was not more open about this aspect because they know the obvious implication is that in order to stop said violence, taking the war up to Iran is almost certainly necessary.
And thanks to the continued misrepresentations about Iraq, that would be so politically unpopular now as to be virtually impossible.
Yes, the very notion of the "ideological beachead" may prove unrealistic and unwinnable. Signs of hope are the Iraq elections and the democracy agitators in Iran. Signs of failure are the election of Hamas by the Palestinians, Israel's quick retreat from Hizbollah due to international political pressure, and the assassinations in Lebanon.
Nonetheless, I continue to believe that it was and remains the least bloody of available alternatives. If it fails, the result will be broader conflict between us and the Caliphate many there are agitating for, and the result will be deaths not in the thousands or tens of thousands, but in the millions.
Presently, it looks to me like that last hope for a comparatively bloodless conflict is being lost.
Lost by those with a financial interest in its failure (Russia, China, Kofi), those with a political interest in making Bush look bad (the DNC), and worst of all trying to recapture their youth by pretending it's 1968 again (Jane Fonda, Cindy Sheehan, et. al.)
-K
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 05:26:40 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on January 27, 2007, 05:37:26 PM
Quote
Unfortunately, if we don't "win the hearts and minds" we're never going to succeed there.
I don't care about their hearts and minds. All I want them to do is fear to attack our nation.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 27, 2007, 06:08:43 PM
Quote
To pretend "we went in because of lies about WMD" is nonsense, and a lie
There were WMDs in Iraq, the ones we gave him. Yet another example of our foreign policy gone wild. I seem to recall Colin Powell showing pictures of "mobile WMD labs" to congress in an attempt to get their permision to go to war. Those mobile labs turned out to be nothing more the water filtration units. Maybe we should get our facts straight before we go trotting off to war. As far as Sadam shooting at our aircraft it is still not a good enough reason for an invasion. Either a nation is sovereign or it isnt. If they are a sovereign nation they have a right to defend their airspace.Quote
The actions of the Bush administration were from the beginning an attempt to establish an ideological beachhead in the Middle East, in the belief that the people of the region seeing this example would continue agitating for a free society over one ruled by fundamentalist Islam.
I thought that beachead was Israel, people in the Middle East dont seem to be clamoring for democracy after 60 years of watching them. The very notion of spreading democracy by force is somewhat of a contradiction.
Quote
I believe the Bush adminstration was not more open about this aspect because they know the obvious implication is that in order to stop said violence, taking the war up to Iran is almost certainly necessary. And thanks to the continued misrepresentations about Iraq, that would be so politically unpopular now as to be virtually impossible.
I hope your right about that we have built up enough federal deficit and anti-american sentiment to last us all a lifetime. In the end we have only created more enemies than we started with and I feel no safer for it.
Quote
Nonetheless, I continue to believe that it was and remains the least bloody of available alternatives. If it fails, the result will be broader conflict between us and the Caliphate many there are agitating for, and the result will be deaths not in the thousands or tens of thousands, but in the millions.
Organization is key in order for them to build up a formidable threat to us and our way of life. As it is now they are unable to organize and see past the petty fighting that has engulfed their culture for centuries. Sectarian violence in Iraq has proven that much. I find this last statement to be nothing more than over dramatic fearmongering in order to further the goals of globalist. Too bad so many people buy into and repeat it so willingly. It all falls back to cutting our dependence on oil. Do that and in 20 years nobody will be paying any attention to the middle east.
Post by: RevDisk on January 27, 2007, 06:30:38 PM
If Iran starts WWIII... well, suddenly all these "unwinnable" wars will be over, quick.
All we've had to do... in Vietnam, in Somalia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq; All we've had to do to win and win fast outright is adopt a WWII fighting stance. Sacrifice from both sides. Total war will be made acceptable again.
We are very, very good at total war. We are middling otherwise, because our enemies will always push farther than we will.
All we've had to do... in Vietnam, in Somalia, Afghanistan, and in Iraq; All we've had to do to win and win fast outright is adopt a WWII fighting stance. Sacrifice from both sides. Total war will be made acceptable again.
We are very, very good at total war. We are middling otherwise, because our enemies will always push farther than we will.
I sincerely hope you mean WWII mentality, as opposed to WWII strategy and tactics. Fighting a guerrila/insurgent war by convential means is a Really Bad Idea. WWII mentality, according to more than few military historians, didn't do us many favors in Vietnam. Unconventionial warfare assets did the best work. Conventional forces did have their uses against the NVA, not so well against the VC.
In my opinion as a former grunt, too many brass thought they could win a new war by using the same means as the last. Remembering history is very useful. Ignoring the current reality because of "Back in my day..." is a good way to get grunts dead.
My dictionary describes 'total war' as "an unqualified, all-out war conducted without scruple or limitation." Unless you're thinking of effectively depopulating your 'enemy' as a means of victory, total war is a bad idea. The real question would be, are you willing to commit genocide to win? To win what, exactly? Even implementing 'total war' is not an instant option for success. I recommend reading "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll, specifically the section on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. If you'd like, I could check my bookshelf for other excellent books on that war.
Quote
Unfortunately, if we don't "win the hearts and minds" we're never going to succeed there.
As importantly, knowing your enemy, as well as your friends. If you cannot seperate the two, you cannot win. One problem is having folks understand the local culture. It isn't easy, but ignoring it is a very unwise choice.
2. To pretend "we went in because of lies about WMD" is nonsense, and a lie.
Yes, some of the urgency of action was based on fears that Saddam had continued a WMD program... fears he intentionally encouraged, by the way (prolly to keep Iran off his neck). But the recent "Bush lied, people died" nonsense is a gross distortion of recent history.
You are correct. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran during the Iraq-Iran War, and used the empty threat of them as a chip to keep Iran in check. I imagine it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". The first Gulf War destroyed his conventional forces, and everyone knew it. He had no conventional forces that could possibly launched another war, nor defend an invasion. Without the threat of chemical warfares Iran could and probably would have launched another war at some point. With the threat of chemical warfare, he got invaded by the US.
Well... Seeing as how President Bush's claims turned out to be exaggerated, there are a couple possibilities. My person guess is he used what he could to get the results he wanted. Unfortunately, reality didn't quite match up. Most politicians have this problem, it's limited to the President. Saying "Bush lied" is simplistic, but his claims were later not backed up by reality. Iraq had no real WMD program and no real ties to Wahabbi terrorism. Those were the two original justifications for the invasion. Later, it shifted to bringing democracy.
Quote
While the WMD argument was the one that got all the press, it was hardly the only or even major reason for renewing hostilities in Iraq. If you will remember Saddam signed a peace treaty after Desert Storm. Among the many breaches of that treaty was the repeated firing on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone to keep him from butchering (more of) the Kurds in the north.
The northern no-fly zone was set by President George Bush in April 1991 to protect cargo aircraft dropping supplies to Kurdish refugees on the Turkish border and later Operation Provide Comfort. The justification given were the terms of UNSCR 688, not the peace treaty.
Originally, we only attacked sites in responce to hostile behavior in the No Fly zones. President Clinton changed this in late 1998 or early 1999 to include "missile sites, anti-aircraft sites, command and control sites, relay stations and some intelligence gathering sites." (Publically acknowledged February 23, 1999 by the DoD.)
Interestingly, if we wanted to protect the Kurds from being butchered, why did we allow the Turkish Air Force into the northern no-fly zone to engage the PKK? Or challenge the Turkish Army when they deployed circa 10k into Kurdistan around December 2000?
Quote
More importantly, kindly refer back to the "Axis of Evil" speech in full. The actions of the Bush administration were from the beginning an attempt to establish an ideological beachhead in the Middle East, in the belief that the people of the region seeing this example would continue agitating for a free society over one ruled by fundamentalist Islam.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
My counterinsurrgency instructor beat a phrase into my head. "If an oppressed people do not rise up and take freedom for themselves, they do not deserve freedom, nor will they keep it." It was his opinion based off a decade plus of US involvement in various nation building and regime changes. I think I agree with him. Helping people is one thing. Doing the job for them is another.
Quote
Bush's state of the union for all it's nonsense did summarize events there quite well. The new government was starting to work - elections, constitution, so forth and so on - while not perfect, things were generally improving.. until those gains made were largely wiped out in the last year by a combination of Sunni and Shiaa violence. What he wasn't as clear on was the extent to which external powers were aiding said movements. (Iran and Syria.. the very same players that the ISG recommended "negotiating with" in order to "provide stability" in Iraq.. an option patently absurd as they're the ones formenting and fuelling much of said chaos.). I believe the Bush adminstration was not more open about this aspect because they know the obvious implication is that in order to stop said violence, taking the war up to Iran is almost certainly necessary.
And thanks to the continued misrepresentations about Iraq, that would be so politically unpopular now as to be virtually impossible.
And thanks to the continued misrepresentations about Iraq, that would be so politically unpopular now as to be virtually impossible.
I got out of the Army not that long ago. Not "virtually impossible", completely impossible from a military POV. Not without significant changes in force structure (ie, more people) and logistics (more stuff). When I heard talking heads on the TV discussing the good idea of declaring war on Syria and/or Iran, I wondered what Army they thought would do the job. Because we certainly don't have enough grunts and stuff to do it.
I spent the last six months of my time in the Army gutting warehouses, bases, National Guard armories, etc for material to be sent to Iraq. We're depleting our material reserves much quicker than said material is being produced. Last I heard, we publically acknowledged being 40k short on tactical radios. We're as short or shorter on a lot of other key materials. The cost of this war is currently in the trillions. Folks don't seem to be counting the cost of replacement equipment, or refurb/maintaince of current equipment.
Iran is larger than Iraq, in terms of geography and population. Their military is in much better shape, and they have much more experience than Iraq did in preparing for an invasion. If you think they haven't been observing the US invasion of Iraq and taking notes, you're seriously mistaken.
We could have tanks in Tehran within 48 hours, 96 at the most. We couldn't hold it with what we have currently.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 27, 2007, 07:03:49 PM
Quote
1. You have called the Iraq war "illegal." Kindly state the law that was broken.
Who will answer the question?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 27, 2007, 11:52:28 PM
Quote
1. You have called the Iraq war "illegal." Kindly state the law that was broken.
Who will answer the question?
I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question:
Quote
If the thread was closed on THR what do you hope to accomplish by opening the same thing here? It isn't like no one has thought to have a topic on this.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 28, 2007, 02:23:18 AM
, unjust but not illegal. Just because the powers that be may have acted within the law to bring their wet dream to fruitation doesnt make it right however. Rabbi if the topic disturbs you so much feel free to ignore the thread 
, nobody is forcing you to read it.
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 02:37:11 AM
280plus there are too many other options regarding heating your home. When oil is as expensive as it is and people keep burning it for warmth I dont pity them when they whine about the cost. Propane, natural gas, electric, wood, corn, etc.
Yes, but unfortunately, oil is the most cost efficient of all the ways to heat for the average income type American. I've said it a few times now but I'll say it again. We didn't NEED WMD or any other excuse to go in there. After GWI Saddam had an obligation to let inspectors in there and cooperate with them to ensure no WMD were being developed. The VERY FIRST TIME he blocked the actions of the inspectors we should have roared in there. Far as I'm concerned we were a day late and a dollar short by the time we actually DID go in.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 28, 2007, 03:12:31 AM
Quote
Yes, but unfortunately, oil is the most cost efficient of all the ways to heat for the average income type American
It may have been at one time but not in todays world. Theres a reason oil furnaces are no longer implemented in the constrution of new homes and commercial buildings, that reason is cost.
Trying to prevent nations from developing nuclear weapons is like trying to plug six holes in a boat with five fingers (perhaps not the best analogy but it conveys my point). We cannot prevent research and development on the global scale forever. With the end of the cold war scientist and material from the former Soviet Union flooded the global market all for sale to the highest bidder. Its not a very good precident to set by allowing and aiding nations like Israel and India to develope nukes while trying to prevent others from doing likewise. The world will catch up to us and our best bet to maintain our security is not to wage war, after war, after way but to build a defense from such threats. The technology now exists to blast satellites from orbit with the push of a button. Surely by now we could have come up with a defense system to shield us from nuclear missiles. Remember every time you fill up your SUV at the pump, every time you turn up the thermostat to your oil furnace you have likely sent more money into weapons programs for your enemy. Our end goal shouldnt be trying to hold back the world or maintain a strangle hold on the worlds oil reserves, we should be focused on staying ahead and liberating ourselves from them.
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 04:24:27 AM
Quote
Theres a reason oil furnaces are no longer implemented in the constrution of new homes and commercial buildings
I'm a heating contractor you know, I'm afraid I'm not seeing this trend, here in the northeast anyway. The most cost efficient conventional heating appliance I can install right now is an oil fired boiler.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 28, 2007, 05:51:14 AM
The problem for me is that I don't know what the rules of engagement or other rules are that govern our occupation. I am half afraid that we have been tying the hands of our commanders and troops. I know we have allowed the JAG to go nuts prosecuting people, which was already bothering me.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 28, 2007, 05:53:42 AM
I fail to see where anyone called it illegal , unjust but not illegal. Just because the powers that be may have acted within the law to bring their wet dream to fruitation doesnt make it right however. Rabbi if the topic disturbs you so much feel free to ignore the thread , nobody is forcing you to read it.
, unjust but not illegal. Just because the powers that be may have acted within the law to bring their wet dream to fruitation doesnt make it right however. Rabbi if the topic disturbs you so much feel free to ignore the thread , nobody is forcing you to read it.You still haven't answered my question.
The reasons for the war are numerous and have been stated, cogently and forecefully, many many times before. Anyone who isn't persuaded by them won't be persuaded by anything and will simply continue to chant the mantras of "Bush lied, people died," "no blood for oil," "get us out of Iraq now" "end unjust wars of occupation" etc etc ad nauseam. That is their prerogative.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 28, 2007, 06:46:47 AM
Quote
The reasons for the war are numerous and have been stated, cogently and forecefully, many many times before.
Which -- of course -- makes them no closer to being correct, rational, intelligent or less than Imperialist.
I find this "non-binding" Resolution harmful, however.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 28, 2007, 07:23:54 AM
Quote
The reasons for the war are numerous and have been stated, cogently and forecefully, many many times before.
Which -- of course -- makes them no closer to being correct, rational, intelligent or less than Imperialist.
I find this "non-binding" Resolution harmful, however.
You need to quote the full text of my post:
Quote
Anyone who isn't persuaded by them won't be persuaded by anything and will simply continue to chant the mantras of "Bush lied, people died," "no blood for oil," "get us out of Iraq now" "end unjust wars of occupation" etc etc ad nauseam. That is their prerogative.
Post by: Kaylee on January 28, 2007, 08:31:06 AM
1. Absolutely we should pursue other means of energy to remove ourselves from foreign supply. That is the lynchpin I think, for with that we not only provide independence for ourselves, we also sharply reduce the amount petrodollars that go to fund (for instance) Wahaabist madrasses.
That said, the idea had been given nothing but lip service by every sitting president since the 70's. What attempts we've made have been either not cost-effective, or made not cost-effective by well-timed OPEC reductions in the price of oil. Personally, I'd be happy to stick with $2.50-$3.00 gas in the short term if it meant we were finally building coal-to-oil plants and nuke plants. However, that's not the view of the average consumer of the country, and so long as the product can be delivered cheaper than domestic alternatives, the 30-plus year old trend of foreign dependence will continue.
2.
Quote
I find this "non-binding" Resolution harmful, however.
Absolutely it is. There's few things more unconscienable than saying "okay, I'm going to keep you in a situation I believe to be suicidally dangerous and pointless, but I'm going to publically say that your sacrifice is in vain."gah.
3. "Catch and Release" RoE... see above about the trickiness of engaging Iran.
If we publically admit that they're formenting acts of war against us, we find ourselves in the position of actually having to address the problem - and nothing short of military force will be effective. As already mentioned, both the political reality and the ensuing logistical problems make this (next to) impossible. So our RoEs were crafted to avoid public acknowledgment of the obvious.
*Sigh*
3. This "Imperialist" crap. This one keeps coming up to.
What precisely do you mean by this? Obviously we're not building an empire, as practiced by Rome or Britain. We have troops in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea.. all over the world from previous engagements of the last century. But we don't have an empire. We can't order Germany to act in such-and-such a way. Japan was kicking our collective butt economically twenty years ago and we didn't have our military squeeze 'em. Last I heard, South Korea wasn't sending us tribute.
So... where oh where is this "Empire" we are allegedly building?
4. Building missile protective systems vs. military strikes on states.
First, let's get one thing straight. When it comes to states like Iran (or previously, Iraq when Israel took out their facilities) we're not talking about rational actors.
When President Ahme-demie-whatsist says he's looking for "peaceful nuclear power" while simultaneously building secret armored nuke plants, developing long range missile platforms, and telling his own people repeatedly that he's going to wipe Israel off the map, that the Infidel will "burn in the fires of our hatred" etc... that's not the same thing as the Frogs building a few warheads. When he has nuclear weapons, we can be reasonably certain he will use them as soon as they're available.
Secondly, a missile is not the only way to deliver a warhead. While an effective anti-missile system is a good idea presently, it is not suficient unless you're prepared to see several cities in Europe and Israel hit.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2007, 09:16:54 AM
Remember all the brand-new patriots right after 9/11?
They're now the folks who are wearing "Out of Iraq NOW!!" buttons... And you know what?
After one of these nutjobs manages to orchestrate a nuke into the Hudson or off LA or even in Chicago or Boston, they're gonna be asking why didn't Bush do enough, and demanding Arab heads on stakes.
But it'll be too late for a lot of folks here. OUR folks. I may not particularly like Boston-Washington or southern California, but those are at least MY dumbshits, and they provide excellent bad examples for the rest of the country. If we didn't have them, life would be duller.
The culture over there does not respect negotiation. It does not respect live/let live compromise. It respects raw and brutal force. When that happens, they back down and deal with it.
I'm guessing that Kha... Qad... whatever the heck his name is in Libya starts rattling sabers again after a Democrat gets in. I'm also guessing that he got "sudden religion" a few years back when we went through Afghanistan faster than Patton went through Europe, which was probably accompanied by a phone call that said "You're next, now behave."
Now Iran thinks that the Great Satan is weak, and therefore an easy target. These folks don't think "weak, therefore ignore." They envy us, so they hate us. Their leaders are also scared of our freedoms.
Of course, if you're respective of muslim property rights, well, maybe that's your sick and twisted fantasy...
Post by: wmenorr67 on January 28, 2007, 10:22:30 AM
Post by: RevDisk on January 28, 2007, 11:10:21 AM
RevDisk, 280 Plus - thank you both for supplying your resepective professional insights. Certainly that's comething we need a heck of a lot more of.
Thank you for the kind words and open mind.
Quote
1. Absolutely we should pursue other means of energy to remove ourselves from foreign supply. That is the lynchpin I think, for with that we not only provide independence for ourselves, we also sharply reduce the amount petrodollars that go to fund (for instance) Wahaabist madrasses.
That said, the idea had been given nothing but lip service by every sitting president since the 70's. What attempts we've made have been either not cost-effective, or made not cost-effective by well-timed OPEC reductions in the price of oil. Personally, I'd be happy to stick with $2.50-$3.00 gas in the short term if it meant we were finally building coal-to-oil plants and nuke plants. However, that's not the view of the average consumer of the country, and so long as the product can be delivered cheaper than domestic alternatives, the 30-plus year old trend of foreign dependence will continue.
That said, the idea had been given nothing but lip service by every sitting president since the 70's. What attempts we've made have been either not cost-effective, or made not cost-effective by well-timed OPEC reductions in the price of oil. Personally, I'd be happy to stick with $2.50-$3.00 gas in the short term if it meant we were finally building coal-to-oil plants and nuke plants. However, that's not the view of the average consumer of the country, and so long as the product can be delivered cheaper than domestic alternatives, the 30-plus year old trend of foreign dependence will continue.
It is not cost-effective to replace internal combustion engines powered by gasoline. It's not only the price of gas at the pump, but the entire infrastructure. One major reason for our cheap gas is a very extensive pipeline infrastructure that allows oil to be moved around cheaply and effectively. All auto manufactures are geared towards producing gasoline powered vehicles. Replacing all of that R&D, tools, employee skills, etc would cost tens of billions at a minimum. Hell, the cost of replacing gas pumps at every gas station across the US.
It all adds up. 75 years of construction, infrastructure, research, marketting, everything. It won't go away until there is no other option but than to use something else.
Quote
2.
gah.
Quote
I find this "non-binding" Resolution harmful, however.
Absolutely it is. There's few things more unconscienable than saying "okay, I'm going to keep you in a situation I believe to be suicidally dangerous and pointless, but I'm going to publically say that your sacrifice is in vain."gah.
You think many folks don't know that politicians are thinking that, even if they don't admit it? Most of my experience was in 'peacekeeping' missions. 99% of it was purely worthless, because after we leave, they'll go back to the situation that existed before we arrived.
Quote
3. "Catch and Release" RoE... see above about the trickiness of engaging Iran.
If we publically admit that they're formenting acts of war against us, we find ourselves in the position of actually having to address the problem - and nothing short of military force will be effective. As already mentioned, both the political reality and the ensuing logistical problems make this (next to) impossible. So our RoEs were crafted to avoid public acknowledgment of the obvious.
*Sigh*
If we publically admit that they're formenting acts of war against us, we find ourselves in the position of actually having to address the problem - and nothing short of military force will be effective. As already mentioned, both the political reality and the ensuing logistical problems make this (next to) impossible. So our RoEs were crafted to avoid public acknowledgment of the obvious.
*Sigh*
Sucks, doesn't it? Some problems do not have any positive outcome, just degrees of "suck" associated to the negative outcomes. Then again, there is a much sharper difference between bad and worse then between good and better.
Keep in mind, Iran has somewhat of an 'moral' obligation to support Shia groups in Iraq. Not saying I agree. Just saying, that's what they believe. Iran is the only major *expletive deleted*it nation in the area. They see it as a duty to assist any other 'oppressed' Shia group nearby. There is no way to make Iran to ignore their fellow Shia in Iraq. We can negotate the type of aide. Or decrease arm shipments to symbolic levels.
Here's a worst case thought for ya. Imagine if Iran cut a deal with the Kurds. The Kurds are the only real friends we have in that neck of the woods. We've alternated between helping them out and screwing them over so many times it's not funny. If Iran cut a deal to allow Iranian Kurdistan self-autonomy, or even possibly independence (long shot), in exchange for their support against the Sunni... We'd be screwed, completely.
It is not in our best interests to piss off Iran, at this point. We don't have the resources to take significant military action against them, and they could relatively cheaply cause us a lot of headaches.
Quote
3. This "Imperialist" crap. This one keeps coming up to.
What precisely do you mean by this? Obviously we're not building an empire, as practiced by Rome or Britain. We have troops in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea.. all over the world from previous engagements of the last century. But we don't have an empire. We can't order Germany to act in such-and-such a way. Japan was kicking our collective butt economically twenty years ago and we didn't have our military squeeze 'em. Last I heard, South Korea wasn't sending us tribute.
So... where oh where is this "Empire" we are allegedly building?
What precisely do you mean by this? Obviously we're not building an empire, as practiced by Rome or Britain. We have troops in Germany, in Japan, in South Korea.. all over the world from previous engagements of the last century. But we don't have an empire. We can't order Germany to act in such-and-such a way. Japan was kicking our collective butt economically twenty years ago and we didn't have our military squeeze 'em. Last I heard, South Korea wasn't sending us tribute.
So... where oh where is this "Empire" we are allegedly building?
The term prefered by the Imperialists is "empire of influence". An excellent book is "The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski. "Battle Ready" by General Zinni is one of the best books on modern warfare I've read in years. The last chapter in the book discusses America's "empire of influence". (A bit off topic, but it is also the best book on US's involvement in Somalia I've read.) I have not read his latest book yet, "The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose", but it's been highly recommended to me by various folks.
The basic idea is that instead of old fashion conquest, we co-opt the govts so that they follow our guidance.
Quote
4. Building missile protective systems vs. military strikes on states.
First, let's get one thing straight. When it comes to states like Iran (or previously, Iraq when Israel took out their facilities) we're not talking about rational actors.
When President Ahme-demie-whatsist says he's looking for "peaceful nuclear power" while simultaneously building secret armored nuke plants, developing long range missile platforms, and telling his own people repeatedly that he's going to wipe Israel off the map, that the Infidel will "burn in the fires of our hatred" etc... that's not the same thing as the Frogs building a few warheads. When he has nuclear weapons, we can be reasonably certain he will use them as soon as they're available.
Secondly, a missile is not the only way to deliver a warhead. While an effective anti-missile system is a good idea presently, it is not suficient unless you're prepared to see several cities in Europe and Israel hit.
First, let's get one thing straight. When it comes to states like Iran (or previously, Iraq when Israel took out their facilities) we're not talking about rational actors.
When President Ahme-demie-whatsist says he's looking for "peaceful nuclear power" while simultaneously building secret armored nuke plants, developing long range missile platforms, and telling his own people repeatedly that he's going to wipe Israel off the map, that the Infidel will "burn in the fires of our hatred" etc... that's not the same thing as the Frogs building a few warheads. When he has nuclear weapons, we can be reasonably certain he will use them as soon as they're available.
Secondly, a missile is not the only way to deliver a warhead. While an effective anti-missile system is a good idea presently, it is not suficient unless you're prepared to see several cities in Europe and Israel hit.
Ahmadinejad. Mind you, he was elected. More interestingly, he is not the most powerful politician in Iran. Most folks apparently do not know this, but Supreme Leader of Iran is actually the highest position. You'd think with a title like that, most folks would know it. Murtaza Janmohammad is the head of the military and out-ranks President Ahmadinejad. President Ahmadinejad gets all the attention, but he does not have the final say.
Rahbare Moazzam Janmohammad (his full honoric title, in Farsi) has made it expressly clear that building nuclear weapons are forbidden. The military listens to him, not the President. If the President attempts to overrule the Supreme Leader, he is guilty of treason. Plus some various religious "not good" sentiments. Be pretty much like trying to overthrow the Pope within the Vatican. Treason, plus according to the indigenious beliefs, God would be angry at you too.
President Ahmadinejad is a politician. Keep that in mind. Politicians will say whatever they think will get them votes. Janmohammad is the guy to be watching.
Quote
The culture over there does not respect negotiation. It does not respect live/let live compromise. It respects raw and brutal force. When that happens, they back down and deal with it.
Uh... Which culture? Kurdish? Arab? Persian? Druze? Sunni? *expletive deleted*it? Mind sharing with us your extensive experience with the various local cultures in and around the Middle East and/or other Muslim countries?
I would seriously pay you a lot of money to try that to a Bedouin in person.
Edit: I'd sign over my entire 401k for you to say that to a Berber's (Imazighen) face, provided you survived longer than 15 seconds.
Seriously though. Different folks react differently. Some you could intimidate with force. Others, would fight to the last man, woman or child. Ask any Russian soldier that served in Afghanistan for the distinction. Or heck, read Kipling's poem "The Young British Soldier" for the British perspective.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 28, 2007, 11:17:00 AM
Rabbi I started this thread at the request of another poster on THR whom I was ingaged in debate with prior to the thread being locked. That other poster never showed up however and of course posters on APS joined in. I now repeat my invitation for you to ignore the thread if it bothers you so. Nobody is making you read it and nobody is making you post here.
Kaylee makes some good points however I find myself at a philosophical difference with most of them. While it is certian a terrorist attack via nuke will likely not involve a missile the issue can still be avoided with enhanced border security. I honestly feel the reason that our borders are so porous at the moment is that Bush and those in power frankly dont give a damn about the security of this country and only care about advancing their pocketbooks and political careers. I feel the most logical step in providing security for this country is not by invading country X today while pretending to befriend country Y one day, then ignore country X the next day and invade country Y while sending arms to country Z. Contrary to what you have heard they dont hate us over there for our freedoms. They hate us because of our terrible foreign policy and constant medling in their affairs. You dont provide for your security by making enemies.
Bogie I dont see how you can possibly relate 9/11 to Iraq aside from the fact that anti-muslim sentiment in this country after 9/11 made Bush think he could pull off Iraq with little opposition. As stated before I will wonder why Bush didnt do more in the event of another terror attack. By doing more I mean securing the borders not waging yet more war that will create yet more terroist. Perhaps you need to be reminded of where Al-Quidea came from in the first place.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 28, 2007, 11:39:53 AM
Quote
Trying to prevent nations from developing nuclear weapons is like trying to plug six holes in a boat with five fingers (perhaps not the best analogy but it conveys my point). We cannot prevent research and development on the global scale forever. With the end of the cold war scientist and material from the former Soviet Union flooded the global market all for sale to the highest bidder.
Oh, really?
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
As for the war, I just returned from Baghdad in December 2005. What nobody talks about, or even shows in the media, is all the native Iraqis who walk up to you and sincerely thank you for giving them their freedom. It just ain't newsworthy, and never will be.
My sentiments still are "You take the fight to the enemy". You don't have to be a scholar of Sun Tzu to figure that one out. By the time the enemy has brought the fight to your own soil, you're toast, or close to it, and will have to expend an exponentially larger number of men and machines to mitigate the threat than had you taken care of it offshore.
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do. I'll even say we deserve an ass-kicking every now and then, just to remind us it ain't all Kum-Ba-Yah around the campfire out there. We as a nation are considerably more "pussified" than we were in WWII or even the Korean War days. Hell, look how fast conspiracy theorists surfaced after 11 September 2001, saying it was a scheme engineered by the Bush Administration to create some sort of national hysteria. Can you imagine somebody coming up with a similar hairball scheme to explain what happened at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 28, 2007, 12:41:10 PM
Everything else is kumbaya pipe dreams and psychological luxuries we can afford less and less. Liberalism/leftism is one such luxury. Fundamentalist religion is another. Selfish partisanship at the expense of national interests is a third. But, the biggest ones are naivity and weakness.
Post by: wmenorr67 on January 28, 2007, 12:46:55 PM
Quote
As for the war, I just returned from Baghdad in December 2006. What nobody talks about, or even shows in the media, is all the native Iraqis who walk up to you and sincerely thank you for giving them their freedom. It just ain't newsworthy, and never will be.
Currently over here in Baghdad and I will concur with Gewehr on this. The other thing to think about is that what is the easiest group to change. Children. The children are the answer and the children will make a difference in about 5-10 years. This is going to take a generation or two to completely "fix." Does that mean that we will have 100,000+ troop levels for that amount of time? I hope not, but you can bet that we will see a fixed rate of around 20,000 for several years.
Post by: Kaylee on January 28, 2007, 12:47:41 PM
Quote
Ahmadinejad. Mind you, he was elected. More interestingly, he is not the most powerful politician in Iran.
Yes, I'm aware of that. (I can even pronouce his name finally, just not spell it worth beans. 
)Anyhow.. actions, not words.
If the Supreme Leader says it's forbidden to build nuclear weapons, and at the same time Iran is building hardened secret nuclear facilities ... who's lying? The one who says the Supreme Leader is in charge, or the Supreme Leader when he says it's forbidden? Personally, I think the latter, under a somewhat stretched interpretation of al-Taqiyya. But to each their own.
Regardless -
Quote
It is not in our best interests to piss off Iran, at this point. We don't have the resources to take significant military action against them, and they could relatively cheaply cause us a lot of headaches.
As you said.. many degrees of suckitude. Unchecked, I believe Iran will build a nuke and will use it.
Certainly their actions and their words to their own people (not the kissyface interviews on 60 minutes) bear this out.
Least painful I think is drop a few "bunkerbuster" tacnukes onto Arak, Bushehr, etc and pray it stops there... not that that's particularly likely. The fallout for us would still be nightmarish... but not as nightmarish as the alternative.
2.
Quote
It is not cost-effective to replace internal combustion engines powered by gasoline.
Quite true - which is one of the benefits of building coal-to-oil plants. It would allow us to use much of the existing infrastructure. Not profitable under $2.50/gallon or so last I heard though. Alternately shale extraction plants, though I don't recall the break-even point on that. Point is, last time we tried it (late 70's I think?) OPEC precipitously dropped the price of oil and bankrupted the builders. Long term I'd love to see functioning nuclear fusion plants and hydrogen cell tech, but that's a ways off. The other stuff is already off-the-shelf tech, just not cost effective.
(and I cringe everytime someone mentions ethanol. I remember driving across the corn states where gas/ethanol blends was all there was on tap. Just as expensive at the pump, and my milage dropped by a third. Feh.)
3.
Quote
Contrary to what you have heard they dont hate us over there for our freedoms. They hate us because of our terrible foreign policy and constant medling in their affairs. You dont provide for your security by making enemies.
That's what I believed until I started doing some research. Different folk dislike us for different reasons of course, but the hard-core Jihadis absolutely "hate us for our freedoms." I know it sounds like a cheesy speech soundbite, and I cringe every time I hear it to... but as silly as it sounds to us - it's still very true. Look up Qutb's book "Milestones" which was written by a hardcore fundamentalist Muslim man visiting American in the late 40's. His writings were the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself was foundation of many later militant Islamic organizations.
The though process is basically that the law of man (as evidenced in free elections, among other things) is a sin, and only the law of God (as practiced through sharia law interpreted by Imams) is a tolerable foundation for a people. Further, it advocates the violent spread of the faith until all the world is under one Caliphate.
Yes, it sounds nutty. It IS nutty. Completely irrational.
That doesn't mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying though.
4.
Quote
The term prefered by the Imperialists is "empire of influence". ...
The basic idea is that instead of old fashion conquest, we co-opt the govts so that they follow our guidance.
The basic idea is that instead of old fashion conquest, we co-opt the govts so that they follow our guidance.
Except again, we don't co-opt the governments. Not in the long term certainly.
Again, we can ask Germany or Japan or S. Korea or Saudi to do somthing, but we can't make them. Given past history then, there's no reason to assume Iraq would be any different in twenty years. Hell, it took a year of chaos in Iraq for the US to say "hey... you know, you really should be cracking down on the *expletive deleted*it militias as much as the Sunnis." - and that happens before we remove the bulk of our forces from the country and there's still violence on the ground.
That is not the behavior of an imperialist.
5. Gehwer - thanks for pitching in your expertise, and thanks for your service.
Quote
As for the war, I just returned from Baghdad in December 2006. What nobody talks about, or even shows in the media, is all the native Iraqis who walk up to you and sincerely thank you for giving them their freedom. It just ain't newsworthy, and never will be.
Wonderful to hear. Thanks for sharing some hope. Quote
My sentiments still are "You take the fight to the enemy". You don't have to be a scholar of Sun Tzu to figure that one out. By the time the enemy has brought the fight to your own soil, you're toast, or close to it, and will have to expend an exponentially larger number of men and machines to mitigate the threat than had you taken care of it offshore.
At this time, I agree. I don't believe we're talking conventional forces here though. Quote
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do....
Unfortunately, I rather fear you're correct. At this point it'll take a hell of a lot bigger attack than 9/11 to wake up the bulk of the populace again, and to be honest when (not if) that does happen, the reaction won't be "well, I guess it's time to get serious" but rather "It's Bush's Fault!/It's the Democrat's Fault!" 
-K
PS =
Quote
While it is certian a terrorist attack via nuke will likely not involve a missile the issue can still be avoided with enhanced border security. I honestly feel the reason that our borders are so porous at the moment is that Bush and those in power frankly dont give a damn about the security of this country and only care about advancing their pocketbooks and political careers.
There's too much border to be able to secure adequately against nuke material being brought it. Thousands of miles of land and coastline make it logistically impossible.
The border issue is primarily then one of immigration and culture. To the reasons of failing on it, I agree completely.. although it's not just Bush and his people - ALL sides are guilty here. You were watching who sat on their hands in the "border enforcement" part of the State of the Union last week weren't you? You do remember who stopped the jobsite enforcement Reagan got as part of a compromise in '86 don't you? The corruption there is on ALL sides, to the detriment and frustration of the American people. If you want to debate this one further though, kindly start a new thread so as to keep this one somewhat on topic.
PPS - glockfan - I'm a chick.
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 02:07:47 PM
Did anyone notice that Hanoi Jane is at it again. She spoke at an anti-war rally in Washington D.C. Waiting for her to turn up in Iraq kissing al-Sadr's ass or Tehran looking at the nuclear refining facility to confirm it is being used for electricity.
I almost puked when I saw Ol' Hanoi was at it again. Then I also saw Sean penn, Susan Sarandon and a few others of that ilk that I can't recall right now. Rat bastards... 
If the big nuke does go off I hope the hell it's over Hollywood.
Post by: Ezekiel on January 28, 2007, 02:13:55 PM
QUOTE: I find this "non-binding" Resolution harmful, however.
Absolutely it is. There's few things more unconscienable than saying "okay, I'm going to keep you in a situation I believe to be suicidally dangerous and pointless, but I'm going to publically say that your sacrifice is in vain."
Absolutely it is. There's few things more unconscienable than saying "okay, I'm going to keep you in a situation I believe to be suicidally dangerous and pointless, but I'm going to publically say that your sacrifice is in vain."
Hey, the only reason it is harmful is that it is "non-binding."
Our government needs to put some reigns on ye olde executive branch and stop allowing them to knee-jerk emergency powers -- destroying our rights -- and invasions as a response to a global bloody-nose (9/11).
Post by: The Rabbi on January 28, 2007, 02:17:41 PM
Our government needs to put some reigns on ye olde executive branch and stop allowing them to knee-jerk emergency powers -- destroying our rights -- and invasions as a response to a global bloody-nose (9/11).
So over 3,000 innocent U.S. citizens killed and billions of dollars in damage is merely a "global bloody nose"?? Perhaps you think that the Islamists have a legitimate beef, that maybe the U.S got what was coming to it because of our arrogant and imperialist tendencies?
Sheesh.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 28, 2007, 02:20:36 PM
I fail to see where anyone called it illegal , unjust but not illegal.
, unjust but not illegal. Then just explain that part. To whom is it unjust and why?
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 02:21:15 PM
Thanks Kaylee, nice to see you here.
Glock, What state are you in? When I sit down and crunch the numbers oil always comes up the cheapest to use for heat when you talk conventional means of heating. I understand your points fully on the oil situation and agree with you BUT I wouldn't hang the blame too much on the .gov for the simple fact that I live in the Hartford area and every day there are thousands upon thousands of cars bumper to bumper going into the city with only the driver in the car. You want to cut gas and oil consumption? Try and change the mindset of these types of people and talk them into using mass transit. I'll be willing to bet most of them will pay all kinds of lip service to conserving energy but would laugh in your face should you suggest they take the bus to work. I, for one, see little chance for change in the mindset of the people on all this until the S DOES HTF.
I agree on all the nouveau post 911 patriots. Where did all those stupid little flags go, besides in the gutter? See, my little flags were on my vehicles WAY, meaning YEARS, before 911 and you know what? They're STILL THERE!
Post by: Ezekiel on January 28, 2007, 02:23:58 PM
Quote
So over 3,000 innocent U.S. citizens killed and billions of dollars in damage is merely a "global bloody nose"??
Grand scheme? "You bet." We knee-jerked and legislatively empowered an executive moron.
Quote
Perhaps you think that the Islamists have a legitimate beef, that maybe the U.S got what was coming to it because of our arrogant and imperialist tendencies?
Are you trying the "chickens home to roost" argument? It is a defendable position.
That said, it is evident that the United States is not entirely blameless in this equation. Or, do you consider us the Shining Knight?
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 28, 2007, 02:25:18 PM
Quote
(and I cringe everytime someone mentions ethanol. I remember driving across the corn states where gas/ethanol blends was all there was on tap. Just as expensive at the pump, and my milage dropped by a third. Feh.)
Heehee. I just filled up my truck on E-85 today, it's still 10 cents a gallon cheaper than gasoline. It's still cheaper per mile than gasoline in my dual-fuel S-10, and I enjoy the extra performance gain, even if I do lose some range per tankful. IMHO, ethanol here in Wisconsin is a success story - sorry about what's going on in the other states, and sorry Detroit saw fit to discontinue dual-fuel vehicles for the last few years, although they're making up for it in the 2008 model year vehicles. They're also building another distillery within a few miles of me, to the tune of 100 million gallons per year. We have another three plants in my part of the state that produce about the equivalent amount, and they're ramping up production for more. Just going on that alone, there's 400 million gallons of 105 octane motor fuel that doesn't come from Jihadistan. I'm way cool with that, the only problem being that we Americans are so affixed to our petroleum umbilical cords that I'm afraid the 400 million gallons of gasoline saved by our ethanol production won't create a net savings. Rather, the gasoline surplus will be sucked up right quick by poseurs driving Hummers and "Tahoe-with-Codpiece" H2s (Thanks, Tam!), or soccer mommies who absolutely must have a Suburban or Excursion to transport their precious cargo back and forth to Chuck E. Cheese.
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 02:31:54 PM
I was just keying back in to say how much I'd like to kick the crap outta Sean Penn and then use whats left of him to pummel the rest of his cronies.
and then...
Quote
I honestly feel the reason that our borders are so porous at the moment is that Bush and those in power frankly dont give a damn about the security of this country and only care about advancing their pocketbooks and political careers
remember, 911 was in 2001, it is now 2007 and we have yet to have even a minor Jihadist staged terrorist event take place here on our soil. I for one COMMEND the Pres and his administration for this achievement. Thjeir efforts, including the invasion of Iraq, have disorganized these terrorist factions, kept them that way and recently I heard from some sources I can't recall that they are demoralized and we pretty much have them on the ropes. Why? Because they all rushed to Iraq to join the fight and have been getting the snot beat out of them. Works for me.Post by: The Rabbi on January 28, 2007, 02:36:51 PM
Quote
So over 3,000 innocent U.S. citizens killed and billions of dollars in damage is merely a "global bloody nose"??
Grand scheme? "You bet." We knee-jerked and legislatively empowered an executive moron.
Quote
Perhaps you think that the Islamists have a legitimate beef, that maybe the U.S got what was coming to it because of our arrogant and imperialist tendencies?
Are you trying the "chickens home to roost" argument? It is a defendable position.
That said, it is evident that the United States is not entirely blameless in this equation. Or, do you consider us the Shining Knight?
It would take more intellectual masturbation than I am capable of to defend murder and terrorism. Congrats.
Post by: RevDisk on January 28, 2007, 02:55:51 PM
Oh, really?
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
Heh, how many times have you rolled your eyes at those "suitcase nuke" stories? Try explaining to folks that nuclear weapons are fair complicated gizmos that are expensive and somewhat maintenance intensive.
Nukes have a short life span. According to the GUMO, the lifespan of some of the components in Russian nukes is six months. The entire weapon itself could not have a hypothetical shelf life longer than 12 years, even with the best of maintaince. (The reality is Russian nukes have a much shorter shelf life. I'd personally guess 8 years at the most with the best of maintaince, but that's just my personal opinion.)
The Soviet Union fell apart much longer than 12 years. And today's Russian maintaince programs are even more lax than during the USSR days.
As for the war, I just returned from Baghdad in December 2006. What nobody talks about, or even shows in the media, is all the native Iraqis who walk up to you and sincerely thank you for giving them their freedom. It just ain't newsworthy, and never will be.
Quote
My sentiments still are "You take the fight to the enemy". You don't have to be a scholar of Sun Tzu to figure that one out. By the time the enemy has brought the fight to your own soil, you're toast, or close to it, and will have to expend an exponentially larger number of men and machines to mitigate the threat than had you taken care of it offshore.
Most folks just want to live their lives. They want a decent job, enough food on the table, and enjoy life. It's just a small minority that ruin it for everyone else. Always has been, always will be.
Quote
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do. I'll even say we deserve an ass-kicking every now and then, just to remind us it ain't all Kum-Ba-Yah around the campfire out there. We as a nation are considerably more "pussified" than we were in WWII or even the Korean War days. Hell, look how fast conspiracy theorists surfaced after 11 September 2001, saying it was a scheme engineered by the Bush Administration to create some sort of national hysteria. Can you imagine somebody coming up with a similar hairball scheme to explain what happened at Pearl Harbor on 7 December, 1941?
Depends. I personally have faith in the US. If we feel it's justified, we can and will stomp anyone that opposes us. Folks just disagree on justification. If our country was invaded, say by China, they'd be slaughtered to the man.
Me, I disagree with the Iraqi invasion because it used up resources that could be used to hunt down the folks that attacked us on 9/11. The best course of action, in my humble opinion, would have used our resources to track down anyone even remotely associated with the branch of the Wahabbi sect that attacked us. I think the best message to send would have been, "Those that attack us will be hunted down and slaughtered. Those that leave the US alone will be left alone."
1. )
Quote
Ahmadinejad. Mind you, he was elected. More interestingly, he is not the most powerful politician in Iran.
Yes, I'm aware of that. (I can even pronouce his name finally, just not spell it worth beans. )I assure you, I was not mocking your spelling ability, as my own sucks. Rocks, glass houses, not good combo. Thank the Gods for dictionaries and Google.
Quote
Anyhow.. actions, not words.
If the Supreme Leader says it's forbidden to build nuclear weapons, and at the same time Iran is building hardened secret nuclear facilities ... who's lying? The one who says the Supreme Leader is in charge, or the Supreme Leader when he says it's forbidden? Personally, I think the latter, under a somewhat stretched interpretation of al-Taqiyya. But to each their own.
If the Supreme Leader says it's forbidden to build nuclear weapons, and at the same time Iran is building hardened secret nuclear facilities ... who's lying? The one who says the Supreme Leader is in charge, or the Supreme Leader when he says it's forbidden? Personally, I think the latter, under a somewhat stretched interpretation of al-Taqiyya. But to each their own.
Indeed, it would be prudent to keep a eye on things. I was just pointing out that Ahmadinejad gets all of the attention, but doesn't have as much power in Iran as most folks believe. The Supreme Leader is the guy to be watching, carefully. The problem is that under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, nuclear power is legal. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm for the full text of the NPT.
"Affirming the principle that the benefits of peaceful applications of nuclear technology, including any technological by-products which may be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the development of nuclear explosive devices, should be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or non-nuclear weapon States,
Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,"
Not saying I trust Iran with advanced nuclear technology, I'm not insane. But it'd be complicated to declare war on Iran for following the terms of the NPT, when they're allowing the IAEA to keep tabs on the state of their nuclear program. As of Nov 2006, the CIA has not found any secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. That could obviously change at any point, but at the moment, there it is.
Hardened facilities for working on nuclear technology again is not de facto proof that they're constructing nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology SHOULD be placed in hardened facilities, as far as I'm concerned. I grew up on a hill overlooking Three Mile Island.
Again, I am not saying Iran isn't a cause of concern. I'm just saying that their nuclear program as of yet does not justify military action on the part of the US. We definitely need to keep an eye on them and expand our options on how to deal with them should the need arraise.
Quote
Regardless -
Unchecked, I believe Iran will build a nuke and will use it.
Certainly their actions and their words to their own people (not the kissyface interviews on 60 minutes) bear this out.
Least painful I think is drop a few "bunkerbuster" tacnukes onto Arak, Bushehr, etc and pray it stops there... not that that's particularly likely. The fallout for us would still be nightmarish... but not as nightmarish as the alternative.
Quote
It is not in our best interests to piss off Iran, at this point. We don't have the resources to take significant military action against them, and they could relatively cheaply cause us a lot of headaches.
As you said.. many degrees of suckitude. Unchecked, I believe Iran will build a nuke and will use it.
Certainly their actions and their words to their own people (not the kissyface interviews on 60 minutes) bear this out.
Least painful I think is drop a few "bunkerbuster" tacnukes onto Arak, Bushehr, etc and pray it stops there... not that that's particularly likely. The fallout for us would still be nightmarish... but not as nightmarish as the alternative.
No offense, Kaylee, but first strike usage of nuclear weapons is something that should be thought of long and hard. We've never had a first strike policy, and I pray we never will. Going down that road is a nightmare. Tac nukes are still nuclear weapons, and dispite claims that deep penetrating nuclear weapons don't release surface radiation, I don't have such blind faith. As I previously said, I grew up a stone's throw from TMI. The reactor that had problems is still there, and no one is going to be touching it for a very, very long time.
Build? Perhaps. Use? No one has used nuclear weapons in anger since WWII. Things have gotten hairy, many times. Pakistan and India both have nuclear weapon, and dispite much hatred, have not used them in anger.
Quote
Quite true - which is one of the benefits of building coal-to-oil plants. It would allow us to use much of the existing infrastructure. Not profitable under $2.50/gallon or so last I heard though. Alternately shale extraction plants, though I don't recall the break-even point on that. Point is, last time we tried it (late 70's I think?) OPEC precipitously dropped the price of oil and bankrupted the builders.
Long term I'd love to see functioning nuclear fusion plants and hydrogen cell tech, but that's a ways off. The other stuff is already off-the-shelf tech, just not cost effective.
(and I cringe everytime someone mentions ethanol. I remember driving across the corn states where gas/ethanol blends was all there was on tap. Just as expensive at the pump, and my milage dropped by a third. Feh.)
Long term I'd love to see functioning nuclear fusion plants and hydrogen cell tech, but that's a ways off. The other stuff is already off-the-shelf tech, just not cost effective.
(and I cringe everytime someone mentions ethanol. I remember driving across the corn states where gas/ethanol blends was all there was on tap. Just as expensive at the pump, and my milage dropped by a third. Feh.)
Shale oil would be nice, and is a possibility as the technology gets refined. I'm iffy on hydrogen tech, current technology doesn't paint it in a pretty light. Hydrogen is not easy to work with. We do need more nuclear power plants. They're the best source of power we currently have. Coal plants produce much more radiation into the atmo than nuclear plants.
Straight ethanol would be better than the blends. I don't see it happening. The blends wouldn't be so bad if cars were specifically designed for it, and there wasn't price gouging.
Quote
3.
Look up Qutb's book "Milestones" which was written by a hardcore fundamentalist Muslim man visiting American in the late 40's. His writings were the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself was foundation of many later militant Islamic organizations.
The though process is basically that the law of man (as evidenced in free elections, among other things) is a sin, and only the law of God (as practiced through sharia law interpreted by Imams) is a tolerable foundation for a people. Further, it advocates the violent spread of the faith until all the world is under one Caliphate.
Yes, it sounds nutty. It IS nutty. Completely irrational.
That doesn't mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying though.
Quote
Contrary to what you have heard they dont hate us over there for our freedoms. They hate us because of our terrible foreign policy and constant medling in their affairs. You dont provide for your security by making enemies.
That's what I believed until I started doing some research. Different folk dislike us for different reasons of course, but the hard-core Jihadis absolutely "hate us for our freedoms." I know it sounds like a cheesy speech soundbite, and I cringe every time I hear it to... but as silly as it sounds to us - it's still very true. Look up Qutb's book "Milestones" which was written by a hardcore fundamentalist Muslim man visiting American in the late 40's. His writings were the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood, which itself was foundation of many later militant Islamic organizations.
The though process is basically that the law of man (as evidenced in free elections, among other things) is a sin, and only the law of God (as practiced through sharia law interpreted by Imams) is a tolerable foundation for a people. Further, it advocates the violent spread of the faith until all the world is under one Caliphate.
Yes, it sounds nutty. It IS nutty. Completely irrational.
That doesn't mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying though.
Not quite nutty, the caliphate lasted from the time of Muhammad until the Ottoman Empire. Many Muslims see the caliphate as the "glory days" of Islam. Disagreement over the line of succession caused the Sunni/*expletive deleted*it rift. The Sunni Wahabbi/Salafism sect want to formally institute the caliphate, strict adherrence of Sharia, Qur'an and hadith and theocracy. They don't as much hate our freedoms as believe that such freedoms are a violation of Sharia.
Ibn Abd al-Wahhab and Ibn Taymiyya produced the most important work according to the Wahabbi sect. Reading their work, they sounded just as nutty as the Puritans and some of the Calvinists.
Quote
Quote
That's assuming, of course, that the American people even have the stomach for war anymore, and I seriously doubt we do....
Unfortunately, I rather fear you're correct. At this point it'll take a hell of a lot bigger attack than 9/11 to wake up the bulk of the populace again, and to be honest when (not if) that does happen, the reaction won't be "well, I guess it's time to get serious" but rather "It's Bush's Fault!/It's the Democrat's Fault!" I know I'm in a minority as I see other threats as being greater than the Wahabbis. Compared to the Soviet Union, the Wahabbis are a joke. The Wahabbis don't have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, nor a standing army in the millions. A study by Wilson and Thomson (2005) showed that the annual average death rate from road injuries was approximately 390 times that from international terrorism. In 2001, U.S. road deaths were equal to the number of people that died on 9/11 every 26 days.
Is terrorism a serious concern? Of course. But it is not the ONLY concern. Personally, I see China as our greatest future enemy. Possibly bigger than the Soviet Union. Even compared to a united Calphite, China could cause us a lot more damage. Central Eurasia will be the next Middle East.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2007, 03:00:45 PM
Of course, no matter what I saw, people will stuff their fingers in their ears and chant to themselves, because they don't want to hear it...
Hussein sort of ignored all sorts of "sanctions" and "strongly worded reprimands." He was stockpiling and developing chemical warfare materials. And he had a proven history of using them. When someone is stocking up on stuff, and says "Hey, you're next," what are your alternatives?
And part of it is about human rights. Sure, you've got the jihadists. But you've got a LOT of folks who have tasted freedom, and they LIKE it. And that scares the bejeebers outta the jihadists.
Of course, we could hop in the wayback machine, and go visit our brothers, the pre-war enlightened and sorta free Iraqis...
Would you maybe like your own Iraqi bride? She's basically for sale, and if you don't like her, if she doesn't work out, hey, you can pretty much do whatever you want.
Do you hate those _other_ people across town? Hey, your pastor will be MORE than happy to whip out the fatwah stick, and now it's okay for you to do whatever you want to 'em. How about mustard gas? Watch 'em squirm... Now we've got their women, at least until we get tired of them...
Then there's that teacher who's been teaching stuff you don't agree with... Off with their head! There, that was easy...
Post by: Kaylee on January 28, 2007, 03:41:13 PM
Quote
Depends. I personally have faith in the US. If we feel it's justified, we can and will stomp anyone that opposes us. Folks just disagree on justification. If our country was invaded, say by China, they'd be slaughtered to the man.
There I disagree - with Ezekiel as a case in point. We could be invaded by aliens from Jupiter tomorrow, and someone would start spreading the line that we somehow brought it on ourselves. I'm not saying we're pure as the driven snow, but rather than no matter how good the justification is, we have maybe 1-3 years until the "blame American first" media storm gets louder than the natural "hit back" response.
There are too many people in positions of media influence these day with a vested interest in making whichever person is in charge at the time look bad to allow for a sustained conflict. Sure from my point of view I think a Republican CiC has it worse from most media outlets, but Clinton sure didn't get any slack either with all the "wag the dog" fanfare some years back.
Things might change once the Boomer generation and its "we stopped the Evil VietNam War" self-mythos die off, but for the next generation or so I don't think we have the stomach or attention span for a sustained conflict.
Many now will say "I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq" and I say bullcrap to that.
I remember all the whining about "quagmire" and "that's where the USSR died" and so forth and so on as the buildup in Afghanistan was going on. If we'd never moved on, the same voices that now are screaming about Iraq would be screaming about Afghanistan and unjust war.
Gewehr - I think you're right about what would happen with a fuel surplus. (and Tams does have a way with words, eh? "Suburban with a codpiece."
)RevDisk - what I was calling nutty was the belief that it would actually be possible to grow the Caliphate to cover the earth, as some want. Or rather, the idea of invading ships of Jihadis. That does not however mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying.
As to the "not the greatest concern" - certainly long term I will agree with you that there are bigger clouds on the horizon, China as you mentioned being perhaps the biggest. That said, they are not the active concern as they're not presently trying to kill us. I don't believe a comparison to traffic fatalities is valid, because the Jihadis are a human force actively working on expanding their numbers and killing westerners.
Nonetheless your preferred approach makes a lot of sense to me.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 28, 2007, 04:28:16 PM
Quote
Trying to prevent nations from developing nuclear weapons is like trying to plug six holes in a boat with five fingers (perhaps not the best analogy but it conveys my point). We cannot prevent research and development on the global scale forever. With the end of the cold war scientist and material from the former Soviet Union flooded the global market all for sale to the highest bidder.
Oh, really?
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
Oh, really?
I just retired from a certain government agency whose sole purpose was to monitor and track nuclear weapons and technology, ferreting out the proliferators and potential proliferators. That's the first I've heard that there's a flood of former Soviet nuclear weapons materiel out there - perhaps you're working for the wrong guys, or need to call somebody in the Beltline and tell them they're going at it all wrong, you've got something conclusive to show them.
Thats a pretty vauge claim without much backing
. As far as soviet nuclear technology leaking out is concerned explain to me the 100 or so unaccounted nuclear devices from the former Republic of the Ukraine. I'm sure theres more I am unaware of but never the less the scientist are out there for hire as well. Nuclear proliferation is a reality we have to face and keeping tabs on and bullying the world will not work forever.Quote
Currently over here in Baghdad and I will concur with Gewehr on this. The other thing to think about is that what is the easiest group to change. Children. The children are the answer and the children will make a difference in about 5-10 years. This is going to take a generation or two to completely "fix." Does that mean that we will have 100,000+ troop levels for that amount of time? I hope not, but you can bet that we will see a fixed
Heres a thought, are these the same children whos parents were killed by a botched U.S air strike? For every smiling face you see out there I am sure theres two more who are not so happy. Besides its always a good idea to be nice to the man with the gun and the candy.
Quote
So over 3,000 innocent U.S. citizens killed and billions of dollars in damage is merely a "global bloody nose"?? Perhaps you think that the Islamists have a legitimate beef, that maybe the U.S got what was coming to it because of our arrogant and imperialist tendencies?
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
In the grand scheme of things yes, I hate to sound callous but it is a mere bloody nose. As I have said before our terrible foreign policy gave them a beef. I am not defending their actions but if Russia propped up a dictator in America for 20 years, or gave weapons to your enemy then you would likely have a beef with Canada. Are we really so pompus that we think were the only nation in the world that has a right to hold a grudge?
Quote
Then just explain that part. To whom is it unjust and why?
Its unjust to the soldiers who signed up to defend this country and its constitutiton, not to die and be maimed to save a nickel on a gallon of gas or add a few points to Haliburtons stock. I think this country really needs to step back and evaluate its use of force compared to what the founders intended it to be. Its unjust to people like you and me who will be paying off the deficit for years to come. Its unjust to the people in Iraq who traded a dictator and stability for roving death squads, daily bombings with mass casualties, and total destruction of infastructure. All to remove a dictator we kept in power for so long.Quote
Rather, the gasoline surplus will be sucked up right quick by poseurs driving Hummers and "Tahoe-with-Codpiece" H2s (Thanks, Tam!), or soccer mommies who absolutely must have a Suburban or Excursion to transport their precious cargo back and forth to Chuck E. Cheese.
lol @ Tahoe with a codpiece H2 thats great, but sadly your right in that observation. It ticks me off to see folks every day driving a mobile home to work and back then whine about how much they spend on gas
. I certianly am not saying everybody should be driving a Geo Metro around, but how the hell do you justify something like the Ford Excursion for a daily commuter? Just remember your funding your enemy.Quote
remember, 911 was in 2001, it is now 2007 and we have yet to have even a minor Jihadist staged terrorist event take place here on our soil. I for one COMMEND the Pres and his administration for this achievement.
And we had eight years with no attacks before that? Its not over and will happen again so dont go patting Bush on the back just yet.
Quote
And part of it is about human rights. Sure, you've got the jihadists. But you've got a LOT of folks who have tasted freedom, and they LIKE it. And that scares the bejeebers outta the jihadists.
Dont go strolling down the U.S takes the moral high ground road because its an argument you will lose. Our invading Iraq had nothing to do with spreading freedom and democracy and its all I can do to keep from falling off my chair laughing when Bush makes that claim. The U.S inavaded Iraq only to serve our own short sighted goals with the spreading freedom line as a defense. How the hell people can make that claim with a straight face when our President strolls hand in hand with the crown price of Saudi Arabia (a country that has human rights violations which would make you sick) and kisses him on the fing cheek is totally beyond my realm of comprehension.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 28, 2007, 04:34:07 PM
Quote
Heh, how many times have you rolled your eyes at those "suitcase nuke" stories? Try explaining to folks that nuclear weapons are fair complicated gizmos that are expensive and somewhat maintenance intensive.
Nukes have a short life span. According to the GUMO, the lifespan of some of the components in Russian nukes is six months. The entire weapon itself could not have a hypothetical shelf life longer than 12 years, even with the best of maintaince. (The reality is Russian nukes have a much shorter shelf life. I'd personally guess 8 years at the most with the best of maintaince, but that's just my personal opinion.)
The Soviet Union fell apart much longer than 12 years. And today's Russian maintaince programs are even more lax than during the USSR days.
Nukes have a short life span. According to the GUMO, the lifespan of some of the components in Russian nukes is six months. The entire weapon itself could not have a hypothetical shelf life longer than 12 years, even with the best of maintaince. (The reality is Russian nukes have a much shorter shelf life. I'd personally guess 8 years at the most with the best of maintaince, but that's just my personal opinion.)
The Soviet Union fell apart much longer than 12 years. And today's Russian maintaince programs are even more lax than during the USSR days.
No, I just quietly chuckle at all the self-described nuclear proliferation experts solving the world's problems one keystroke at a time from behind Internet aliases. Remember, "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog". Almost as funny as folks calling service academy graduates "brainwashed automatons", without any real knowledge of what those institutions do to create leaders. Oh, I know, there was a rape investigation at the Air Force Academy, so therefore, all academy grads are rapists, it says so in the news. Jeebus. For a while there, many of us Air Force types would change into civilan clothes at work so nobody would see us coming and going to work, shades of Vietnam vets being derided by the Hanoi Jane protestors of the world. Coming back from Desert Storm, I had a media news camera shoved in my face as I walked past a protest staged at the airport. My comments never made it on the air. Since I've retired from the military, I'd be more than happy to take take the time and bring Ezekiel as my guest to a military base and educate him on how it really works. Assuming he really could stomach spending time with a service academy graduate or two...
Quote
Straight ethanol would be better than the blends. I don't see it happening. The blends wouldn't be so bad if cars were specifically designed for it, and there wasn't price gouging.
E-85 is about as straight as it'll get, especially for automobiles in temperate zones. Straight booze doesn't work well for starting cars in the snowbelt in winter. Pure ethanol (E100) is hygroscopic, so the 15% gasoline mixed in with it keeps it "dry" and gives better winter weather starting performance. The modifications to an E-85 vehicle are kind of neat, it involves re-mapping the injection and ignition timing, using stainless steel in the fuel system from tank pickup to fuel injector, and there's a neat little fuel composition sensor box between the fuel tank and injection manifold that samples what's coming down the pipe, and continually signalling for the engine management computer to re-map based on straight gasoline, E-85, or any combination in between.
I'm curious about that price gouging statement. I paid the same for my dual-fuel S-10 on the dealer's lot as I would have for a non-ethanol-modified version. In fact, I didn't even know my truck was dual-fuel until I read the owner's manual and saw the sticker on the fuel filler door. Who woulda think it, in Florida, no less? At least Ford put the cute little "FFV" emblem on their dual-fuel cars and trucks. Here's how it works - the FedGov gave the Big 3 CAFE credits if they produced X amount of dual fuel vehicles. GM did so with little fanfare, I bought mine on the lot in Florida, it was part of an order of pickups the dealership bought and delivered via a GSA contract to the local Air Force base. Mine was one of three spares the dealership kept in inventory. They (rightfully) expected the Air Force to total one or two in good time.
Quote
Thats a pretty vauge claim without much backing undecided . As far as soviet nuclear technology leaking out is concerned explain to me the 100 or so unaccounted nuclear devices from the former Republic of the Ukraine. I'm sure theres more I am unaware of but never the less the scientist are out there for hire as well. Nuclear proliferation is a reality we have to face and keeping tabs on and bullying the world will not work forever.
Purposely vague, if you will. Since I wanted to keep my clearance, I signed that non-disclosure agreement, and cannot even publish my memoirs for 75 years after leaving the agency.
Suffice it to say, the majority of Americans have no idea their government has offices and agencies keeping serious tabs on things, using techniques, personnel, and equipment that makes shows like CSI (blech!) look like some sort of grade-school play. I would fly 22-24 hours in a 4-engine heavy reconnaissance jet just to drag a couple cotton air filters and suck in a few cubic feet of air after a Soviet nuclear test and then do it again after a minimum of 12 hours' crew rest. (Constant Phoenix - look it up on Wikipedia) The data would be analyzed, ant the official State Department LTB treaty violation demarche' would hit the United Nations within a couple days after the event. It's also how we knew that Chernobyl really was a power reactor vs. breeder reactor. I did that gig to the tune of 1,500 hours, so yeah, I'll be vague.
Post by: RevDisk on January 28, 2007, 04:50:29 PM
RevDisk - thank you very much for the informative post. God knows I sure don't know half enough to make some of those decisions. So no offense taken.
You are welcome. No one knows half as much as they should when they make a decision. I don't.
Quote
There I disagree - with Ezekiel as a case in point. We could be invaded by aliens from Jupiter tomorrow, and someone would start spreading the line that we somehow brought it on ourselves. I'm not saying we're pure as the driven snow, but rather than no matter how good the justification is, we have maybe 1-3 years until the "blame American first" media storm gets louder than the natural "hit back" response.
There are too many people in positions of media influence these day with a vested interest in making whichever person is in charge at the time look bad to allow for a sustained conflict. Sure from my point of view I think a Republican CiC has it worse from most media outlets, but Clinton sure didn't get any slack either with all the "wag the dog" fanfare some years back.
Things might change once the Boomer generation and its "we stopped the Evil VietNam War" self-mythos die off, but for the next generation or so I don't think we have the stomach or attention span for a sustained conflict.
There are too many people in positions of media influence these day with a vested interest in making whichever person is in charge at the time look bad to allow for a sustained conflict. Sure from my point of view I think a Republican CiC has it worse from most media outlets, but Clinton sure didn't get any slack either with all the "wag the dog" fanfare some years back.
Things might change once the Boomer generation and its "we stopped the Evil VietNam War" self-mythos die off, but for the next generation or so I don't think we have the stomach or attention span for a sustained conflict.
One doesn't need to be pure as the first snow of winter. "Good enough" is good enough for most folks. Some folks will always be doubtful or blame America. Most people are somewhere in the middle, as is always the case. If a justication is good enough, and seen as more or less honest, it will be accepted. Yea, media's job is to give the folks in charge a bad name. However, most politicians (left, right, up, down, the lot of them) deserve it.
Me, I can't think of too many President in the last hundred years I did perticularly like. Ironically, I liked Carter as a person, thought he made a horrible President. Eisenhower was probably the last decent president we had.
Problem with the new generation, they have access to a lot more information. I was in squads where every single enlisted person had either a degree, or was working on one. Heck, I've been on deployments where they offered college classes in forward bases. Most young folks that actually give a damn can have as much information as they want at their fingertips. The price of this knowledge is apathy and cynism. We don't have much blind faith. In our commanders (with a couple exceptions), in our politicians, in 'the system'. Given something worth believing in, without the bullshit, people will follow and support.
I've heard all kinds of stories of folks bemoaning today's generation as slackers, lacking guts, etc etc. BS. I know of no one my age that puts in 40 hrs a week and lives in comfy bliss. We work our rear ends off, for not much in return. Today has no lack of slackers and fools, but I doubt statistically above par. Difference today is that most people know exactly how much BS is handed over. We know not to trust the media, politicians, etc because frankly they do not deserve trust.
Quote
Many now will say "I supported Afghanistan, but not Iraq" and I say bullcrap to that.
I remember all the whining about "quagmire" and "that's where the USSR died" and so forth and so on as the buildup in Afghanistan was going on. If we'd never moved on, the same voices that now are screaming about Iraq would be screaming about Afghanistan and unjust war.
I remember all the whining about "quagmire" and "that's where the USSR died" and so forth and so on as the buildup in Afghanistan was going on. If we'd never moved on, the same voices that now are screaming about Iraq would be screaming about Afghanistan and unjust war.
Wander outside of Kabul, and you'll see that not much has exactly changed. We swapped Islamic fundimentalists for drug dealers and warlords. The former Northern Alliance now controls a firm majority of the world's heroin supply. Eventually, we'll have to replace the folks we put into power in Afghanistan.
Besides, most of the head honchos bailed out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan before we had significant forces on the ground. Invading Pakistan would have been ackward, as they have nuclear weapons and are somewhat allies of the US.
Quote
RevDisk - what I was calling nutty was the belief that it would actually be possible to grow the Caliphate to cover the earth, as some want. Or rather, the idea of invading ships of Jihadis. That does not however mean they won't do a hell of a lot of damage in the trying.
As to the "not the greatest concern" - certainly long term I will agree with you that there are bigger clouds on the horizon, China as you mentioned being perhaps the biggest. That said, they are not the active concern as they're not presently trying to kill us. I don't believe a comparison to traffic fatalities is valid, because the Jihadis are a human force actively working on expanding their numbers and killing westerners.
Nonetheless your preferred approach makes a lot of sense to me.
As to the "not the greatest concern" - certainly long term I will agree with you that there are bigger clouds on the horizon, China as you mentioned being perhaps the biggest. That said, they are not the active concern as they're not presently trying to kill us. I don't believe a comparison to traffic fatalities is valid, because the Jihadis are a human force actively working on expanding their numbers and killing westerners.
Nonetheless your preferred approach makes a lot of sense to me.
The original Caliphate (at its height) covered more of the planet than the Roman Empire did (at its height). More than twice the territory. It reached from Spain almost to China. http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html Not something to write off. A modern Caliphate would stretch from Africa to Indonesia. Still, I suspect larger concerns will surface before any caliphate appears.
Another perspective not generally acknowledged by our side is that Wahabbis tend to kill more Muslims than they do Americans. Until fairly recently, they mainly focused on local host nations. Egypt being the obvious. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt in 1948, attempted to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954, and may have had a hand in assassinating Anwar Sadat in 1981. Ironically, no one in the ME hated and hunted the Brotherhood as much as Saddam did. (He was secular, they wanted to overthrow him.) Funny how things turn out, no?
Thats a pretty vauge claim without much backing . As far as soviet nuclear technology leaking out is concerned explain to me the 100 or so unaccounted nuclear devices from the former Republic of the Ukraine. I'm sure theres more I am unaware of but never the less the scientist are out there for hire as well. Nuclear proliferation is a reality we have to face and keeping tabs on and bullying the world will not work forever.
. As far as soviet nuclear technology leaking out is concerned explain to me the 100 or so unaccounted nuclear devices from the former Republic of the Ukraine. I'm sure theres more I am unaware of but never the less the scientist are out there for hire as well. Nuclear proliferation is a reality we have to face and keeping tabs on and bullying the world will not work forever.Dispite this vagueness, he is correct. We keep tabs on nuclear development, especially in the former USSR. We fund employment programs for former nuclear scientists. The FSB keeps tabs on them as well. Any unaccounted nuclear device is an expensive paperweight without regular maintaince. Many components need swapping out every six months, or the warhead is useless. If you'd like, I could email you extensive material on this.
Nuclear proliferation is being fairly well handled, relatively speaking. NK is the only truly rogue nation with advancing nuclear technology. China however pulls the string with regards to the NK. Without China, the NK would not exist and is the sole reason why there are two Koreas. China is literally right next door, provides a lot of food, has a vastly superior military and plenty of nuclear weapons. As long as we are on good terms with China, we don't have to worry too much about NK.
As long as the military regime in Pakistan remains stable, things are fairly well handled. If Pakistan falls, we're in trouble. Nuclear weapon wise.
Quote
Quote
Then just explain that part. To whom is it unjust and why?
Its unjust to the soldiers who signed up to defend this country and its constitutiton, not to die and be maimed to save a nickel on a gallon of gas or add a few points to Haliburtons stock. I think this country really needs to step back and evaluate its use of force compared to what the founders intended it to be. Its unjust to people like you and me who will be paying off the deficit for years to come. Its unjust to the people in Iraq who traded a dictator and stability for roving death squads, daily bombings with mass casualties, and total destruction of infastructure. All to remove a dictator we kept in power for so long.Sigh, one fond memory of being overseas. Haliburton was overbilling the US Army for fuel, and selling said fuel on the black market. Another scam was buying very cheap food and charging the Army top rates. Ergo, lots of troops were getting food poisoning. Including me. I still hold food in my mouth a couple seconds to make sure it doesn't taste funny. Thanks KBR. I remember being across the table from the KBR execs, with a belt fed ready to roll, and asking for permission to line 'em up against the wall. My CO said no. Bah.
And I spent all those hours with my stomach cramping up shining and prettying my SAW... Sigh
Quote
Since I've retired from the military, I'd be more than happy to take take the time and bring Ezekiel as my guest to a military base and educate him on how it really works. Assuming he really could stomach spending time with a service academy graduate or two...
Hell, I spent 6 years in the service, I couldn't stomach more than an hour or two with a service academy graduate. I thought exposure times of longer than four hours was fatal.
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 04:59:27 PM
Quote
Quote
remember, 911 was in 2001, it is now 2007 and we have yet to have even a minor Jihadist staged terrorist event take place here on our soil. I for one COMMEND the Pres and his administration for this achievement.
And we had eight years with no attacks before that? Its not over and will happen again so dont go patting Bush on the back just yet.
I know it's not over and yes it could very well happen again, especially if we let the pressure off those bastards just like Sean Penn and the like would like us to.
I'm not sure what you mean by "eight years with no attacks" the USS Cole and the African embassies come to mind. But , of course, that wasn't actually on our soil. Oh, you mean the first WTC incident. yea, and we just put that off in the back of our minds and let them regroup, try again and succeed in the most heinous way imaginable.
Post by: Ron on January 28, 2007, 05:02:14 PM
Quote
And we had eight years with no attacks before that? Its not over and will happen again so dont go patting Bush on the back just yet.
Technically if our Embassies are US soil then that isn't true. Attacking one of our warships and killing 17 sailer's could be construed as an attack and act of war no?
Post by: 280plus on January 28, 2007, 05:04:37 PM
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2007, 05:40:00 PM
You can PREDICT drug dealers and warlords, and you can BUY them.
After we fix this mess, we legalize the stuff, and put 'em out of business. Problem solved.
Threadlock in 3 - 2 - 1....
Post by: Ron on January 28, 2007, 05:43:28 PM
Quote
Threadlock in 3 - 2 - 1....
Threads don't get locked here silly
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 28, 2007, 05:49:03 PM
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is energy storage. To produce hydrogen, you have to run electrolysis of water to split into hydrogen and oxygen. You have to get the energy from someplace to run the electrolysis in the first place. So, stop talking about "hydrogen economy" or hydrogen as an energy solution. At best, hydrogen can be used as an ecologically friendly fuel, but only if you produced the electrical power for electrolysis in some clean way in the first place (e.g. solar, wind).
Btw, CSPAN showed Hillary talking in Des Moines and she said that the thermoelectric plants need to be made clean because right now they are emitting "poisons like arsenic and carbon dioxide". The only way to prevent them from emitting carbon dioxide is not to run them at all. And this thing wants to be president.
Post by: Bogie on January 28, 2007, 06:53:13 PM
Beer and White Castles combine into an energy source.
All I know is that there's folks out there who wanna cut my head off. I like it where it's at, because if it wasn't there, I couldn't drink beer and eat sliders. And they definitely don't like beer (strike one) and probably don't like sliders either. Now, they can either put up with those of us who do (why can't we all just get along theory), or they can go all jihad on us, and eventually we'll pave everything from Egypt to Indonesia... Yeah, the ocean too. We're America. We can do that. We can do anything. The impossible just takes a little longer.
If you don't like beer'n'bombers, well, you're against us.
Don't make me go nucular on y'all...
And now for a comment from someone who feels that any war is a bad war. Meet Annie, whose great grandfather, who helped liberate concentration camps, is now reaching ever higher and higher rotational speeds... How quickly they forget...
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 28, 2007, 07:00:22 PM
I just toured this facility in Madison, WI a couple weeks ago:
http://www.virent.com/technology.htm
They've recently received big federal grants and a huge grant from Honda for their brainchild, Aqueous Phase Reforming of oxygenated compounds. They're extracting hydrogen from biomass-derived feedstocks, sans electrolysis.
Looks like they have their $hit all in one sock. I've since applied there for a position they advertised through their employee grapevine...
Another aspect of reducing our dependency on foreign petroleum is probably more farfetched. I volunteer time at a local railroad museum, helping maintain some wonderful old Baldwin steam locomotives. Looking at one of the coal-fired steamers with auto-stoker and all the early 20th-century technology that went into that big iron beast, I'd have to ask why can't we make a modern steam-electric locomotive that's coal fired? We've got one heck of a coal reserve in these United States, and I've seen some seriously long Burlington Northern trains hauling hundreds of coal cars enroute to electrical power plants like the one near Portage, WI. Obviously, here in 2007 the locomotive's exhaust stack would need some sort of scrubber or emissions device. Steamers didn't do a good job of conserving their boiler water, but they had big water tanks in their tenders and water sources at their stations to feed that total-loss system. Maybe a closed-loop boiler/turbine system with efficient condensers?
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 28, 2007, 08:48:59 PM
Carnot's limit is given by eff=1-Tc/Th, where Tc, Th are the temperatures (in Kelvin) of the cooler and heater respectively. So, for a steam engine running between room temp and boiling water, the max efficiency would be 1-293/373=21% at the very best. Gasoline engines reach higher temps and run more efficiently. Incidentally, the same reason is why chemical cells are more efficient the hotter you run them. at 2000degC, their ceiling would be 1-293/2273= 87%. That is also why gas turbines are better than gasoline engines.
Post by: 280plus on January 29, 2007, 12:46:20 AM
If we were to use something like solar or geothermal generated electricity to do the electrolysis thing for releasing hydrogen I think we'd be on to something. I've been on the hydrogen bandwagon forever, but mostly because it produces no pollutants when burned, just water. Besides, electrolysis also releases oxygen for which there are a multitude of uses, sale of the oxygen would offset the cost of producing the hydrogen. Not to mention it is an infinitely renewable resource.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2007, 05:33:37 AM
Quote
Then just explain that part. To whom is it unjust and why?
Its unjust to the soldiers who signed up to defend this country and its constitutiton, not to die and be maimed to save a nickel on a gallon of gas or add a few points to Haliburtons stock. I think this country really needs to step back and evaluate its use of force compared to what the founders intended it to be. Its unjust to people like you and me who will be paying off the deficit for years to come. I don't agree that the Iraq war was fought for those reasons, but at least you have identified the only party who might have been wronged in this war.
Quote
Its unjust to the people in Iraq who traded a dictator and stability for roving death squads, daily bombings with mass casualties, and total destruction of infastructure. All to remove a dictator we kept in power for so long.
America kept Saddam in power? How so? In any case, it is outrageous to suggest that we hurt the Iraqi people by toppling Saddam. If they can't control themselves during the power vacuum, that is not our fault. Post by: RevDisk on January 29, 2007, 12:42:47 PM
America kept Saddam in power? How so? In any case, it is outrageous to suggest that we hurt the Iraqi people by toppling Saddam. If they can't control themselves during the power vacuum, that is not our fault.
America supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. Previously, we installed a brutal dictator (the Shah, ref. Operation Ajax) in Iran, who was kicked out by Khomeni. The Iranians were annoyed at us for supporting the Shah, amoung other reasons. They started doing things we did not like. (Tehran Embassy hostage situation) So, we supported their enemy, Iraq. We really got involved after the "Tanker War" started. The US Navy got directly involved through Operation Praying Mantis. One of the highlights was Iran Air Flight 655.
Without our involvement, it's quite probable that Saddam would have lost that war.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 29, 2007, 12:54:49 PM
America kept Saddam in power? How so? In any case, it is outrageous to suggest that we hurt the Iraqi people by toppling Saddam. If they can't control themselves during the power vacuum, that is not our fault.
America supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War. Previously, we installed a brutal dictator (the Shah, ref. Operation Ajax) in Iran, who was kicked out by Khomeni. The Iranians were annoyed at us for supporting the Shah, amoung other reasons. They started doing things we did not like. (Tehran Embassy hostage situation) So, we supported their enemy, Iraq. We really got involved after the "Tanker War" started. The US Navy got directly involved through Operation Praying Mantis. One of the highlights was Iran Air Flight 655.
Without our involvement, it's quite probable that Saddam would have lost that war.
The French gave sanctuary to Khomeini while he was in exile. If they hadnt he probably would have been killed somewhere. If he had, the Shah maybe never would have fallen. If the Shah were still in Iran then we maybe never would have had to fight to Gulf War.
So its France's fault.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 29, 2007, 12:57:52 PM
Even if we did "keep Saddam in power," that only makes this war an act of justice to the people of Iraq. We're correcting our alleged mistake. Aren't we? You could argue we're doing a lackluster job of it, but I think that's a different issue from whether we should be there or not.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 29, 2007, 01:05:32 PM
So if we assist one side or another in a war, we're then responsible for keeping a dictator in power? I don't see it that way.
Even if we did "keep Saddam in power," that only makes this war an act of justice to the people of Iraq. We're correcting our alleged mistake. Aren't we? You could argue we're doing a lackluster job of it, but I think that's a different issue from whether we should be there or not.
Even if we did "keep Saddam in power," that only makes this war an act of justice to the people of Iraq. We're correcting our alleged mistake. Aren't we? You could argue we're doing a lackluster job of it, but I think that's a different issue from whether we should be there or not.
And sometimes, meddling further only tangles up the knots you already had into more and more tangled ones, until you can't move.
The founding fathers DID warn about "going abroad looking for monsters to slay" as opposed to supporting the banner of freedom whenever it flew.
What we've done not only goes counter to what they said, but against the strategic knowledge of literally everyone from Julius Caesar to Sun Tzu. Noted military historians, including one whose works are read at the War College, are calling this the biggest strategic blunder of the past two thousand years!
Meanwhile, as our "legions" are off in foreign wars, our borders are being overrun by "barbarians". Now...Hm! Where did THAT happen before in history, and what was the result?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 29, 2007, 01:14:33 PM
Of course they were wrong.
And you must be misquoting the "noted historian" because no one could be that dumb.
Post by: RevDisk on January 29, 2007, 02:48:48 PM
Actually people said the Afghan War would be the biggest strategic blunder and would end up as a quagmire. They pointed to the Soviet Union and Britain before that.
Of course they were wrong.
And you must be misquoting the "noted historian" because no one could be that dumb.
Of course they were wrong.
And you must be misquoting the "noted historian" because no one could be that dumb.
It's not a quagmire, because outside of the capital city, we have little presense. We have circa 20k soldiers patrolling a country the size of Texas. Mostly warlords and drug dealers run the country.
Quote
So if we assist one side or another in a war, we're then responsible for keeping a dictator in power? I don't see it that way.
Even if we did "keep Saddam in power," that only makes this war an act of justice to the people of Iraq. We're correcting our alleged mistake. Aren't we? You could argue we're doing a lackluster job of it, but I think that's a different issue from whether we should be there or not.
Even if we did "keep Saddam in power," that only makes this war an act of justice to the people of Iraq. We're correcting our alleged mistake. Aren't we? You could argue we're doing a lackluster job of it, but I think that's a different issue from whether we should be there or not.
Depends on the assistence. If removing said assistence would more than likely cause said dictator to be overthrown, then yes, we are keeping said dictator in power. Seems relatively simple. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion on the matter.
Removing Saddam being an act of atonement. It's an opinion thing. To each their own.
I however wouldn't call arming Saddam an alleged mistake. Seeing as how we launched two wars against him within a span of just over a decade, I'd call it a serious mistake. Hopefully the US will take greater care in which murdering lunatics we fund or support in the future.
In other interesting news, the US raided an Iranian consolate in Irbil, Iraq. Interesting note, Irbil is in Iraqi Kurdistan. Various diplomatic material (computers and documents mostly) were confiscated. Six individuals were detained, dip status isn't quite clear. US is claiming it is not a consulate. Apparently the Iranian consulate there was set up last year under an agreement with the Kurdish regional government to facilitate cross-border visits. Iraqi and Iranian officials are claiming that it was an approved Iranian Liaison Office. Kurdish security forces secured the facility after US forces left.
US and Kurdish forces recently had a minor confrontation at Irbil Airport, that nearly resulted in a firefight. The Kurds are getting a bit touchy about US launching hostile activities in their region without notification.
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2007, 03:52:05 PM
Because the media tells us.
Why do we know that guns are bad?
Because the media tells us.
Now, you're gonna believe these clowns 100% on one thing, and 0% on the other?
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don't let CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, whatever, make up your mind for you.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 29, 2007, 05:29:51 PM
Why do we know the war in the middle east is bad?
Personally, I think it's more to do with 3000+ flag-draped coffins and a country that's a total splattered mess of a civil war and sectarian deathsquads and 2000-year-old tribalism flaring up with our troops caught in the middle. The Mission has changed every freaking month, and now it seems to mostly be "try not to run over an IED". I know a highly organized group disguised as Americans just killed a bunch of our guys. I know all those troops are in the middle of a sandbox where every house might contain a friendly, or someone who's going to pull out a rifle and nail them in the back when they walk away, or where a house they go to secure might have tripwires. Or where when they run to respond to a car bombing, the second one will go off right as they get there. Or where helicopters are now getting popped with missiles/RPGs or whatever and going down. Where there's many people who are willing to die to kill them, and that sort of mind CANNOT be reasoned with. Kamikaze, on a personal scale, could be any person on the street that has a bomb belt. I'd call that "hell", and wonder WHAT the hell we can really accomplish there.
I know THAT is real, no matter what the media says.
The military makes a lot of sacrifices so we can have our freedom, but I see this, now, as the military BEING sacrificed for sheer bullheaded stubborness and pride, so someone can have a "legacy".
How DO you "win" an occupation of a continually hostile country full of people who want to kill you? And is there any logical reason to stay in the middle of a civil war, rather than trying to stabilize by 1) moving bases to the north (Kurdistan), they kinda like us and don't try to kill us. Usually. and 2) only using patrols to secure the BORDERS to keep more insurgents and supplies from moving in? Bagdhad is going to fight. We can't stop that without at least a million boots on the ground, which isn't going to happen. So why not a NEW strategy?
Post by: Bogie on January 29, 2007, 11:18:46 PM
Yeah, I suppose. But a lot of those coffins were empty.
Oh, wait a minute. You're talking about our soldiers over there getting PAYBACK for the 3,000 coffins from the world trade centers.
Yeah, there's gonna be some bad... But I think that if we hadn't gone over there, we would have had a lot more _domestic_ folks to bury in "heroes" graves. The guys who are over there are true heroes - the ones in New York... Well, bad place, wrong time.
Their people, as a whole, want freedom. And we NEED an area in the middle east to operate from. Now, we can wait until the jihadists get their crap together to hit Manhattan during rush hour, or something like that, or we can see if we can bleed 'em out over there. You know how I feel about it.
Not all wars are bad. Some are needed. And some are overdue.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 30, 2007, 03:50:27 AM
Quote
Oh, wait a minute. You're talking about our soldiers over there getting PAYBACK for the 3,000 coffins from the world trade centers.
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It's 2007 and that's STILL not clear?
Osama bin Laden did, and he's still alive.
And laughing at us.
If someone sucker-punches you, do you consider it wise to let them get away, and instead turn around and punch someone unrelated standing in a crowd nearby because they're an easier target?
Quote
Their people, as a whole, want freedom.
No, they want tribalism, the same arrangement they've had and fought over for thousands of years. Iraq was, from the beginning, an outside-created jamming-together of three groups, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd that basically despised each other. This is NOT our culture, it is nothing like our culture.
You might as well try to herd cats.
Post by: richyoung on January 30, 2007, 04:33:18 AM
Quote
Oh, wait a minute. You're talking about our soldiers over there getting PAYBACK for the 3,000 coffins from the world trade centers.
IRAQ DID NOT DO 9/11. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. It's 2007 and that's STILL not clear?
BEFORE 9/11, Sadaam Hussein could imply, "Yeah, I've got chemical (which I've ALREADY used on Iran and my own people), and I'm getting nukes, and your next, Uncle Sam", and the U.S. as a country, could afford to be patient, and try sanctions (which were undercut by a corrupt U.N. and our good buddies France and Germany....). AFTER 9/11, its a whole new ball game, and ANY president who DIDN'T act on such a credible threat would not be doing his job. You really think Sadaam and his two pshocopath hellspawn WOULDN'T have provided terrorists with the means to nuke or slime a major U.S. city? In a New York minute...
Quote
Osama bin Laden did, and he's still alive.
For now. In a cave in Tora Bora. Until his kindeys finally give out.
Quote
And laughing at us.
From the number of associates of his that have been "terminated with extreme prejudice", I gather he is laughing by himself.
Quote
If someone sucker-punches you, do you consider it wise to let them get away, and instead turn around and punch someone unrelated standing in a crowd nearby because they're an easier target?
The time to kill the snake is while you've got the hoe in your hand.
Quote
Quote
Their people, as a whole, want freedom.
No, they want tribalism, the same arrangement they've had and fought over for thousands of years. Iraq was, from the beginning, an outside-created jamming-together of three groups, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd that basically despised each other. This is NOT our culture, it is nothing like our culture.
You might as well try to herd cats.
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2007, 04:51:27 AM
And if you think the war in Iraq distracted us from finding bin Laden? Please. Actually, it distracted the terrorists from whatever they might have been trying to do. I'm starting to think the Iraq invasion was a good idea just because it's not such an obvious move. It diverted terrorist energy into a quagmire that they're not winning either.
Post by: glockfan.45 on January 30, 2007, 04:55:08 AM
Quote
BEFORE 9/11, Sadaam Hussein could imply, "Yeah, I've got chemical (which I've ALREADY used on Iran and my own people), and I'm getting nukes, and your next, Uncle Sam".
When did Saddam threaten to nuke America? The Iraq War was the answer to a problem that didnt exist.
Quote
For now. In a cave in Tora Bora. Until his kindeys finally give out.
If our motive was to get revenge for 9/11 and prevent further terror attacks then I fail to see how letting the mastermind of the worst terror attack on U.S soil die of natural causes is mission accomplished
.Quote
The time to kill the snake is while you've got the hoe in your hand.
That time was in 91 during the first Gulf War.
Quote
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2007, 05:00:28 AM
Quote
If our motive was to get revenge for 9/11 and prevent further terror attacks then I fail to see how letting the mastermind of the worst terror attack on U.S soil die of natural causes is mission accomplished .
.Well, that's your problem. Revenge is not a proper motive for war, so your lack of foreign policy credibility is thus handily exposed. And "letting" bin Laden die of natural causes? As I recall, the debacle of letting bin Laden escape from Tora Bora occurred BEFORE the Iraq war. Again, killing bin Laden does not solve the problem of Islamic terrorism which preceded bin Laden.
I agree that we probably should have squashed Saddam in 91, but we'd have had the same problems then as now. And if I'm correctly informed, international support for that was not forthcoming. And that before Americans had 11 Sept to justify it. Imagine the howling at American soldiers dying to protect the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields.
Post by: LAK on January 30, 2007, 05:43:06 AM
Whether one cares for arab sentiment, religion or culture, the fact is that the "nations" or territory concerned belongs to them - unless we agree that we can take it by right of conquest. If those supporting all this idiocy feel that we can and should take it by right of conquest, let it be openly stated, and leave this false pretense of "spreading democracy" behind. "Democracy" is a terminal disease in any case, not something to be "spread" as desireable to begin with.
We might well conquer iraq with overwhelming military might, but with a collossal cost in terms of human life. And for what end? An open war with Iran will be a grave error - one that will likely lead to a major war in the whole region spreading into central asia. It is very likely, if not certain, that Iran has a large number of Russian type Moskit M3-82 - NATO codename Sunburn - anti-ship missiles. China has these as well.
We had a similar experience to that of the U.K. during the Falklands conflict with the Exocet missiles, when in 1987 the USS Stark was hit by two of them in the persian gulf (see link below). Sunburn is a far more advanced system, can carry a conventional or nuclear warhead, and is extremely difficult to shoot down with anything. So before we invite the destruction of a good portion of our naval fleet chasing the big London-Caspian prize - another troublesome nation with a euros currency reserve and spitting on the secular socialist government of the state of israel - perhaps we should be concerned with some pressing issues of our own.
http://navysite.de/ffg/FFG31.HTM
-------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 30, 2007, 06:21:18 AM
Manedwolf, realistically we cannot get OBL without a complete overhaul of Saudi Arabia for many reasons. It would be nice to score a psychological victory by making him stand trial, but in the long run success in Iraq is immeasurably more important. For all we know, OBL might already be dead, since dialysis patients do not last long even in perfect conditions. Catching somebody who might already be dead and buried in a hole someplace in the Pakistani mountains is a silly basis for the foreign policy of a superpower.
From the above perspectives, what the Dems and their liberals have been doing since the Iraq liberation simultaneous borders on the insane, the psychotic, the treasonous, the pathetic, and the hilarous. Looking at them, I can almost agree with LAK that democracy is a terminal disease. Almost.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2007, 06:28:26 AM
I heard something interesting on television the other day. (That's a shock, I know.) I believe they were talking to some Pakistani politico who said that any Muslim country that surrenders bin Laden is going to have some serious problems with the "Arab street." He's a hero to a lot of people. That's why "getting" Osama would be significant, but the fact that he eluded us for five years (so far) makes him that much more of a hero. If we caught him or killed him at this point, he would still have made a fool of us. And Iraq has nothing to do with that.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 30, 2007, 06:51:26 AM
Quote
It is very likely, if not certain, that Iran has a large number of Russian type Moskit M3-82 - NATO codename Sunburn - anti-ship missiles. China has these as well.
A Sunburn compared to an Exocet is like an F-16 compared to a Sopwith Camel. At the Mach 3 speed they come in at, at wave level, the current US CIWS equipment can't react quickly enough to stop them. That, and it's been estimated that if a Sunburn was launched from Iran, any of our ships in the Straits would have, at most, 20 seconds to respond before impact. 20 seconds. That's it.
And basic physics, a missile that hits that fast really doesn't even need a warhead...
Yes, we COULD lose cruisers, even a carrier if we get into it with Iran.
Post by: roo_ster on January 30, 2007, 09:11:54 AM
Hokay, I'll bite.
Does anybody on htis board really believe that if we strike Iran that we'd ONLY strike nuke installations?
I mean, just because every other military strike our flyboys in the AF & Navy have conducted since Vietnam has included SAM site suppression and suppression of other targets that could possibly harm our planes and ships, can we really expect our flyboys and squiddies to take anti-shipping missiles into account?
Give our planners some credit for knowing enemy conventional capabilities.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 30, 2007, 09:36:50 AM
Look at the SIZE of Iran.
Think of how hard it'd be to find everything, everywhere. They only have to miss seeing ONE, and one of our ships has 20 seconds...or less...to avoid being destroyed. These aren't scuds. They're fast, deadly, accurate, they perform evasive maneuvers as they close on their target, they perform a popup and hit down onto the deck and upper works of the target vessel, avoiding the heavier hull armor, and we've no idea how many of them Iran has. Picture what a massive metal object slamming into a ship at Mach 2.5-3 would do, even if the warhead didn't work.
And while the newer Raytheon SeaRAM can intercept them, it's not installed on most vessels. They still have the Phalanx system that they know quite well can't track and fire fast enough, it's been tested, and failed against this sort of fast-closing last-second-popup missile.
That's not even taking into account the possibility that the Exocets, of which they are suspected of having hundreds, thousands even, could be sent in hails to clog the Straits with burning, half-sunken commercial supertankers, basically turning off the oil tap from all nations that need to pass through there.
Sure, we'd 'win' in time, but...at what cost, in the lives of service personnel foremost, and economically if that sort of reprisal caused a worldwide oil panic?
Post by: richyoung on January 30, 2007, 10:56:50 AM
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
What percentage is "a buunch"? how do they break down vis-a-vis Kurd, Shi'ite and Shia? DFOrmer Bath party trying to dodge the hangman's noose? Who did the polling? Whats the margin of error? Even the US had Torries in the early days.
Post by: Bogie on January 30, 2007, 11:36:12 AM
What gets me are the folks who maintain that Hussein was a candidate for sainthood - why? Because the Republicans were in office when we went into the country. If the democrats had been in power, I think there is a fair likelihood that there woulda been nukes used - They don't seem to feel they have the restrictions that the Republicans do. As it was, we went into Afghanistan, where the fundamonkeys were in full force, and then we went after the biggest, strongest, most-sabre-rattlin' outfit in the area. And did it right this time.
For those of you who think that Hussein should still be in power - How many dead kurds are permissible? How many raped and tortured women? How many paid "martyrs" sent to the US to kills us are okay?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 30, 2007, 11:38:41 AM
Besides, slavery was legal in this country for decades, we can't point fingers.
Post by: Bogie on January 30, 2007, 12:23:06 PM
Or should we, ourselves, revert to the stone age, so as to appease those still in the stone age?
IMHO, if you're one of the people who maintains that we should not have removed Hussein from power, you are either ignorant of what went on under his reign, or you are aware of it, and condone it.
The former can be fixed, except for people who refuse to learn. I cannot deal with the latter.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 30, 2007, 12:26:57 PM
Screw their standards.
Or should we, ourselves, revert to the stone age, so as to appease those still in the stone age?
Or should we, ourselves, revert to the stone age, so as to appease those still in the stone age?
That sounds fair, and fairness is what's most important, not "justice" or "morality" or any of that other biased stuff.
Quote
IMHO, if you're one of the people who maintains that we should not have removed Hussein from power, you are either ignorant of what went on under his reign, or you are aware of it, and condone it.
The former can be fixed, except for people who refuse to learn. I cannot deal with the latter.
The former can be fixed, except for people who refuse to learn. I cannot deal with the latter.
Now you're being judgemental again...
Post by: Manedwolf on January 30, 2007, 12:28:39 PM
Sort of like two equal weights on a see-saw. If you knock one off, the other is now free to rise. You either have enough resources to knock them both off at the same time, maintaining balance, or you wisely leave them be.
Even GHWB knew better. Said so in his book.
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 30, 2007, 01:46:18 PM
Not that the idea wasn't without merit.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 30, 2007, 01:51:05 PM
When Hussein did that, we DID intervene and smack him down, when he tried to take Kuwait. Before and after that, though, yes, the "balance of interfering enemies" did apply.
Post by: RevDisk on January 30, 2007, 04:12:29 PM
What gets me are the folks who maintain that Hussein was a candidate for sainthood - why? Because the Republicans were in office when we went into the country. If the democrats had been in power, I think there is a fair likelihood that there woulda been nukes used - They don't seem to feel they have the restrictions that the Republicans do. As it was, we went into Afghanistan, where the fundamonkeys were in full force, and then we went after the biggest, strongest, most-sabre-rattlin' outfit in the area. And did it right this time.
Yea... Because modern Democrats are definitely advocates of first strike policies.
The biggest, strongest, most-sabre-rattlin' outfit in the area was either Iran or NK. But they had decent militaries, and we haven't done so well against them in the past. So we went after an easy target. Someone that was undeniable evil, but didn't have much strength left.
Quote
For those of you who think that Hussein should still be in power - How many dead kurds are permissible? How many raped and tortured women? How many paid "martyrs" sent to the US to kills us are okay?
Some of us don't think the US should be the world's policemen. There are many evil dictators around the globe. Some are on our payroll, some ain't.
If the US gave a damn about the Kurds, we would have given them Kurdistan. We haven't, and we won't. We alternated between helping them out and selling them out. We helped them out with Operation Provide Comfort, and limited support at other times. We sold them out to Saddam after the Gulf War, and then again when we did nothing to stop the Turkish attacks into Iraqi Kurdistan.
And as for paid martyrs, what are you talking about? Aside from a couple very incompetent intelligence agents, Iraq didn't launch any operations inside the US. Closest was a half-ass assassination attempt against the first President Bush in Kuwait, with strong circumstantial evidence Iraq was behind the attempt.
Quote
Manedwolf, that sounds a lot like the arguments made in the early 1940's about not declaring war on Germany, but rather letting the Germans fight the Russians, and then go after the winner.
Not that the idea wasn't without merit.
Not that the idea wasn't without merit.
Seeing as how Hitler killed well over 6 million people, and the USSR killed somewhere between 20 and 60 million people, I'm failing to see any lack of merit.
Quote
IMHO, if you're one of the people who maintains that we should not have removed Hussein from power, you are either ignorant of what went on under his reign, or you are aware of it, and condone it.
The former can be fixed, except for people who refuse to learn. I cannot deal with the latter.
The former can be fixed, except for people who refuse to learn. I cannot deal with the latter.
Sigh. "You are with us, or for the terrorists!" "Black or white, grey does not exist!" "Peanut butter, or jelly! Never both!"
Some folks did not like Hussein, and also don't believe the US should try to be the world's policeman. Believe it or not, usually more than two choices exist. I personally thought that Saddam was an evil dictator who needed to be overthrown. By his own people. And that the people of Iraq must decide their own future.
I quoted my counterinsurgency instructor before. I still believe his quote to be accurate.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 30, 2007, 04:18:48 PM
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 30, 2007, 07:53:59 PM
No, after the invasion of Poland, the US still didn't intervene. (Of course, FDR was goading Hitler by sending munitions to Britain under ships flying the US flag).
RevDisk: "Seeing as how Hitler killed well over 6 million people, and the USSR killed somewhere between 20 and 60 million people, I'm failing to see any lack of merit."
I'm not arguing any sort of "relative" merit. There's little relativity between murdering six million over the period of seven or so years, or murdering 20 to 60 million over decades.
I was only mentioning the point that many prominent leaders at that time--including Truman--advocate we let the Nazi's and the Soviets fight it out, and then declare war on the victor.
From the standpoint of defending the defenseless, that sort of isolationism was a terrible idea. Let it be noted, though, that the Allies did almost nothing to free the prisoners in the concentration camps. Allied planes flew over Auschwitz every single day to bomb some second-rate munitions factory, and never once heeded the advice of the members of the Jewish underground to bomb Auschwitz.
From a purely strategic point of view, the let-the-Germans-fight-the-Russians argument made sense then, and still does today. The only fly in the ointment was Great Britain. While the Nazi's couldn't have successfully launched a ground invasion and captured Britain, the V-2's could have decimated the large cities in Britain, while the German forces concentrated their troops on Russia.
It's easy to be an armchair general with 20/20 hindsight, isn't it?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2007, 04:12:01 AM
Manedwolf, you continue living in the past. We cannot replay the Cold War for several compelling reasons, e.g. bastards sit on the oil we need, they won't let us cordone them off, they are less politically stable than the Soviets, they have a vicious religion to deal with, the cultural differences are far larger than with the Soviets. So we cannot just box off and forget them. Also, you continue arguing against entry in Iraq. We already are in Iraq, so half of your position is essentially a moot belated point. It only hurts 'cause it's true.
I actually agree with quite a bit of that, but the thing is...our military is just not big enough to handle it all, not unless we literally were to wipe out everyone in the immediate area and resettle it. All we can do...and have done...is fight little fights that end up just tangling things further. Especially when our "allies" turn on us, as they always do in the region. Bin Laden was Mujahadeen, all of that.
The "big picture" I see is that what gave them all that power is...oil, and the money that came in like a sea with that in the 20th century. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, I think they would have reverted to a few centuries of camel-jockeying and tribal fighting with antique weapons that didn't bother anyone else outside....but for the oil.
Oil has funded the power of absolutely unreasonable people, funded their rise and influence in the world, because, as a simple fact of life now, we NEED the oil that's under their sand to continue the civilization we've built.
A decade ago, the answer might have been a bit easier...that there should be nuclear reactors all OVER the US, along with coal-to-oil technology. We have centuries of coal left in the US, and bringing back that industry would allow private companies to totally revitalize the economy of the former coalmining regions. Pulling the rug out from under the middle east's only commodity would let them sink back into unfunded tribal warfare without the assets to continue to threaten anyone outside. They don't traditionally have stable forms of government, they tend to have backstabbing, primitive theocracies or dictatorships with coups always waiting in the wings. They'd not last long without the billions pouring in every day.
Now, it's not so easy, because we're not the only customer. China's meteoric industrial and economic rise is buying more and more oil from them every day as cars replace bicycles. India is buying lots more as well. So even if we said "We don't need any of your oil", they'd still have enough revenue from other customers to continue the status quo, still be rolling in money.
So what do we do? There really is no easy answer, I think. No, we can't nuke upwards of a billion or more people. We can surgically eliminate the unreasonable and fanatical leaders as they appear, but we're not really doing that. The failure to eliminate bin Laden, which would have been ACCEPTED there as "an eye for an eye" was likely seen as weakness on our part. Now, instead of being a pariah, he's praised. He's a symbol. Instead, we got into a quagmire that, to me, in terms of knocking down Islamic extremism, was rather like fighting a fire with a spray of gasoline. All we did was inflame them, cause more and more people to become recruits, and in the long run, make it all worse for ourselves.
What's the long-term answer? I don't know. Islamic extremists are one of the most profound dangers to the continuance of civilization that the world has ever seen. But what we've done so far with Iraq seems to have taken a bad situation and made it worse.
And continues to do so.
Post by: LAK on January 31, 2007, 07:58:51 AM
Quote
LAK, open conquest is not politically possible unless we first get rid of liberals at home and then nuke half of ME. By contrast, establishing a secular "democracy" in the middle of the region is far less costly politically, especially if handled competently. It also may open the door to modernization of the entire region, with a concomitant progressively waning power of the religious nutjobs and stabilization of the oil supply. All of these would be beneficial developments at minimal cost. The problem is even this modest cost is too much for many libearls at home, who are too intellectually lazy or self-deluded to see the world in a pragmatic perspective.
The liberals? Who are they? As I see it they occupy the WH and almost the entire U S Congress.Iraq was in the process of a thorough modernization during the 1970s. It amazes me that the myths of life in general, education and culture iraq under Hussein still exist.
The notion that iraq is going to become some beacon to be desired by the rest of central asia is plain foolish. For our gov to be foisting that bs on an educated western populace in the light of the history of the region going back to WW1 is perhaps a better indicator of just how uneducated many of us are.
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 31, 2007, 08:20:54 AM
Quote from: LAK
The liberals? Who are they? As I see it they occupy the WH and almost the entire U S Congress.
Yes, start with most Dems in congress, plus some neo-con closet-leftists, plus NAU supporters. They need to be gone, together with the PACs that fund them.
Quote
The notion that iraq is going to become some beacon to be desired by the rest of central asia is plain foolish. For our gov to be foisting that bs on an educated western populace in the light of the history of the region going back to WW1 is perhaps a better indicator of just how uneducated many of us are.
So, you believe that tribalism will always win and these people will forever remain crazy-sand-monkeys hellbent on killing one another, ad infinitum. The same argument could have been made in early 1800s about Europeans and again in early 1900s about Europeans. A century later, war in Europe is unthinkable and they are rapidly integrating in EU. Therefore, tribalism will not win forever. The problem is, we cannot let them smash one another for the next 100 years and figure it out on their own, because our civilization needs the oil under their very feet and our economy cannot tolerate shocks in oil supply. Thus we are forced to put them through a crash course in modernization of political thinking. It is a rough deal but the alternative is far worse for everybody.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2007, 08:30:14 AM
Quote
A century later, war in Europe is unthinkable and they are rapidly integrating in EU. Therefore, tribalism will not win forever.
Ironically, though, their integration and willingness to declaw themselves is what's allowing the Islamist extremists to overrun their culture. They're tolerating intolerance. That's going to end badly.
Post by: LAK on February 01, 2007, 09:43:47 AM
Quote
So, you believe that tribalism will always win and these people will forever remain crazy-sand-monkeys hellbent on killing one another, ad infinitum. The same argument could have been made in early 1800s about Europeans and again in early 1900s about Europeans. A century later, war in Europe is unthinkable and they are rapidly integrating in EU. Therefore, tribalism will not win forever.
To say that war in europa is unthinkable is very naive, or reflects a simple lack of general knowledge. Rapid EU integration has been underway since the 1960s, the fact that more countries from the former east bloc are being drawn in now does represent some kind of new beginning.As Manedwolf points out, in other words, the attempted homogenization in europe is not going to work. Just as it will not work here down the road either. It is only a decade ago that there was major conflict in the balkans, and it has never gone completely away.
What you are in essence suggesting is that the pipedream called "peace and security in every land" is going to someday become a reality via the current process and agenda. Not going to happen.
It is not tribalism that is the problem, it is culture and religion. And rightly so. Attempting to homogenize conflicting or significantly different cultures, religions and even language is a nonstarter - a dead horse.
Quote
The problem is, we cannot let them smash one another for the next 100 years and figure it out on their own, because our civilization needs the oil under their very feet and our economy cannot tolerate shocks in oil supply. Thus we are forced to put them through a crash course in modernization of political thinking. It is a rough deal but the alternative is far worse for everybody.
We have oil - we do not need theirs. Before we give anyone crash courses in anything involving acts of war; destroying infrastructures, and leaving the majority of their population wide open to murder, rape, torture and robbery for years on end, we need to give the people blocking our independence, culture and wealth as a nation here at home a lesson in dealing with political subversion and ideologies hostile to our ideology, constitution and system of government as a constitutional republic. And stop using those people as an excuse to trample roughshod over those beyond our borders.
---------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 01, 2007, 10:06:23 AM
Quote
Quote
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
I for one in my own on the scene observations have not seen a bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out. Unless you have had the chance to view the situation first hand and not through the eyes of a television camera you wouldn't know that. Most of the Iraqis screaming for us to leave are in the minority and most of the insurgancy is either from Iran and/or funded by Iran. In my opinion any attack on Iran would be justified since they are a supporting cast member in this conflict.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 01, 2007, 11:14:39 AM
In my opinion any attack on Iran would be justified since they are a supporting cast member in this conflict.
Not that we needed any more reasons.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2007, 11:30:56 AM
Quote from: Manedwolf
Ironically, though, their integration and willingness to declaw themselves is what's allowing the Islamist extremists to overrun their culture. They're tolerating intolerance. That's going to end badly.
Governments grab more power and exert more control when they have the pretext to do so. I suspect there are far more conservative and hard-knuckled entities that lay in wait in the curtains and will spring to action at the proper moment. Observe what the Brits are doing and what even the French were ready to do during the Parisifada. Writing off Europe so easily is questionable. When problems appear, governments solve them or are replaced with governments who will. Lots of people wrote off Russia in 1917, Germany in 1918, Britain in 1940, Russia in 1941, Germany in 1945, Russia in 1985 etc.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2007, 11:37:29 AM
Quote from: LAK
We have oil - we do not need theirs.
Check some numbers. We import more than half of the oil we consume. Even if we drill the whole of Alaska and the Florida and California coast, we still cannot get enough replacement fast enough. Even if we start moving in that direction today, it will be years before any significant difference will be achieved. Meanwhile, Europe, China, and India will be happy to grab what we "save" at great economic and ecological cost to ourselves.
Post by: wmenorr67 on February 01, 2007, 12:22:18 PM
Post by: richyoung on February 01, 2007, 12:22:46 PM
Quote
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
Ohter than former Ba'athists and assorted syrian and iranian troublemakers, where is this "bunch' of whom you speak? Because the peple I know who are THERE, as opposed to getting their view of the conflict from the Communist News Network (CNN), don't see them...
Post by: LAK on February 05, 2007, 05:19:18 AM
Quote
Check some numbers. We import more than half of the oil we consume. Even if we drill the whole of Alaska and the Florida and California coast, we still cannot get enough replacement fast enough. Even if we start moving in that direction today, it will be years before any significant difference will be achieved. Meanwhile, Europe, China, and India will be happy to grab what we "save" at great economic and ecological cost to ourselves.
Check some geological history; there are plenty of proven reserves in and all around this country. We have capped wellheads on enormous fields - like off of Gull Island, Alaska - which are operable at artesian pressure. The only reason we are dependent on foreign oil is because we have a controlling faction in Washington that want to keep us that way. The fact is, we do not import a great deal of oil from the mid east, and it is not a significant portion of american companies that operate the fields there, or the fleets that transport it.
Some people have been using the popular excuse that it "would take years" to tap our own oil resources for decades. But that excuse has and does not seem to be stopping the opening of new operations all over he rest of the world, pipelines to carry it across africa, afghanistan or anywhere else in central asia.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 10, 2007, 02:56:37 PM
I cannot say exactly what (if anything) is going on in the heads of those in power behind the curtains. But I ask myself the following questions:
1) Is it better to borrow or lend money in the eve of the end-of-oil shock?
2) Is it better to drill and use one's own reserves or pay with borrowed money for the reserves of others?
3) Is it better to have a strong presence in Oil Central and keep one's heel at OPEC's throat, or not?
4) Is it better to be buddies with the Saudi gov, or not?
5) Is it better to split EU on Iraq and ME policy, or not?
6) Is it better to have Dick or Hillary in charge?
Post by: LAK on February 10, 2007, 03:11:48 PM
The EU - like the U.N. - has a political system and ideology which is hostile to the United States. We are going to have to fight those people, sooner or later, or join them wholesale. WE really have no need at all for the Saudis - we have oil, currently buy it from others anyway, and there is no shortage of sand on the beaches here that I know of.
I'd rather have Hillary "in charge". The pres afterall is not actually in charge of very much - the real seat of power in this country is the Congress. At least with Hillary in the limelight, many conservatives would be alittle more aggressive in their attention to the importance of detail and minutae of federal legislation who otherwise would not be.
--------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: RevDisk on February 11, 2007, 04:26:41 PM
Quote
A bunch of purple thumbs says you're wrong....
A bunch of Iraqis screaming for us to get out says your wrong.
Ohter than former Ba'athists and assorted syrian and iranian troublemakers, where is this "bunch' of whom you speak? Because the peple I know who are THERE, as opposed to getting their view of the conflict from the Communist News Network (CNN), don't see them...
The people you know who are in Iraq are unaware of the Jaish al Mahdi (Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army)? I highly doubt that. Very few of my former coworkers working in or near Sadr city are not aware of them.
If you watched the video of Saddam's execution, the folks in charge of said execution were shouting ""long live Muqtada al-Sadr". On a side note, it was probably not a wise idea to schedule the execution during Eid Al Adha. There are plenty of militias on both sides, Sunni and *expletive deleted*it, that are fighting each other and US forces. Thankfully, they very often seem more determined to kill each other than US forces. I wouldn't say they're quite committing ethnic cleansing yet, compared to what happened in the Balkans, Rwanda, etc. But that could change.
There is a huge difference between former Ba'athist party and the current Sunni militias. While many former Ba'ath party members are now integrated into Sunni militias, they now have a very different priority. The Ba'ath party was a secular Arab nationalist political party. Officials like to assign former Ba'athists as the core of the insurgency, but it's quickly becoming less Ba'athist and more Sunni.
As far as we'll publically acknowledge, Syria is mainly supplying Sunni insurgents and Iran is mainly supply *expletive deleted*it insurgents. They are not directly involving their own people on a large scale, prefering to use indigenous Iraqis as their proxies. More deniability.