| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Feel free to start a new thread on my religious beliefs (which I will certainly be a part of), but please do not interrupt the flow of this thread by bringing in irrelevant information. "
Yes please.
This is an adult conversation thread. The kiddies slanging off thread is over there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
| What I think that most of you are forgetting is that Muslims remain a threat to our societies. They take the piss out of our free speech to talk about how they want to implement their own laws that say that women should be covered and should not be able to go to school. Look at the middle east people! It is a $hithole! |
Okay. What in your opinion are Middle East countries? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| poet13 wrote: |
| Do you think it's kind of ironic that the US supplies a weapons poor country with arms, and then gets involved in a conflict where Americans are killed by those same arms? |
It happens. Life's not perfect. Countries sometimes give other countries arms and then the weapons are used by the enemy - that's not new. Common sense...sometimes our friends become our enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bjonothan wrote: |
| I find it hard to see how this is real relevant to why the US should keep fighting insurgents or not. |
Yeah. What was our original plan? Eradicate the Taliban> Okay. And our mission in Iraq? What was the original mission in Iraq? It's not clear. Why are we wasting our time fighting a never-ending stream of rebels? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| poet13 wrote: |
| You're arguing cause and effect. Which came first? Insurgents or the US? Maybe if the US wasn't so intent on meddling in the affairs of countries and cultures halfway around the world, things would be different. |
I agree, to some extent, we've lost control. It's a left over reaction from the World Wars - "war shock" as if everything can be solved by war. BUT then the USA was attacked. So what should be expected? It's like picking out the biggest guy in the bar and punching him in the face. What do people expect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| antoniothegreat wrote: |
| anyone that took an international relations class can tell you foreign policy in the Cold War and after the Cold War are a bit different. |
International Relations is an economic joke. Universities realized it was much more profitable to have people reiterate recent history than to actual study and create original ideas in Social Anthropology.
Most students end up talking about things related to modern war and have zero knowlege and/or interest of human behaviour.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lastat06513 wrote: |
| As for leaving without a solution- honestly, why not carpet bomb every city in Iraq, nuke both Damascus and Tehran and the Baluch mountains in Pakistan (possibly leveling several mountains [yes, nuclear weapons have the capacity to do that now]) after we pull out every last soldier from the country. |
Yes, I agree, If we can't do that then why send people in? Is it a war or not? Why play games? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hairy sue

Joined: 18 May 2006 Location: weewee heaven
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lastat06513 wrote: |
Anyway, back on track.......
I DID support the war, but not without questions;
1. Why was the invasion done with an inadequate number of troops? |
It's not a war! The USA is fighting nature. It's not a war! It's policy! You can't win a war if soldiers are punished for killing the enemy. What's the enemy! Who's the enemy?
If you can't kill everyone than don't go to war! That's not war! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003 Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SPINOZA- I supported the war not because I thought they had WMDs, I supported it because I thought it was "the American thing to do..."
I had friends in ARCENT, CENTCOM, SPECOPS- South, CIA, and NSA that were sent on missions prior to the war and found some credible crap that might have been contrary to what was said in the news and when my best friend from high school went over there with the "New Haven Greys" during the initial invasion, I wasn't going to let him down, especially since I was a vet at the time.
Now I am going to intertwine my answer with what Hairy Sue stated; This conflict is becoming unwinnable because there too many restrictions, placed on them by congress, by the news, by the UCMJ, and by the Geneva and Hague conventions that we have to follow, but those f^cn' insurgents DON'T have to (IE, beheadings, summary and indescriminatory executions based on religion, bombing of civilian places of gathering to create terror, use of religious structures as places to conduct assaults from-- all deemed illegal in the "rules of war")
Everytime the insurgents do something, it makes headlines and fades away, everytime the US does something bad (IE, Haditha) it is deemed a criminal act.
War is hell, I know it doesn't mean unleashing "the hounds of hell" or the "four horsemen of the apocolypse", but if atrocities are committed by either side, it should be prosecuted equally to both sides, no matter who wins or loses....
Hairy Sue--- A war would need to be ratified by both houses of congress, the only word that can be officially used is "The Iraq Conflict", not "The Iraq War". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
postfundie

Joined: 28 May 2004
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| . Why was the invasion done with an inadequate number of troops |
I fault the Bush administration for not having a good exit strategy....should have been better planning...I do wonder though how there EVER could have been great planning while having to spend all your energies on convincing people that Saddam should have been removed..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lastat06513
Joined: 18 Mar 2003 Location: Sensus amo Caesar , etiamnunc victus amo uni plebian
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He should've done what Reagan did with Granada and what the first Bush did with Panama- Do first, talk later.
By the time the deed was done, nothing could be done EXCEPT condemn it, but by that time, people could be lining up for a piece of the spoils.
Bush is and always will be an UNEDUCATED monkey~~~
DOES ANYONE HAVE THAT PICTURE WHERE BUSH SLOWLY TRANSFORMS INTO A CHIMP?
THIS WOULD THE BEST PLACE TO PASTE IT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cerebroden

Joined: 27 Dec 2006
|
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| postfundie wrote: |
| Quote: |
| . Why was the invasion done with an inadequate number of troops |
I fault the Bush administration for not having a good exit strategy....should have been better planning...I do wonder though how there EVER could have been great planning while having to spend all your energies on convincing people that Saddam should have been removed..... |
umm...how about faulting U.S. commanders who made general after 30 years of never going to war and not having a clue about what they actually needed? Or is it just easier for you to blame it on the big boss after his subordinates told him what they needed and he gave it to them.
oh and I've ot degrees in International Relations and Economics and I took my fair share of anthropology courses to get them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|