Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, Mar 23, 2008.
Get lucky once in a while ... that site is good ... mostly opinions of others. Sometimes they are too technical to post ... rather mundane very issue specific boring stuff ... other times there are some good articles. Because they are others opinions they make for good discussions.
Not sure I understand or have ever seen the term rational war.. rational implies that it was thought out and planned, rather than reacting to stimulation that is a threat to America.. IMO war can never be rational..
The comments about Libya having nukes is pure speculation, and not based on anything except I think it might happen.
Also find it interesting that this author, raises the whole reason we are there is for the oil on three separate occasions.. usually that is a contested point by the right, as they claim we are there to help the oppressed Iraqi people, destroy WMD's and to stop a brutal dictator.. if it is admitted to be about protecting our oil supplies that is interesting, but not a very good reason to go to war, destroy a country and hundreds of thousands killed in collateral damage. Remember the slogan, "How did our oil get under your sand??"..
What are you talking about??? LIbya publicly admitted to have a nuke program and allowed the UN to collect the eq in the wake of the Iraq invasion. You were unaware of that????
The big shock was that no one knew they had the program and how far along it was.
You think that 10th-grade essay was good? Sure, it's good if you're a cheerleader and have already drunk the White House Kool-Aid to your heart's content.
Where do I begin? How about the first "fact"....:rofl:
Fact 1. We were attacked on 9/11/01, and it was not a one-time threat.
Fact 2. Nuclear weapons are spreading.
Nuclear weapons are spreading because we allow it to happen. Now we have no choice but to allow it because no one will listen to us when we pretend to be friendly. And who are we to say that Israel can have nukes but Syria cannot? Thatâ€™s idiotic.
Fact 3. Europe, the United States, China, India, Japan are utterly dependent on a free flow of Middle Eastern oil at market prices
Only because we are utterly dependent on oil to begin with. There is no effort on the US governmentâ€™s part to reduce demand or develop new renewable energy sources. In fact the reverse is occurring, with fuel efficiency standards becoming stagnant and official resistance to funding large research projects aimed at new source development.
China needs oil? Europe? Japan? Why donâ€™t they go get it? Why pretend the welfare of anyone other than US oil Corps is important? As we approach the end of oil, we will be at war with one or all of these countries if we havenâ€™t freed ourselves of the addiction to oil.
Fact 4. In the real world --- not the wishful world of pundits --- you don't know the future
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!
Question: Why not just stay and fix Afghanistan?
The Democrats think that's a brilliant strategy, which should make all of us very suspicious. Well, here are three reasons why Afghanistan was not enough:
Suspicious of what?
a. Afghanistan has never been a modern state, with real control over its countryside. It's a coalition of tribes and warlords.
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!
b. Al Qaida is a quicksilver enemy, flowing from place to place.
Brilliant! I was not aware of that! Wow!
c. How do you catch Al Qaida and its ilk, given that they were (and are) constantly threatening to pull another 9/11?
What has that got to do with catching and killing Al Quida? OK, so they threaten to pull another 9/11, so that means whatâ€¦we stop trying to find them and kill them?
d. Iraq was that trap. That is why Afghanistan was not enough. Iraq was already targeted by 16 UN Security Council resolutions, the international stage was set, and the Bush Administration seized that opportunity. Was it opportunistic? Where there any other alternatives? Yes on the first, No on the second
Who says there werenâ€™t alternatives? How about this one? Invade Afghanistan and western Pakistan, seal the perimeter, and either starve them out or firebomb and nuke the living hell out of them until they are all dead.
So the liberal story is that the Iraq War was all a big blooper, Bush's Folly.
Well, look at the consequences of believing that.
1. Saddam would still be in power, and we would still not know if he had nukes.
So what? We donâ€™t know for sure if Argentina or Brazil has nukes. Why donâ€™t we invade them, too?
2. Al Qaida would not have been trapped in a killing field, after 9/11.
Al Quida is not â€śtrapped in a killing fieldâ€ť. They are still growing and recruiting. Bin Ladin is still at large. REMEMBER BIN LADIN? Funny how his name is not mentioned.
3. Lybia would have had nukes, or very close to it, and be ready to spread it around.
Who says? What a load of crap. As if we wouldnâ€™t have been able to deal with Libya. OOOOOOH! SCARY!
4. Iran would not be surrounded by American-dominated countries.
Look at a map, fool! Turkmenistan and Pakistan? KofSA? Dominated by US? Azerbijan? Russia? China, and India are one country away.
5. In terms of human rights, 50 million victims of Saddam and the Taliban would still be oppressed.
They were before 9/11, too. Mostly because we supported them and Bin Ladin for kicking out the Russians. Somehow we were outraged by the Russians there, but us being in Iraq is different. Makes sense to me!
6. The oil supply would be at risk from both Saddam, Iran, and Al Qaeda (which has threatened terror bombings against it).
And as we all know, we now control the supply of oilâ€¦not OPEC
7. The United States would look like a gutless paper tiger, afraid of risking lives, just as Bin Laden said. UBL is right about Europe, and he is right about the American Left. They really are paper tigers, like Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter? You mean Ronald Reagan, rightâ€¦you know, the guy who â€ścut-and-ran from Beirut? What an idiotic pair of sentences! Afraid of risking whose lives? The old men in Congress and the White House? Your life? So Bin Ladin says weâ€™re afraid and we have to go and prove to him that weâ€™re not. Isnâ€™t that for high-school jocks?
The Bottom Line: The Bush Administration took a rational geostrategic action. It was as painful as any war. Wonderful young people were lost. It was terrible.
As painful as any war? Has this moron ever read a book about WWII or Viet Nam? Jeeziz! The war between the Hutus and Tutsies was worse!
The alternative would have led to more warfare, as countries like China began to actively defend their oil supplies. It would have made us more vulnerable to Al Qaida and all its hundreds of would-be Al Qaida imitators across the Muslim world. It would have put A'jad's sword at our throats --- more even than it is now.
More groundless speculation! A great basis to send our best kids off to die. Not only are there more Al Quida, but thereâ€™s AQ imitators, too! Lions and tigers and bearsâ€¦.OH MY!
Were mistakes made? Are human beings flawed and imperfect? Could we have run it better if we'd only known what we think we know today? Yes, and yes, and yes
Hey Whista you fancy yourself a Libetarian. Are you aware where a government has developed a new source of energy and directed the market successfully?
Not in the US. It's being done now in China with the construction of mega-dams and nuclear plants. Iceland is going to be energy self-sufficient by 2015 using geothermal and hydrogen. It can happen.
The US has done great things in the past, like mobilizing for WWII and the Apollo project. I'm a Libertarian, but I don't agree with every single party plank. I tend to think for myself. I don't believe everything I'm told, but the Libertarian Party most closely reflects my philosophy of small government except in certain cases where it's needed. Roads and ports are built by the government, but some ultra hard-core Libertarians don't even want the gov't to do that much. When it comes to national security, and I think the end of oil is that, the government must at least enable the process of innovation and new technology development to exist.
The Chi coms are building tons of coal fired plants and if you look at their record with pollution not sure it would fit any definition of successful, Iceland valid point but a tiny country with limited power needs and a unique situation with the ant of availiable Geo thermal.
I hear you. The Chinese are about 80 years behind us developmentally. I remember when Nixon went there and the roads had traffic jams of bicycles! Now it's cars. The Chinese will figure out their own situation. They have never gone warlike looking for resources. They'll pay for it somehow, with either cash or environmental destruction. We won't see the result in our lifetime, though.
...I love Iceland. Bad example, though. They are a totally homogenous society with nearly unlimited energy sources. They are also very proud and highly educated. Great looking women, too (back in my single days, that was important)
Just so you know, "the US harvests more electricity from the Earth's natural heat than any other nation", according to the March issue of Popular Science.
It's just not enough, in the scheme of things. But it's getting better. There's new research going on showing how lower temperature water can be used, at least in cooler climates, making it feasible for use during the winter months around here.
First: Iceland is one of the places I really want to go. Too bad I've got too many responsibilities here to go anywhere.
Second: one of the bigger fears is that China, having grown so dependent on "energy" would in fact resort to force to protect it's energy interests, whatever and where ever.
I've seen this discussed in several different places in the past year or so, and no, I'm sorry I can't remember where right now.
It's all conjecture base on nothing. There is no instance of Chinese foreign adventuring in the 20th or 21st century. You can't make policy based on a bunch of guys sitting around a table shootin the sh!t.
And yes...Iceland is a great place to visit, but they don't want foreigners moving there. Best tracking trrain in the world. Best drinkers in the world. They love to fight, too.
You can't base what a country might do in the future based on it's past, either. The Chinese never needed to feed such a large appetite before.
Not thinking about it seems to be short-sighted, but that's my own opinion of course.
True, but just do act on baseless assumptions. Think about it all you want. I think there's more important (not bigger) fish to fry.
Separate names with a comma.