+- CDBZ Archive (http://alex.zulenka.com)
+-- Forum: Out of Character Forums (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: The Legendary Asylum (http://alex.zulenka.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=133)
+--- Thread: Today... (/showthread.php?tid=42067)
Today... - Pink Underoo - 07-07-2008
Minoshia Wrote:First of all i am not harping on the invasion. because obviously, we invaded. i'm saying the war that we are fighting right now in Iraq, the attempt to reconstruct that country through training the Iraqi security forces and suppressing the insurgency is a complete and utter failure. The main point of my last post was that every single person alive knew they didn't have WMD's, and our government used it as an excuse to invade Iraq to pressure Iran. If you were paying attention, Iran's military might being more impressive and organized than Iraq (which is simply a fact) was only a fraction to my reasoning on why we went into Iraq to pressure Iran rather than just invading Iran. (btw, funding for special operations in Iran has increased heftily recently- im dissapointed my ISP is acting up, i assure you when i leave my step fathers house i will provide the links, - which is also known as "laying the battlefield" which only further justifies my point that Iraq was only a stepping stone towards Iran.) My main reason was that the american public were more likely to accept a war with Iraq than Iran, due to the public image of Suddam being a dominant force in the last two decades of American history.Iran's relationship with the US has been worse than Iraq and Iran is a much bigger factor in funding and supporting Islamic radicalism across the region, and those are common facts, so if there's any truth in the claim that the public perceives Saddam's regime as being worse than the Iranian regime then it's due to willful ignorance. I also take umbrage with the idea that "everybody" knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq: when the Congress gave Bush the clearance to take action, there was no great outcry against it.
The Iraqi security force is a joke, and while it is developing it is going way to slow and taking way to long. That is a failure in it of itself. The situation in Iraq wouldn't of had to be resolved if we hadn't of fucked it to shit in the first place. You can not deny that how we handled this has been a complete and utter failure, and the only reason why people are saying we are making progress is that we've gone from like a 0 rating to like a 1.2 rating. Yay for progress, it's still a fucking failure, it still isn't enough. Going from a complete failure a failure that is getting slightly less of a failure may be slight progress, but its still a failure and a clusterfuck and the chances of saving it are getting slimmer and slimmer by the day. You cannot, CANNOT, continue a foreign operation without public support, without international support, without support across party lines (even a little). This war is draining the life out of America, it's people, it's politics, and ultimately it's economy.
My grade in Math went from a 7% to a 9% and has been hovering around 9% for three years with slight increases and decreases. Hooray for progress, i'm still a failure!!
I will agree that the ISF is poor, but that's the way it goes. The Bush administration is to blame for being misleading about the development of military and policing forces that's caused unrealistic expectations. However, with the successes obtained from the surge public opinion over Iraq is beginning to turn: while most Americans think like you do, still the vast majority would still vote for someone even if their policy on Iraq differed from their own. As for the cost of the Iraq war, it's affecting the lives of about 1% of the population who are all volunteers, and annual funding for both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is about 5% of total spending at the federal level. What's actually causing the US' woes are insufficient energy production and epic entitlement spending.
Bra Wrote:You can pretend the States went to Iraq to play the 'good guy' all you want.Historically, Jordan is par for the course. What we're doing in Iraq is part of a larger campaign, and is actually one of the best actions the US has ever done. Either your view of history is too romanticized or your view of modern events is too narrow - a few pages ago I think I was talking about how most people lack the ability to comprehend current events because they lack the foresight to see the end and its after-effects from the safety of a future era which would help put the event into an objective context.
They went there to save the people from Saddam.
Right.
Then explain to me why the United States has an amicable relationship with Jordan? Look up that country. Saddam is a fucking saint in comparison.
Don't think that's the only example. The United States habitually befriends murdererous bastards in order to further their own ends. There are no 'good' guys anymore. Every country is guilty. Trying to pretend you're saving the world hurts credibility.
Today... - Amadeus - 07-07-2008
Bra Wrote:I do, however, respect your line of reasoning, I simply disagree with it.
Likewise. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Today... - Hellfighter 17 - 07-07-2008
Iraq is just like Vietnam. It's not war, it's counterinsurgency!
Today... - Pink Underoo - 07-07-2008
http://blogsforvictory.com/2008/07/06/us-removes-550-tons-of-yellowcake-from-iraq/
Today... - Raditzu - 07-07-2008
Woah! A republican blog that supports Bush and all the bullshit in the Middle East!!!!
Nice find!
Today... - Pink Underoo - 07-07-2008
It was just a yahoo news post quoted in a blog. If you can't follow links to the original article then I can't be blamed.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
Today... - Tobias - 07-07-2008
If Iraq was really a part of a larger strategy to stabilize the middle east then Gerorgie went about it with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer and none of the efficiency.
Today... - Raditzu - 07-07-2008
Pink Underoo Wrote:It was just a yahoo news post quoted in a blog. If you can't follow links to the original article then I can't be blamed.
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
It was a joke. Chill.
Today... - Pink Underoo - 07-07-2008
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4276486.ece
Today... - Minoshia - 07-07-2008
Tobias Wrote:If Iraq was really a part of a larger strategy to stabilize the middle east then Gerorgie went about it with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer and none of the efficiency.
Agreed, and stabilizing the Middle East would be a loose term for 'forcefully inserting governments that will get along with us so we can rape them of their oil and suppress governments that are dangerous to us'
Oh and Underoo, my point wasn't that Iran wasn't more dangerous than Iraq- i stated the opposite actually when i was that militaristically Iran was far more developed than Iraq, but thanks for agreeing with me on that part. My point was that the American public were more knowledgeable about Suddam's regime and the evils they had committed than Iran (Ignorance or not it's true) which made Iraq an easier target.
Edit: Point about the money has that we'e spending a large sum of money, and all we're accomplishing is creating a giant clusterfuck that cannot be won and wasting american lives. Also earlier you made the point that these regimes are using their oil reserves to make profit which they use to train terrorists, and that is also our fault. An energy efficency program should have been developed ages ago and we all know it and now we're funding and fighting the same people, which makes it more of a clusterfuck we can't win.
We buy more oil that the entire world, we pay for terrorists to be trained (when we're not readily training them ourselves, AQ 1980's). Than we have to go over there and fix the problem we created by buying so much oil. my point stands, we're in a clusterfuck we cannot fix.
Today... - Pink Underoo - 07-07-2008
If our energy production matched our consumption, then we wouldn't be funding terrorism and radical states. Thank the liberal environmentalist wacko lobbyist groups for our dependency on foreign oil. We are, however, starting to shirk the madness of environmental extremism so we can fix the problem.
Today... - Minoshia - 07-07-2008
Liberals are responsible for our dependency on foreign oil, oh my. Environmentalist are not the only ones to blame, drilling for more oil should not be our solution to this problem. Dependency on domestic oil is no better than dependency on foreign oil, in fact if we found a large surplus of domestic oil i'm willing to bet demand would skyrocket, since people would stop carpooling, and trying to pennypinch home heating oil and gasoline and other things because the supply would increase, this would thus increase the demand and we'd be back to where we started. Alternative solutions should be the solution to this problem, and oh wait, whose pushing most for these alternative solutions? Liberals.
The problem is conservative politicians in power are profiting from our involvement with oil companies and our dependency on foreign oil, there are more than just one party to blame. if you are going to divide party lines on a problem as universal as foreign oil, than your opinions are worth a grain of salt. If i may quote Lewis Black "There has to be a point where Democrats and Republicans can look at something and agree on what the fuck reality is."
Today... - Uno - 07-07-2008
What was the original point of this thread again?
Today... - Raditzu - 07-07-2008
Hooray for Independence!!!!
And for locking threads!!!