Bush ready to start WWIII

[devil dog]

Originally Posted by ophiura
There is not a single new thing here, as mentioned, this has been going on throughout history. And if anyone thinks any president will be different...they will be a problem, IMO, in their own way. Because this strategy is how international relations fundamentally works, IMO. You can disagree on the war in Iraq, and you can promote a strategy of isolationism, and hope for a "feel good" president who will shy away from any risky interaction. But in the end, this cycle will continue...in the foreground, in the background, in the pocket books of all of them. Maybe some day there will be this futuristic utopia without the almighty dollar/euro/currency of your choice. But it isn't now, and anyone who has that motivation will likely be steamrolled somewhere (a la Nazi Germany - lots of "non aggression" treaties were signed and Oh gosh, golly darn gee!).
And oh my gosh, there is international money in oilfields around the world. Enough with the Bush/Saudi story! That is the way of that industry...it is actually fairly borderless. It requires huge investments of capital to get anywhere.
JMO, of course.

Well said!!!! IMO

 

[stdreb27]

It is an interesting bit of trivia, Canada and mexico import more oil to our country than saudi or any other individual country in the world.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
It is an interesting bit of trivia, Canada and mexico import more oil to our country than saudi or any other individual country in the world.
Heck, they are closer to us. An invasion would be like too easy.
(where's the sarcastic smarta** smily??)

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Heck, they are closer to us. An invasion would be like too easy.
(where's the sarcastic smarta** smily??)
They are invading and the democrats want to let them in, 12 million illeagals right now, that is one big army.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
And you haven't packed your bags and headed to Iraq/Iran because....? "
I'm awaiting my Security Clearance to go through with the State Department... when it does I will be going to the Middle East, most likely to Baghdad.
Now, to your other points...
"Red Dawn" was about the Russians invading through Mexico....
Your arguments, as usual, have drifted off course. You started off complaining that we are selling arms to 6 of our allies in the Middle East, yet now you are complaining that we have armed forces there. Make up your mind; should we support other countries in the area or should we fight ourselves? Or, maybe you would rather we bury our heads in the sand like we did in the 8 years under President Clinton and watch the world go to heck.
Which is it?

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I'm awaiting my Security Clearance to go through with the State Department... when it does I will be going to the Middle East, most likely to Baghdad.
Now, to your other points...
"Red Dawn" was about the Russians invading through Mexico....
Your arguments, as usual, have drifted off course. You started off complaining that we are selling arms to 6 of our allies in the Middle East, yet now you are complaining that we have armed forces there. Make up your mind; should we support other countries in the area or should we fight ourselves? Or, maybe you would rather we bury our heads in the sand like we did in the 8 years under President Clinton and watch the world go to heck.
Which is it?

Congratulations. Keep your head down, and your rear-end out of the Hummers (it'll just get blown up by a IAD)...
I understand what the Red Dawn movie was about. Just replace the Russians and Cubans with Iraquis and Al-Quaida...
You missed my point. Bush has wanted to go to war with Iran for months. Congress won't let him do it. So now he'll use these six Mid East nations to start the war for him, then of course he'll have to join in...
So yes, if Bush is so insistant on 'stayin' the course', we might as well make it a Middle East campaign, instead of just fighting Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and whoever else is next in line he wants to pick a fight with.
I personally would prefer we 'put our heads back into the sand' and get the heck out of Dodge. Sorry, no matter how much you think we're the Saviors of the Terroristic World, the world is still 'goin' to heck' with or without us trying to do it all. Nothing we do over there will change that. If you really think it's true, slip on your ruby slippers, click the heels three times, and repeat "There's no place like home..."

 

[1journeyman]

Rudedog, why is it we haven't been attacked since 9-11?

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by m0nk
Personally, I was/am a rather liberal person. I never supported the war in Iraq, and still don't, nor do I think highly of Dubya. However, here's my take on all of it...
First off, we should have nuked Baghdad on day 1. I said it in the beginning, and I'm still saying it now, we shouldn't have gone in there with conventional troups/weapons/tactics. It didn't work, it would never have worked, you can't go into any middle east country with the same ol' idea that we can make things better. We should have dropped a big nuke. This would have served two important purposes:
1. Saddam would have died instantly and the war would have ended, without the continual deaths of our troops, without insurgency, without al Queda having training grounds, etc. The civilian casualties may have even been lower than the eventual number that will be sustained after the long and drawn out conventional war. Since Iraq had no nuclear (NUC-LEAR) allies there would have been no retaliation, just cleanup.
2. Iran/North Korea/Russia would have realized we have the balls to do it and they would either fall in line, or only keep arming up with the knowledge that we'd probably bomb them too.
Either way the international community dislikes us, but the advantage of my solution is that in the end, we would have likely had better results overall. JMO, but we're not winning any wars or friends right now.
Second, the region has always been wrought with war, and will always continue to be. There has been this looming threat of WWIII, so if it comes down to it, then so be it, lets get it over with. No one will win, we'll all be losers, but the population will be thinned out, likely helping ease Global Climate Change.

NUKE IRAQ?...the results would be the end.

 

[rylan1]

I think people are loosing site of what is happening. Just as this story came out... I read today on CNN that Bush spoke with the king of Saudi Arabia and OPEC countries about increasing the amount of oil on the world market so that the US economy doesn't fall into a recession. I actually saw this story first before I heard about the weapons deal. Basically in exchange for more oil... we are giving them more weapons and technology. Our gov't is forced to comply because of the seriousness of a potential recession, and our dependency on oil.

 

[cowfishrule]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Rudedog, why is it we haven't been attacked since 9-11?
because bush has kept us safe with wire taps, and the war over there. (not flaming you- agreeing with you)
we had a choice- fight the war on us soil, or foreign soil. which would you prefer. i prefer it far away from here.
also- no nukes. if we had nuked iraq, that would have elevated us to the next level and, probably, isolated us in the war. britian, australia, etc would have all pulled their troops and told us that we were on our own.
nobody wants nukes. they are the final bluff in my opinion.

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Rudedog, why is it we haven't been attacked since 9-11?

Because they haven't figured out how and where they want to hit us the next time. You honestly don't think our involvement in Iraq is going to keep terror cells out of the US do you?

I guess those attacks in London don't count, since they weren't on US soil. Bin Laden has stated we WILL get attacked again. The IF part is already set. It's just the WHEN and with WHAT is what they're figuring out now. I guarantee 100% there are currently Al-Quaida operatives residing in the US. They are just trying to figure out which target and what device to use to hit it with (nuclear, chemical agent, C4, pick one).

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Because they haven't figured out how and where they want to hit us the next time. You honestly don't think our involvement in Iraq is going to keep terror cells out of the US do you?

I guess those attacks in London don't count, since they weren't on US soil. Bin Laden has stated we WILL get attacked again. The IF part is already set. It's just the WHEN and with WHAT is what they're figuring out now. I guarantee 100% there are currently Al-Quaida operatives residing in the US. They are just trying to figure out which target and what device to use to hit it with (nuclear, chemical agent, C4, pick one).
They hit us how many times under Clinton yet they haven't figured out how to hit us in the last 7 years?
I'm not buying that.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Rudedog, why is it we haven't been attacked since 9-11?
Just out of curiosity, you don't think that heightened security in the US since 9/11 may have a little something to do with us not getting attacked again? Or do you actually believe that every single potential terrorist is so busy in Iraq that they don't have time to come here for an attack?

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by renogaw
nuke em all, give us our ice age that should be here!
It'll be easier to keep our tanks cool.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
Because they haven't figured out how and where they want to hit us the next time.
Huh? I just thought of like 10 places for the terrorists to hit in like 5 seconds.
You honestly don't think our involvement in Iraq is going to keep terror cells out of the US do you?

I think I have to agree with you. However, the attacks on the WTC, their planning and execution required an enormous amount of planning, financial resources, and logisitical exectution. A couple of terrorists with a block of C4 aren't going to blow a skyscraper anytime soon.
I think that the US (and I use that on purpose... the COUNTRY invaded Iraq, not the president individually) did accomplish the goal of disrupting the organization's operations enough to preclude further terrorist incidents. A single terrorist cell operating within the US cannot cause an incident like 9/11 on it's own. We knocked out the organization's infrastructure.
Of course pulling out our troops before we wipe them out will certainly allow them to regroup and hit us again, which I'm certain lefts will blame on Bush as well.
I guess those attacks in London don't count, since they weren't on US soil.
Again, you'll never stop terrorism, ever. But you can hit organizations large enough to launch attacks that bring down buildings, irradiate city blocks, or otherwise cause massive deaths of our citizens.
Bin Laden has stated we WILL get attacked again.
So you take a terrorists word over our president? Over our patriots like Gen. Petraeus?
It's just the WHEN and with WHAT is what they're figuring out now. I guarantee 100% there are currently Al-Quaida operatives residing in the US. They are just trying to figure out which target and what device to use to hit it with (nuclear, chemical agent, C4, pick one).
It is indeed. And one might argue that WHEN largely depends on how soon the US can pull out so they can come out of their caves and start masterminding again.
Your arguments seem to suggest that since you can't eliminate every last one of them, then there is no point in trying.

 

[crashbandicoot]

Sticking your head in the sand only makes you blind to the axe coming for your neck .

 

[groupergenius]

Have no fear good folk of Aquarialand. Once the brave and new change dynamic duo of Obama-Clinton take office, all terrorism will come to a screeching halt. All social security and healthcare problems will be no more.
The world will prosper and be allowed to cool down that nasty .06 degrees it has accumulated over that dastardly Republican maniacal regime. Every barrel of oil will be reduced by 75% and include some daisies for nicety effect.
( We really need a sarcastic smarta** smiley on this board)
BTW, you have to read it like the movie announcer guy was saying it....thats how I wrote it.

 

[aquaknight]

And on top of that, you really think those 6 countries are really getting the best 'weapons' that we have? HA! My ex-roommate is now an engineer for Lockheed Martin, there's some crazy stuff we have now.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Have no fear good folk of Aquarialand. Once the brave and new change dynamic duo of Obama-Clinton take office, all terrorism will come to a screeching halt. All social security and healthcare problems will be no more.
The world will prosper and be allowed to cool down that nasty .06 degrees it has accumulated over that dastardly Republican maniacal regime. Every barrel of oil will be reduced by 75% and include some daisies for nicety effect.
( We really need a sarcastic smarta** smiley on this board)
BTW, you have to read it like the movie announcer guy was saying it....thats how I wrote it.

You mean Don LaFontaine.
You had me for the first paragraph.

... and should those poopy pants' at the oil companies receive record profits due to record consumption, don't worry. The Democratic government will institute a "windfall tax" (also known as colossal-success-grab). What will the oil companies do? Pass those that additional operating overhead back to us as higher prices? NO! They'll BE SORRY and LOWER PRICES! That's what they'll do!
Logic at it's best!

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Just out of curiosity, you don't think that heightened security in the US since 9/11 may have a little something to do with us not getting attacked again? Or do you actually believe that every single potential terrorist is so busy in Iraq that they don't have time to come here for an attack?
If heightened security is the answer why didn't the Clinton Admin raise security? Why did we needlessly suffer multiple attacks?
Yes. I believe the Iraq war has had a direct impact. I think the drain of manpower, equipment and money has tied up Al qaeda in Iraq. Furthermore I think the intel we've gained from captured info and prisoners has been critical to our safety.