politics

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
In Iraq we are setting up a democracy. To get political and social stability in a region
Are we? Can we? not yet? I dont think we will. Or at least not this administration...another might be able to, but I doubt it now...its just too screwed up. Maybe if they knew what they were doing in the beginning it may have had a chance.....

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
1journeyman...always with respect...
Its just the way you threw that statement in as if was some new headline in the news....a NEW point to make....thats why I first asked for a source...IMO, to someone that was not already aware of those old weapons, that statement could be misleading, as is the term WMD, in describeing them....Maybe we just dont agree on what a WMD is.....

Ahh, fair enough. Well, to me a WMD is what is says:

. If terrorists got a hold of an artillery shell of Sarin or Mustard gas and modified it to release on a su

ay in NYC it would certainly be a WMD.
As far as headlines, I didn't mean to throw it out there, but I just wanted to correct the fallacy that no biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq. They were. Not the stockplies the world believed he had, granted....

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
IMO. Its the cilvilian's duty, as a citizen to speak out about how one feels the Goverment is useing or misuseing the military and for what.....and to ''gripe'' if one feels that way......I think service members understand....They should if they understand duty....
I agree with that statement.
I do not, however, agree with what has been said in the name of dissent. Calling our troops Nazis, murderers, terrorists, etc. is wrong. Airing video of insurgents killing our troops is wrong. Saying we are losing the war or that our troops are in a no win situation is wrong.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Not the stockplies the world believed he had, granted....
Again, I beleive that you beleive this.....But I dont beleive the world beleived he had them......I dont even beleive the administration honestly beleived he had them, they just wanted you to beleive it........

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I agree with that statement.
I do not, however, agree with what has been said in the name of dissent. Calling our troops Nazis, murderers, terrorists, etc. is wrong. Airing video of insurgents killing our troops is wrong. Saying we are losing the war or that our troops are in a no win situation is wrong.
The word dissent means to disagree, ......If someone disagrees then then they should speak out....That is their right....
Now useing words like you stated to describe the troops directly is wrong and that I agree with you should not be said.....I have never blamed the troops. And the main debate in this country is and never has been about the troops. Its the spin thats been put on it by those that are still for this war or defending it or whatever it is that you are saying....IMO.
But, Many on the other side have used some just as ugly terms to describe the the honestly conserned citizens that are truly conserned for the nation and the soilders...and simply disagree with you and the war or the way its beening conducted. As is their right and as I feel their duty to say so.....I see nothing wrong in stateing that if one feels we are loseing a war, to say so...not blameing the troops mined you, but the leadership, or that if they feel the goverment is placeing the troops unessecarily in a no win situation....I give the soilders more credit than you I guess, I beleive that they are smart enough to understand and to know the difference.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Are we? Can we? not yet? I dont think we will. Or at least not this administration...another might be able to, but I doubt it now...its just too screwed up. Maybe if they knew what they were doing in the beginning it may have had a chance.....

We have been there less than 4 years. Are you familiar with our history? We almost disbanded 10 year after the Revolutionary war was over. It took decades to rebuild the south after the civil war. Rebuilding Germany and Japan took decades, Vietnam is just within the last couple recovering from that war. The lack of immidiate results is not caused by a failed policy. (they did not do it perfectly) But by the TIME it takes to build a solid country. We didn't federalize our country for 15 years. Germany was in shambles economically for 4 or 5 years afterwards. And didn't really get on the right track for 4 or 5 more years after that. There are some serious social problems facing this country by its self. The instability is aided by foreigners and recruitment encouraged by detractors in the USA.

 

[cwgibson]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I agree with that statement.
I do not, however, agree with what has been said in the name of dissent. Calling our troops Nazis, murderers, terrorists, etc. is wrong. Airing video of insurgents killing our troops is wrong. Saying we are losing the war or that our troops are in a no win situation is wrong.
i dont want to upset you but i believe in a way they are in a no win situation. since the beginning of time war has gone on over there, and i doubt we will ever see it end. i support our troops and understand what they are doing, i was in the navy myself. i just think this situation has gotten out of control and there is no end in sight.we have plenty of problems in our own house that need fixing, not that we should ignore the rest of the world, but i think we should focus on our own problems. if we used our resources to find an alternative fuel we could lessen our dependence on middle eastern oil and help our environment at the same time.

 

[cwgibson]

oh by the way i hope everyone here has voted!

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
IMO. Its the cilvilian's duty, as a citizen to speak out about how one feels the Goverment is useing or misuseing the military and for what.....and to ''gripe'' if one feels that way......I think service members understand....They should if they understand duty.
I donk like it when Im lied to by anyone.....and no, you might, but I want just stay silent about it...all though I understand that politicians would like me to...
Actually its the taxpayers responsiblity whether they be military or civillian. Servicemembers speak out by voting because verbal protesting is prohibited by the UCMJ.
Is this how you understood duty when you were a service member?
I dont think anyone likes being lied too Dog, if the media is ones primary source for information your only getting a fraction of what is really happening. If your really into politics you should take a visit to some of these countries and see what I mean sometime. The thing I remember most about Jebel Ali, Egypt, Dubai (UAE), Saudi, Iraq, Oman, and Pakistan is the insain humidity, Zippo lighters and Kababs believe it or not. The news if full of crap half of the time when it comes to military events. The media is intentionally kept in the dark many times to ensure the element of surprise is availible and even afterward they impart their liberal viewpoints often skewing what really happened or goes on in country. Its well known that the media is biased and it becomes even more clear after you see first hand how misguided the left really is.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Lets think about going invading a country for oil. vs say alaska.
In Iraq we put service men in the line of fire. Costs a couple thousand lives.
In alaska we kill a few birds and seals, a fish or two.
In Iraq it would and will cost billions of dollars rebuilding infastructure, oilwells basically have to be rebuilt.
In alaska we already have some roads and ports. And we have to drill.
There still political instability in Iraq
There isn't political instability in Alaska.
you would have to pay hazard pay in iraq
you wouldn't have to pay hazard pay in alaska.
I've got a great Idea lets invade a country for its oil when eventually it is going to join opec anyway and screw us anyway.
In Iraq we are setting up a democracy. To get political and social stability in a region to that has been mired in turmoil for longer than we have been a country. How would we take oil from that country? It doesn't make any sense.
Historically invading a country to strip it of its resources don't work. (british tea company in India)
If big oil industries were behind doing this. They would have to be just stupid. Especially since we are sitting on a find that would yield millions of barrells of oil in the US. If it were really about oil we never ever would have set foot in iraq. We could get more out of alaska. with must less fiscal and human costs.
Not necessarily the oil in Iraq but the surrounding countries. I think part of the reason we are setting up a democracy in Iraq is because of the strategic benifit this area has to the US, even more so as a democracy similar to ours in light of Iran. I may be wrong but when the US restored Kuwait didnt the Kuwait government give us a sheetload of oil. Having a democratic government in Iraq would allow us to have a greater influence on the surrounding countries in the middle east which provide us with oil. Wouldnt you agree this would have some effect on the cost of oil?
The OPEC cartel is an oligopoly, a democratic government discourages this from happening.
Actually if your referring to the find Chevron announced I heard it was 7 miles underwater in the gulf of New Mexico, this find was reported several years ago and re-announced within the past 90 days. Its nothing new, the problem then and still today is the method of retrieving it. Its too deep. Oil sand in Canada also has potential as we derive most of our oil from Canada anyhow.

 

[stdreb27]

not the one chevron found in the gulf that is like you said 7 miles deep. I was thinking about anwar. or how ever you spell it. But that find in the gulf has lots of people are here happen. (live really close to houston) It is just sitting there. I really don't remember if kuawait gave us oil or not. It really doesn't matter today or last year did it? Chicken feed. I think. It still isn't the driving reason we are there. Like it was the first time.
I don't see stabilizing that region as a key to oil. Really if you think about it. The saudi peninsula is solid, so is Egypt, turkey (not so much a player oil wise) The couple that aren't are Iraq or Iran both had embargo's anyway. Although Russia, China, and the UN had quite a vested interest in them.
But if you sit there and think this through, say Iraq stabilizes in the next 2 years and totally restores there oil production. OPEC is going to be knocking on its doors reguardless its relationship with the US.
It would be interesting.
There are bigger gains to political stability in Iraq. Like it being a buffer for the nut in Iran. Stopping the atrocities of sadaam. and providing the people with a very close example of the freedom of self government.

 

[mr. guitar]

Ok, y'all first of all I'm about tired of hearin' about the "War" in Iraq. It hasn't been declared a war. Vietnam wasn't declared as a war, by the way. Let me say a few things to stdreb27.
"Lets think about going invading a country for oil. vs say alaska.
In Iraq we put service men in the line of fire. Costs a couple thousand lives.
In alaska we kill a few birds and seals, a fish or two.
In Iraq it would and will cost billions of dollars rebuilding infastructure, oilwells basically have to be rebuilt.
In alaska we already have some roads and ports. And we have to drill.
There still political instability in Iraq
There isn't political instability in Alaska.
you would have to pay hazard pay in iraq
you wouldn't have to pay hazard pay in alaska.
I've got a great Idea lets invade a country for its oil when eventually it is going to join opec anyway and screw us anyway.
In Iraq we are setting up a democracy. To get political and social stability in a region to that has been mired in turmoil for longer than we have been a country. How would we take oil from that country? It doesn't make any sense.
Historically invading a country to strip it of its resources don't work. (british tea company in India)
If big oil industries were behind doing this. They would have to be just stupid. Especially since we are sitting on a find that would yield millions of barrells of oil in the US. If it were really about oil we never ever would have set foot in iraq. We could get more out of alaska. with must less fiscal and human costs."
Are you completly out of your mind? If we kill a few birds, seals, and fish that could completly destroy the ecology of Alaska. NO you can't just dig a hole in the ground in Alaska and start drillin. There's a thing called Frozen, you see, and that means the ground is frozen and you can't get to the oil. Just to inform you the fighting in Iraq isn't about oil. Our GREAT President, Mr. Bush, thought Iraq was a threat to the United States. It was either wait until thousands of Americans get killed first or go over there and fight before they attack. Which do you prefer? Better yet would you like the fightin goin on here? Just curious. Anyway, I hope all y'all who are 18+ voted yesterday!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not you aren't doin your duty as an American Citizen.

 

[phixer]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
not the one chevron found in the gulf that is like you said 7 miles deep. I was thinking about anwar. or how ever you spell it. But that find in the gulf has lots of people are here happen. (live really close to houston) It is just sitting there. I really don't remember if kuawait gave us oil or not. It really doesn't matter today or last year did it? Chicken feed. I think. It still isn't the driving reason we are there. Like it was the first time.
I don't see stabilizing that region as a key to oil. Really if you think about it. The saudi peninsula is solid, so is Egypt, turkey (not so much a player oil wise) The couple that aren't are Iraq or Iran both had embargo's anyway. Although Russia, China, and the UN had quite a vested interest in them.
But if you sit there and think this through, say Iraq stabilizes in the next 2 years and totally restores there oil production. OPEC is going to be knocking on its doors reguardless its relationship with the US.
It would be interesting.
There are bigger gains to political stability in Iraq. Like it being a buffer for the nut in Iran. Stopping the atrocities of sadaam. and providing the people with a very close example of the freedom of self government.
Yeah I hear ya. I really do think the US should be leading the way in the development of alternative power sources. This country has a long history of innovation and now that we are being pressured from all sides we need new ideas now more than ever.
Anymore I find myself voting against an opponent rather than for them. I just dont agree with either side and am completely disappointed on their blatent disregard of border security. These wealthy politicians have lost touch with the people.

 

[oscardeuce]

George Washington "stayed the course" when everything was bleak, the new rebellion was falling apart. Men were freezing at Valley Forge. Enlistment terms were coming up for most of the Continental Army.
Would history be a bit different if Washington had "cut and run"?
Remember Nixon's "Vietnamization"? Another word for defeat. We are in Iraq, and now that we are there we fight to win. We can figure out who was right after our men and women in uniform destroy the enemy. Until then shut up and fight. Fight to win.
Take the war to the enemy who killed innocent Americans on 9/11 and in the terrorist attacks leading up to 9/11. I'd trade waterboarding a terrorist for information to save my children.

 

[cwgibson]

oscarduce, you may want to stay the course,but as i said eariler we will not win this fight for a long time if ever. this is a culture that has been around since the beginning of time (arab). they have fought war after war and to defeat them you would more than likely have to resort to genocide, and destroy an entire culture. the majority of those people hate us and will not ever stop fighting us.

 

[phixer]

This hatred is like a cancer, it needs to be cut out and erradicated. You cant reason or negotiate with it. We simply cannot turn our backs on those that hate us because they will stick a knife in it. We cannot run away and expect things to improve either.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Phixer
This hatred is like a cancer, it needs to be cut out and erradicated. You cant reason or negotiate with it. We simply cannot turn our backs on those that hate us because they will stick a knife in it. We cannot run away and expect things to improve either.
Agreed. If they hate us so much then let's make sure we are fighting in their backyard instead of ours.

 

[cwgibson]

i hope they can actually make some progress over there with rumsfeld gone.

 

[cwgibson]

man this tread died quick!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Mr. Guitar
Ok, y'all first of all I'm about tired of hearin' about the "War" in Iraq. It hasn't been declared a war. Vietnam wasn't declared as a war, by the way. Let me say a few things to stdreb27.
"Lets think about going invading a country for oil. vs say alaska.
In Iraq we put service men in the line of fire. Costs a couple thousand lives.
In alaska we kill a few birds and seals, a fish or two.
In Iraq it would and will cost billions of dollars rebuilding infastructure, oilwells basically have to be rebuilt.
In alaska we already have some roads and ports. And we have to drill.
There still political instability in Iraq
There isn't political instability in Alaska.
you would have to pay hazard pay in iraq
you wouldn't have to pay hazard pay in alaska.
I've got a great Idea lets invade a country for its oil when eventually it is going to join opec anyway and screw us anyway.
In Iraq we are setting up a democracy. To get political and social stability in a region to that has been mired in turmoil for longer than we have been a country. How would we take oil from that country? It doesn't make any sense.
Historically invading a country to strip it of its resources don't work. (british tea company in India)
If big oil industries were behind doing this. They would have to be just stupid. Especially since we are sitting on a find that would yield millions of barrells of oil in the US. If it were really about oil we never ever would have set foot in iraq. We could get more out of alaska. with must less fiscal and human costs."
Are you completly out of your mind? If we kill a few birds, seals, and fish that could completly destroy the ecology of Alaska. NO you can't just dig a hole in the ground in Alaska and start drillin. There's a thing called Frozen, you see, and that means the ground is frozen and you can't get to the oil. Just to inform you the fighting in Iraq isn't about oil. Our GREAT President, Mr. Bush, thought Iraq was a threat to the United States. It was either wait until thousands of Americans get killed first or go over there and fight before they attack. Which do you prefer? Better yet would you like the fightin goin on here? Just curious. Anyway, I hope all y'all who are 18+ voted yesterday!!!!!!!!!!!!! If not you aren't doin your duty as an American Citizen.

but owell, what is more important? let me put it into a sentence. A human life or two vs a few birds seals and fish? as far as going into iraq to pilage for oil. And second if we really went into iraq to take there oil there is a better much cheaper alternative. With probably better returns. The deposit i was talking about isn't frozen under.
and actually I have LOTS of family over there. Putting themselves in danger. And they aren't just grunts, they are very good at what they do. And well after next sysmester I'm going in too. (joining the military haven't signed my life away yet) but yeah. hey read all my posts. i wasn't knocking the whole iraq thing.