Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on February 27, 2007, 09:10:19 PM
-
Do you believe we will win this war, and if so, what month and year?
If not, what month/year will we pull out of the cities?
-
I predict those who make money from the high price of oil & gas will prosper greatly
-
Do you believe we will win this war, and if so, what month and year?
If not, what month/year will we pull out of the cities?
At this point I'm not actually sure what "win" means. What objective has to be met in order for us to declare victory?
-
At this point I'm not actually sure what "win" means. What objective has to be met in order for us to declare victory?
That all depends on your stake in the matter doesn't it?
Me personally, I don't want to see war... needless death, destruction, and loss of life.
At the same time, I am positioned to prosper should the situation escalate even further.
I have no conflict. What is gonna happen is gonna happen whether I want it to or not.
If the war ends tomorrow, ...I'm happy. If it escalates... I make money. Victory is mine whatever happens.
-
At this point I'm not actually sure what "win" means. What objective has to be met in order for us to declare victory?
Four years into a war, and Americans still can't define the objective.
That's by design, isn't it?
-
That all depends on your stake in the matter doesn't it?
Me personally, I don't want to see war... needless death, destruction, and loss of life.
At the same time, I am positioned to prosper should the situation escalate even further.
I have no conflict. What is gonna happen is gonna happen whether I want it to or not.
If the war ends tomorrow, ...I'm happy. If it escalates... I make money. Victory is mine whatever happens.
I wasn't looking at this on a personal level. What has to happen in order for the USA to declare victory? What objective has to be met in order for Bush to be able to stand up and say " We Won"?
Clearly democracy isn't going to prevail in the next few years to a point where Iraq runs as a democracy on it's own. Wasn't that our agenda after toppling Saddam?
-
No Objective + No Exit Strategy = Indefinite Occupation & Countless American lives lost.
If there's no objective, ...how can you tell if you've won, ...how do you even know if it's time to go home?
-
Do you believe we will win this war, and if so, what month and year?
If not, what month/year will we pull out of the cities?
There's a huge difference between winning a war (destroying the opposing forces and removing their leadership from power), and bringing "law and order" to the streets. The former we accomplished years ago... took us like a week total as I recall. The latter we'll never accomplish because we're unwilling to resort to the brutality required to accomplish it... it's that simple.
-
Clearly democracy isn't going to prevail in the next few years to a point where Iraq runs as a democracy on it's own. Wasn't that our agenda after toppling Saddam?
WMD was goal #1 - they weren't there, maybe ever, maybe destroyed, but that is clearly accomplished.
Removing saddam was goal #2 - done.
Democracy was goal #3. It was accomplished when they held elections.
Goal #4? Is it to stop a war that's been raging over 1000 years? Change the mindset of 50 generations' worth of repetition? Protect people?
I think Goal #4 is to maintain presence (neither winning nor losing) while goal #5 is accomplished.
Goal #5 is removing the oil (we have proof we're doing it, and at unfair prices) and building bases (going well). We just need time. that's what goal #4 is for. Vague, undefinable goals that keep the focus off the oil pilferage and bases.
-
There's a huge difference between winning a war (destroying the opposing forces and removing their leadership from power), and bringing "law and order" to the streets. The former we accomplished years ago... took us like a week total as I recall. The latter we'll never accomplish because we're unwilling to resort to the brutality required to accomplish it... it's that simple.
Law and Order is what they HAD.
Bush overthrew their government, and hung the one guy who was able to bring Law and Order to Iraq.
The type of brutality you speak of is not something that can be administered from an outside force and be effective.
It's like harsh words of criticism. Hearing them from a Canadian just hardens your resolve and plugs your ears, even if the Canadian is speaking the truth. You need to hear it from an American before it starts to register with you. The same with brutality in Iraq. If you think American forces can go in there and start cracking down...you might as well stop building roads, hospitals, and other infrastucture, and use all the money to open terrorist training camps.
You will have at least gotten one thing right.
-
We win when they all become obedient 3rd world Christians ;)
-
No... Never... Maybe 2523..
-
Is it to stop a war that's been raging over 1000 years?
And which war would that be?
-
And which war would that be?
the dispute between the religious groups there.
And it's cute the way you won't make a prediction here. I"m seeing now you never take positions, you just shit on the positions of others.
-
I think victory can be achieved if we are able to partition the country. 3 separate "states" with Bagdad as a federal capital. I don't know whether this can work but it will cut down the violence. The kurds would have to agree not to have any ambitions towards the kurdish parts of Turkey. A solid oil revenue sharing plane would have to be established. Maybe under the UN or a well paid private Arab firm. We would need to begin to pull troops out of Bagdad to our larger bases and to the borders. There are no easy answers and the Dems have none but to pull out.
-
But its like who are we fighting. We arent fighting the Iraq military, where we can say they sustained enough losses to call it quits. We fight regular people whose purpose is rooted in a religious ideoligy. So its not like we want this land and are fighting to take/protect this. They think the american occupation is spiritually wrong to their god and are being taught that everyday. So how can we tell if we will win. We cant kill a religious belief. So lets just bring them home.
-
Its not that simple..we can't allow guys like Bin Laden to slow bleed us and then attack when he wants..pulling out of the cities won't give thema target. The iraqi police and militray can secure their cities and we can finally withdraw all togther.
-
Its not that simple..we can't allow guys like Bin Laden to slow bleed us and then attack when he wants..pulling out of the cities won't give thema target. The iraqi police and militray can secure their cities and we can finally withdraw all togther.
'slow bleed'.
That word was incorrectly atributed to dems by fox news. now it's quoted all the time as the dems plan. They didn't create it though. that phrase irks me.
and yes, i agree with ya, let's get the hell outta the cities and guard that bases, oil, and border. It's already public record that indeed we ARE taking their oil for less than market cost, so that bullshit argument can die. Since we admit it now, let's just guard what is ours, and let the iraqis manage their own cities.
-
I don't know what they ment by slow bleed but my use has to do with the insurgency. Small attacks...IED's..no pitched battles they can't win and conversely nothing we can splash across the screen to say we're winning.
-
WMD was goal #1 - they weren't there, maybe ever, maybe destroyed, but that is clearly accomplished.
Removing saddam was goal #2 - done.
Democracy was goal #3. It was accomplished when they held elections.
Goal #4? Is it to stop a war that's been raging over 1000 years? Change the mindset of 50 generations' worth of repetition? Protect people?
I think Goal #4 is to maintain presence (neither winning nor losing) while goal #5 is accomplished.
Goal #5 is removing the oil (we have proof we're doing it, and at unfair prices) and building bases (going well). We just need time. that's what goal #4 is for. Vague, undefinable goals that keep the focus off the oil pilferage and bases.
I think in the long run we are going to have to do like we did in Korea/Germany and seperate the country. Why not make 3 seperate areas where each group can run their country as they choose. In the end I believe they would all 3 be "democratic" which would meet our goals but they wouldn't have to sacrifice their religious beliefs.
-
And it's cute the way you won't make a prediction here. I"m seeing now you never take positions, you just shit on the positions of others.
It's cute you make up a 1000 year war to try and help your argument. How can I make predictions about Iraq when people like your good self are voting in the US? America can win, but it needs to do more to win an idological battle against the jihad to do so.
-
It's cute you make up a 1000 year war to try and help your argument. How can I make predictions about Iraq when people like your good self are voting in the US? America can win, but it needs to do more to win an idological battle against the jihad to do so.
What would be the definition of win????
-
What would be the definition of win????
An Iraq that is largely free of terror attacks would be one form of victory. The longer term aspiration is to convince young Muslim men that freedom is a far more attractive choice than jihad.
-
An Iraq that is largely free of terror attacks would be one form of victory. The longer term aspiration is to convince young Muslim men that freedom is a far more attractive choice than jihad.
my understanding is their jihad is all about freedom.
Freedom from foreign occupation & corruption.
They want the foreigners out of their country.
-
my understanding is their jihad is all about freedom.
Freedom from foreign occupation & corruption.
They want the foreigners out of their country.
Actually, Sharia law contradicts everything you or I would consider to be 'freedom' in the way we exercise it during our daily lives.
-
Actually, Sharia law contradicts everything you or I would consider to be 'freedom' in the way we exercise it during our daily lives.
Jihad is THEIR war... it's not about what you or I consider freedom. It's their idea of freedom.
-
Jihad is THEIR war... it's not about what you or I consider freedom. It's their idea of freedom.
No, it's not what they consider to be 'freedom' either. The jihadists want Sharia law, which they do not misrepresent as being freedom, and neither should you.
-
No, it's not what they consider to be 'freedom' either. The jihadists want Sharia law, which they do not misrepresent as being freedom, and neither should you.
there are plenty of jihads. it simply means holy war
-
there are plenty of jihads. it simply means holy war
And you can, no doubt, prove to me how a 'holy war' results in freedom for anyone?
I'll say it again, for your assistance: an indivdual's most important right is the right to live. Jihadists believe in taking lives (women, children etc.) in the name of Allah, which contradicts everything that is just and free.
-
And you can, no doubt, prove to me how a 'holy war' results in freedom for anyone?
I'll say it again, for your assistance: an indivdual's most important right is the right to live. Jihadists believe in taking lives (women, children etc.) in the name of Allah, which contradicts everything that is just and free.
Which differs from Bush's doctrine of taking lives in the name of freedom in what way? ???
That was rhetorical btw. What I really want to say is Shooo... be gone already!
-
Bruce, you're turning more and more into a "paper" debater.
You lack common sense.
You told us that NO ONE IN AMERICA thought Saddam would abuse deadly agents we sent to his universities. He was in the middle of a war with iran, and his people were uprising. He had killed hundreds (many himself!) his first week in office, and thousands every year, ever since. NO ONE considered this possibility?
Now, you say "An Iraq that is largely free of terror attacks would be one form of victory. The longer term aspiration is to convince young Muslim men that freedom is a far more attractive choice than jihad.".
THIS is the goal our brave folks are dying for? "Convincing young Muslim men"? Dude, you've been reading mother goose. The answers you have, the assumptions you make... you completely ignore the real intentions of man. You're living in f'king candyland, dude.
-
Bruce, you're turning more and more into a "paper" debater.
You lack common sense.
You told us that NO ONE IN AMERICA thought Saddam would abuse deadly agents we sent to his universities. He was in the middle of a war with iran, and his people were uprising. He had killed hundreds (many himself!) his first week in office, and thousands every year, ever since. NO ONE considered this possibility?
Now, you say "An Iraq that is largely free of terror attacks would be one form of victory. The longer term aspiration is to convince young Muslim men that freedom is a far more attractive choice than jihad.".
THIS is the goal our brave folks are dying for? "Convincing young Muslim men"? Dude, you've been reading mother goose. The answers you have, the assumptions you make... you completely ignore the real intentions of man. You're living in f'king candyland, dude.
Interesting post, although I'm not sure you wrote it with your tongue planted firmly against your inner-cheek or if you were serious. For the purpose of debate - I'll assume the latter.
Those universities you mention weren't actually the express property of Saddam. They were medical research facilities trying to save lives - as the Americans were. It's interesting you've neither admitted nor retracted your statement that we, in fact, gave Saddam chemical weapons or indeed WMD. This is despite me having proved to you that your allegations were entirely wrong.
You mentioned me turning this into a 'paper' debate. Well, are you honestly trying to tell me that we're not fighting an ideological war against militant Islamists? Is it not part of this fight to convince a would be enemy that the way of the jihad is an archaic hate ritual that the West has exposed as folly?
Yes, we fight on battlefields, ones that no known enemy can defeat us on. The fall of Saddam is proof that this coalition can take its forces across the world in a matter of days and annihilate the opposition. But, we are also engaged, whether we like it or not, in a war of intellectualism versus middle-age hatred and bigotry. If you believe this side of the war can be won with brute force alone than you do not have my support - the US has a great challenge ahead in persuading the growing Muslim demographic at home and abroad, that the Western way of life and freedom are ideologies worth pursuing. This will be the true test of this war.
-
Those universities you mention weren't actually the express property of Saddam. They were medical research facilities trying to save lives
1) What country were they in?
2) Who was the leader of that country?
-
Those universities you mention weren't actually the express property of Saddam. They were medical research facilities trying to save lives
Classic example of your naivety.
What do you mean, they weren't his property? he's a dictator. He shot his rival party on day 1 of his reign. Do you think a little property theft is possible? ;)
-
Classic example of your naivety.
What do you mean, they weren't his property? he's a dictator. He shot his rival party on day 1 of his reign. Do you think a little property theft is possible? ;)
Absolutely, I would have placed it within the realms of possibility. It was naive, I agree, but the intention was to save lives. You following that logic yet?
Now, the rest of my post?
-
Absolutely, I would have placed it within the realms of possibility. It was naive, I agree, but the intention was to save lives.
YOU would have considered it a possibility, but NO ONE in the Reagan admin considered the possibility?
It was naive, I agree, but the intention was to save lives.
How do you know this was the intention? Because they said so? Because you believe the best in men? Or something else?
We'll get to the rest of your post when you clarify these two points.
-
YOU would have considered it a possibility, but NO ONE in the Reagan admin considered the possibility?
How do you know this was the intention? Because they said so? Because you believe the best in men? Or something else?
We'll get to the rest of your post when you clarify these two points.
Actually, they were clarified by the US Senate report and that of the UN of being guilty of no more than that. Now, can you explain why it is you lied on this very topic?
-
Actually, they were clarified by the US Senate report and that of the UN of being guilty of no more than that. Now, can you explain why it is you lied on this very topic?
Was this a dem or repub congress, and what was the exact quote where they provided Reagan's motive for delivering these agents to iraq?
-
Was this a dem or repub congress, and what was the exact quote where they provided Reagan's motive for delivering these agents to iraq?
You just keep right on ignoring my questions, okay. I'll treat you with the same dignity.
-
Was this a dem or repub congress, and what was the exact quote where they provided Reagan's motive for delivering these agents to iraq?
Are you refering to when they said they'd do everything possible to make sure Saddam won his war with Iran?
-
Are you refering to when they said they'd do everything possible to make sure Saddam won his war with Iran?
uh oh.
this contradict bruce.
by the way, does anyone here believe Bruce, that the US DIDN"T KNOW saddam would grab the materials the moment they arrived on his soil, because "they weren't his property"?
hahahahahah "Those universities you mention weren't actually the express property of Saddam"
The murderous dictator won't steal from his own universities because "They're not his express property"?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
-
uh oh.
this contradict bruce.
by the way, does anyone here believe Bruce, that the US DIDN"T KNOW saddam would grab the materials the moment they arrived on his soil, because "they weren't his property"?
hahahahahah "Those universities you mention weren't actually the express property of Saddam"
The murderous dictator won't steal from his own universities because "They're not his express property"?
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
With logical argument like that, who here could disagree with you? In case you're not aware, you're a laughing stock on this board for your gleeful buying into of anything of a conspiratorial nature. You claimed the US gave Saddam WMD, and I proved you wrong, I'd be avoiding my questions too.
-
With logical argument like that, who here could disagree with you? In case you're not aware, you're a laughing stock on this board for your gleeful buying into of anything of a conspiratorial nature. You claimed the US gave Saddam WMD, and I proved you wrong, I'd be avoiding my questions too.
yawn. i only "buy into" those whose evidence shows there was an incomplete investigation, and another is needed to answer these concerns, for the vinctims if no one else.
Also, nice redirect ;) I wouldn't want to have to back up that "express property of a dictator" thing either.
Admit it, you regret that one...
-
With logical argument like that, who here could disagree with you? In case you're not aware, you're a laughing stock on this board for your gleeful buying into of anything of a conspiratorial nature. You claimed the US gave Saddam WMD, and I proved you wrong, I'd be avoiding my questions too.
You didn't prove shit. You do acknowledge that the US did give chemical weapons to an Iraqi university, right? If Saddam didn't use those chemicals, then how else did he end up getting the chemicals he used against the Kurds? When he gassed the Kurds the only major superpower he was in bed with was the US and you cannot deny this.
What you want are documents that just come out and say "US gave weapons to Saddam" which simply do not exist. However, documents that do tell what went down do exist and they're not at face value, meaning it's up to you to interpret them.
Why in the world would we give an educational institution chemical weapons? Ask yourself this question.
-
You didn't prove shit. You do acknowledge that the US did give chemical weapons to an Iraqi university, right?
No. Get a clue.
-
Admit it, you regret that one...
Your sense of self-importance is amusing, I don't regret saying anything thus far. Do you regret wrongly claiming the US gave Saddam WMD? No, I don't expect you to deal with that question.
-
Your sense of self-importance is amusing, I don't regret saying anything thus far. Do you regret wrongly claiming the US gave Saddam WMD? No, I don't expect you to deal with that question.
I wasn't wrong.
We gave materials to a university in a dictatorship whose war we vowed they must win.
Said dictator took these materials and created weapons which aided him in that war we wanted him to win.
You can candycoat it anyway you choose. but it's a 'paper' debate in that in real life, everyone knows what happened except those little twits who refuse to face facts.
-
I wasn't wrong.
We gave materials to a university in a dictatorship whose war we vowed they must win.
Said dictator took these materials and created weapons which aided him in that war we wanted him to win.
You can candycoat it anyway you choose. but it's a 'paper' debate in that in real life, everyone knows what happened except those little twits who refuse to face facts.
So you weren't wrong when you said we gave Saddam mustard gas? Chemical weapons? Anthrax?
-
So you weren't wrong when you said we gave Saddam mustard gas? Chemical weapons? Anthrax?
wow. you didn't even try to hide the fact you don't want to answer that.
ladies and gentleman, i give you the rabbit on the run!
-
wow. you didn't even try to hide the fact you don't want to answer that.
ladies and gentleman, i give you the rabbit on the run!
You accuse me of your own behaviour, that much is evident.
-
Iraq is just a smoke screen...Our objective IMOP was never to win any war in Iraq...This is all about Iran...They have too much influence in the middle east...The real war will be there...So many countries are falling in line for a world government...Iran is the black sheep...Defeating them will give "the world order" control over the oil...With that control everyone else will fall in line...
-
You're living in f'king candyland, dude.
My kid loves Candyland... Watch out for the Molasses swamp!
Oh, and fighting to convince young muslim men of something is just a silly ass reason to fight.
-
my understanding is their jihad is all about freedom.
Freedom from foreign occupation & corruption.
They want the foreigners out of their country.
The percentage there that want the foreigners out of their country is similiar to the percentage of people in the US that don't want pledge of alliegence said in school...minimal.
-
The percentage there that want the foreigners out of their country is similiar to the percentage of people in the US that don't want pledge of alliegence said in school...minimal.
wrong. polls have been posted here.
the majority of iraqis want the US out.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
-
wrong. polls have been posted here.
the majority of iraqis want the US out.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You know what I think of polls. How about being on the gournd myslef, talking to hundreds of them and not having one of them tell me they want me gone.
-
You know what I think of polls. How about being on the gournd myslef, talking to hundreds of them and not having one of them tell me they want me gone.
well, I don't know if I'd be truly honest with a heavily armed American soldier who could kill me and get away with it if he so chose.
And the *other* group there, the hundreds of people firing bullets at you... my guess is that their opinion of you isn't so high.