...
Who's being naive here?
Do you really believe that the Oil Companies care about your little problems... letting you save a fews cents here and there? Or that your massive government cares about you... the benevolent individuals in your Congress and White House cares about your bills?
OR... are both more concerned about global affairs where nations will be battling for a resource needed to run their industrial complexes and drive their economies.
Influence is power. Control is power. Influence and control over the resources is what oil companies and governments want... or are they more concerned about keeping their profits low so you can idle your F-150 in the McDonalds Drive-thru?
you have made this exact post before and it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. get back to me when you have something to say regarding my comments
do you enjoy completely making things up as you go along? nuking Kabul or Kandahar would only have effected those general areas. there are different sizes of nukes that would localize the damage. with your reasoning the entire US would be inhabitable. we tested a shit load of nukes in the desert here, 50 miles from Las Vegas. last I checked vegas is doing fine
you have made this exact post before and it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. get back to me when you have something to say regarding my comments
...
My bad...
I thought you said, "news flash buddy, we are not there to control energy exports. thats a catchy little thing you people try to pin it on. what are we going to do? build a pipeline from Iraq to California? Iraqs oil, no matter which company is pumping it from the ground, is and always will be controlled by OPEC"
...
Which I read as we are not there to control their oil... or who they sell it to... at which price. We don't want to influence or control oil supplies or OPEC because we really don't want to get into a bidding war with China for the stuff. Our government and the big global oil companies think they are making too much profit and would never want to influence the oil producers or control the resources.. right?
We are there on a strictly humanitarian mission... to spread peace and democracy. And if they don't like it... kill 'em.
Yeah... I agree with you.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Our government and the big global oil companies think they are making too much profit and would never want to influence the oil producers or control the resources.. right?
nope oil companies want to make as much profit as possible just like any other company or their stock price will fall. they happen to be in the oil business which, today, is an expensive commodity. as for our government, you do realize the US needs that oil to survive. people need to admit this fact.
We are there on a strictly humanitarian mission... to spread peace and democracy. And if they don't like it... kill 'em.
part of the reason for being is Iraq is because of Oil. the US didnt want saddam to invade saudi arabia, kuwait, and Iran and control 70% of the worlds oil. if the US didnt intervene saddam would have done that and possibly succeeded. another reason is to spread freedom and democracy and stopping terrorists, such as el queda in iraq, from taking over a country that we left open by removing saddam and the baath party.
I always make some comment and then it goes unnoticed. Am I invisble? I don't want a pulitzer but I think it makes sense. No one backs me up, no one says anything against it.. Maybe I should be more vulgar...Go figure.
The worst enemies of music? Money and Mathematics. Combined with music, they both do the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. Money makes music cheap, mathematics makes it stupid and predictable.
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022
I always make some comment and then it goes unnoticed. Am I invisble? I don't want a pulitzer but I think it makes sense. No one backs me up, no one says anything against it.. Maybe I should be more vulgar...Go figure.
sorry you feel left out. I dont feel like looking, tell us again.
...
part of the reason for being is Iraq is because of Oil. the US didnt want saddam to invade saudi arabia, kuwait, and Iran and control 70% of the worlds oil. if the US didnt intervene saddam would have done that and possibly succeeded. another reason is to spread freedom and democracy and stopping terrorists, such as el queda in iraq, from taking over a country that we left open by removing saddam and the baath party.
...
Then, why not use that rationale to justify the war? Probably because no one would have bought into it.
And Hussein was all but dead from the first Gulf War. Iraq never recovered from the destruction because the impending economic sanctions and constant surveillence kept him from mobilizing his remaining troops or establishing manufacturing, distribution and storage any weapons systems at his disposal. Hell, our amoured division faced WWII vintage Russian T-34 tanks on their run into Baghdad. The Iraqi Army was using tanks built in 1945 to defend their nation... there was no way he would be able to invade his neighbors after the beating he took in 1992.
The gassing of his own people took place in the 1980s and after the first Gulf War... to quell an uprising by Shi'ites upon the urging of our government.
The weapons inspections did the trick... the sanctions were working (and the oil for food thing... it got Hussein gaudy marble statues and ugly vases for his palaces, not weapons systems).
...
Face it... this war was a bad idea and sold to us under false pretenses. Trying to make excuses of how great it is now is like sprinkling sugar over a piece of shit, trying to make it taste better.
We need to find a solution... but, we have to come to a point where we realize that we cannot pull it off alone. We NEED the Arab neighbors and our NATO Allies to help us. We need to recognize what this thing is at face value... a big fucking mess that has never been under our control.
One way out... is to pay for the whole damn thing. We bought this shit, why should other nations pay for it? Outsource this shit to the Arab countries to help provide police trainning... contract ourt to our NATO Allies for military trainning in off-site facilities and to provide border and pipeline security. Hell.. outsource to China... they got a couple of billion soldiers over there.
But... WE pay for it all. We caused this shit... we broke this shit... we are responsible for this shit... we PAY for this shit. Think of it as a national Personal Responsibility and punishment for acting stupid and doing stupid shit.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Then, why not use that rationale to justify the war? Probably because no one would have bought into it.
And Hussein was all but dead from the first Gulf War. Iraq never recovered from the destruction because the impending economic sanctions and constant surveillence kept him from mobilizing his remaining troops or establishing manufacturing, distribution and storage any weapons systems at his disposal. Hell, our amoured division faced WWII vintage Russian T-34 tanks on their run into Baghdad. The Iraqi Army was using tanks built in 1945 to defend their nation... there was no way he would be able to invade his neighbors after the beating he took in 1992.
I agree. rationale used to go to war was bullshit. reasons to stay, IMO, are legit. but regardless, I think we had saddam under control after 92. if we werent EVER involved though. saddam could have easily taken over the middle east. especially kuwait, which he did, and saudi arabia.
Trying to make excuses of how great it is now is like sprinkling sugar over a piece of shit, trying to make it taste better.
I dont see anyone say how great this war is based on the orginal reasons for going to war. this war is however stopping terrorists from having a safe haven in Iraq and for a mid east country to live in freedom. we are paying an extremely high price for that, however. and that sucks.
We need to find a solution... but, we have to come to a point where we realize that we cannot pull it off alone. We NEED the Arab neighbors and our NATO Allies to help us. We need to recognize what this thing is at face value... a big fucking mess that has never been under our control.
NATO? arab countries? I dont know, ok fine help out. but I dont think that will solve much.
One way out... is to pay for the whole damn thing.
We bought this shit, why should other nations pay for it?
Outsource this shit to the Arab countries to help provide police trainning... contract ourt to our NATO Allies for military trainning in off-site facilities and to provide border and pipeline security. Hell.. outsource to China... they got a couple of billion soldiers over there.
But... WE pay for it all. We caused this shit... we broke this shit... we are responsible for this shit... we PAY for this shit. Think of it as a national Personal Responsibility and punishment for acting stupid and doing stupid shit.
so do we outsource stuff or not? this paragraph is too confusing.
I agree. rationale used to go to war was bullshit. reasons to stay, IMO, are legit. but regardless, I think we had saddam under control after 92. if we werent EVER involved though. saddam could have easily taken over the middle east. especially kuwait, which he did, and saudi arabia.
...
true. we cant change that fact.
...
I dont see anyone say how great this war is based on the orginal reasons for going to war. this war is however stopping terrorists from having a safe haven in Iraq and for a mid east country to live in freedom. we are paying an extremely high price for that, however. and that sucks.
...
NATO? arab countries? I dont know, ok fine help out. but I dont think that will solve much.
...
so do we outsource stuff or not? this paragraph is too confusing.
...
I fully supported the rationale and justification of the first Gulf War. It was a reaction to the Iraqi Action if invading and occupying a soverign nation of Kuwait. The military plan was drafted, a true coalition was assembled, the lessons of Viet Nam were learned, a battle plan was drafted by military planners (not suits in the Pentagon), contingencies were addressed, objectives and goals identified and tasks were executed. How did all of this get lost so quickly?
Iraq was never a threat to become a base for Islamic Extremists... Iran is the place. Husseing hated and was dispised by these extremists. They hated Hussein for oppressing fellow Muslims, albeit, Persians... but, Muslims, nonetheless. Al Qaeda came into iraq after the fall of Hussein... in the malaise that followed. as it turns out, we assisted Al Qaeda in setting up in Iraq... not by design, but by ignorance. If you want to get the terrorists.. look for them where they actually ARE... in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
...
Finally... a possible solution is to make this a World Project, not a U.S. Project. NATO can provide trainning bases for Iraqi army recruits. REAL trainning, not two weeks of boot camp and tossed into the mix. Remove them from the country and train them in bases in NATO Ally Turkey, to help weed out the ones who will pledge their alligence to Al Sadr. Bring in NATO Troops to patrol the borders and highways, as well as standing guard duty over the oil fields and pipelines.
Use the Arab Nations to train police to be policemen, not Shi'ite Death Squads. During their trainning, have Arabs do the police work, noty U.S. GIs. The Arabs have a better grasp on Arab culture, customs, religion and language.
If needed... outsource these tasks. And hire Iraqis to do the labor. Quit hiring asshole americans who want tax exempt jobs over there. Put the Iraqis to work, so they'll quit trying to kill the asshole Americans over there that are getting the jobs.
...
Yaeh.. it's going to be expensive and long. But, it all depends upon how badly you want this job to succeed. If you don't want to pay for it... you are basically saying, 'My money is more important than fixing Iraq'. No one said it would be easy or cheap... except Bush.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I fully supported the rationale and justification of the first Gulf War. It was a reaction to the Iraqi Action if invading and occupying a soverign nation of Kuwait. The military plan was drafted, a true coalition was assembled, the lessons of Viet Nam were learned, a battle plan was drafted by military planners (not suits in the Pentagon), contingencies were addressed, objectives and goals identified and tasks were executed.
Iran is the place. Husseing hated and was dispised by these extremists. They hated Hussein for oppressing fellow Muslims, albeit, Persians... but, Muslims, nonetheless. Al Qaeda came into iraq after the fall of Hussein... in the malaise that followed.
thats true. so now we need to and have been killing them.
Finally... a possible solution is to make this a World Project, not a U.S. Project. NATO can provide trainning bases for Iraqi army recruits. REAL trainning, not two weeks of boot camp and tossed into the mix. Remove them from the country and train them in bases in NATO Ally Turkey,
I didnt know the US provides 2 weeks or training. but you want to send Iraqis to another country to get trained? first I heard of this bright idea. sorry not gonna happen or work.
to help weed out the ones who will pledge their alligence to Al Sadr. Bring in NATO Troops to patrol the borders and highways, as well as standing guard duty over the oil fields and pipelines.
good idea. why arent they doing that? is the US stopping them? I honestly dont know.
Use the Arab Nations to train police to be policemen, not Shi'ite Death Squads. During their trainning, have Arabs do the police work, noty U.S. GIs. The Arabs have a better grasp on Arab culture, customs, religion and language.
arab countries dont give a fuck about anybody but themselves. and by themselves I mean which ever royal family for any arab country.
If needed... outsource these tasks. And hire Iraqis to do the labor. Quit hiring asshole americans who want tax exempt jobs over there. Put the Iraqis to work, so they'll quit trying to kill the asshole Americans over there that are getting the jobs.
Iraqis are getting alot of jobs. "insurgents/terrorists are blowing up people standing in lines waiting for employment, not american workers.
Yaeh.. it's going to be expensive and long. But, it all depends upon how badly you want this job to succeed. If you don't want to pay for it... you are basically saying, 'My money is more important than fixing Iraq'. No one said it would be easy or cheap... except Bush.
I do want success. and I dont ever remember hearing bush say it would be cheap.
...
no one ever said it was. it was a threat for a dictator to march his army around the mid east and take over countries.
A Dictator that was being sufficiently contained and rendered impotent and incapable of using his military to carry out his threats. All he had was his big blabbermouth to say shit like, "Mother of all Battles" and other nonsense. Like idiots... we believed his shit... based primarily on the word of Iraqi dissidents who ultimately got the power in Iraq that they lusted for.
...
I didnt know the US provides 2 weeks or training. but you want to send Iraqis to another country to get trained? first I heard of this bright idea. sorry not gonna happen or work.
It is bullshit trainning because Bush/Rumsfeld stressed that the numbers of Iraqis needed to increase so they could reveal it to the American people. If this 320,000 troops number is correct... where are they and why haven't 320,000 of them, relieved ONE of our guys?
To gain security you NEED QUALITY boots, not boots filled by incompetance. Moving the trainning out of the country would allow the screening process to get the miltia men out. The trainning program should be comprehensive. The last thing to want is a force that trains under fire. That explains the high dessertion rate of Iraqi military me.
...
good idea. why arent they doing that? is the US stopping them? I honestly dont know..
NATO and Arab Nations aren't participating... and do you blame them? Imagine if this were Russia or France in this prediciment instead of us. Are you telling me you would have the U.S. send in our troops and spend our tax dollars to get Russia or France out of a mess they created? I wouldn't.
I don't blame them for saying, 'We'll help... but, it'll cost you'.
...
arab countries dont give a fuck about anybody but themselves. and by themselves I mean which ever royal family for any arab country.
If they aren't concerned about it... then it means that they are not sending in money and supplies or allowing their citizens into Iraq to fight. They do not want the shit to spill over into their borders and they definately don't want poor Iraqi refugees crossing into their nations.
...
Iraqis are getting alot of jobs. "insurgents/terrorists are blowing up people standing in lines waiting for employment, not american workers.
So... no American workers are getting shot at as they drive their convoys along those dangerous highways, right? There are Americans working over there... I say, hire the Iraqis. and if there are bombings in employemnt lines.. I would say that's a pretty good indication thatr things aren't as peaceful over there as you are teling me it is.
...
I do want success. and I dont ever remember hearing bush say it would be cheap.
“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.” Donald Rumsfeld - 19Jan2003 - [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]
“I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.” Donald Rumsfeld - 11Apr2003 - [Source: Reuters, “U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,” Entous, 4/11/03]
“Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” Press Secretary Ari Fleischer - 18Feb2003 - [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]
Yeah... technically... Bush isn't directly attributed to any of these quotes. If you use that as an excuse... then, it means that everyone in his administration acts independent of his Presidency and he has absolutely no control over his appointments. What does that say about him as the President? And more importantly, why was he re-elected?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
A Dictator that was being sufficiently contained and rendered impotent and incapable of using his military to carry out his threats. All he had was his big blabbermouth to say shit like, "Mother of all Battles" and other nonsense. Like idiots... we believed his shit... based primarily on the word of Iraqi dissidents who ultimately got the power in Iraq that they lusted for.
yea I agree. like we both have said, the reasons for going to war were bullshit.
It is bullshit trainning because Bush/Rumsfeld stressed that the numbers of Iraqis needed to increase so they could reveal it to the American people. If this 320,000 troops number is correct... where are they and why haven't 320,000 of them, relieved ONE of our guys?
To gain security you NEED QUALITY boots, not boots filled by incompetance. Moving the trainning out of the country would allow the screening process to get the miltia men out. The trainning program should be comprehensive. The last thing to want is a force that trains under fire. That explains the high dessertion rate of Iraqi military me.
moving training out of the coutry is not the answer. and would never happen anyway. iraqis will get trained by us.
NATO and Arab Nations aren't participating... and do you blame them? Imagine if this were Russia or France in this prediciment instead of us. Are you telling me you would have the U.S. send in our troops and spend our tax dollars to get Russia or France out of a mess they created? I wouldn't.
I don't blame them for saying, 'We'll help... but, it'll cost you'.
no I dont blame them. NATO, however should be there like they were in Rawanda for example. arab countries? they will never do shit.
So... no American workers are getting shot at as they drive their convoys along those dangerous highways, right? There are Americans working over there... I say, hire the Iraqis. and if there are bombings in employemnt lines.. I would say that's a pretty good indication thatr things aren't as peaceful over there as you are teling me it is.
you have got to be fucking kidding me. obviously you arent reading my posts. when did I ever say it was peaceful over there? yes americans are dying. no where near at the rate of iraqis. terrorists are targeting iraqis much more then american contractors. americans are working over there because they are much more skilled and able to the jobs.
...
moving training out of the coutry is not the answer. and would never happen anyway. iraqis will get trained by us.
...
Why wouldn't it work? I'm guessing the trainning facilities in Turkey are a hell of a lot better than the ones in Iraq. And why do they NEED to be trainned by us? Why can't the Turks (or the Germans or the English or any other NATO Trainners) train them in military tactics?
The trainning they are receiving now is basically slapping together an assembly line soldier as quickly as possible to meet schedule demands, not quality specifications. This is why we have 320,000 'Trainned' Iraqis troops that can't do shit. They are basically, bodies in uniforms and boots... not soldiers.
...
no I dont blame them. NATO, however should be there like they were in Rawanda for example. arab countries? they will never do shit.
Why should NATO be there? They weren't the ones called upon to do this. This was an undertaking of our own... we made that crystal clear in 2003... we're going it with or without you. HUGE fucking mistake.
And the Arab countries DID play a role in the first Gulf War. We needed their support in order to successfully pull it off... Schwarzkopf knew this.. so did Powell and G.H.W.Bush. The problem is a coalition that includes feuding Arab states is fragile and tough to hold together... only quality statesmen can hold it together... something this Bush's administrations lacks. Still... it did work and it can be done... I believe the current Bush Adminstration and the one that took us into this mess are too incompetent on the diplomatic front.
...
you have got to be fucking kidding me. obviously you arent reading my posts. when did I ever say it was peaceful over there? yes americans are dying. no where near at the rate of iraqis. terrorists are targeting iraqis much more then american contractors. americans are working over there because they are much more skilled and able to the jobs.
The comment was more of a generalized 'You' than a specified 'You'... as in those of 'You' who paint the Iraq thing as not as bad as the media tells you it is. People blowing up employment lines is not a sign that things are that great... leastwise, to me it ain't... that was the point.
And how much skill does one need to drive a truck or lay concrete? Iraq had a bunch of stuff built there until we blew the shit up. They built it once... why can't they build it again?
I'm saying the 50% unemployment in Iraq probably has something to do with the violence over there. Put their damn asses to work... there are plenty of buildings that need to be replaced over there... plenty of projects that need unskilled labor (you don't need a college degree to operate a wheel barrel).
...
There are ways to 'Get The Job Done' and 'Declare Victory'... but it ain't gonna be quick and it ain't gonna be cheap. Cut their unemployment, give their soldiers adequate trainning and weapons that work, provide basic needs (such as stable electricity and clean water and sewage, provide security... with SECURITY being the foundation. Doing it on the cheap is sending in 20,000 when you should be spending the money to send in 120,000... slapping together a poor quality, but high quantity security force... letting the politicians make military decisions... and trying to solve a complicated political problem with a military solution.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Why wouldn't it work? I'm guessing the trainning facilities in Turkey are a hell of a lot better than the ones in Iraq. And why do they NEED to be trainned by us? Why can't the Turks (or the Germans or the English or any other NATO Trainners) train them in military tactics?
The trainning they are receiving now is basically slapping together an assembly line soldier as quickly as possible to meet schedule demands, not quality specifications. This is why we have 320,000 'Trainned' Iraqis troops that can't do shit. They are basically, bodies in uniforms and boots... not soldiers.
it wouldnt work because its unrealistic. I'm going out on a limb here but I would guess Iraqis want to be trained and live in their own country. think about what you claim to be the answer...you want a few hundred thousand iraqis to travel to some other country to live and train.
NATO trainers? in your next paragraph you ask why they should be therer after I suggested it. which is it? I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing
building and training an army takes time. american military is the best in the world, thats why we should train them.
...Why should NATO be there? They weren't the ones called upon to do this. This was an undertaking of our own... we made that crystal clear in 2003... we're going it with or without you. HUGE fucking mistake.
And the Arab countries DID play a role in the first Gulf War. We needed their support in order to successfully pull it off... Schwarzkopf knew this.. so did Powell and G.H.W.Bush. The problem is a coalition that includes feuding Arab states is fragile and tough to hold together... only quality statesmen can hold it together... something this Bush's administrations lacks. Still... it did work and it can be done... I believe the current Bush Adminstration and the one that took us into this mess are too incompetent on the diplomatic front.
NATO should be there now because Iraq is a sovereign nation, with its own elected goverment. I dont see the problem with them going there to provide security. or even to help train the soliders. and yes the current bush administration lacks bigtime on the diplomatic front.
The comment was more of a generalized 'You' than a specified 'You'... as in those of 'You' who paint the Iraq thing as not as bad as the media tells you it is. People blowing up employment lines is not a sign that things are that great... leastwise, to me it ain't... that was the point.
I dont know what news you watch but no one is painting Iraq as a peaceful or great place.
And how much skill does one need to drive a truck or lay concrete? Iraq had a bunch of stuff built there until we blew the shit up. They built it once... why can't they build it again?
I'm saying the 50% unemployment in Iraq probably has something to do with the violence over there. Put their damn asses to work... there are plenty of buildings that need to be replaced over there... plenty of projects that need unskilled labor (you don't need a college degree to operate a wheel barrel).
you seem to know alot about a place you have never been. I'm gonna go out on another limb here and say that rebuilding is taking place. and I dont know many american going to iraq to pour concrete and push a wheel barrell. I have read Iraq has more like 25-30% unemployment and many of those probably worked for the government that no longer exists.
There are ways to 'Get The Job Done' and 'Declare Victory'... but it ain't gonna be quick and it ain't gonna be cheap. Cut their unemployment, give their soldiers adequate trainning and weapons that work, provide basic needs (such as stable electricity and clean water and sewage, provide security... with SECURITY being the foundation.
sounds great. isnt that what we are attempted to do? albeit with an additional 21,000 soliders on top of the 140,000 we already have there. This additional boost could give the Iraqs the push they need to become self sufficent in all the above mentioned.
it wouldnt work because its unrealistic. I'm going out on a limb here but I would guess Iraqis want to be trained and live in their own country. think about what you claim to be the answer...you want a few hundred thousand iraqis to travel to some other country to live and train.
NATO trainers? in your next paragraph you ask why they should be therer after I suggested it. which is it? I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing
building and training an army takes time. american military is the best in the world, thats why we should train them.
Moving them out of the country gets them away from the problem and allows them to concentrate on becoming soldiers. If Iraq was not in disarray, then, yeah, train them in Iraq. But, since the place is so fucked up... get them someplace where there is not a fucking Civil War going on. The Army they got right now... they ONLY want to be deployed in the parts of the country of THEIR choosing, not the military requirement. That's because they are not soldiers, yet. If they do not follow military orders... what good are they? How is that any good?
And yes... IF NATO was a part of this non-existant coalition, then yes... their resources would be available. but, they are not. There is no obligation for other NATO partners to bail out the ones than find themselves in messes of their own making. As for now... why not contract their services? Do you think our trainners work for free?
As for the number.. 320,000 is a Bush/Rumsfeld number. Just give me the guys that are worth a shit. Eliminate the fat old men that cannot sprint 20 meters without keeling over and ship the others off in divisions so they get used to the idea of fighting as a unit. And it DOES take time... tell that your President Bush and Rumsfeld... I already know that.
NATO should be there now because Iraq is a sovereign nation, with its own elected goverment. I dont see the problem with them going there to provide security. or even to help train the soliders. and yes the current bush administration lacks bigtime on the diplomatic front. .
NATO has no obligation to be in Iraq... why should they? They are not in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Jordan.. those are soverign nations. Why should they just be in our little fiasco?
Again... we can enlist them by going to NATO and asking for assistance... and we are screwed when they say it is all on our dime.... which, it should be.
you seem to know alot about a place you have never been. I'm gonna go out on another limb here and say that rebuilding is taking place. and I dont know many american going to iraq to pour concrete and push a wheel barrell. I have read Iraq has more like 25-30% unemployment and many of those probably worked for the government that no longer exists.
I agree... some rebuilding is taking place. But, it is not on a grand scale because it is not a safe environment to work. If it were a safe place, then there would be the rebuilding effort that should be taking place. Unemployment is still high...
"The unemployment rate has risen to around 60%."
Source: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/AMMF-6VCJ6S?OpenDocument
Maybe you are counting 'insurgent' or 'I.E.D. Installer' as a job class... to get your number down to 30%. I do not recognize them as valid occupations.
sounds great. isnt that what we are attempted to do? albeit with an additional 21,000 soliders on top of the 140,000 we already have there. This additional boost could give the Iraqs the push they need to become self sufficent in all the above mentioned..
It all depends on what they are there to do. What are the additional 21,00 troops going to do? If it's the same thing the 140,000 troops have been doing for the past 4 years... how does that solve anything?
I could be wrong but I dont think the US has enough resources to send in 120,000 more troops.
We do... I know that Wikipedia is unreliable, but i have heard that 1.4 million number tossed around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
The Generals in charge of the War asked for 200,000... they would not have asked for that number, if they didn't exist.
...
Bottom line... we are looking to do it on the cheap. I hear this 'Get the Job done'... 'Get the Job Done'... from assholes who have no fucking clue of what the job is... but, no one wants to pay for it.
That's my solution... which is better than any other solution I have read about in here... which is because no one else has come up with one.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Why should they just be in our little fiasco?
Again... we can enlist them by going to NATO and asking for assistance... and we are screwed when they say it is all on our dime.... which, it should be.
great. lets ask and pay for it. as long as they are there to help with security and training im all for it.
It all depends on what they are there to do. What are the additional 21,00 troops going to do? If it's the same thing the 140,000 troops have been doing for the past 4 years... how does that solve anything?
We do... I know that Wikipedia is unreliable, but i have heard that 1.4 million number tossed around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
The Generals in charge of the War asked for 200,000... they would not have asked for that number, if they didn't exist.
...
Bottom line... we are looking to do it on the cheap. I hear this 'Get the Job done'... 'Get the Job Done'... from assholes who have no fucking clue of what the job is... but, no one wants to pay for it.
That's my solution... which is better than any other solution I have read about in here... which is because no one else has come up with one.
I just dont know. our military is stretched pretty thin. but i really dont fully know what we have available.
I think Iraq is closer to taking over their own country now then they were 2 years ago and will be even more so 2 years from now. I see light at the end of the tunnel. well lets just say my fingers are crossed. good debate, I dont think we are that far off.
Comments
you have made this exact post before and it has absolutely nothing to do with my post. get back to me when you have something to say regarding my comments
Dude, haven't you seen The Hills Have Eyes???
haha yea thats a good flick
My bad...
I thought you said, "news flash buddy, we are not there to control energy exports. thats a catchy little thing you people try to pin it on. what are we going to do? build a pipeline from Iraq to California? Iraqs oil, no matter which company is pumping it from the ground, is and always will be controlled by OPEC"
...
Which I read as we are not there to control their oil... or who they sell it to... at which price. We don't want to influence or control oil supplies or OPEC because we really don't want to get into a bidding war with China for the stuff. Our government and the big global oil companies think they are making too much profit and would never want to influence the oil producers or control the resources.. right?
We are there on a strictly humanitarian mission... to spread peace and democracy. And if they don't like it... kill 'em.
Yeah... I agree with you.
Hail, Hail!!!
thats right. we can never control that. its impossible.
a bidding war? how is that possible? OPEC controls supply, trading pits in New york and London set the price.
nope oil companies want to make as much profit as possible just like any other company or their stock price will fall. they happen to be in the oil business which, today, is an expensive commodity. as for our government, you do realize the US needs that oil to survive. people need to admit this fact.
part of the reason for being is Iraq is because of Oil. the US didnt want saddam to invade saudi arabia, kuwait, and Iran and control 70% of the worlds oil. if the US didnt intervene saddam would have done that and possibly succeeded. another reason is to spread freedom and democracy and stopping terrorists, such as el queda in iraq, from taking over a country that we left open by removing saddam and the baath party.
____
Zagreb 2006/ Munich 2007/ Venice 2007/ Berlin 2009 / Venice 2010 / 2 x Berlin 2012 / Stockholm 2012 / Milan 2014 / Trieste 2014 / Vienna 2014 / Florence (EV) 2019 / Padova 2018 / Prague 2018 / Imola 2022 / Budapest 2022 / Vienna 2022 / Prague 2022
sorry you feel left out. I dont feel like looking, tell us again.
Then, why not use that rationale to justify the war? Probably because no one would have bought into it.
And Hussein was all but dead from the first Gulf War. Iraq never recovered from the destruction because the impending economic sanctions and constant surveillence kept him from mobilizing his remaining troops or establishing manufacturing, distribution and storage any weapons systems at his disposal. Hell, our amoured division faced WWII vintage Russian T-34 tanks on their run into Baghdad. The Iraqi Army was using tanks built in 1945 to defend their nation... there was no way he would be able to invade his neighbors after the beating he took in 1992.
The gassing of his own people took place in the 1980s and after the first Gulf War... to quell an uprising by Shi'ites upon the urging of our government.
The weapons inspections did the trick... the sanctions were working (and the oil for food thing... it got Hussein gaudy marble statues and ugly vases for his palaces, not weapons systems).
...
Face it... this war was a bad idea and sold to us under false pretenses. Trying to make excuses of how great it is now is like sprinkling sugar over a piece of shit, trying to make it taste better.
We need to find a solution... but, we have to come to a point where we realize that we cannot pull it off alone. We NEED the Arab neighbors and our NATO Allies to help us. We need to recognize what this thing is at face value... a big fucking mess that has never been under our control.
One way out... is to pay for the whole damn thing. We bought this shit, why should other nations pay for it? Outsource this shit to the Arab countries to help provide police trainning... contract ourt to our NATO Allies for military trainning in off-site facilities and to provide border and pipeline security. Hell.. outsource to China... they got a couple of billion soldiers over there.
But... WE pay for it all. We caused this shit... we broke this shit... we are responsible for this shit... we PAY for this shit. Think of it as a national Personal Responsibility and punishment for acting stupid and doing stupid shit.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree. rationale used to go to war was bullshit. reasons to stay, IMO, are legit. but regardless, I think we had saddam under control after 92. if we werent EVER involved though. saddam could have easily taken over the middle east. especially kuwait, which he did, and saudi arabia.
...
true. we cant change that fact.
I dont see anyone say how great this war is based on the orginal reasons for going to war. this war is however stopping terrorists from having a safe haven in Iraq and for a mid east country to live in freedom. we are paying an extremely high price for that, however. and that sucks.
NATO? arab countries? I dont know, ok fine help out. but I dont think that will solve much.
so do we outsource stuff or not? this paragraph is too confusing.
I fully supported the rationale and justification of the first Gulf War. It was a reaction to the Iraqi Action if invading and occupying a soverign nation of Kuwait. The military plan was drafted, a true coalition was assembled, the lessons of Viet Nam were learned, a battle plan was drafted by military planners (not suits in the Pentagon), contingencies were addressed, objectives and goals identified and tasks were executed. How did all of this get lost so quickly?
Iraq was never a threat to become a base for Islamic Extremists... Iran is the place. Husseing hated and was dispised by these extremists. They hated Hussein for oppressing fellow Muslims, albeit, Persians... but, Muslims, nonetheless. Al Qaeda came into iraq after the fall of Hussein... in the malaise that followed. as it turns out, we assisted Al Qaeda in setting up in Iraq... not by design, but by ignorance. If you want to get the terrorists.. look for them where they actually ARE... in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
...
Finally... a possible solution is to make this a World Project, not a U.S. Project. NATO can provide trainning bases for Iraqi army recruits. REAL trainning, not two weeks of boot camp and tossed into the mix. Remove them from the country and train them in bases in NATO Ally Turkey, to help weed out the ones who will pledge their alligence to Al Sadr. Bring in NATO Troops to patrol the borders and highways, as well as standing guard duty over the oil fields and pipelines.
Use the Arab Nations to train police to be policemen, not Shi'ite Death Squads. During their trainning, have Arabs do the police work, noty U.S. GIs. The Arabs have a better grasp on Arab culture, customs, religion and language.
If needed... outsource these tasks. And hire Iraqis to do the labor. Quit hiring asshole americans who want tax exempt jobs over there. Put the Iraqis to work, so they'll quit trying to kill the asshole Americans over there that are getting the jobs.
...
Yaeh.. it's going to be expensive and long. But, it all depends upon how badly you want this job to succeed. If you don't want to pay for it... you are basically saying, 'My money is more important than fixing Iraq'. No one said it would be easy or cheap... except Bush.
Hail, Hail!!!
yea I agree.
no one ever said it was. it was a threat for a dictator to march his army around the mid east and take over countries.
thats true. so now we need to and have been killing them.
ok lets go.
I didnt know the US provides 2 weeks or training. but you want to send Iraqis to another country to get trained? first I heard of this bright idea. sorry not gonna happen or work.
good idea. why arent they doing that? is the US stopping them? I honestly dont know.
arab countries dont give a fuck about anybody but themselves. and by themselves I mean which ever royal family for any arab country.
Iraqis are getting alot of jobs. "insurgents/terrorists are blowing up people standing in lines waiting for employment, not american workers.
...
I do want success. and I dont ever remember hearing bush say it would be cheap.
To gain security you NEED QUALITY boots, not boots filled by incompetance. Moving the trainning out of the country would allow the screening process to get the miltia men out. The trainning program should be comprehensive. The last thing to want is a force that trains under fire. That explains the high dessertion rate of Iraqi military me. NATO and Arab Nations aren't participating... and do you blame them? Imagine if this were Russia or France in this prediciment instead of us. Are you telling me you would have the U.S. send in our troops and spend our tax dollars to get Russia or France out of a mess they created? I wouldn't.
I don't blame them for saying, 'We'll help... but, it'll cost you'. If they aren't concerned about it... then it means that they are not sending in money and supplies or allowing their citizens into Iraq to fight. They do not want the shit to spill over into their borders and they definately don't want poor Iraqi refugees crossing into their nations. So... no American workers are getting shot at as they drive their convoys along those dangerous highways, right? There are Americans working over there... I say, hire the Iraqis. and if there are bombings in employemnt lines.. I would say that's a pretty good indication thatr things aren't as peaceful over there as you are teling me it is. “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.” Donald Rumsfeld - 19Jan2003 - [Source: Media Stakeout, 1/19/03]
“I don’t know that there is much reconstruction to do.” Donald Rumsfeld - 11Apr2003 - [Source: Reuters, “U.S. Officials Play Down Iraq Reconstruction Needs,” Entous, 4/11/03]
“Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” Press Secretary Ari Fleischer - 18Feb2003 - [Source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03]
Yeah... technically... Bush isn't directly attributed to any of these quotes. If you use that as an excuse... then, it means that everyone in his administration acts independent of his Presidency and he has absolutely no control over his appointments. What does that say about him as the President? And more importantly, why was he re-elected?
Hail, Hail!!!
yea I agree. like we both have said, the reasons for going to war were bullshit.
moving training out of the coutry is not the answer. and would never happen anyway. iraqis will get trained by us.
no I dont blame them. NATO, however should be there like they were in Rawanda for example. arab countries? they will never do shit.
you have got to be fucking kidding me. obviously you arent reading my posts. when did I ever say it was peaceful over there? yes americans are dying. no where near at the rate of iraqis. terrorists are targeting iraqis much more then american contractors. americans are working over there because they are much more skilled and able to the jobs.
Why wouldn't it work? I'm guessing the trainning facilities in Turkey are a hell of a lot better than the ones in Iraq. And why do they NEED to be trainned by us? Why can't the Turks (or the Germans or the English or any other NATO Trainners) train them in military tactics?
The trainning they are receiving now is basically slapping together an assembly line soldier as quickly as possible to meet schedule demands, not quality specifications. This is why we have 320,000 'Trainned' Iraqis troops that can't do shit. They are basically, bodies in uniforms and boots... not soldiers. Why should NATO be there? They weren't the ones called upon to do this. This was an undertaking of our own... we made that crystal clear in 2003... we're going it with or without you. HUGE fucking mistake.
And the Arab countries DID play a role in the first Gulf War. We needed their support in order to successfully pull it off... Schwarzkopf knew this.. so did Powell and G.H.W.Bush. The problem is a coalition that includes feuding Arab states is fragile and tough to hold together... only quality statesmen can hold it together... something this Bush's administrations lacks. Still... it did work and it can be done... I believe the current Bush Adminstration and the one that took us into this mess are too incompetent on the diplomatic front. The comment was more of a generalized 'You' than a specified 'You'... as in those of 'You' who paint the Iraq thing as not as bad as the media tells you it is. People blowing up employment lines is not a sign that things are that great... leastwise, to me it ain't... that was the point.
And how much skill does one need to drive a truck or lay concrete? Iraq had a bunch of stuff built there until we blew the shit up. They built it once... why can't they build it again?
I'm saying the 50% unemployment in Iraq probably has something to do with the violence over there. Put their damn asses to work... there are plenty of buildings that need to be replaced over there... plenty of projects that need unskilled labor (you don't need a college degree to operate a wheel barrel).
...
There are ways to 'Get The Job Done' and 'Declare Victory'... but it ain't gonna be quick and it ain't gonna be cheap. Cut their unemployment, give their soldiers adequate trainning and weapons that work, provide basic needs (such as stable electricity and clean water and sewage, provide security... with SECURITY being the foundation. Doing it on the cheap is sending in 20,000 when you should be spending the money to send in 120,000... slapping together a poor quality, but high quantity security force... letting the politicians make military decisions... and trying to solve a complicated political problem with a military solution.
Hail, Hail!!!
it wouldnt work because its unrealistic. I'm going out on a limb here but I would guess Iraqis want to be trained and live in their own country. think about what you claim to be the answer...you want a few hundred thousand iraqis to travel to some other country to live and train.
NATO trainers? in your next paragraph you ask why they should be therer after I suggested it. which is it? I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing
building and training an army takes time. american military is the best in the world, thats why we should train them.
NATO should be there now because Iraq is a sovereign nation, with its own elected goverment. I dont see the problem with them going there to provide security. or even to help train the soliders. and yes the current bush administration lacks bigtime on the diplomatic front.
I dont know what news you watch but no one is painting Iraq as a peaceful or great place.
you seem to know alot about a place you have never been. I'm gonna go out on another limb here and say that rebuilding is taking place. and I dont know many american going to iraq to pour concrete and push a wheel barrell. I have read Iraq has more like 25-30% unemployment and many of those probably worked for the government that no longer exists.
sounds great. isnt that what we are attempted to do? albeit with an additional 21,000 soliders on top of the 140,000 we already have there. This additional boost could give the Iraqs the push they need to become self sufficent in all the above mentioned.
I could be wrong but I dont think the US has enough resources to send in 120,000 more troops.
And yes... IF NATO was a part of this non-existant coalition, then yes... their resources would be available. but, they are not. There is no obligation for other NATO partners to bail out the ones than find themselves in messes of their own making. As for now... why not contract their services? Do you think our trainners work for free?
As for the number.. 320,000 is a Bush/Rumsfeld number. Just give me the guys that are worth a shit. Eliminate the fat old men that cannot sprint 20 meters without keeling over and ship the others off in divisions so they get used to the idea of fighting as a unit. And it DOES take time... tell that your President Bush and Rumsfeld... I already know that.
NATO has no obligation to be in Iraq... why should they? They are not in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Jordan.. those are soverign nations. Why should they just be in our little fiasco?
Again... we can enlist them by going to NATO and asking for assistance... and we are screwed when they say it is all on our dime.... which, it should be.
Read some of the messages here on this board... the 'Is Iraq So Bad' is a good start... tune into your local FOX News Cablecast.
I agree... some rebuilding is taking place. But, it is not on a grand scale because it is not a safe environment to work. If it were a safe place, then there would be the rebuilding effort that should be taking place. Unemployment is still high...
"The unemployment rate has risen to around 60%."
Source: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/AMMF-6VCJ6S?OpenDocument
Maybe you are counting 'insurgent' or 'I.E.D. Installer' as a job class... to get your number down to 30%. I do not recognize them as valid occupations.
It all depends on what they are there to do. What are the additional 21,00 troops going to do? If it's the same thing the 140,000 troops have been doing for the past 4 years... how does that solve anything?
We do... I know that Wikipedia is unreliable, but i have heard that 1.4 million number tossed around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_active_troops
The Generals in charge of the War asked for 200,000... they would not have asked for that number, if they didn't exist.
...
Bottom line... we are looking to do it on the cheap. I hear this 'Get the Job done'... 'Get the Job Done'... from assholes who have no fucking clue of what the job is... but, no one wants to pay for it.
That's my solution... which is better than any other solution I have read about in here... which is because no one else has come up with one.
Hail, Hail!!!
we can just agree to disagree that training soliders in another country is not going to work those countries arent at war. why you needed me to point that out, i dont know. great. lets ask and pay for it. as long as they are there to help with security and training im all for it.
another cheap shot at fox news, classic. i watch fox all the time and even hannity says the country is a mess.
I guess we will find out.
I just dont know. our military is stretched pretty thin. but i really dont fully know what we have available.
I think Iraq is closer to taking over their own country now then they were 2 years ago and will be even more so 2 years from now. I see light at the end of the tunnel. well lets just say my fingers are crossed. good debate, I dont think we are that far off.