Faded Purple

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:17 am

I suppose some of you at least remember a time when the Iraqi citizens proudly held up a purple stained finger to show they voted. Fast forward and Iraq is now slowly being taken over by A.Q. ( you know, the very same that Obama loudly proclaimed to be on the run). AQ has raised their flag over Fallujah and are fighting to control Ramadi.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014 ... -iraq?lite

So how many of you remember the discussion we had about Obama's premature ejaculation and pulled all our troops out without signing a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. His reason? He didn't want to leave any US forces there. Did he think the newly minted Iraqi govt. could handle things on their own? If he did, he was sadly mistaken. And to think he had the Smartest Woman in the world as Secretary of State to give him proper advice.

So all the treasure we spent there looks like it will be wasted and AQ will gain a base of operations. Why? Because one Man wanted to appease his liberal base and be able to say, "See, I kept my promise and ended the Iraqi occupation by American troops". I just wonder how many of those Iraqi citizens with the purple stain long faded away would like to see our troops still there.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:02 am

the Treasure we spent in Iraq was wasted LONG before Obama came into office. Long before. Anyone who didn't think that place would descend to this sort of stuff barring a MASSIVE ongoing US presence and expenditure is out and out nuts.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:04 am

The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.

At the same time we would have had a serious strategic potential and an obvious tactical advantage when implementing any strategy or reacting to events in the region.

First he let the mid terms delay the taking of Falluja at the cost of many coalition lives that would have been spared if we had gone in straight away and then he rejected the Super Base strategy. He went from commander to politician like they all do.

After that, as far as I can see, it was all done and the end results we see today are the best we could hope for in the wake of those decisions. The people in the region didn't change, they simply endured our temporary presence.
Look at the USSR, they lifted the boot off the neck of places they held there for over 50 years and it was instant return to old tribal and ethnic grudges...some of which are spilling over into Russia today in the form of terrorism.

We searched for WMD, found they were gone, found Saddam, chose his destiny and after that there was no purpose left for us to be there. Despite the rhetoric we didn't go there to get oil and the price of their oil isn't for us to decide. Game over. Treasure wasted.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:07 am

Will Robinson wrote:The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.

and, we get the money for this VERY expensive ongoing project from where, Will? More taken away from the poor, the unemployed in the US to achieve what, exactly?

We searched for WMD, found they were gone, found Saddam, chose his destiny and after that there was no purpose left for us to be there. Despite the rhetoric we didn't go there to get oil and the price of their oil isn't for us to decide. Game over. Treasure wasted.

and, in the bargain, you got rid of the one strongman in the region that might have proven ruthlessly resistant to Al Q.........

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:25 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.
and, we get the money for this VERY expensive ongoing project from where, Will? More taken away from the poor, the unemployed in the US to achieve what, exactly?

Are you asking how we pay for the SuperBase or just venting about the cost of the war in general?
The war itself isn't ongoing. You can think of it as the cost of not ending up with President Pat Buchanan (or another like him...maybe worse). In the wake of 9/11 if we hadn't done something like that, and instead gone soft we would have emboldened al Queda for more attacks the results of which would have moved sentiment toward the election of someone like that. So take it for what it was at the time. The public was calling for blood.

If you are talking about the cost of the SuperBase that is nothing more than moving assets and taking what we need from a compliant Saddam. Net expense=not much extra and the net benefit likely very good (assuming future administrations stayed strong. We held Guantanamo against a non-threat-Cuba for the same strategic reasons. The Middle East is the single most compelling place to put this base. Take the troops out of Germany or Japan, etc. spend some of that capital toward a more important location.

Take todays problems with Iran...You want to be able to do better than the threat of John Kerry going to Iran?
Try not going there and instead start moving hardware and men in and out of the Base in Iraq, let some stories surface that we might be organizing an insertion force there, etc.
For me I'm thinking the idea of John Kerry coming to talk over dinner, as horrible as that is in itself, isn't as threatening as sudden build up activity at a monstrous U.S. ground/air installation a few hundred miles from your border....

Syria trouble....right over your other shoulder....

Etc.

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:We searched for WMD, found they were gone, found Saddam, chose his destiny and after that there was no purpose left for us to be there. Despite the rhetoric we didn't go there to get oil and the price of their oil isn't for us to decide. Game over. Treasure wasted.
and, in the bargain, you got rid of the one strongman in the region that might have proven ruthlessly resistant to Al Q.........

Yea, I'm one of the ones who wanted to go the SuperBase route and make that guy our ★■◆●, again...

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:09 am

Iraq was a mistake…period…there was no better way to have done it.

But, in hindsight the war itself could have been prosecuted better.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:36 pm

Yeah, I think the biggest mistake was removing Saddam. Not moderate in any sense of the word except in that part of the world. He was a stabilizing force in a culture we don't understand.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:35 pm

I think in both Afghanistan and Iraq we see the folly of trying to intervene in locations that have been sites of conflict for pretty much as long as human civilization has existed, and thinking that a (relative) handful of troops and couple of years could magically turn them into stable bastions of democracy. The initial action in Afghanistan was necessary, but the immediate follow-up was bungled pretty badly, and more than a decade later we find ourselves in an uncertain mess. As for Iraq...that was just a clusterfuck from day one. I genuinely wish I could go back to my teenage self of a decade ago and smack him upside the head for actually supporting what was going on.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:41 am

Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.
and, we get the money for this VERY expensive ongoing project from where, Will? More taken away from the poor, the unemployed in the US to achieve what, exactly?
Are you asking how we pay for the SuperBase or just venting about the cost of the war in general?

well, the war is a done deal. The superbase idea is really what I was getting at. That project would cost trillions to maintain.Trillions. You don't just 'transfer assets', you have to maintain a large, ongoing force in a very inhospitable environment, and have to do it for two decades or more. Given the changing sourcing of our energy needs, the Middle East simply doesn't justify that. Let them sort their own ★■◆● out.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:53 am

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.
and, we get the money for this VERY expensive ongoing project from where, Will? More taken away from the poor, the unemployed in the US to achieve what, exactly?
Are you asking how we pay for the SuperBase or just venting about the cost of the war in general?
well, the war is a done deal. The superbase idea is really what I was getting at. That project would cost trillions to maintain.Trillions. You don't just 'transfer assets', you have to maintain a large, ongoing force in a very inhospitable environment, and have to do it for two decades or more. Given the changing sourcing of our energy needs, the Middle East simply doesn't justify that. Let them sort their own ★■◆● out.

And when the fanatics win and are able to use the full economic resources of various countries to wage a terrorist war on our soil, will you get out on the Capitals steps for a photo op while you sing God Bless America.....oops make that "Atheist" Bless America ?

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:57 pm

Seriously woodchip what kind of crazy are you? You at least used to make some sort of sense but now you don't even come close to rational thought.

Anyone live close to this guy? Someone needs to check on him occasionally.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:06 pm

CobGobbler wrote:Seriously woodchip what kind of crazy are you? You at least used to make some sort of sense but now you don't even come close to rational thought.

Anyone live close to this guy? Someone needs to check on him occasionally.

Another Alinsky fall back. Nice try but your Creds. are shrinking.

CobGobbler · Post by **CobGobbler** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 2:44 pm

Ummm....wtf is an Alinsky fall back?

Seriously dude, take some deep breaths and relax for a few days. Anyone live by this guy? This is another Terry Nichols waiting to happen.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:50 pm

You gay? Sounds like you're awfully interested in getting "close" to me. Or do you plan on stalking me in real life?

vision · Post by **vision** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:58 pm

Wow, woodchip just crossed over wacky forum personality to a mentally unhinged person. I think I'm going to back off of this forum for a while because seeing this is kinda scary...

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:19 pm

vision wrote: Wow, woodchip just crossed over wacky forum personality to a mentally unhinged person. I think I'm going to back off of this forum for a while because seeing this is kinda scary...

And you think Cob is normal

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:27 pm

Woodchip: I seriously suggest you talk to someone. you're developing some real paranoia issues.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 6:31 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:
callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The 'return' on that 'investment' was lost the minute Bush decided to not follow the advice he was offered to force the building of a permanent 'Super Base' in the north of Iraq from where we could monitor (and mobilize against) activity in the region. He could have kept Saddam in place in exchange for an agreement of the base with a no fly corridor under the guise of protecting the Kurds and calming Turkeys concerns about the Kurds.
and, we get the money for this VERY expensive ongoing project from where, Will? More taken away from the poor, the unemployed in the US to achieve what, exactly?
Are you asking how we pay for the SuperBase or just venting about the cost of the war in general?
well, the war is a done deal. The superbase idea is really what I was getting at. That project would cost trillions to maintain.Trillions. You don't just 'transfer assets', you have to maintain a large, ongoing force in a very inhospitable environment, and have to do it for two decades or more. Given the changing sourcing of our energy needs, the Middle East simply doesn't justify that. Let them sort their own **** out.

Slick that is extremely weak, extremely!

The geo/political location of Iraq does NOT inherently add trillions to whatever the cost of moving and maintaining the same number of troops and pieces of hardware in other locations already cost us!
The largest expense would be the construction of the air field and surrounding structures etc. 5-10 million would be enough to operate out of quite comfortably.
And you can deduct from the total the expense to lease bases this one would have replaced!
Land Saddam surrenders to us is free compared to the cost of the real estate we occupy in Turkey, Germany, etc.!

Just take a pick from the list!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:51 pm

woodchip wrote:And when the fanatics win and are able to use the full economic resources of various countries to wage a terrorist war on our soil, will you get out on the Capitals steps for a photo op while you sing God Bless America.....oops make that "Atheist" Bless America ?

I'm making the intelligent observation that us being smack in the middle of the region in question, meddling without a freaking clue, is not going to change any dynamic. We are, if anything, LESS likely to suffer the fate you fear, by letting matters settle themselves. There is no way they take over those resources without having massive credibility within those nations to start with.

I RETURN to the simple question I posited earlier: How do you plan to pay for this multi-trillion dollar adventure in Stupidity?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 7:54 pm

Will Robinson wrote:The geo/political location of Iraq does NOT inherently add trillions to whatever the cost of moving and maintaining the same number of troops and pieces of hardware in other locations already cost us!
The largest expense would be the construction of the air field and surrounding structures etc. 5-10 million would be enough to operate out of quite comfortably.
And you can deduct from the total the expense to lease bases this one would have replaced!
Land Saddam surrenders to us is free compared to the cost of the real estate we occupy in Turkey, Germany, etc.!

Just take a pick from the list!

so, you think it will be just as cheap to maintain a military base in an unstable region of the Middle East as to keep troops in Germany? Really? Ever think it might be a FREQUENT target, and magnet for every military action in the general region? Geez, I thought neoconservatism had been fully discredited for the crock of crap it proved to be, but some of you here are still carrying the torch of Stupid Foreign Policy. Thank God we have a sensible set of people running things nowadays.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:43 pm

callmeslick wrote:

so, you think it will be just as cheap to maintain a military base in an unstable region of the Middle East as to keep troops in Germany? Really? Ever think it might be a FREQUENT target, and magnet for every military action in the general region? Geez, I thought neoconservatism had been fully discredited for the crock of crap it proved to be, but some of you here are still carrying the torch of Stupid Foreign Policy. Thank God we have a sensible set of people running things nowadays.

Sensible as:

"There's the half-billion dollar aircraft fleet that sits unused on the cracked tarmac. There's the $230 million in spare vehicle parts that are unaccounted for. There are the handful of waste incinerators, priced at a few million dollars each, that have never burned much beyond holes in taxpayer pockets"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/top-ways- ... d=21378579

I suspect this little bit of waste in Afghanistan would have kept the base Will is talking about for quite awhile. The people handling things today are no more sensible than when Bush was in office. As usual slick, I'll give you a "nice try".

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:55 pm

your suspicions show utterly no sense of reality or proportion around the costs involved with your goofy 'superbase' idea. All told, your examples total less than 2.3 billion dollars, tops. A base would cost 20 times that much, annually. Every freaking year, for how long, again???

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:56 pm

callmeslick wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:The geo/political location of Iraq does NOT inherently add trillions to whatever the cost of moving and maintaining the same number of troops and pieces of hardware in other locations already cost us!
The largest expense would be the construction of the air field and surrounding structures etc. 5-10 million would be enough to operate out of quite comfortably.
And you can deduct from the total the expense to lease bases this one would have replaced!
Land Saddam surrenders to us is free compared to the cost of the real estate we occupy in Turkey, Germany, etc.!

Just take a pick from the list!
so, you think it will be just as cheap to maintain a military base in an unstable region of the Middle East as to keep troops in Germany? Really? Ever think it might be a FREQUENT target, and magnet for every military action in the general region? Geez, I thought neoconservatism had been fully discredited for the crock of crap it proved to be, but some of you here are still carrying the torch of Stupid Foreign Policy. Thank God we have a sensible set of people running things nowadays.

Lol! You just pull numbers out of your rear end and make proclamations as usual.

We have multiple bases in the region already! We are targets already. We are attacked on occasion already.
There is nothing inherently more dangerous about a northern Iraq location than many other locations we maintain especially since we would have kept Saddam in power functioning as our host/proxy/servant.

The cost wouldn't be anything near what you are spouting! Did you do the math for Obamacare for him too? You got that one way off in the other direction as I recall...

Anyway, attacking a U.S. Base isn't something other militaries do on a whim and terrorists already try so whatever attacks that might come to us there were considered a part of the function of the location choice.

Actually a deterent to military activity in the region was a big plus for the plan. Turkey was all for it...us keeping Saddam off the Kurds which kept them happy on the Iraqi side of the border instead of moving more into their territory. Keeping a deterent for Iran from moving supplies and personnel to Hezbollah and Hamas in Syria and Lebanon.

Basically a fast strike capability to any number of hot spots and hot heads....

There was a lot of win in using a surrender of Saddam to garner that base location. Bases in Japan and Germany etc are not nearly so useful as that one would be in today's geo-political layout.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:01 pm

Will Robinson wrote: Lol!
We have multiple bases in the region already! We are targets already. We are attacked on occasion already.

and those are in more stable locations where we are actually WELCOMED by at least some segment of the populace.

There is nothing inherently more dangerous about a northern Iraq location than many other locations we maintain especially since we would have kept Saddam in power functioning as our host/proxy/servant.

that wouldn't have likely ever happened and you likely know as much.

Attacking a U.S. Base isn't something other militaries do on a whim and terrorists already try so whatever attacks that might come to us there were considered a part of the function of the location choice.

and you putzes whine about 2 lost at Bengazi?

Actually a deterent to military activity in the region was a big plus for the plan. Turkey was all for it...us keeping Saddam off the Kurds which kept them happy on the Iraqi side of the border instead of moving more into their territory. Keeping a deterent for Iran from moving supplies and personnel to Hezbollah and Hamas....

of course, certain people like us doing the dirty work keeping other factions in line, but that activity COSTS MONEY, lots of it.

There was a lot of win in using a surrender of Saddam to garner that base location. Bases in Japan and Germany etc are not nearly so useful as that one would be in today's group political layout.

if you talk to folks who think about modern military practices(looking into the future), such bases are considered VERY obsolete.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:04 pm

So the base at Qatar is obsolete?

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:09 pm

woodchip wrote:So the base at Qatar is obsolete?

the base at Qatar is a superbase? Looking down the road, you will likely see smaller facilities on relatively safe turf with drone and missle capability, and far less 'boots on the ground' or 'aircraft in the hanger' type stuff. Or, so I've heard from my fictitious friends who think about such stuff. I just find it amusing that people who couldn't bat an eye if fellow citizens have healthcare or unemployment bennies are all gung-ho to STILL march around the planet into situation after situation where the US has no clue, no plan and no inherent interests.

flip · Post by **flip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:10 pm

I just don't see how anybody could choose sides.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:12 pm

Sorry slick but the future of the military is going to need fast strike capability not city sized bases deep inside of friendly countries.
We have maintained supposed deterrents against Russia moving on Europe and they are completely useless due to the way armament has changed yet the bases are still running at extreme expense.

We could trade a few of those and a few in the Middle East that are too far out like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and break even on a northern Iraq location. Net cost $0.00.

But it is a moot point. We put a noose around his neck and spent way to much on nothing and now al Qaeda probably gets the whole damn thing!

And stop with the characterizing these comments as my desire for current policy! I'm not suggesting we should go build the base now.
I offered this as hindsight to the way we closed out the Iraq portion of the war on terror-types. If we had done this instead of kill Saddam, Iraq, and our power in the region, would be in much better shape. The Kuwaitis and Saudis don't need our money pouring through the fences of those bases. The Iraqis do.

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:19 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Sorry slick but the future of the military is going to need fast strike capability not city sized bases deep inside of friendly countries.

why? Given the future of warfare seems to be trending toward terrorist attacks and cyber war?

We have maintained supposed deterrents against Russia moving on Europe and they are completely useless due to the way armament has changed yet the bases are still running at extreme expense.

agreed. And this does NOTHING to argue for setting up another long-term committment of an even more dangerous nature.

We could trade a few of those and a few in the Middle East that are too far out like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and break even on a northern Iraq location. Net cost $0.00.

off-topic tip: don't do your own taxes. You have no idea of costs or accounting. Net cost zero my ass, in other words.

But it is a moot point. We put a noose around his neck and spent way to much on nothing and now al Qaeda probably gets the whole damn thing!

well before he was dead, that was a moot point.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:24 pm

callmeslick wrote:...
off-topic tip: don't do your own taxes. You have no idea of costs or accounting. Net cost zero my ass, in other words.

...

Riiggghhhttttt. A base in that region costs billions per year according to you....but only if it is one I think is of value....but the same damn base in the same damn danger zone suddenly doesn't amount to near that much if I want to shut 2 of them down along with Japan and Germany and offset expenses.

You are such a great accountant! Lol!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:33 pm

you're taking two long-paid for bases, in the long, slow process of being wound down(depreciated assets in other words), which have a certain personnel cost, maintenence cost and long-developed local support network, and trading them for new construction, new infrastructure, movement of personnel and equipment for the new task(can't just move active wartime vehicles around in situ), more extensive intelligence than we historically succeed at providing, and FOR WHAT POSSIBLE GAIN?? Who the feck cares if Al Qaeda takes over Fallujah? Maybe if these chumps actually have to govern and maintain order, folks won't support them. But, continuing to make them symbolic victims of an ongoing war by Western, Christian, Infidel and worst of all, utterly clueless power states is like us sponsoring a never-ending recruitment drive for groups like that. Thank goodness, as I said, earlier, that most of your fellow citizens NOW, finally, understand the utter folly of neo-conservative geopolitics.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 9:38 pm

Well slick, we weren't fighting them before 9/11 like we are today and we got:
The Kobar Towers
The USS Cole
9/11
So you propose that we let them alone and they won't bother us. It is our way of life they hate and not the fact we fight them.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:41 pm

callmeslick wrote:you're taking two long-paid for bases,

Lol!
You are really grasping at straws now!

"Long paid for bases"

You are the one who tried to say it takes billions...oh....wait....that's right! You said it was going to cost trillions....to SUSTAIN a base like that.
But now all of a sudden those 'facts' that you fabricated don't apply.

Lol!

callmeslick wrote:.... movement of personnel and equipment for the new task(can't just move active wartime vehicles around in situ),..

Yea those assets in Kuwait and Germany and Japan, etc, they are all in the middle of controlling WWIII!! Don't dare move them! Lol!!

"Active wartime" lol!

Save that kind of nonsense for when you are preaching to idiot democrat faithful. It doesn't work here slick.

callmeslick wrote:....Who the feck cares if Al Qaeda takes over Fallujah?

By "the whole thing" I was referring to the whole of country of Iraq!
Al Queda already has Fallujah and a few other places.
And it matters slick, a lot!
In the context of hindsight, discussing which is a better outcome to end the Iraq war for all the people concerned....Saddam being our ★■◆● but keeping things under his non-islamofacist boot PLUS us manning a base in northern Iraq...versus...what we have going on there now....

No question about it, we should have kept him alive and held a presence there looking over his shoulder and running interference for his nasty neighbors instead of killing him, breaking everything that resembles a system of justice and authority, stirring the pot real real good and then slipping out the side door!

But you go on and keep contradicting yourself and rewriting reality so that, in your world, no one who resembles a conservative can be said to have made a valid point.
Even if it does mean exposing yourself as a silly partisan hack! That's just one you'll have to take for the team. Go D's Yeah!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 5:49 am

callmeslick wrote: Who the feck cares if Al Qaeda takes over Fallujah? Maybe if these chumps actually have to govern and maintain order, folks won't support them.

Funny how even CNN is reporting AQ controlling Fallujah and Iraq is a national security concern.

callmeslick wrote: But, continuing to make them symbolic victims of an ongoing war by Western, Christian, Infidel and worst of all, utterly clueless power states is like us sponsoring a never-ending recruitment drive for groups like that.

I guess you fail to grasp that the Iraqi's are fighting them, the free Syrian rebels are fighting them and the Saudi's have long been opposed to them. I suggest you stop trying to make them into victims as they are not.

callmeslick wrote:Thank goodness, as I said, earlier, that most of your fellow citizens NOW, finally, understand the utter folly of neo-conservative geopolitics.

Ummm you might want to rephrase that to "most of your fellow citizens NOW, finally, understand the utter folly of lead from behind geopolitics".

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 7:56 am

woodchip wrote:Well slick, we weren't fighting them before 9/11 like we are today and we got:
The Kobar Towers
The USS Cole
9/11
So you propose that we let them alone and they won't bother us. It is our way of life they hate and not the fact we fight them.

those attacks(and others) were BECAUSE we had been spending 3 decades messing around in a region we do not understand.

sigma · Post by **sigma** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:16 am

Americans are stupid . First, the U.S. organized training centers of Islamic terrorists in the Middle East with the aim of destabilizing the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of Russia and the civil war motivated by ethnic hatred in Russia. Then the U.S. begin to finance Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda . Then Al Qaeda destroy the World Trade Center in New York. Even after this terrible event , the United States directly and explicitly finances and supports Islamic terrorists already in Syria. It's not even insanity . This is beyond good and evil.
When the U.S. starts sending aircraft carriers to the shores of Britain and France to support the opposition, with the threat of missile attacks on territory these countries if these countries do not fulfill the U.S. ultimatum to change political leaders , then I may believe in the good intentions of the U.S. democratic worldwide. Syria is no different from England. Syrians are the same as people living British, Germans and Americans . But why Americans think the Syrians second-class citizens . As the Germans considered second-class citizens of the Slavs . American foreign policy has long been no different from fascism . For Russians, it is no secret that the entire American patriotism, rallying the American nation, rests only on anti-Russian ideology.
American politicians more to do nothing ?

The United States has a national government debt to other countries - 18.5 trillion dollars. For comparison - Russia's foreign debt - 50.5 billion .

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:22 am

sigma wrote:Americans are stupid . First, the U.S. organized training centers of Islamic terrorists in the Middle East with the aim of destabilizing the peaceful coexistence of the peoples of Russia and the civil war motivated by ethnic hatred in Russia.

you've made this assertion repeatedly. You've never offered ONE SHRED of proof. That, as we refer to it, is a pantload of ★■◆●.

The United States has a national government debt to other countries - 18.5 trillion dollars. For comparison - Russia's foreign debt - 50.5 billion .

I'll take our gross domestic product and standard of living over that of Russia any day. Any day.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:40 am

I wonder why so many Russian women want to find a American husband. Is this something to do with the American way of life or does it say something about Russian men?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:41 am

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:Well slick, we weren't fighting them before 9/11 like we are today and we got:
The Kobar Towers
The USS Cole
9/11
So you propose that we let them alone and they won't bother us. It is our way of life they hate and not the fact we fight them.
those attacks(and others) were BECAUSE we had been spending 3 decades messing around in a region we do not understand.

I think Woody is correct. it is our way of life not just meddling in the Middle East.

The last 30 years contain but a small bit of what they attack us over. From bin Ladens own words. For the foriegn policy stuff it goes back much further, it is the very existence of Israel, our role in helping create the state of Israel.

And on his list things he calls on us to do to appease his followers and avoid further attacks, 'getting out of the Middle East' comes up #5 behind things like:

*convert to islam

*to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

*abandon our Constitution and other man made laws and adopt ruling by the Shariah of Allah.

*End the separation of religion from our policies because that contradicts the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and Creator.

that's a whole lot of change that isn't foreign policy related. No drinking alcohol, no gambling, no sex for fun, no gays, women subservient to men, no banking, etc. etc.
He even cites Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky as an example of what we have to change before he hits on getting out of his neighborhood!

callmeslick · Post by **callmeslick** » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:46 am

Will Robinson wrote: The last 30 years contain but a small bit of what they attack us over. From bin Ladens own words it is the very existence of Israel, our role in helping create the state of Israel.

and, our maintenence of that state. At some point, we have to realize that what is in Israels interest is NOT in our own, especially in terms of dragging the process of a two state solution out forever.

And on his list things he calls on us to do to appease his followers and avoid further attacks, 'getting out of the Middle East' comes up #5 behind things like:

*convert to islam

*to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

*abandon our Constitution and other man made laws and adopt ruling by the Shariah of Allah.

*End the separation of religion from our policies because that contradicts the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and Creator.

and you seriously think that group(and especially their financial backers in Saudi Arabia) are going to waste time and resources over the US if we stopped meddling in the Middle East? Really? Are you that paranoid? I'm not, and would far rather see our vast resources aimed toward making our own people more comfortable and secure, and stop pissing away resources cleaning up the messes around the planet.