London bombings politics/discussion thread
- Thread starter JackFrost2012
- Start date
- Status
Instigator
Banned
Phoenix said:
You can continue to post your links but Iraq still has the 2nd largest reserves. You can see it here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_res
here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
Or do a Google search yourself.
That oil is really untapped whichever way you look at it.
What?
Iraq was already weakened by the first Gulf War and sanctions. It was the obvious target. It's also a smaller country with less people to take over and occupy. They could also get justification for the war due to the UN restrictions and inspections from after the first Gulf War. Pretext for war was thus easier.
Iran probably is the big #2 on that list but the US can only bomb it for now, not occupy it.
The oil is not a spoil of war, it's about creating a nice friendly government there which can pump oil to its full capacity, with the ideal scenario that this would pay for reconstruction of the country, that includes better infrastructure to pump that oil. Cheap, stable flow of oil is key to the global economy of today. That same government would allow the US to set up a couple of bases in the country, further helping the US to police the region.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
HokieJoe said:
I did know that. Also a terrorist.
CabbageRed
Member
I wasn't able to sleep last night so have little coherent to say. Still, it's miserable to see how many people waving the flag of Civilization are comfortable voicing what should obviously be so much twisted logic. It is my sincere hope that many in this thread are merely teenagers trying to show off how realistic they can be.
Fresh Prince
Banned
It seemed like the world for a week was going to be looking at Great Britain Live 8, G8, 2012 Olympics and now this.Fatghost28 said:
Squirrel Killer
Member
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.xsarien said:
I agree it seems feasible, but I also think that a real attack on the US would be too tempting a goal to just wave off at the last minute. The longer you take to plan these attacks, and the more opportunities you miss to carry them out, the greater the chance your terrorist cell becomes uncovered. Although at the same time, perhaps the knowledge of how powerful another attack on the US would be, coupled with the idea that the cell and any connections to it would be destroyed almost immediately after such an attack, leads to a sort of operational paralysis? I don't know, but I hope the anti-terror folks do.bob_arctor said:
Instigator
Banned
Squirrel Killer said:
The reality is, Iran was publically singled out as a target and the US can not fully invade that country even if it wanted to.
And that's not opinion.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
xsarien said:
Entirely a possibility, though I think AQ has a particular bone to pick w/ the UK and US. Also, I think AQ likes to hit a certain target, wreak death and chaos, and let everything just fester in people's minds, much like we are almost at each other's throats in this thread. Too many bombings, a simulated multi-attack spanning many countries, I think would give them less of the "see-saw" leverage they seek. By being specific, at least here, they can, as someone mentioned, weaken the alliance or support for the Iraq war by hurting a powerful nation on a day that was to be celebrated.
Phoenix
Member
Instigator said:
Yes and Iran has been weakened by the Iran-Iraq war. Both are in sad shape militarily. Even after the Gulf War, Iraq could easily still hold its own against the Iranian military - and we'd just finished bombing the crap out of it. Iraq had the largest military in the region at the beginning of both wars.
We've fought militarily with Iran before, we have a tense relationship with them, we actually have evidence that they sponsor/support terrorist organizations (and possibly harbor some), we know the people there are fighting for freedom, etc. etc. etc. Either case could be made given the manor that we built a case against Iraq.
Depends on what you mean by occupy. Unless you have a violent overthrow by the people you are 'freeing', then the situation in Iran would likely be the same as that of Iraq.
You're saying it without saying it. Its not about the oil - its about having a stable friendly government who will keep the region stable. The oil isn't the end - the regime change was. The goal was to repolarize the government of Iraq, not seize the oilfields.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Fatghost28 said:
There is none. There isn't even a non-violent solution for living in the projects in the South Bronx. Sadly, it's all a crapshoot.
Phoenix
Member
Instigator said:
The US would have no problem successfully invading Iran, but an invasion is a means to an end - a set of political and military goals. It is in that definition of political and military goals that success would be determined. I have no doubt that we could bomb the crap out of the country since its bordered to the north and south by a body of water. We would also be able to land massive amounts of military on the beaches and via air without invading anyone elses airspace. Iran is pretty much 'ranged' for trying to lob projectiles at Israel.
So I have no doubt we could achieve our military objectives - and 'defeat' their military. But invasions are rarely about that. Its the end game that requires definition. The US invasion of Iraq was a resounding success. Casualties were very low and damage to infrastructure wasn't as severe as it could have been had the campaign dragged on. What's happening now is that the military forces are churning in Iraq waiting for the political objectives to be achieved. It 'appears' that these objectives involve waiting until the country is self governing and able to defend itself domestically and against foreign invasion. That's going to take time no matter where you invade. Nevertheless I think maybe you might want to pick a different term because the one you're using is easily achievable.
i don't think it is. this idea that people's opinions are invalidated unless they have a ready made series of steps that they think will perfectly resolve a situation is ridiculous. people like toxicadam may like to make fun of people who think the world is quite complicated, but really, all evidence points to it being that way, and history has shown us that blankly reductive reasoning rarely leads to a correct answer.HokieJoe said:
anyways, he's right, the armchair hawks here are spouting the most ridiculous, vile garbage, and none of it, not a single word, is productive.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Fatghost28 said:
No, it's not inherently evil to choose us over them, it's just morally ambigious--that is, how do you know who "Them" even is? I sure as hell don't. I don't even know what members of AQ look like. At most, the only "Them" I can say I want dead is someone we will never catch: Osama Bin Laden.
Squirrel Killer
Member
We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson.Instigator said:
Damnit... this was such a better response...
Whereas what we have here? A bunch of fig-eaters wearing towels on their heads, trying to find reverse in a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy adversary.
no seriously, i know it's hard for many here, but now is a good, maybe even the best possible time to consider your words and actions carefully. if you truly believe that we need to lead some kind of religious crusade against the infidels (curiously what these muslim terrorists/insurgent/what have you groups seem to think they're doing) then i encourage you to join the armed forces and, in fact, lead the crusade. just don't blame anyone else if it doesn't work out quite how you thought it would.
Instigator
Banned
Phoenix said:
Buddy. The Iran-Iraq war was nearly 20 years ago and it was a stalemate, despite American help.
After the first Gulf War, Iraq was under sanctions, with its revenues limited and ability to get new weapons.
Iran is no friend of the US and it did do its best to undermine it, but they have no revenue problem. The US could still take on the country with its full might, but as they found out with Iraq, occupying it would be problematic, probably more so considering the size differences.
The last time the US militarily engaged Iran was during the hostage crisis that resulted in two downed US helicopters. Failure, in other words. I'm sure they could a better job next time, but it blows your argument out of the water.
The case for Iraq was easier and it was the target they had chosen first. Iran might actually be developing nuclear weapons, but there's not much they can do about it now. Same with North Korea but they already have the weapons hence negotiations is the only option.
As if they didn't try that before. How's overthrowing Castro going, BTW? It's a fricking 100 miles from US shores.
Regime change is the mean, not the goal. With no oil, Iraq becomes a Rwanda. There's no reason to intervene. Regime change doesn't make Iraq stable, it makes it friendly to US presence so that it can police the region and hopefully get those Iraqi oil fields working at full capacity.
bob_arctor said:
You want to know mine? (please don't answer that)
Human beings have a sizeable contingent of anti-social psychopaths that want to see the current structure of the world destroyed. They want upheavel, they want chaos, they want mass exterminations. Regardless of color, religion or nationality, this exists in all humans. With the advent of instant communication, these types of people are able to group together and create more damage than ever before.
Until we figure out how to weed this out of the human DNA, we will suffer through this in some sort of manner for the rest of our existences. Al Queda today ... but some other unforseen group of wackos in the next decade. And so on and so forth.
But the truth is that we can not do this, because we do not have the will too.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
ToxicAdam said:
I would replace the initial "Human Beings have a" with "Men are a" (as in the gender) and then maybe I would agree with you.
CabbageRed
Member
Fatghost28 said:
If I were handed the situation to do with as I willed? Unclear. It would certainly be laughable for me to pretend that I had some sort of ultimate answer.
The idea of Imperialism is right out though (I believe that was your approach?). I don't see any piratical way of implementing. More importantly, I do not see it generating anything but far more war among the larger nations as they fought over the smaller nations and endless terrorism (quoted because in the case it would likely fall under freedom fighting) from an impoverished Middle East, Southern Hemisphere, and nations around old USSR borders and so on.
I suppose my main problem with approaching terrorism is that so many are looking to solve this, heal that, and so on, while I only see a handful of threats and would prefer to see them treated as such. We cannot solve crime just as we cannot end terrorism. In my (sleepy) eyes, a fair option would be better security along and inside of our borders as well as a strengthened UN-like entity commanding a global (obviously not all would wish to be included) police force for these matters exclusively.
Of course, there is a growing disparity between the nations that one would look to in regards to policing. That could be an hindrance and may require a war or another political/cultural line drawn in the sand to resolve to resolve but I doubt it. For whatever reason (I am speaking from the perspective of a US citizen) we have allowed a common enemy to fracture our alliances. However, our nation's approach to these situations are transient enough that our policies may soon allow for a fair degree of unity again.
Beyond that? You're soon dealing with a post-oil world and I won't begin to speculate on that right now.
Phoenix
Member
Instigator said:
(despite Soviet help)
Its ability to purchase weapons was not curtailed - indeed Iraq had been purchasing weapons throughout the sanctions processed. There were weapons they were forbidden from developing, but much of Iraq's military was rebuilt DURING sanctions. Hell if they couldn't get new weapons, we'd have blown up their entire air defense network that we were attriting every time it fired a SAM at an aircraft patrolling the new fly zone (i.e. daily).
If by occupy you mean annex, yes. You don't have to have military vehicles on every corner of every city of a country in order to control it however and Iraq is a perfect example of this.
You have to be shitting me. A hostage rescue operation versus moving armored divisions into country, nevermind. If you don't see the difference there is little point debating it. Iran could apparently kick our ass militarily, despite having neither the military capability of the country whole military we bombed into submission, the navy, the airforce, the command and control capability, the air defense capability, or sheer numbers OR training that Iraq has.
Uh, format the memory used to store what you know about Iran and US relations and fill it with this.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/20242.pdf
Yes, because we actually invaded cuba with the US military.
That about as bassackwards as you can get. Regime change DOES make Iraq more stable in the long term. That's the whole point. US military forces are not required nor useful in policing oil fields nor will there presence help them get to full capacity. In fact the opposite is true. So long as US forces are sitting in Iraq, insurgents will continue to strike the pipelines because they believe as you do - that oil is the goal. If oil was the goal, US forces would be sitting RIGHT ON TOP OF the oil fields and apache and kiawa helicopters would be patrolling the line!
fart said:
I wasn't trying to invalidate what he said. I can't speak for Ghost's part, but I didn't understand where he was coming from lest I read into what he actually did say. Basically, I wanted clarification, that's all.
As for the armchair hawks, well, it bothers me when equally armchaired cynics, detractors, or whatever you want to call them, offer derision without offering a better alternative. Agree or disagree on the manifold issues that surround this most recent bombing, it's just honest discussion on most people's part. At least that's the way I see it.
Phoenix
Member
HokieJoe said:
Its far far easier to say "lets bomb them", "lets detain them", or "they are the problem" than it is to come up with a solution that actually works. Sending in Airborne Rangers to clean out a village is easy, straightforward, and pretty definitive - dealing with the fact that it didn't solve the problem is a lot more difficult. There are no 'easy answers', just things that are easy to do.
Instigator said:
I agree with you on one level that without oil nobody gives a shit. However, there's one big caveat to your argument. Hypothetically speaking, even without oil, were Iraq a terrorist state, promoting and executing terrorism, then they likely would be a target post 9/11- see Afghanistan. It would all depend upon how successful they were at executing terrorism. (please excuse the poor word choices).
Phoenix said:
No disagreement here. I don't think there exists an easy solution(s). OTOH, I would gladly take any solution that could be proven to work better than what is currently transpiring.
As others have said, this isn't a short-term problem, so why are so many expecting a short-term resolution to it? There's complaining about it, but in truth, no one knows whether Iraq will turn out good or bad- only history will bear that out.
JMO
Red Blaster
Member
Boogie said:If women ruled the world, there'd be no wars, eh?
"It's men were as caring as women there'd be no crime in this world!"
Phoenix
Member
HokieJoe said:
No. I'm personally a borderline case on Iraq itself - wrong time for the wrong reasons with the wrong goals. But what's done is done so we have to make it right - walking away would be irresponsible, send the wrong message, and leave defenseless those that we're committed to helping.
However that doesn't mean that I'd say that "any" solution would be better than what we have. Imprisoning or killing innocents in the hopes of getting at terrorists isn't something I would consider "better". Nor would I say "stay the course" is a better solution. Inside the military (because I've been there for ROTC) I know that planning is king. You don't move a division of soldiers without clear goals and a plan. Where the problem comes in is with the political objectives (any war/conflict consists of military and political objectives and to understand any war you have to understand how each side achieves those objectives). In this conflict, our political objectives are somewhat amorphous and not well defined. I think much of this revolves around not having a clear political plan. This doesn't mean "getting the power on and getting food for the people", its "here is the new relationship we're forging and here is how this new world order is going to work - and here is how we're going to make that happen".
Where I see weakness in our strategy is in a clear political strategy which will drive a clear Iraq domestic policy strategy which will tell us in a measured way where we are in our goals and how we're going to accomplish them. I have no doubt that the armed forces can hold their own until objectives are achieved and operations are over. The problem is one of whether or not the political objectives make sense and are attainable. The political objective cannot be to "defeat the terrorist". You point the armed forces at bands of terrorist and they will eliminate them. That's a military level objective - strategic direction. I have yet to hear any interview of briefing to Congress that deals with the new political relationship with Iraq that went beyond them getting their own constitution and interim government. Beyond that its a "spin on this until we're ready to bring folks home" operation.
So - no I think there are things that are "better" and things that are "worse" depending on what the goals are. Since no one is clear on what the end game is (and defeating terrorism isn't an end game), you can't get a better solution. First thing you have to do is actually define the problem.
Prine said:
Quoted for truth.
The_Sorrow said:
Interesting claim. I'd like to see its basis in fact, with hard figures for the membership numbers of the various IRA splinter groups, ETA, and other non-Muslim terrorist groups.
fart said:
In Australia, it is illegal not to vote.
The Chosen One said:
Same as we did then, hopefully, that it's meaningless bullshit. Might as well fight terrorists "over there" (referring to the Bahamas). At least the bananana daquiris are cheaper...
Prine said:
Quoted for more truth.
siamesedreamer said:
Likewise all the "America is justified in doing whatever it wants because there are bad people" fucks.
I can't help admitting that I thought that too, though it was far from my first thought.
Unfortunately, my stock trader's mobile was busy.
Phoenix said:
I alluded to "any" solution as better because I see a fair number of people on message boards who are vehemently against the war, yet offer no sound solution or alternative. IOW, it just comes off as I hate Bush so the war sucks type stuff.
Your post was well-reasoned, and articulate. Agree or disagree, that's all one can ask for.
- Status