15 Jul 05
1 edit
Even presupposing that Iraq was some kind of mano a mano battle in excelsis between Islamists and the US military, I don't think the West is even remotely equipped to militarily defeat them. After all, our weapons of choice are depleted uranium bullets, Apaches and aerial bombardment, their weapons of choice are garden fertilizer, audiocassettes and boxcutters, and we're still losing. If you're going to beat terrorism, you have to win the battle of ideas, and the current incumbent of the White House doesn't have any.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672You're nuts; right now the US gets about 15% of its oil from the Middle East. And we use far more per capita than any country in the world. If it means car pooling or ration cards, I'll take that any day over going to war and causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Your priorities are insane.
Do you think a long-term oil supply disruption will cause a slump?
It will cause a cataclysm that will damn near stop the rotation of the earth.
No man - I'm not saying we should just go invade the Middle East to make sure we're taken care of. I'm saying that it is in our interest for foreign governments to not sponsor terrorists that come t ...[text shortened]... nd oif they don't want to do it peacefully, then yes. We absolutely go and kick their asses.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd all the people said, Amen.
Since continual, never ending warfare is what you've proposed in the other thread (you want lots more wars for natural resources), if you get your way and Madison is right (and he almost always was) we'll eventually get your police state.
One caveat: Madison would certainly approve of the factionalism that divides No1 and SQ--and argue that such debate is critical to the foundation of our Republic (and he would applaude SQ's commitment to defend No1's right to free speech), but I doubt he would deplore the juvenile name calling that has proceeded from these two gentleman the past two days. Both of you are cut from finer cloth; please remember that as you type.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by no1maraudersaudi arabia also has oil.
No problem, SugarPie; from page 10 of the Suicide Bomber thread:
But wars are almost always fought for economic reasons, and Iraq has oil while Sudan doesn't. So Iraq is the lucky winner - they get the benefit of our military to overthrow a dictator and establish a representative government with a market economy. Is this really ...[text shortened]... full of conflicts just like this one.
Change yer "mind" since yesterday??
canada also has oil.
scotland also has oil.
texas also has oil.
alaska also has oil.
sudan also has oil.
venezuela also has oil, and also has a loudmouth leader.
kuwait also has oil, and was also once occupied and under the control of the U.S. military, and is now not under the control of the U.S. military.
iraq has oil, and used the sale of that oil to finance WMD programs, and tried to hide those WMD programs, and after the world said "we really really want to see that you aren't pursuing that anymore", flubbed the cooperation test, probably influenced by their success prior noncooperation, and definitely influenced by the propensities of certain nations to support their cause at the Security Council, and probably not realizing in time that with preparation for the invasion in progress it was not the time to play around.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by Amaurotewhy do you think we're losing?
Even presupposing that Iraq was some kind of mano a mano battle in excelsis between Islamists and the US military, I don't think the West is even remotely equipped to militarily defeat them. After all, our weapons of choice are depleted uranium bullets, Apaches and aerial bombardment, their weapons of choice are garden fertilizer, audiocassettes and boxcut ...[text shortened]... have to win the battle of ideas, and the current incumbent of the White House doesn't have any.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou mean apart from Bali, Madrid, London and every other day in Iraq? I would say that spending trillions prosecuting a war on something that is flourishing more than ever four years later is signal failure by any standard.
why do you think we're losing?
Sasquatch, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think war is too blunt a tool to be of any use in counteracting terrorism: apart from providing photo-ops for terrorist recruiting agents, there are very few positives, and certainly very little that couldn't have been more effectively accomplished with coordinated police action and diplomatic engagement.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by AmauroteWTC 3000, Bali 200, Madrid 200, London 50. that's not a decline?
You mean apart from Bali, Madrid, London and every other day in Iraq? I would say that spending trillions prosecuting a war on something that is flourishing more than ever four years later is signal failure by any standard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684989.stm
'Support for Bin Laden declining'
"Support for Osama Bin Laden and Islamic militant violence is falling in several key Muslim countries, according to a new survey by a US organisation. "
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotWill you pleeeeeeze stop with the lies?? The Security Council had nothing to do with war and Iraq didn't have any WMD's. Do you think that by constantly repeating lies they will be magically transformed ito the truth? Bush wanted war with Iraq, period; NO MATTER WHAT IRAQ DID, short of installing a government that Bush liked, the war was inevitable BECAUSE Bush and his rich buddies wanted it. End of story.
saudi arabia also has oil.
canada also has oil.
scotland also has oil.
texas also has oil.
alaska also has oil.
sudan also has oil.
venezuela also has oil, and also has a loudmouth leader.
kuwait also has oil, and was also once occupied and under the control of the U.S. military, and is now not under the control of the U.S. military.
iraq has oil ...[text shortened]... in time that with preparation for the invasion in progress it was not the time to play around.
15 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotSeveral problems there: first of all, you're not factoring in the 700 wounded the other day or the 1500 in Madrid. Secondly, in terrorist terms, citing 9/11, the most horrifically successful terrorist act of the last century. as the sort of thing that - but for the grace of the invasion of Iraq - Al-Qaeda would otherwise be able to pull off every other week is pretty unrealistic. Thirdly, the survey you cite is ungermane since it relates to majority opinion (specifically attitudes to suicide bombing in those countries) in a select range of Islamic countries, and not to terrorist recruitment. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the effectiveness of the White House's war on terror - quite the opposite, the samples oppose terrorism because terrorists have killed people in their own nation-states.
WTC 3000, Bali 200, Madrid 200, London 50. that's not a decline?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684989.stm
'Support for Bin Laden declining'
"Support for Osama Bin Laden and Islamic militant violence is falling in sever ...[text shortened]... slim countries, according to a new survey by a US organisation. "
The people who destroyed the trains the other day were grumpy Yorkshiremen. That will mean very little to someone in the US, but to most of us here it demonstrates that Al-Qaeda is more powerful than ever.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou're a complete fool if you believe that the war in Iraq is doing anything but increasing the overall power of Fundamentalists. You're a fool if you can't see that the longer we stay the more we are hated throughout the Arab world. And you're first line is so incredibly stupid it makes me shake my head in awe at the magnitude of your idiocy; please start cut and pasting again, your thoughts are truly worthless even for a 12 year old.
WTC 3000, Bali 200, Madrid 200, London 50. that's not a decline?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684989.stm
'Support for Bin Laden declining'
"Support for Osama Bin Laden and Islamic militant violence is falling in several key Muslim countries, according to a new survey by a US organisation. "