PDA

View Full Version : Stupid question... [Iraq]



Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 01:53 AM
...but one I fail to understand, all the same. Pardon what I'm sure will betray a VAST amount of ignorance on my part.

Why, if we're invading Iraq, do we not simply keep Iraq?

We have other territories which are not states. If we want a republican form of government in Iraq, wouldn't it be better to make the place a satellite country, and have it adhere to our own constitution?

WackAMole
12-12-2006, 01:54 AM
:eek:

scarletpeaches
12-12-2006, 01:58 AM
I've got a ten foot pole but nope, I ain't gonna use it to touch this thread. See ya!

Haggis
12-12-2006, 01:59 AM
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

WackAMole
12-12-2006, 02:01 AM
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

LOL agreed

robeiae
12-12-2006, 02:02 AM
Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, unless a majority of the Iraqi people asked to become part of the United States.

Unique
12-12-2006, 02:18 AM
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

As distasteful as it sounds, the idea has merit.
A good way to get rid of it.

Should we sell it or pay them to take it?

WildScribe
12-12-2006, 02:21 AM
They should at least have to pay a token amount...

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 02:22 AM
Give me a million man army loyal to me as well and I'll have that place settled down within a month and construction on BaghDisney underway by springtime.

Unique
12-12-2006, 02:31 AM
A million dollars is easier to find than a million loyal men.

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 02:35 AM
Then I have no desire to acquire this country.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 02:55 AM
Its a bad idea, yes, everyone seems to agree on that.

I'm asking *why?*


Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, unless a majority of the Iraqi people asked to become part of the United States.

Invading Iraq in the first place was contrary to the spirit of our constitution.

Iraqis trying to fight away our invading army, however, is perfectly in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independance.

If we're going to invade a country, why don't we keep it? Serious question.

Well, semi-serious.

Unique
12-12-2006, 02:56 AM
If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 03:04 AM
If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

Yeah?

WildScribe
12-12-2006, 03:15 AM
If we kept it, we'd have to keep the people, too. Theoretically.

What??? We can't ship them all back where they came from????

dclary
12-12-2006, 03:24 AM
I don't think we should keep it, but maybe we should give it to Billy and Clary.

That would rock.

LloydBrown
12-12-2006, 03:38 AM
Because keeping it would be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution,

It is? So manifest destiny in the 19th century, the land we beat out of Mexico and Spain, and all the worldwide territories our armed forces occupy and most of the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified was within the spirit of the Constitution, but annexing Iraq is Not What We Do Here?

I think it's more likely that the world community would consider the move too aggressive and would (rightly, in my opinion) all join together to beat us down. Or try, anyway.

robeiae
12-12-2006, 03:45 AM
It is? So manifest destiny in the 19th century, the land we beat out of Mexico and Spain, and all the worldwide territories our armed forces occupy and most of the 223 years since the Constitution was ratified was within the spirit of the Constitution, but annexing Iraq is Not What We Do Here?Correct, more or less.


I think it's more likely that the world community would consider the move too aggressive and would (rightly, in my opinion) all join together to beat us down. Or try, anyway.Just like they did to the Soviets?

robeiae
12-12-2006, 03:47 AM
Invading Iraq in the first place was contrary to the spirit of our constitution.No it wasn't. Read it again.

Iraqis trying to fight away our invading army, however, is perfectly in line with the spirit of the Declaration of Independance.Not when they're trying to toss us out to re-establish a tyrannical government.


If we're going to invade a country, why don't we keep it? Serious question.
I have given you a serious answer.

dclary
12-12-2006, 03:49 AM
...but one I fail to understand, all the same. Pardon what I'm sure will betray a VAST amount of ignorance on my part.

Why, if we're invading Iraq, do we not simply keep Iraq?

We have other territories which are not states. If we want a republican form of government in Iraq, wouldn't it be better to make the place a satellite country, and have it adhere to our own constitution?

The easiest, simplest answer (and, amazingly, the most accurate) is because the United States did not enter this war for imperialistic (land-grab) gain.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 04:38 AM
No it wasn't. Read it again.

Yes it is. You read it again. Subjugating a country is most CERTAINLY against the spirit of our constitution.



Not when they're trying to toss us out to re-establish a tyrannical government.


The Iraqis don't know what they want one way or the other. We've already removed the government they had in place--Saddam may have been doing a poor job running the country, but it was most certainly better than the abject anarchy the people of Iraq are facing now.

Their fighting away an invading army is very much in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which as I recall, was basically the founding fathers giving England the middle finger.

We've already trampled all over these people's rights. What's going to end up happening is that we'll install another dummy government for them to topple so that a new Dictator can step in.

But if Iraq were set up as a satelite of the US, this would be a bit harder to do.

We're already occupying their hand and oppressing them. Why not call it "Ours" and force laws we know work into the land?

I'm not saying I agree with this--I'm saying it makes sense to me, and I want someone to show me what is wrong with the idea, whether it be in terms of ideology or practicality.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 04:40 AM
The easiest, simplest answer (and, amazingly, the most accurate) is because the United States did not enter this war for imperialistic (land-grab) gain.

Why did we enter this war? :)

dclary
12-12-2006, 04:50 AM
Why did we enter this war? :)

There are a number of reasons. At least there were. The surest, most agreed-upon answer seems to be "Bush Jr. wanted to finish what his father didn't, come hell or high water" -- and that was to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a regional influence.

Many of the other reasons are still valid, but remain as points of contention. I'm sure you've heard them all.

robeiae
12-12-2006, 04:54 AM
Yes it is. You read it again. Subjugating a country is most CERTAINLY against the spirit of our constitution.Umm...the goal isn't subjugation. If it was, you wouldn't be asking the question that started this thread, would you?




The Iraqis don't know what they want one way or the other. We've already removed the government they had in place--Saddam may have been doing a poor job running the country, but it was most certainly better than the abject anarchy the people of Iraq are facing now.Don't presume you can speak for the Iraqis, with regard to what they want or don't want. You can't. As to the current situation, I'm not happy about it one bit. It stinks for the Iraqis. Of course, I also disagree with the methodology followed to prosecute this war.


Their fighting away an invading army is very much in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, which as I recall, was basically the founding fathers giving England the middle finger.Giving them the finger for what, exactly? It's pretty clear; the reasons are listed. Read this one again, too.

We've already trampled all over these people's rights.They didn't have any rights to trample before Saddam fell.
What's going to end up happening is that we'll install another dummy government for them to topple so that a new Dictator can step in.Perhaps. And that would stink.

But if Iraq were set up as a satelite of the US, this would be a bit harder to do.We're not the Soviet Empire.


We're already occupying their hand and oppressing them. Why not call it "Ours" and force laws we know work into the land?You're pretty wide-open with your generalizations. But my position has always been that we need to sit on them hard until a democratic form of government is firmly established. Think Germany, post WWII. Or Japan. Of course, we achieved complete victory in both instances before we started "nation-building." And neither of these nations became a satellite of the U.S.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 05:33 AM
The US has occupied nations before,
against the people's will,
and not made them into a state.

See US occupation of Philipines 1900.

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1117-11.htm


During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890's, US Commodore George Dewey descended upon the shores of the Philippines and destroyed the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. Americans had a number of goals for occupying the Philippines. One was to create a military presence to then access the markets of China. The second was to utilize the Philippine raw materials for US industry. US President William McKinley described the third. After praying to "Almighty God", McKinley said that a message came to him that Americans were in the Philippines to "uplift and civilize and christianize" Filipinos. He was obviously not aware of the fact that the Filipinos had been "christianized" for 400 years by Spanish colonizers, against whom they had consistently rebelled.

It was because Iraq was behind 9/11. No? It was because Iraq had WMD's. No? It was because we're spreading democracy. Yeah. That's it.


Initially, Filipinos thought that the Americans were there to help them kick out the Spanish and end 400 years of repression. After fruitless attempts to negotiate, however, the reality of the US intention became clear. The Filipinos were forced to acknowledge that the Americans intended to replace the Spanish as the colonial rulers.

We will be welcomed as liberators.


The American reaction was swift and the slaughter by US forces is legendary. Philippine scholar Luziminda Francisco refers to that brutal imperial American war that launched the 20th century as the "first Vietnam War" in which estimates of from 600,000 to a million Filipinos died.

Hundreds of thousand of Iraqi civilians have been killed under three years of US occupation.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 05:56 AM
Umm...the goal isn't subjugation. If it was, you wouldn't be asking the question that started this thread, would you?

The goal (ambigious to begin with) and the result appear to be differing.




Don't presume you can speak for the Iraqis, with regard to what they want or don't want. You can't. As to the current situation, I'm not happy about it one bit. It stinks for the Iraqis. Of course, I also disagree with the methodology followed to prosecute this war.


Iraqi here is a general term for all of those Sunis and Shiites murdering eachother in the street. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand wants--in fact, the left hand seems to want the right hand dead. This is not my opinion; this is front page news.

It does stink to be an Iraqi, and, yeah, there certainly would have been better ways to go about removing Saddam.



Giving them the finger for what, exactly? It's pretty clear; the reasons are listed. Read this one again, too.

I can recite the Declaration of Independance from memory, please stop telling me to go reread historical documents.

The Declaration of Independance was sent to the British at the height of colonial-empirical tension. Its spirit was that of "Get the hell out of here." (There were already British soldiers in the colonies; thats why we have a clause in the constitution that protects against citizens being forced to house soldiers.) That is the sole parrallel I'm attempting to make between the Declaration of Independance and the Iraqis.



They didn't have any rights to trample before Saddam fell.


Maybe not, but they certainly had everyday lives that didn't include tanks rolling the down the streets. No matter how black you paint Saddam's reign, it was not as bad as the utter, complete anarchy we've installed.



Perhaps. And that would stink.


Stink? If this happens--and my money is saying it will--every one of our soldiers---every one of my friends---will have died for absolutely no reason. Things will have fallen back to Status Quo, and we're out the costs of a war, both in lives and money.

This is not "Stink." This is firmly rooted well past the "Fucking Suck" point.



We're not the Soviet Empire.


Then why are we behaving like it?



You're pretty wide-open with your generalizations. But my position has always been that we need to sit on them hard until a democratic form of government is firmly established. Think Germany, post WWII. Or Japan. Of course, we achieved complete victory in both instances before we started "nation-building." And neither of these nations became a satellite of the U.S.

Where am I generalizing? I'll be happy to make myself specific.

Japan and Germany are valuable allies. I cannot see this of Iraq. Something different must be done, or we're wasting our time-AGAIN-in this god forsaken patch of rocks.


There are a number of reasons. At least there were. The surest, most agreed-upon answer seems to be "Bush Jr. wanted to finish what his father didn't, come hell or high water" -- and that was to eliminate Saddam Hussein as a regional influence.

Many of the other reasons are still valid, but remain as points of contention. I'm sure you've heard them all.

I'm not sure that reason holds much water.

The reason we were TOLD was WMD's, but the CIA's intel all said that Iraq wouldn't have the tech to build a nuke until 2007. I heard someone say that there WERE WMDs, but that the Iraqi's shuffled them out of the country before the UN arrived--but I've never seen anything to support this.

I'd like the Iraq War to be vindicated--or at least thoroughly explained--before the republican party daddy war-Bush decides we need to invade Iran.

I'd also like our country to not be paying off the war's debt for the next seven generations.

dclary
12-12-2006, 06:05 AM
The goal (ambigious to begin with) and the result appear to be differing.




Iraqi here is a general term for all of those Sunis and Shiites murdering eachother in the street. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand wants--in fact, the left hand seems to want the right hand dead. This is not my opinion; this is front page news.

It does stink to be an Iraqi, and, yeah, there certainly would have been better ways to go about removing Saddam.



I can recite the Declaration of Independance from memory, please stop telling me to go reread historical documents.

The Declaration of Independance was sent to the British at the height of colonial-empirical tension. Its spirit was that of "Get the hell out of here." (There were already British soldiers in the colonies; thats why we have a clause in the constitution that protects against citizens being forced to house soldiers.) That is the sole parrallel I'm attempting to make between the Declaration of Independance and the Iraqis.



Maybe not, but they certainly had everyday lives that didn't include tanks rolling the down the streets. No matter how black you paint Saddam's reign, it was not as bad as the utter, complete anarchy we've installed.



Stink? If this happens--and my money is saying it will--every one of our soldiers---every one of my friends---will have died for absolutely no reason. Things will have fallen back to Status Quo, and we're out the costs of a war, both in lives and money.

This is not "Stink." This is firmly rooted well past the "Fucking Suck" point.



Then why are we behaving like it?



Where am I generalizing? I'll be happy to make myself specific.

Japan and Germany are valuable allies. I cannot see this of Iraq. Something different must be done, or we're wasting our time-AGAIN-in this god forsaken patch of rocks.



I'm not sure that reason holds much water.

The reason we were TOLD was WMD's, but the CIA's intel all said that Iraq wouldn't have the tech to build a nuke until 2007. I heard someone say that there WERE WMDs, but that the Iraqi's shuffled them out of the country before the UN arrived--but I've never seen anything to support this.

I'd like the Iraq War to be vindicated--or at least thoroughly explained--before the republican party daddy war-Bush decides we need to invade Iran.

I'd also like our country to not be paying off the war's debt for the next seven generations.

And I'd like a pony. Best you up and realize the time for all that's way past, boy.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 06:11 AM
And I'd like a pony. Best you up and realize the time for all that's way past, boy.

Is it too late to ask Santa for those responsible to burn in fucking hell?

dclary
12-12-2006, 06:12 AM
No, no, that's quite ok. That's a good "looking forward" wish.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 06:14 AM
The reason we were TOLD was WMD's, but the CIA's intel all said that Iraq wouldn't have the tech to build a nuke until 2007. .

They had WMDs back in the day. Inspectors went in way back in Clinton's day and were destroying them. Then Iraq kicked out the inspectors, and Clinton bombed suspected WMD sites. What followed was a decade of sanctions, which apparently made it impossible to maintain any WMD's, and by Fall 2002, inspectors were let back in, probably in hopes of avoiding invasion and probably in hopes of lifting sanctions. By March 2003, it was established by those who didn't have an agenda to find an excuse to invade that Iraq had no WMD's.

I believe the inspectors in Clinton's time had found calutrons, which are used for enriching uranium, and had destroyed them. calutrons are extremely slow for enrichment, and are what the US used in the Manhattan project. If calutrons were the best they had before sanctions, it would explain why they couldn't rebuild them during sanctions.



I'd also like our country to not be paying off the war's debt for the next seven generations.

I don't know how we can avoid that. The oil in Iraq won't cover it. Personally, I think we should bill Haliburton, since I'm pretty sure this whole mess was their idea.

The reason we overthrow the democratic government in Iran back in '53 and installed the Shaw was because british and american oil companies wanted access, and Iran wasn't giving it to them.

They did it once, why not again?

Unique
12-12-2006, 06:16 AM
Because it's not 1953?

GPatten
12-12-2006, 07:10 AM
Bartholomew,

Why is it I figured right?

I knew you would turn an innocent question on the ethics of war, as if you knew nothing about it and shrewdly spin into an argument on the of politics of war as if you knew all about it and needed no help?

War is hell, it never goes down as planned, there are always big mistakes, everyone suffers and some of the world always blames the other for starting it. No one can say who is the blame for this war without going into history and turning over pages of history for the next page. And that’s just the way it always has been for thousands of years.

There’s no way anyone cat satisfy a youngster as young as you with an answer that suits you. That’s why it is completely useless to have a discussion by a professor at school about the ethics and politics of war. All that ever does is stir up the very opinionated young to wave protest flags at their elders.

I was going to try to give you an answer, but I didn’t want to spend the time as other here to pound the keyboard and reach out to your questions as others have tried.

Give it a shake and rid yourself of excess energy.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 07:46 AM
Thank you for being offencive and contributing nothing to the thread.

If you're so wizened, I'm sure you would have had something better to add than, "Hush youngin and let the grown ups talk." -- An attitude, quite frankly, I'm sick of. Take your holier than thou crap and stuff it up your nose.

You seem to be implying that this was a bait and trap question, as if I think I have some kind of answer to this mess, and am trying to draw in people who disagree with me for a good solid lashing.

Maybe I'd do that if I thought I had an answer. I don't profess to be particularly mature. But I don't have an answer, nor do I claim to.

I asked "Why don't we just annex Iraq?" because that answer makes sense to me. Pointing at the constitution doesn't really seem all the relavent to me--it would have maybe been more relative when deciding whether to invade the country in the first place.

I do have an opinion. I think we should get the hell out of Iraq, stay the hell out of Iraq, and let them deal with their own problems.

Sometimes. Sometimes I think what a waste that would be. I know what to think about this as much as the next average shmuck does.

So instead of demeaning me because I'm young, why don't you just answer the damn question? Why is annexing Iraq a bad idea?


Bartholomew,

Why is it I figured right?

I knew you would turn an innocent question on the ethics of war, as if you knew nothing about it and shrewdly spin into an argument on the of politics of war as if you knew all about it and needed no help?

War is hell, it never goes down as planned, there are always big mistakes, everyone suffers and some of the world always blames the other for starting it. No one can say who is the blame for this war without going into history and turning over pages of history for the next page. And thatís just the way it always has been for thousands of years.

Thereís no way anyone cat satisfy a youngster as young as you with an answer that suits you. Thatís why it is completely useless to have a discussion by a professor at school about the ethics and politics of war. All that ever does is stir up the very opinionated young to wave protest flags at their elders.

I was going to try to give you an answer, but I didnít want to spend the time as other here to pound the keyboard and reach out to your questions as others have tried.

Give it a shake and rid yourself of excess energy.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 07:51 AM
Because it's not 1953?

history, more to your point then, teaches us nothing?

because the mere passage of time is irrelevant to
lessons of history. If you can tell me that oil companies
are much more moral now than they were in 1953,
that would be something to indicate why we cannot
apply now the lessons of the past. But otherwise,
I subscribe to the notion that history is a reflection
of human behaviour.

robeiae
12-12-2006, 07:51 AM
I can recite the Declaration of Independance from memory, please stop telling me to go reread historical documents.

The Declaration of Independance was sent to the British at the height of colonial-empirical tension. Its spirit was that of "Get the hell out of here." (There were already British soldiers in the colonies; thats why we have a clause in the constitution that protects against citizens being forced to house soldiers.) That is the sole parrallel I'm attempting to make between the Declaration of Independance and the Iraqis.It's not much of a parrellel; that's what I'm saying to you.

The spirit of the DoI was not simply "Get the hell out of here."

Maybe not, but they certainly had everyday lives that didn't include tanks rolling the down the streets. No matter how black you paint Saddam's reign, it was not as bad as the utter, complete anarchy we've installed.



Stink? If this happens--and my money is saying it will--every one of our soldiers---every one of my friends---will have died for absolutely no reason. Things will have fallen back to Status Quo, and we're out the costs of a war, both in lives and money.

This is not "Stink." This is firmly rooted well past the "Fucking Suck" point.You say it how you want to, I'll say it how I want to. That fair? And the f-bomb doesn't make your point any stronger.

Then why are we behaving like it?We're not.

Where am I generalizing? I'll be happy to make myself specific.Where aren't you: (paraphrasing)

We're oppressing them
We're behaving like the Soviet Union
Iraqis don't know what they want
There's abject anarchy in Iraq


Japan and Germany are valuable allies. I cannot see this of Iraq. Something different must be done, or we're wasting our time-AGAIN-in this god forsaken patch of rocks.They are now. Do you think people believed Japan was going to be a valuable ally in 1947? 1948? 1949?

greglondon
12-12-2006, 07:59 AM
Why is annexing Iraq a bad idea?

Iraq is already beyond our control.
It is in a civil war, and we do not have the
manpower to contain it.

We could bomb the hell out of it,
but that would only add fuel to the flames.

The current military recommendations are
to get the hell out because of this very reason.

Our presence as a foreign occupying force
is giving insurgents a reason to fight and a target to hit.

If we had enough forces to contain the civil
war and the insurgency, that would obviously
be the best solution. If we could police the
entire nation until a peaceful transition took
place, that would be the least bloody way to go.

But we can't. We don't have the manpower.
We simply don't have enough grunts on the
streets policing the weapons and the IED's
and the insurgents, and to lock down the
suicide bombers and comb for every buried IED.

The only solution that is realistic at this point
is to train the Iraqis to take over the job,
hope we can train enough of them that they
can lock down the violence, and hope that
drawing down american forces, and drawing
down the PUBLIC presence of americans in Iraq,
that might let the flames die down and then
the Iraqis can put the rest of it out.

I think Cheny and Haliburton and Rumsfeld
thought we would annex Iraq back when
they were planning this in Feb 2003.
When asked how we would pay for the
war, someone did mention the Iraqi oil flow.

But that wasn't a plan, really, more like wishful thinking.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 08:02 AM
It's not much of a parrellel; that's what I'm saying to you.


I'll find a better way to express what I'm trying to say, then...




You say it how you want to, I'll say it how I want to. That fair? And the f-bomb doesn't make your point any stronger.


I was trying to make up for the epically weak word "Stink."



Where aren't you: (paraphrasing)

We're oppressing them
We're behaving like the Soviet Union
Iraqia don't know what they want
There's abject anarchy in Iraq


U.S. Soldiers are oppressing Iraqis. There are documented, videotaped accounts of abuse against Iraqis. Sure, its generalized--but that hardly makes it less true.

We are behaving like the Soviet Union. We're in Iraq with no valid reason, trying to install a government that will be sympathetic to the US and her allies.

Iraqis don't know what they want. Sure, its general. Its also true. The Shiites and the Sunis can't agree on a government--according to war coorespondant Michael Ware, they're dragging one another out of their homes and performing midnight executions. This doesn't sound like a unified group of people.

Anarachy -- Civil War -- What would you call it?




They are now. Do you think people believed Japan was going to be a valuable ally in 1947? 1948? 1949?

Point taken.

GPatten
12-12-2006, 08:16 AM
Thank you for being offencive and contributing nothing to the thread.

If you're so wizened, I'm sure you would have had something better to add than, "Hush youngin and let the grown ups talk." -- An attitude, quite frankly, I'm sick of. Take your holier than thou crap and stuff it up your nose.

You seem to be implying that this was a bait and trap question, as if I think I have some kind of answer to this mess, and am trying to draw in people who disagree with me for a good solid lashing.

Maybe I'd do that if I thought I had an answer. I don't profess to be particularly mature. But I don't have an answer, nor do I claim to.

I asked "Why don't we just annex Iraq?" because that answer makes sense to me. Pointing at the constitution doesn't really seem all the relavent to me--it would have maybe been more relative when deciding whether to invade the country in the first place.

I do have an opinion. I think we should get the hell out of Iraq, stay the hell out of Iraq, and let them deal with their own problems.

Sometimes. Sometimes I think what a waste that would be. I know what to think about this as much as the next average shmuck does.

So instead of demeaning me because I'm young, why don't you just answer the damn question? Why is annexing Iraq a bad idea?

And you even gave me my first negative rep point. I didn't know many of those were ever given out. I even thought I answered your question.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 09:29 AM
I even thought I answered your question.

How on Earth could you possibly think that?

No, never mind, I really don't care what you have to say. Go talk to your fellow elders. They're far more worthy, and desirous of your attentions.

dclary
12-12-2006, 09:33 AM
You're sure snooty for living in Kansas.

;)

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 09:46 AM
You're sure snooty for living in Kansas.

;)

Damn them uppity midwesterners.

blacbird
12-12-2006, 10:09 AM
I think we should trade Texas for it.

caw

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 10:35 AM
I think we should trade Texas for it.

caw

Which has more oil?

dclary
12-12-2006, 11:16 AM
Iraq, but only because environmentalists won't let us drill texas.

blacbird
12-12-2006, 11:32 AM
Iraq, but only because environmentalists won't let us drill texas.

Nonsense. Texas has had the crap drilled out of it for damnear a century now, and its big deposits are pretty well depleted. It probably never had as much oil as Iraq does. And the history of oil drilling in Texas is one of the main reasons there is an environmental movement that opposes further oil drilling.

caw

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 11:49 AM
I think we should take a a one year break from drilling for and extracting oil in the United States and near the United States. Let the oil build back up again like we do with fish when their populations are too low.

And then we'll have more oil than the middle east.

Problem solved.

Thank you.

dclary
12-12-2006, 11:52 AM
Thats brilliant.

In addition to that, I think we need to authorize the Jurassic Park Protocols. We're never going to have enough fossil fuels if we don't start working on making new fossils right now.

Bartholomew
12-12-2006, 11:53 AM
You're both making my head hurt.

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 12:04 PM
Thats brilliant.

In addition to that, I think we need to authorize the Jurassic Park Protocols. We're never going to have enough fossil fuels if we don't start working on making new fossils right now.

Thank you, and yours is even more brilliant.

See, this is the kind of stuff you're going to get from 2025-2041 if you vote for us, people.

billythrilly7th
12-12-2006, 12:05 PM
You're both making my head hurt.

That's the Thrilly Diet.

Headaches are a side effect for the first few days.

It'll pass.

Unique
12-12-2006, 04:53 PM
history, more to your point then, teaches us nothing?



You tell me, greg. Does it look like we've learned anything?

It should, but it very often doesn't.

Comparing this conflict to Japan after WWII - in my mind, you just can't.
The Japanese people were unified with each other for one thing. In this conflict the people are not.

There were severe restrictions on what type of military forces was Japan allowed to have after WWII, IIRC, it was none at all. In Iraq, our goal is to train and equip an army that may turn out to be enemies at some point. To me, that's the epitome of foolishness.

There weren't millions of subversive dollars flowing into Japan from other nations either. That makes a big difference.

This is a goat rope of unprecendented proportions.

greglondon
12-12-2006, 06:54 PM
You tell me, greg. Does it look like we've learned anything?

Depends on who you mean by "we".
I certainly knew what Iraq was gonna look like.
The folks who were "surprised" by the outcome
or the folks who claimed there was "no way to predict"
this outcome, those guys probably haven't learned anything.

And for those who got us into this mess and then turn around and say
"Well, I got us into this mess, now what are YOU going to do about it?"
they probably haven't learned anything either.

At this point, there aren't many options left.
We've burned nearly every bridge for international help.
We've bullied and attacked Iran's strongest neighbors.
And we're occupying a country undergoing a civil war with
too few troops to do anything about it.

Our choices are shit or shit. Stay and pour more american
dead down a bottomless hole. or leave. There is currently no
realistic way to win this anymore. None. It was never a matter
of having the "will", it has always been a matter of absolutely
zero leadership from the very top. No planning. Not enough
troops. No strategy for occupation. No plans to rebuild the
infrastructure that we blew up. Bush lead us to war with a
napkin, a crayon circle labeled "Iraq", and a bunch of arrows
pointing in. Next time around, if anyone wants to show they've
learned anything, they'll listen to the generals and the intelligence
people who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

What I've learned is that some people
are willing to follow the pied piper of stupidity
right off the cliff, and the problem is they're
dragging the whole country down with them.

Unique
12-12-2006, 08:17 PM
Can't argue with that.