Obama approves troop surge...

[Aramike]

You know what im fuzzy on, is why we we focused on Iraq and not Afghanistan in the first place. I mean... last i checked, "the war on terror" was kicked off when some ragheads decided to park a couple airliners into twin towers, and the masterminds behind it all, was in Afghanistan, right? So where does the Iraq part come in? Oh that's right, i forgot, the WMD's that well..... it was an epic intelligence failure. So, what aside from "The terrorists might use NBC's on us!", does Iraq have any relation to September 11th? That one's a bit fuzzy to me.

Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.

[Freiwillige]

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.

We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was.

We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons. Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.

[Aramike]

We focused on Iraq because the Neo-cons that held the reigns of power wanted Iraq and were foaming at the mouth for it for years.

Not smart.

The neo-cons could have more easily had Iraq in 91 during the first Gulf War.

We focused on Iraq because Afghanistan is not nearly as threatening to Israel as Iraq was.

That's true in as much as Afghanistan is not nearly a threat to ... well, ANYONE, that Iraq was. There's practically no resources and economy to speak of and no real benefit to building a nation there.

The fact that you single out Israel is foolish and exposes your ideological ignorance and bias, considering the same statement could be made regarding any nation on the planet.

We focused on Iraq because of WMD's (Weapons made of dreams) and for humanitarian reasons.

Yeah, that's right - Iraq never had WMDs, and never used them.

You're in la-la land. It was all just dreams.

Arguable, they didn't have weapons at the time of the invasion. Either way, the suspicion was no way unfounded.

Forget that in Africa Genocide is common.

Stellar logic: if you can't help them all, don't help any.

Good one.

[Castout]

.... How about one more theater of war! Korea! Maybe soon?

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming.

[Aramike]

And how about any faction intending to take advantage of US forces strain.
WWIII is looming.

As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Aramike

As much as I'd love to crown you with a tin hat, I don't think you're wrong.

World War III won't look the same as the previous world wars, but it is indeed looming. The thing I'm most afraid of is that, even without nuclear weapons, the environmental impact of any global conflict will be catastrophic. Destroy just a few of the modern oil tankers for instance, and you have a serious problem.

I don't think tin hat works . Not that I ever tried it lol

Just a hypothetical scenario:
Kim Jong Il and his regime are frustrated by talks that's going nowhere, at least nowhere he wanted it to be. So the regime decided to play a game of chicken by launching their medium range ballistic missile, the Rodong I or II this time over South Korea(over not aimed at), the South panic because it's accepted that the North is known to have nuclear warheads capable to be carried by the Rodong missiles. So the South thinking it was an attack or even if it knew it wasn't is not not going to do anything after a couple ballistic missiles went over their country so they decided to launch an air campaign against the North nuclear weapon infrastructures and systems.
Then I leave the rest to your own imagination . . .

if you think that's a far off illusion then here it's confirmed the North has in possession at least two nuclear warhead capable to be carried by their Rodong system: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aMDehZBzI84I

Or what if Iran decided to fish. . .and China along with Russia followed suit. It would then force India into the global conflict and with India comes along Pakistan another nuclear power. I better dig my nuclear shelter tomorrow lol

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism flourishing . . .
We never knew terrorism before 9/11 now we are familiar with the acts! From church bombing to embassy bombing to two Bali bombings to several hotel bombings. Good job! Your war against terrorism is making it more popular and rampant. Or is that what is expected? Since you give them all the more justification.

[Aramike]

And do you realize that this war against terrorism is actually making terrorism to flourish . . .

Castout, you were doing well until this...

Perhaps the so-called "War on Terrorism" (a misnomer if there ever was one) is creating more terrorist recruits than ever, but it certainly is impacting the ability for those recruits to effect any kind of major attack. Frankly, I don't give a damn how many Muslims (or whoever) are running around in camps with AK-47s ... what I care about is whether or not than can effect any kind of actual terrorist attack.

I wonder what you mean by terrorism flourishing. If you mean by terrorist attacks, you're flat out wrong. If you mean by terrorist recruiting - well, that's highly speculative any way you go. The suggestion that our enemies, culturally speaking, have been pushed over the very edge that CAUSED the WTC attack seems kind of foolish.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Wait - you're unclear as to why we focused on a strategically significant part of the world versus a strategically INSIGNIFICANT part of the world?

Are you serious?

Hmm, let's see - one region has tremendous natural resources, is unstable AND borders a sworn ENEMY, while another ... is just there.

How does this confuse you exactly?

Liberals LOVE to pretend that they are all about being thoughtful, but in the end, they can only judge the current so-called "wars" on that it would be better to seek revenge than a strategic foothold.

Hilarious.

So cut the verbose fat away, and what your really saying is we went there for the oil. Yeah i suppose, though i don't like that idea. Again, all this **** started because of 911 (go go overused acronyms). Since then its been plainly obvious to the average american we have a little terrorist problem. One major root of the problem is Osama Bin Laden who finances and organizes alot of this, and was the one who was ultimately responsible for all the deaths that occured. Justice should be served.

That raghead, doesn't live in Iraq. Iraq, aside from oil, means two ****s to us. Infact, removing Saddam has arguably destabalized the region. If anyone would be a problem, it would be Iran. Iraq was a known factor, we could deal with them. By taking down saddam and his government, we did Iran a huge favor.

Afghanistan should have remained the focus until we got Osama, and we should have been using any and all means neccessary to nab him. Unfortunatly, focusing on it ,now, as skybird said, is too little, too late.

Oh, by the way, im not liberal, but since were making assumptions here, im guessing your some neocon. Neocons crack me the hell up. They're so quick to want our nation to go to war, and yet so many of them are either UNWILLING or DO NOTHING to support it except wave the flag around like a god damn set of pom poms at a high school football game. My loathing of these people defies description. All talk, and no walk. How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

[Schroeder]

I think more troops alone won't solve anything down there.
We need to establish a decent (what ever that is) economy in Afghanistan otherwise every other gain will only be temporarily. As it is now corruption is the norm. There is nothing you can trust in in Afghanistan. The politicians are corrupt, the police are corrupt, the military are corrupt. As long as a lot of people take bribes (are in need of taking bribes) nothing will change.
Just a few days ago it was reported that thousands of formerly German pistols that were delivered to the Afghani police ended up in unknown hands and can be bought on basars now.
As long as things are going like that there will never be an Afghani police or military that can be taken seriously.
But that is not only the fault of the west alone. It's the Afghani's as well IMHO. They have been given the chance to build up the country again, but the personal profit thinking of some will ruin it for all. As long as policemen, soldiers, warlords and politicians take bribes to look the other way nothing will turn to the better.
That's why a solid economy is needed that can pay wages that make the security personnel independent from taking bribes.

I know that this is just wishful thinking that won't come true (were is that economy supposed to come from?) but as it is now I would say we have lost that conflict (or are at least not winning it).
Whenever the ISAF pulls out of Afghanistan the Taliban will be in charge again three weeks later.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by August

Probably way more than commie liberals would be my guess...

Oh yea, more assumptions, or at least, a veiled insinuation. You know nothing about me. I'll tell you this much, before i enlisted, i was very much a little extreme right wing conservative, rush limbah listening, gun nut neocon. 7 years total time in service later, my tune changed. Drastically. Don't really care much for guns anymore (though i do own some), Rush limbah needs to run for office or STFU, and i'm not too keen on sticking our noses in other countries business. I'm entitled to that opinion and change of attitude i think, I did my time as the worlds policeman, have you?

Getting out of the service, i found that I'm neither liberal, or conservative. Im something both parties hate, an independant. Both parties are full of schitt. So you can take your barn yard (donkey) and circus animals (elephant) antics, and shove em somewhere.

As an aside, i love how some folks use "liberal" as a deragatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Too funny.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Oh yea, more assumptions, or at least, a veiled insinuation. You know nothing about me. I'll tell you this much, before i enlisted, i was very much a little extreme right wing conservative, rush limbah listening, gun nut neocon. 7 years total time in service later, my tune changed. Drastically. Don't really care much for guns anymore (though i do own some), Rush limbah needs to run for office or STFU, and i'm not too keen on sticking our noses in other countries business. I'm entitled to that opinion and change of attitude i think, I did my time as the worlds policeman, have you?

Getting out of the service, i found that I'm neither liberal, or conservative. Im something both parties hate, an independant. Both parties are full of schitt. So you can take your barn yard (donkey) and circus animals (elephant) antics, and shove em somewhere.

As an aside, i love how some folks use "liberal" as a deragatory term for anyone who doesn't agree with their views. Too funny.

You seem to have a really, really big chip on your shoulder Ducimus but the fact is that I didn't call you a liberal or a commie or anything else so you don't get to play the "outraged at being called names card" with me. Especially not when you engaged in the exact same thing in your previous post to Aramike.

More soldiers will be needed, as it appears the Italians are there on holiday.

They were not there on holiday, they were being very effective in using the same tactic America used in Iraq.
OK it was a bit bad for the French because when they took over the Italian area they were not told why it had been very quiet.

[Aramike]

So cut the verbose fat away, and what your really saying is we went there for the oil. Yeah i suppose, though i don't like that idea. Again, all this **** started because of 911 (go go overused acronyms).

Yes, exactly.

Perhaps not so much for directly securing the oil, but - like it or not - oil is the life blood of the INTERNATIONAL economy.

9/11 was an excuse to go to Iraq - I don't disagree with that. Hell, the citizens were motivated and, as Rahm Emmanual has said, no crisis should go to waste.

I'm sorry but I can stomach strong actions geared at keeping stability in the world economy.

Since then its been plainly obvious to the average american we have a little terrorist problem. One major root of the problem is Osama Bin Laden who finances and organizes alot of this, and was the one who was ultimately responsible for all the deaths that occured. Justice should be served.

Justice and strategic interests are two different things.

That raghead, doesn't live in Iraq. Iraq, aside from oil, means two ****s to us. Infact, removing Saddam has arguably destabalized the region.

Really?

Do you really think that?

The region is no more or less stable than it was prior to Iraq. However, the difference is we now have 1000s of troops on the border of Iran, the most strategically dangerous nation in the world today.

If anyone would be a problem, it would be Iran. Iraq was a known factor, we could deal with them. By taking down saddam and his government, we did Iran a huge favor.

Your analysis of the situation is absurd, I'm sorry to say. By taking down Saddam and occupying the country, we've PREVENTED Iran from having the opportunity to seize the natural resources they so desperately covet.

Further more, Iraq was a secular nation - Iran is fundamentalist. We would have been hard pressed to gain ANY Middle Eastern foothold to launch an invasion of Iran due to the fact that the nation is based upon Islam. Iraq, on the other hand, was considered quite a nuisance and therefore gaining the necessary cooperation to invade was relatively easy.

In the end, however, we now have the capability to attack Iran directly, which is undoubtedly a great DETERRENT in the region, allowing for less bloodshed.

Afghanistan should have remained the focus until we got Osama, and we should have been using any and all means neccessary to nab him. Unfortunatly, focusing on it ,now, as skybird said, is too little, too late.

Two different situations.

What you're suggesting is akin to the US not defending against an invasion because the FBI is working on a kidnapping case.

We've paid for a military capable of fighting 2 and a half wars - there's no reason that we can't focus on both, and anyone thinking that one distracts from the other in the physical sense is fooling themselves. Ultimately, the only real distraction is from the media - they hate having to track two conflicts.

The military, on the other hand, is BUILT to do so.

Oh, by the way, im not liberal, but since were making assumptions here, im guessing your some neocon. Neocons crack me the hell up.

I didn't say you were a liberal.

Oh, and by the way - I'm not a neocon. I'm conservative in some ways and liberal in others. However, I'm well-schooled in the functions of internation affairs.

But misguided assumptions are fairly common with you, I suppose, having read your discourse with August.

They're so quick to want our nation to go to war, and yet so many of them are either UNWILLING or DO NOTHING to support it except wave the flag around like a god damn set of pom poms at a high school football game.

You can't possibly believe that rubbish is in any way poignant or applicable...

Plenty of people agree with causes they don't directly support for many, many reasons - on both sides of the aisle, and in the middle.

My loathing of these people defies description.

Then, like August said, you just have a chip on your shoulder.

I've never met someone so idiotic as to believe that agreement with an idea must be met with direct action. I highly doubt you actually believe that, and I suspect you either wrote that in jest, or really never thought about the people you loathe so greatly (which presents a whole different set of issues).

I mean seriously, can ANYONE be that foolish? The people "waving flags" and cheering are often running businesses that pay the taxes that allow for these evolutions to be executed. Or they are simply working and paying taxes. Or they are building the supplies we need.

I could go on forever. You really don't want to pursue that idea that you "loathe" anyone, if its based on such ignorance.

All talk, and no walk. How many neocon's you see enlisting these days? That's what id like to know.

What August said.

And seriously, what the HELL do you base that upon? Frankly, it seems like the mindless rhetoric of yet another drone who's only thought process is "this is bad", assigned to him by he who screams the loudest.

That is the type of person I loathe. I hope you're not that.