Iraq wants US forces removed from combat role

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I'm sure it was when they kept shooting at our jets and violating the terms of the ceasefire. I don't doubt they planned it since then. This started the moment they started giving the rightfull weapons inspectors the boot.

-S


PS. The US plans all things and all scenarios at all times. DOn't be surprised if their are many scenarios for attacking a country like Germany, Russia, CHina, France, anyone. That is their job. A conflict can arrise at any times and I am sure their is a scenario planned for any country in this entire world. Get used to it. That is how we do business and protect our people.

Yadda-yadda-yadda, all nice, all irrelevant to the topic.

You accepted to be confronted by Iraqi SAMS when you willed to monitor and enforce the no-fly zones (which did not prevent their helicopters to massacre the Shia after they were betrayed by the US), and when you willed to enforce the UN mandate. You had to expect that, and the UN mandate hardly gave you green light for an allout war to remove the regime that you just had saved from falling in 1991 - intentionally.

* You wanted that country as a strategic platform,
* and you wanted your hand at the Iraqi oil pipelines to be able to control who gets what, and US companies and namely Cheney's Halliburton taking the lion's share of the profits.

These were the reasons why this war was planned and wanted. It was not a war of necessity, it was a war of choice and desire. Your shiny propaganda sounds nice and kind in the ear, but has not much to do with the reality.

but some weeks ago you tried to tell me that the developement costs of a fighter program do not proportionally contribute to the overall value of the individual unit in service, so what else could I expect than absurdities.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Yadda-yadda-yadda, all nice, all irrelevant to the topic.

You accepted to be confronted by Iraqi SAMS when you willed to monitor and enforce the no-fly zones (which did not prevent their helicopters to massacre the Shia after they were betrayed by the US), and when you willed to enforce the UN mandate. You had to expect that, and the UN mandate hardly gave you green light for an allout war to remove the regime that you just had saved from falling in 1991 - intentionally.

* You wanted that country as a strategic platform,
* and you wanted your hand at the Iraqi oil pipelines to be able to control who gets what, and US companies and namely Cheney's Halliburton taking the lion's share of the profits.

These were the reasons why this war was planned and wanted. It was not a war of necessity, it was a war of choice and desire. Your shiny propaganda sounds nice and kind in the ear, but has not much to do with the reality.

but some weeks ago you tried to tell me that the developement costs of a fighter program do not proportionally contribute to the overall value of the individual unit in service, so what else could I expect than absurdities.

You're not very bright are you? What part of ceasefire under terms do you not understand number one?

And yes, I do not doubt we wanted the country, Iraqies willing, as a strategic platform.

So what you are incapable of fathoming is that the US really isn't looking out for you, they are looking out for me. You are an ally and all, but US interests come first. Germany is somewhere down the spiral. Get used to it.

-S

PS. It is totally relevant to the topic - you brought it up. Not me! :p

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Finally, at least a shred of intellectual honesty from American apologism. Now, if we can get everyone to realize that, we might finally be able to get back to a multipolar world...

[August]

Be careful what you wish for. Multi-polar worlds have spawned two world wars.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Be careful what you wish for. Multi-polar worlds have spawned two world wars.

While the blueprints for a just one-polar world did not exactly reduce that risk. And many wpould agree that the world is more instabile today, than it was before 1989, when two mutual counterbalances kept the world in balance. Since then, with one counterbalance temporarily suspended from the show, it became turbulent.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Doesn't suprise me about the US putting the US first, Subman. This country's the precise opposite. Cater for everyone else, and leave our countrymen in the breeze.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

While the blueprints for a just one-polar world did not exactly reduce that risk. And many wpould agree that the world is more instabile today, than it was before 1989, when two mutual counterbalances kept the world in balance. Since then, with one counterbalance temporarily suspended from the show, it became turbulent.

The world is no more turbulent today than it ever was Skybird. We are just more aware of it thanks to the wonders of modern communications technology. I don't need to remind you of the propensity for multiple power bases to clash with each other in hugely destructive wars.

[Skybird]

That is not true. The balance of the two superpowers kept a lot of that multinational gobbling in check. after that was gone, the number of local conflicts went up, and steeply. Local nationalism went up as well. The Balkans went into hot mode. The southern republics of the USSR. Former allies of the US or the USSR in africa set sail for claiming more powers: more tribe and civil wars. Islam'S multiple local drives against Christian ethnic groups, sometimes going on since years now. Funding for factions that once were partners of the rivalling superpowers also went up, causing wanted additional internal tensions to create weak spots were western, russian and chinese interests could lock on. Local powers like India, China and Brazil also were suddenly free to dramatically improve their power basis. Stupid pöoltical acts and global strtaegies additionally helped to fuel extremism and terrorism, and making new enemies - today we have more terror-willing people and orgnaizations and terroirst in the world, than years ago. Proliferation has become far more threatening a chance, and less controllable. the number of local wars and conflicts went up, so did the number of terrorist acts and conflicts. nationalism is on the rise on all continents, as is religious fundamentalism.

Head on for the past - that's how it looks for me.

The shortening of fruitful land and spreading of desertification, the shortening of sweet water, energy and food will do their share to detoriate things even more. Not in the far away future - it already is happening right now. One just need to look close enough.

Now people can accuse me of being pessimistic again, if they wish. But that is the status quo: unmasked, and not nice-talked. Pessimism has nothing to do with it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

You're not very bright are you?

The question goes back to you - you are the one believing and are parroting what the WH wants people to say, not me.

And yes, I do not doubt we wanted the country, Iraqies willing, as a strategic platform.

You never asked the Iraqis, and after 2003 repeatedly defended to ignore what they said. You just took what you wanted, and even had the nerve to demand applause for that.

So what you are incapable of fathoming is that the US really isn't looking out for you, they are looking out for me. You are an ally and all, but US interests come first. Germany is somewhere down the spiral. Get used to it.

To you the whole globe outside american borders is just something "down the spiral".

Did I say american borders? Skip that.

The old rule says: what goes up, must come down. It cannot be prevented, but one can influence if the landing is a soft one, or a crashsite. The arrogance of power hardly raises any sympathies helping to achcieve the first, and will earn gloating only after the latter.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The question goes back to you - you are the one believing and are parroting what the WH wants people to say, not me.

You know very well my opinions are of my own. Don't ever accuse me of someone elses opinion. Thats a pretty stupid argument too by the way.

You never asked the Iraqis, and after 2003 repeatedly defended to ignore what they said. You just took what you wanted, and even had the nerve to demand applause for that.

Hardly. Yawn. THere is even no way we won't comply with this latest request. Skybird Fantasyland again.

To you the whole globe outside american borders is just something "down the spiral".

Did I say american borders? Skip that.

The old rule says: what goes up, must come down. It cannot be prevented, but one can influence if the landing is a soft one, or a crashsite. The arrogance of power hardly raises any sympathies helping to achcieve the first, and will earn gloating only after the latter.

Probably, but only after our PC matches yours - PC will be our downward spiral if we let it continue in its crazy form. Good thing Germany and Europe as a whole will be first since we will have the oppurtunity to learn from your mistakes.

-S