Democrats Take Control Of Congress

[Epicenter]

IF these events that occurred 39 years ago and are poorly documented were true, this incident has little to no bearing on the present situation, and whatever tenuous link you are attempting to forge between it and Republicans trying to take over the world like some sort of Captain Planet villain is proving about as sturdy and factual as a link between Ronald McDonald and the French Revolution.

 

[LordFu]

If you have a point, make it.

My point, which was abundantly clear, is that the Western world is responsible for the problems in the Middle East. We have used any and all excuses to exercise our power in the area.

And exercising our military power, is exactly what Iraq was about, is about. We needed to show the world that we could fight a war against multiple enemies on multiple fronts, as outlined in the document I linked to here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf

That document was authored, in September of 2000, by a "who's who" list of the current administration, for a think tank that listed Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as members. The document sets forth "Four Core Missions for U.S. military forces". One of those is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". The reason given to do this is to "Preserve Pax America".

Now, if that's not blatant fucking imperialism, I don't know what is, but go ahead, drink their kool-aid. Believe what they tell you, even when the facts and their previous statements prove them for the liars and megalomaniacs they are. I'm sure your a decent guy, but you're really out of your league in this conversation.

 

[Anbu_2]

Stop back-tracking Epicenter and admit you shouldn't dismiss people's views so quickly.

My 2 cents, Iraq was a HUUUUGE mistake, a mistake which 53 Londoners have already paid for. Now its Catch 22. Can't stay, can't leave.

I suspect pulling out of Iraq will take place before the next US election. Neither party will want to have to deal with Iraq by that time. Its just a shame its gonna happen because of elections as opposed to actually finishing the job. I think Rumsfeld's resignation is the Republicans way of saying "we fucked up", i don't know, maybe...

Anyone here old enough to remember the days of Splendid Isolation? I wonder what it was like?

 

[subin]

Anyone here old enough to remember the days of Splendid Isolation? I wonder what it was like?

depending on how we deal with this european union crap, you may find out very soon

 

[fluffyhamster]

Virusx, the issue is that Iraq was under sanctions restricting development of WMD since the Gulf War after invading their neighbor Kuwait-- and using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, and of course Kuwaitis.. like how Germany was under regulation after WWI not to engage in unrestricted U-boat warfare... well much like WWII Germany, Iraq had been violating UN sanctions by launching SCUD missiles exceeding sanctioned range, refusing inspections, hiding and destroying evidence, burying equipment used to refine uranium, they had papers documenting chemical weapons test, mobile chemical weapons development laboratories stocked with antichemical weapons gear ... there was evidence of attempts to get WMDs once more.

Epicenter hit the nail on the head right there.

If helping another country, and protecting yours is being "the next hitler" , you have to be really selfish. Were not even fighting Iraq at this point, were fighting those crazy Muslims coming from Syria. Iraq is a major loss for Syria, and soon we will have no choice but to take out Syria. What I'm saying is this war is inevitable, but accomplishing our goal right now is a lot easier then it will be in 10 years.

DCGM, i didn't say you were stupid. . . I asked you a question :lol:

 

[OMars]

It's funny, you do something to help people and take a murderous regime out of power, and you are defamed for it. You let murder go on because it doesn't affect the US (I'm looking at you, Rwanda) and you are defamed for it. Which is it going to be? The hated ostrich with his head in the sand or the hated warrior who does what he thinks is the righteous course of action. Or should we take the middleground like the UN-- wait for the slaughter to end and then drop food and fresh water on the fields of corpses and pretend everything's alright?

What exactly do you think Americans are doing in Iraq, sipping tea with the civilians? No, they are out there causing colleteral damage and some even kill civilians on purpose. You disgust me with your completely pro-american ideals. I love both Iraq and America, but I hate both of their current governments. All the U.S. army did was remove a murderous regime and put a brand new one into power. Did you know that the U.S. had a large amount of Moqtada Sadr's men, but the prime minister let them free? That's what you get for putting extremists into power. I hope to one day see the look on the U.S. army's face when they admit(because they already know)that they have failed in Iraq. Then we can get on with our lives, and maybe I can go back to Iraq. I love America but I feel awkward here... :rolleyes:

Virusx, the issue is that Iraq was under sanctions restricting development of WMD since the Gulf War after invading their neighbor Kuwait-- and using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of their own people, and of course Kuwaitis.. like how Germany was under regulation after WWI not to engage in unrestricted U-boat warfare... well much like WWII Germany, Iraq had been violating UN sanctions by launching SCUD missiles exceeding sanctioned range, refusing inspections, hiding and destroying evidence, burying equipment used to refine uranium, they had papers documenting chemical weapons test, mobile chemical weapons development laboratories stocked with antichemical weapons gear ... there was evidence of attempts to get WMDs once more.

Epicenter hit the nail on the head right there.

If helping another country, and protecting yours is being "the next hitler" , you have to be really selfish. Were not even fighting Iraq at this point, were fighting those crazy Muslims coming from Syria. Iraq is a major loss for Syria, and soon we will have no choice but to take out Syria. What I'm saying is this war is inevitable, but accomplishing our goal right now is a lot easier then it will be in 10 years.

DCGM, i didn't say you were stupid. . . I asked you a question :lol:

How old are you? :huh:

 

[Anbu_2]

If helping another country, and protecting yours is being "the next hitler"

You've missed the point entirely. Is America or Britain any safer? Probably not. Is Iraq any better off? Not really. Iraq is not a united country, thats too big an issue to conveniently ignore. Politicians say "Iraq has sovereignty", "they have a constitution". But in reality the constitution was forced upon the Iraqis who couldn't agree what should be in it. The sphere of influence of the Iraqi govt is minimal, barely extending further than the green zone. An area roughly 4 square miles.

Our soldiers are there pretty much just to get shot at. The private contractors rebuilding Iraq are subsidised by the US govt. The longer they take and more resources they waste, the more the govt pays them. There's no incentive for the directors of these firms to finish the job, and the salaries they're able to pay due to subsidisation provides a steady stream of workers.

Seriously, its hard to be completely oblivious to the fact that Iraq is a total disaster. Our only saviour, the UN, wont go into Iraq because we went against their wishes by invading.

We fucked ourselves...

 

[OMars]

If helping another country, and protecting yours is being "the next hitler"

You've missed the point entirely. Is America or Britain any safer? Probably not. Is Iraq any better off? Not really. Iraq is not a united country, thats too big an issue to conveniently ignore. Politicians say "Iraq has sovereignty", "they have a constitution". But in reality the constitution was forced upon the Iraqis who couldn't agree what should be in it. The sphere of influence of the Iraqi govt is minimal, barely extending further than the green zone. An area roughly 4 square miles.

Our soldiers are there pretty much just to get shot at. The private contractors rebuilding Iraq are subsidised by the US govt. The longer they take and more resources they waste, the more the govt pays them. There's no incentive for the directors of these firms to finish the job, and the salaries they're able to pay due to subsidisation provides a steady stream of workers.

Seriously, its hard to be completely oblivious to the fact that Iraq is a total disaster. Our only saviour, the UN, wont go into Iraq because we went against their wishes by invading.

We fucked ourselves...

Dude, you are one of the smartest people on the board!

 

[dcgms_parachute_account_]

For the most part there are a lot of really good points here. For those of us who are democratic, we know what will be done. Starting in january when congress convenes, we will begin to gradually pull troops from Iraq. I personally believe this is a GOOD idea. Everyone else, riddle me this: How will the people and government that we "set up" be able to stand on their own feet if we keep shoving more American soldiers in? They will not be able to survive unless we show them how, not do the work for them. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. We cannot stay there forever, and we had already done enough there. Time to teach them to fend for themselves, and gtfo before more American lives are taken.

@lubidog: I don't believe I have done anything here to demean other people's beliefs. I'm merely said how I feel and pointed out how some others may be mistaken. The only person who I HAVE jumped on is this fluffyhamster kid who talks out of his ass. I'm sorry of you have a problem with what I have said, but the fact is, if you can't sound somewhat educated on the matter, don't bother posting . You can feel free to rebut yet again, but I'm not going to reply again.

[quote name='fluffyhamster']
Iraq is a major loss for Syria, and soon we will have no choice but to take out Syria[/quote]

We will have to take out Syria? What gives the United States the right to be belligerant with other nations? Because it's for the good of IRAQIS?? You strike me as someone who is simply all for Iraq and thinks we need to do whatever it takes to defend them from everyone else

It isn't our place to do something like that. We arent avoiding WWIII, we're doing a nosedive straight into it. All I can say is, thanks God for the democrats. Perhaps things will begin to get better now that Bush is a lame duck.

 

[Mudi]

How will the people and government that we "set up" be able to stand on their own feet if we keep shoving more American soldiers in? They will not be able to survive unless we show them how, not do the work for them.

YES! I completely agree with that. The threat of removing soldiers should be there, or else Iraq will keep leaning on us.

The rest of you: the "how old are you" comments just make you look very immature, I would avoid those in the future if you want to seem convincing yourself.

 

[LordFu]

Starting in january when congress convenes, we will begin to gradually pull troops from Iraq. I personally believe this is a GOOD idea.

At this point, that's probably the best option. I fear there may come a need to "Balkinize" the country, but I hope that the violence lessens as our pressence lessens. Dividing the country would be bad for Iraqi's in the long run.

[quote name='Anbu_2']Our only saviour, the UN[/quote]

The UN is useless. They should be disbanned, IMO. They only seem to be interested in swindling money. Look at the Oil for Food Program. That's corruption to an art. And what have they done to Africa? That place is a mess of fighting and human suffering.

Does anyone else see the irony of a thread on the election turning into a discussion on Iraq?

 

[dcgms_parachute_account_]

Well, I don't know if it's ironic. I mean, the reason the democrats took control of congress is mainly because people were concerned the most about Iraq and how it's being handled. I'd say it's pretty expected

 

[Anbu_2]

[quote name='Anbu_2']Our only saviour, the UN

The UN is useless.

Does anyone else see the irony of a thread on the election turning into a discussion on Iraq?
[/quote]

Our saviour in the sense we could pull out and start distancing ourselves from it.

Oh there's no irony. The *major* issue in the election (despite being local) was Iraq.

On Topic: Do the Democrats have any policies? As Jon Stewart put it "with their cunning strategy of backing out the room while their brother gets yelled at."

 

[fluffyhamster]

If helping another country, and protecting yours is being "the next hitler"

You've missed the point entirely. Is America or Britain any safer? Probably not. Is Iraq any better off? Not really. Iraq is not a united country, thats too big an issue to conveniently ignore. Politicians say "Iraq has sovereignty", "they have a constitution". But in reality the constitution was forced upon the Iraqis who couldn't agree what should be in it. The sphere of influence of the Iraqi govt is minimal, barely extending further than the green zone. An area roughly 4 square miles.

Our soldiers are there pretty much just to get shot at. The private contractors rebuilding Iraq are subsidised by the US govt. The longer they take and more resources they waste, the more the govt pays them. There's no incentive for the directors of these firms to finish the job, and the salaries they're able to pay due to subsidisation provides a steady stream of workers.
Seriously, its hard to be completely oblivious to the fact that Iraq is a total disaster. Our only saviour, the UN, wont go into Iraq because we went against their wishes by invading.

We fucked ourselves...

There were terrorists being trained in Iraq, which wouldn't directly effect us or the U.K. The weapons were to obsolete at the time to hurt us, but given time you don't know. All of this could have been aimed at Israel and had weakened our ally.

I agree with you, the govt is horible at this point because of the terrorists that just clutter up everything, and it wont have much progress for a long time.

Like I previously stated, we give them time and they find another loop hole in our secuirity. It wasn't the best move, but the Middle East is just to crazy to reason with. There were two options, sit back, relax and let them build up, or invade and take them out (if you can think of a different one please let me know).

[quote name='fluffyhamster']
Iraq is a major loss for Syria, and soon we will have no choice but to take out Syria

We will have to take out Syria? What gives the United States the right to be belligerant with other nations? Because it's for the good of IRAQIS?? You strike me as someone who is simply all for Iraq and thinks we need to do whatever it takes to defend them from everyone else
[/quote]

Syria is a threat too the U.S. , Israel , U.K. , and any other democratic country.

 

[Anbu_2]

The Middle East is crazy? You can't speak in such broad terms. You realise you've painted millions of people with the same brush? Here's a 'radical' statement. Most people in the Middle East are just like you and me. Struggling to thrive in the eternal suffering which is life. Is that so hard to believe?

Jeez, if I called you a fat American war-mongering piece of shit, you'd either cuss me or say "hey, my govt did that, I had nothing to do with it!"

Get the point?

Don't forget, the world by and large believes that the US is the biggest threat to the planet (perhaps cynically but nevertheless), as opposed to religious extremists.

Not to mention we've played our little chess game in the middle-east at the expense of innocents for a while now. Isn't it only fair that *some* of them strike back?

In regards to Iran, were you aware they tried to broker a deal with the US? The same deal Libya made. Needless to say the States turned them down, then started their worthless ultimatums. Now why would the US do that? They want their war. Their war on an ideal, an invisible enemy, indistinguishable from the innocents. "They're in the Axis of Evil, its too late now!" Thereby creating a self-fulling prophecy by creating a terrorist threat by fueling the flames of hate.

By 'they' of course, I'm referring to the Neocons (Blair's included in that group), I haven't met an American who wasn't one of the nicest people in the world.

The irony in it all is tragic really. You have two sides. The Neocons, and the Islamic Extremists. Both view the other as the biggest threat to humanity, and both believe they're the only ones who can stop them. We are the ones who'll pay...

 

[fluffyhamster]

I was painting almost everyone whos involved in the government/terrorist groups. I didn't know about the deal Iran proposed, and cite your info please so i can read about it, I don't argue about things I haven't heard of.

 

[dcgms_parachute_account_]

[quote name='fluffyhamster']
Iraq is a major loss for Syria, and soon we will have no choice but to take out Syria

We will have to take out Syria? What gives the United States the right to be belligerant with other nations? Because it's for the good of IRAQIS?? You strike me as someone who is simply all for Iraq and thinks we need to do whatever it takes to defend them from everyone else

Syria is a threat too the U.S. , Israel , U.K. , and any other democratic country.
[/quote]
North Korea is much more of a threat, but do you see us "taking them out"? Hell, during the time of WWII Germany was a *huge* threat, but we didn't "take out" Germany, did we? Last I checked they're still around.

There will always be places that are a "threat" to us, but we live in a time where it's just not okay to "take out" countries if we see fit

You know what? Let's just bomb the entire middle east to kingdom come. That way, no nation will ever pose a threat to us!

 

[fluffyhamster]

As "take out" i mean get rid of the people who will use the things that are threatening us.

And yes we did take out Germany, too late I think! We could of save thousands of French, Polish, German, Belgiumese , English, Russian etc. but we thought we'd take a peaceful route and let them deal with it.

And Korea, you guys would be so pissed off if we invaded Korea, even if they are testing nukes. You would be like, lets wait for them to hit Hawaii before we attack, because there nukes might not do anything.

 

[OMars]

As "take out" i mean get rid of the people who will use the things that are threatening us.

And yes we did take out Germany, too late I think! We could of save thousands of French, Polish, German, Belgiumese , English, Russian etc. but we thought we'd take a peaceful route and let them deal with it.

And Korea, you guys would be so pissed off if we invaded Korea, even if they are testing nukes. You would be like, lets wait for them to hit Hawaii before we attack, because there nukes might not do anything.

Dude, stop, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I will give you a last chance to stop posting, before I really start flaming your ass... Besides who the hell wants to bomb a barely known country like belgium. Oooh, Jean-Claude Van Dame, oooh.

 

[Azalin]

Is there anyone else here that thinks that the world is follwing a path disturbingly similiar to the path that led to WWI & II? Seriously, the correlations between the types of political agenda's being utilized abroad, arms buildups, etc, its all getting rather scarily obvious that the human race is running pell-mell down the hill towards a very nasty fall...