Is the Falluja situation the start of the 'real Iraq war'? | Page 2 | FerrariChat

Is the Falluja situation the start of the 'real Iraq war'?

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by PeterS, Apr 6, 2004.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Ralph:

    I'd be glad to stay home, right after I vote, right after I make sure that people exercise their right to vote. Come on Ralph: this is turning into a disaster, they don't want us there, we started this with the claim that there was WMDs and that proved untrue, if not an outright lie, they are starting resistance, killing our kids (sorry Peter, but people under 30 are kids to me, even though they are adults), and we're spending billions of dollars.

    When things go wrong, you can do two things: one: stay the course, or two, modify you're behavior. I've always found that when it turns out I'm incorrect, I change my behavior, hopefully for the better. When I continue to act in the same manner and things don't turn out the way I wished them to, then I have to look at my behavior and see what I did wrong.

    There is no question here that we've been going down the wrong road, to our detriment. Do we continue, suffer money loss, and dead citizens, or do we realize that things may not have been as we perceived them, and fix our behavior? I suggest the intelligent choice is the latter. I'm open to suggestions. I'd hope those would be the ones that don't involve more casualities.

    dm_n_stuff:

    The stuff you saw on TV was grossly sanitized. The real thing wanted to make you puke. Take a little trip to Texas, the burn center in San Antonio, take a look at the young men there with their burns. Better yet, look at the old men, my age, still there from vietnam. Makes you want to puke.
    As to

    Art
     
  2. KKSBA

    KKSBA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    14,921
    SBarbara-La Jolla CA
    Full Name:
    KKSBA
    Sykes-Picot agreement 1916. Two guys, one French, one English, in a bar, drawing on napkins... As stupid as it sounds, it was.
     
  3. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    Here's another take on the situation. Why don't we just pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis handle the situation themselves TOTALLY! We can let them develope all the oil drilling and refining equipment themselves. We can totally cut off ALL hardware and technical support from ALL manufacturers and let the wonderful Iraqis develope and manufacturer the equipment themselves. I'm sure a bunch of ranting, chanting, religious zealots dancing in the streets can regain their compusure long enough to develope the necessary hardware technology to drill, pump, and refine the oil that is necessary to support their economy. And since they think that America is so bad, we can eliminate all automobile and aircraft exports that might end up in Iraq. And if any of our so-called Allies like France, Germany or Japan decide to start trading with Iraq, we can tear up all the business contracts with those countries as well. It's time to start playing tough. EMBARGO should be the word of the day. If the people of Iraq don't want to play the game our way, then let's just take our ball and go home. Let's see how many oil refineries they can build out of sand and camel dung!
     
  4. KKSBA

    KKSBA F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2003
    14,921
    SBarbara-La Jolla CA
    Full Name:
    KKSBA
    The French and Germans will jump in and do all the engineering needed. If we start embargoing everyone, the net effect is that WE will be emargoed. The US is no longer an autarchy so we can't really afford to do that. But, I do understand and agree with your frustration of the situation.
     
  5. teak360

    teak360 F1 World Champ

    Nov 3, 2003
    10,065
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott
    Art,

    This entire statement seems to hold water. Your last sentence says it all and, unfortunately, probably has a 99 percent chance of being accurate. In fact, I would say the chance of peace over there is less than 1 percent.
     
  6. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    Maybe isolationism isn't such a bad thing after all. If America isolates itself, then we eliminate our world business trading, but then we also don't get ourself into no-win situations. But the truth is: Corporate greed is what prevents America from isolating itself like we did decades ago. Before the 1960s, America produced everything that we needed for our welfare and enjoyment. But about the 1960s, every corporation decided that it was more important to "make a buck" than it was to keep Americans employed, so they sent all the manufacturing jobs overseas and NOW we are dependant upon those overseas goods to keep our country supplied. And since Americans no longer control the supply lines, we can't really control an embargo. And meanwhile, the FORMER assembly line workers are unemployed and can't even afford to buy the cheap foreign made junk. A totally disgusting can of worms. America has multi-billion dollar corporations like Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, McDonalds, Exxon, Disney, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, etc, but we no longer possess the economy or technology to make a little red wagon like we did for 70 years. Totally disgusting.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4640307/
     
  7. Tspringer

    Tspringer F1 Veteran

    Apr 11, 2002
    6,155
    Perhaps we need a new strategy.


    I supported the invasion of Iraq. I felt that bringing democracy and freedom to that nation was a worthwhile goal and ridding the world of Saddam would benefit everyone. I still believe the second part.... but am beginning to question the first.

    In order to appreciate and thus desire democracy and freedom, perhaps you must first reach a certain minimum level of cultural advancement. Im starting to think the general Muslim population in the middle east is just too much a "bunch of savages" to be even capable of understanding and embracing democracy and freedom. They would much rather just kill Americans and/or kill each other.

    So, given that he US needs the oil from the middle east and we dont want any more strongman type whackos totally in charge like Saddam and we would like to eliminate islamic fundamentalism of all sorts (Sunni, shiite, whatever... they each have their own particular flavor of whacko) I have a better strategy:

    1. The US needs to hand over power in Iraq to "whomever" at the end of June. It really doesnt matter who, just not us. Actually, the more extremist the official ruling group the better for our new long term plan.

    2. The US maintains control of a large patch of desert (as far from nowwhere as possible) in southern Iraq and builds a large military base and airbase. WE build a good road to the coast and a good dedicated port facility. We guard it fanatically: any Iraqi or Arab of any sort seen within rifle range of our base or support road is shot on sight. We stay on our isolated base, out of sight and out of mind. We do not participate AT ALL in Iraqi politics or economy.... in any overt manner.

    3. Civil War in Iraq will clearly result. We wont need to do anything to ensure this, its starting already. Its good. Its exactly what we want. The US now continues to build a deep network of intelligence agents, spooks, assassins and mercenaries through the CIA, NSA, military.... whomever is running this new show. This shadow network carries out attacks designed to further the civil war. We attack a Shiite mosque and leave behind the bodies of some known Sunni activists and make it look like they are blown up in the mosque bombing by their own mistake.... stuff like that. In short, we incite each whacko muslim faction against the other in every way possible..... in a covert manner.

    4. We do business with both sides. This means we buy oil from both sides, and we sell military hardware to both sides. WE LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES AND DONT SELL THEM WMD OR REALLY GOOD STUFF. We sell them hardware and keep track of it while they work hard to kill each other. Heck... we have our agents within their groups help plan attacks and such and feed intelligence. We want maximum killing on each side.

    5. We may even be able to spread this civil war. If the sunni baathists are having a hard time and getting killed in horrid terror attacks by the shiites.... the baathists in Syria will not be pleased. Conversely if the shiites are looking to be taking a beating on Al-Jazeera their Iranian brothers will not be happy. If we play this right and REALLY get them to killing each other, we may be able to actually get Syria to go at Iran.

    Heck.... if done really well we may get the entire whacko muslim middle east to implode into one gigantic "kill each other in the name of allah" murder festival.

    We still get our oil. We make money selling arms. Our enemies are killing each other and hopefully to busy to bother with us. We can scream at the UN to do something and thus make them look like idiots. Heck.... its all good for the US!


    This is only partially in jest. The reality is Islamic Fundamentalism is at the root of what caused 9/11. It is an insidious religious theology that must be eradicated. In their minds... its "Kill the Infidel" and YOU my friend ARE the infidel. If we can pursue a strategy that pits these islamofascists against each other, thats exactly what we should do. Why should US soldiers be put in the line of fire when we can manipulate the situation and get our enemies to kill each other.



    Terry
     
  8. mbmike

    mbmike Formula Junior

    Oct 31, 2003
    752
    Actually, we don't need corrupt Middle Eastern oil. Between Russia, Canada, Venezuela, Kuwait, UAE, etc, there are plenty of relatively stable nations we could get our oil from. And, if we could just get the damn environmentalists to shut up, we could switch over to nuclear power as our main source of electricity, and start drilling oil in Alaska, both of which would further end our dependence on foreign oil.

    Unfortunately, the days of isolationism are over, and I don't think that it will ever be viable to maintain an isolationist policy ever again. Globalization, although it means we get to reap the rewards of all the good things around the world, also means we have to suck up some of the bad, and that's just something we're gonna have to learn to live with.
     
  9. ralfabco

    ralfabco Two Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Mar 1, 2002
    28,029
    Dixie
    Full Name:
    Itamar Ben-Gvir


    Only in the USA when you compare it to other industrialized nations of the world; is nuclear power a failure. We should develop Russian oil.
     
  10. Admiral Thrawn

    Admiral Thrawn F1 Rookie

    Jul 2, 2003
    3,932
    Haha, awesome stuff. Good thinking TSpringer! ;)
     
  11. WILLIAM H

    WILLIAM H Three Time F1 World Champ

    Nov 1, 2003
    35,532
    Victory Circle
    Full Name:
    HUBBSTER
    The ultimate answer to our energy needs lies in exploring, expoliting & mining resources in space. Let the camel humpers kill each other while we get all the energy & resources we need from the Moon, Mars, & the asteroid belt where nobody lives, I hope :)
     
  12. darth550

    darth550 Six Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Jul 14, 2003
    60,788
    In front of you
    Full Name:
    BCHC
    I'll bet that is EXACTLY what the Dalai Lama would say! :)

    DL
     
  13. Erich

    Erich Formula 3

    Sep 9, 2003
    1,190
    Poway CA
    Full Name:
    Erich Coiner
    You mean the Dolly LLama?
     
  14. WILLIAM H

    WILLIAM H Three Time F1 World Champ

    Nov 1, 2003
    35,532
    Victory Circle
    Full Name:
    HUBBSTER
    LOL well not exactly. I dont think the Dalai Lama would have taken quite the same tack that GWB did. Of course the DL being a smart guy stays away from the Middle East. Remember the Taliban did blow up those Buddha statues in the Afghan desert before 9/11. Thats when I knew there was going to be trouble with those Muslim pirates
     

Share This Page