minx Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Scott…..if you are in the military I commend you, that is not an easy job. If you joined after we took over Iraq…..you are an idiot. kevin... i have heard enough of your obsession with the war in iraq to make me want to cover you in used oil and roll you in sand and leave you in tied up in Dick Cheney's living room with a note that says "free puppy". i do NOT agree with the current administrations choices in Iraq. I am definitely not Scott's biggest fan. However, in this thread for the most part he has stated his opinions repsectfully and apparently, although disagreeing, taken the time to read the other opinions on this thread. and maybe even given them some consideration. joining the military post Iraq does not make him an idiot. It means he has a different value system than you do. I disagree with it but I can respect the fact that he is actively doing something to support his position. What are you doing besides bitching? For someone who bitches about name calling you sure through that one out at an inappropriate time. Quote
Stefan Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 You are over simplifying the matter. The political-religious climate in Iraq is mind boggling. Promises are made that certain factions will be protected and others will be targeted in order to get the necessary silence. The militants are using the hatred of the varying factions to get citizens to comply. This is extrememly similar to the goings on in WWII in eastern europe. This is a very complex region and simple one paragraph answers, or one sentence answers (in the case of Kevbone) will not come anywhere near to describing what is going on over there. Which comes back to my Darfur thing. Would you go to war in Darfur becuase of genocide? or Would you go to war in Iraq becuase of genocide AND oil? If you had a choice which one would you choose? The US chose to go to war in Iraq for those two major things and others. Hell, there are other reasons for Darfur too, stability in the region would be "nice" politically. Which makes for an important analysis and not oversimplification. Genocide is NOT an important reason to go to war becuase the US has not chosen to follow that path with Rwanda and Darfur. Which means oil. Oil is important, becuase it is valuable resource. Which means this war is about oil and not the value of preventing genocide. Quote
canyondweller Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Scott…..if you are in the military I commend you, that is not an easy job. If you joined after we took over Iraq…..you are an idiot. kevin... i have heard enough of your obsession with the war in iraq to make me want to cover you in used oil and roll you in sand and leave you in tied up in Dick Cheney's living room with a note that says "free puppy". i do NOT agree with the current administrations choices in Iraq. I am definitely not Scott's biggest fan. However, in this thread for the most part he has stated his opinions repsectfully and apparently, although disagreeing, taken the time to read the other opinions on this thread. and maybe even given them some consideration. joining the military post Iraq does not make him an idiot. It means he has a different value system than you do. I disagree with it but I can respect the fact that he is actively doing something to support his position. What are you doing besides bitching? For someone who bitches about name calling you sure through that one out at an inappropriate time. You had me at "free puppy". Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 It is really not my place to say, but I would have no problem going to Darfur. I think that we could do a lot of good. Only problem I see is that there is not anyone to take over the reigns. This would make our stay in Sudan indefinite. If you think that the post invasion goings on in Iraq was bad. Imagine trying to rebuild (really...just build) a country with no signs of viable long term leadership. I would love nothing more though than to ensure that every murderor I came accross would never harm another innocent person again; would never steal UN rations agan. I suggest that all of you that feel so strongly about Darfur work to convince your representatives that this is a noble use of our manpower and position. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 If oil was the deciding factor, why are we not in Sierra Leone? Quote
minx Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 b/c we don't have an excuse yet...ie. there hasn't been enough spin put on the current political situation in sierra leone yet. Quote
jmace Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Seems to me we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, Figured as much Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 b/c we don't have an excuse yet...ie. there hasn't been enough spin put on the current political situation in sierra leone yet. Ececutive Outcomes based out of South Africa already tried a coup in 2001. That ended up with the entirety of the crew being tried for crimes and being imprisoned. I would think if oil was the main concern, we would try to take over a more obscure country such as this with more oil per capita, a horribly corrupt military and no real allegiance to any given religion. This would be an overnight affair. If a dozen men thought they could take the country in a military coup, how hard would it be for the largest military superpower in the World to do so? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Seems to me we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, Figured as much Which means this war is about oil and not the value of preventing genocide. What are the alternatives..? Clearly oil is major concern. Islamic extremism, terrorism, and the nuclear threat from Iran are major concerns as well. It's not just oil. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 It is clear that oil IS a factor. It is not the factor or even a major factor. If it were about oil, it would be about economics. It would cost very little to go into an African country such as Sierra Leonne and we would gain much oil from it. We would also be justified based upon the maltreatment if its citizens. We didn't we chose to go into a hornet's nest where even if the oil was freed up, the skeptical eyes of Islamists would watch over every drop. The later sscenario hardly seems economically viable. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 Seems to me we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, Figured as much Which means this war is about oil and not the value of preventing genocide. What are the alternatives..? Clearly oil is major concern. Islamic extremism, terrorism, and the nuclear threat from Iran are major concerns as well. It's not just oil. bingo. Iran, who just today predicted the demise of Israel and the destruction of the US; where most of the militants in Iraq come from anyways is the main concern. Quote
rob Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Seems to me we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, Figured as much Which means this war is about oil and not the value of preventing genocide. What are the alternatives..? Clearly oil is major concern. Islamic extremism, terrorism, and the nuclear threat from Iran are major concerns as well. It's not just oil. bingo. Iran, who just today predicted the demise of Israel and the destruction of the US; where most of the militants in Iraq come from anyways is the main concern. Ironically, the radical religious regime in Iran is largely the result of earlier "geopolitical" strategies of the U.S. Things like that seem to bite us in the ass. After all, who put SH into power in the first place? Who gave OBL his start? To a large degree, this mess we've got ourselves into re: the middle east is a beast of our own creation. I hope we learn our lesson, but our actions in Iraq make me think that we haven't. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 Ironically, the radical religious regime in Iran is largely the result of earlier "geopolitical" strategies of the U.S. Ironically? This is just more par for the course in the world of international politics, intervention, and war. WWI led to Versailles, which led to economic collapse of Germany, the rise of nazism and a new World War which led to Yalta which led to partitioning of Europe, and Iron Curtain, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, etc. It's the same fucking story over and over again. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 Seems to me we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, Figured as much Which means this war is about oil and not the value of preventing genocide. What are the alternatives..? Clearly oil is major concern. Islamic extremism, terrorism, and the nuclear threat from Iran are major concerns as well. It's not just oil. bingo. Iran, who just today predicted the demise of Israel and the destruction of the US; where most of the militants in Iraq come from anyways is the main concern. Ironically, the radical religious regime in Iran is largely the result of earlier "geopolitical" strategies of the U.S. Things like that seem to bite us in the ass. After all, who put SH into power in the first place? Who gave OBL his start? To a large degree, this mess we've got ourselves into re: the middle east is a beast of our own creation. I hope we learn our lesson, but our actions in Iraq make me think that we haven't. My thought is this: We have tried a course of action to fix the mess we made earlier. We tried to fix something with a quick solution and quick solutions always bite you in the ass. If we back out now, this war was nothing less than another quick solution that in turn will bite us in the ass again. We left early in 1991 and this is the cost. If we leave early, we will be back to Iraq. I would rather stay a little bit longer and ensure that I will never have to go back to that shit hole ever again. We are accomplishing something each and everyday that we fight there. OBL state before the 9/11 attacks that the US did not have the gut to fight a long war and that its people would revolt before there presence was effective in the area. Lets not prove him right. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 Ironically, the radical religious regime in Iran is largely the result of earlier "geopolitical" strategies of the U.S. Ironically? This is just more par for the course in the world of international politics, intervention, and war. WWI led to Versailles, which led to economic collapse of Germany, the rise of nazism and a new World War which led to Yalta which led to partitioning of Europe, and Iron Curtain, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, etc. It's the same fucking story over and over again. Exactly, so lets try and actually fix these things rather than use band-aids. We turned Germany back into a economic power. It required over 50 years of occupation. Hell we are still there. Why do we think that fighting people of equally adamant beliefs is going to be any different in Iraq? It wont. We need to do it right. This requires the vast majority of our work be dedicated to nation building. Fighting is the easy part. Maintaining and rebuilding is where it gets hard and where we can say "this place is better than when we got here." That is the goal and if we would have done it right the first time, we would not be back here again. Quote
minx Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, i think this is the problem, i'm not sure that people are convinced that what we're doing there right now is nation building. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, i think this is the problem, i'm not sure that people are convinced that what we're doing there right now is nation building. or that what we're (attempting) doing is worth the cost Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) scott, i think this is the problem, i'm not sure that people are convinced that what we're doing there right now is nation building. If you could see it with your own eyes you would understand. Everything being done there is to stimulate autonomy. 1) Building the Army 2) Building the police force 3) Fixing dilapidated power, sewer, water and housing issues 4) Creating a constitution that all sects can live with. ensuring these things are done ensures that we will not have to go back. Edit: Oh yeah and catch Iranian soldiers trying to mess it all up Edited June 4, 2008 by scott_harpell Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, i think this is the problem, i'm not sure that people are convinced that what we're doing there right now is nation building. If you could see it with your own eyes you would understand. Everything being done there is to stimulate autonomy. 1) Building the Army 2) Building the police force 3) Fixing dilapidated power, sewer, water and housing issues 4) Creating a constitution that all sects can live with. ensuring these things are done ensures that we will not have to go back. It's been over 4 years, and the feeling over here is we've made woefully little progress on all 4 fronts. Quote
minx Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, that is probably true but as a public audience this is not what we here from the administration. what we hear is that the we're going to send more people into Iraq where they could killed or injured to "stabilize" the country. no details on just how we're going to do this "stabilizing" or that there is actually a plan in place. just that there needs to be more people. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, that is probably true but as a public audience this is not what we here from the administration. what we hear is that the we're going to send more people into Iraq where they could killed or injured to "stabilize" the country. no details on just how we're going to do this "stabilizing" or that there is actually a plan in place. just that there needs to be more people. and more time and more money with no end in sight. Quote
kevbone Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 The end is in sight. Just ask McCain, its in 100 years. Quote
rob Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 scott, i think this is the problem, i'm not sure that people are convinced that what we're doing there right now is nation building. If you could see it with your own eyes you would understand. Everything being done there is to stimulate autonomy. 1) Building the Army 2) Building the police force 3) Fixing dilapidated power, sewer, water and housing issues 4) Creating a constitution that all sects can live with. ensuring these things are done ensures that we will not have to go back. Edit: Oh yeah and catch Iranian soldiers trying to mess it all up I have a friend (Marine) who HAS been there, and HAS seen it with his own eyes, and he thinks it's all bullshit. I'm just pointing out that not everybody who has seen it with their own eyes believes in the mission. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 4, 2008 Posted June 4, 2008 The end is in sight. Just ask McCain, its in 100 years. Actually he promised to be out in 4. Pay attention to the news in between bong hits. Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 4, 2008 Author Posted June 4, 2008 I honestly think this is for 2 reasons: 1) The media knows that violence sells. Putting in a well doesn't. 500lb bombs and 105mm howitzers sell, clean water doesn't 2) The communication has been less than optimal. If you listen to what some of the Generals say, you will get the full picture. Granted, you will have to dig dig dig to find it. plus... shit. It is demoralizing to lose a fellow american. If you said "we built a well" and "miliants killed 3 soldiers today" which one will you remember in 3 weeks? I dont know if it is worth the cost. No-one does. The one thing I do know is: If we pull out today, it wasn't worth the cost. Give us a chance to make our friends' deaths mean something. Let us make their lives make someone else's better. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.