Yeah, just like all the Muslims in Turkey! They’re so devious they even joined NATO
[/quote]
Yes in 1952. Turkey fears Russia. Russia has coveted Constantinople since the days of Peter.
Aren’t they lucky? Perhaps their leaders should be more respectful of the US and her allies? Perhaps a strongman in the Whitehouse might curb some of their insolence?
Times have a changed. Since 2003 the Justice and Development Party - core membership being the Islamists(banned Virtue Party) have been in power.
Hopefully when Britain and some other countries drop out of the EU Turkey can have it all to itself. It can even keep all the monopoly money and the Gypsies.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Sexmachine, one question before you leave. Do you think these two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) have positively contributed to our economy or negatively impacted it? Or were they irrelevant? [/quote]
Negatively of course. However the US would collapse overnight both economically and socially/politically, if it stopped confronting the threats to its existence/interests.[/quote]
What criteria are you using to base this statement on? Fact, the price of oil has a huge impact on our economy. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. They have so much oil that they could potentially pump just as much as Saudi Arabia. The Saudis pump somewhere around twelve million barrels a day. Under the sanctions Iraq was limited to one million barrels a day.
To continue with the status quo of the sanctions limiting the worlds oil supply would have had a huge impact on our economy and the rest of the world economy. If you two are so one dimensional in your thinking that you can only get your head around one concept at a time and are not capable of considering pro’s and con’s that is really sad.
Yes it cost money and lives to fight the war there. But it also would have cost money and lives to keep the world oil supply restricted just to keep Saddam in power. Right now Iraq is producing almost three million barrels of oil per day and is increasing production. That is three times what they were allowed to pump under the sanctions.
The costs of continuing the sanctions would have continued year after year and would have got progressively worse as the rapidly developing Chinese and Indian economy’s would have needed more and more oil. It is not as cut and dry as either of you is making it sound.
You make some very good points and I didn’t mean to suggest it was cut and dry. I agree with what Gambit Lost said - “I think a good part of that was HOW the wars were fought and (not) paid for.” But that’s just detail. I support the US/coalition war effort and would like to see US remain in Iraq and get more help from her allies.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I believe the use of the military is to defend. Not police the world. They never found WMD’s in Iraq. Iraq never attacked US. In case you haven’t heard, Bin Laden was killed in PAKISTAN, right near a military base. Look at what that has cost US in terms of lives lost and money spent. Every time these unofficial wars are declared people get rich, a lot of our soldiers die for it, and WE pay for it. Keep drinking the kool aid. [/quote]
America has vital economic interests in the middle east and we HAVE to defend them. That’s not “policing the world.”
Sifu, thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more specific. The economy has been negatively affected as measured by the debt to GDP ratio due to these “wars”. Forgive me for I’m on my phone and can’t easily look up and cite hard numbers but I think we can agree the debt to GDP has risen since these “wars” commenced.
Now, you say Iraq is producing 3 million barrels of oil. Iran, due to the mounting threat of attack by Israel and US, is threatening to try and shut down the strait of Hormuz. The implications of that would be a drastic rise in oil prices. In fact, if they did do that and were attacked, oil production would be affected regardless.
Would this not negate the positive effect of Iraq’s liberation? Would it be worth it to drive up the debt to GDP more and drive up oil prices and sacrifice more men and women based on the chance that Iran COULD develop a nuclear weapon? I hope this was coherent as it takes a while to type this all out.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Sifu, thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more specific. The economy has been negatively affected as measured by the debt to GDP ratio due to these “wars”. Forgive me for I’m on my phone and can’t easily look up and cite hard numbers but I think we can agree the debt to GDP has risen since these “wars” commenced.
Now, you say Iraq is producing 3 million barrels of oil. Iran, due to the mounting threat of attack by Israel and US, is threatening to try and shut down the strait of Hormuz. The implications of that would be a drastic rise in oil prices. In fact, if they did do that and were attacked, oil production would be affected regardless.
Would this not negate the positive effect of Iraq’s liberation? Would it be worth it to drive up the debt to GDP more and drive up oil prices and sacrifice more men and women based on the chance that Iran COULD develop a nuclear weapon? I hope this was coherent as it takes a while to type this all out. [/quote]
I can agree that the debt we are running up is a bad thing. However a lot of the money we spent on weapons was spent here putting Americans to work. Imagine what our economy would ave been like without those people working.
Iran is a festering problem that is going to have to be dealt with. The smart thing would have been to let Bush take care of it before they got nuclear weapons and advanced missile technology. If we had done it that way it wouldn’t have been so embarrassing when Obama went on the apology tour.
Make no mistake about where Iran is in it’s weapon development program. They aren’t going through all this trouble and expense only to give up with nothing to show for it. They are going to have the bomb.
Not only are they going to have the bomb they are also going to get solid fuel missile technology in exchange for our stealth drone technology from the Russians or Chinese. Solid fuel rockets are much easier to scale up in size and increase their range. So they are going to have missiles that can hit us.
The Saudi’s have been building a pipeline that cuts across the peninsula to the Red Sea so they will have a way to ship without going through the straight of Hormuz. So they will still be able to ship oil.
The rise of oil prices has made the oil deposits that are deep down in shale profitable to exploit. Because we are now able to exploit western shale oil deposits, the US now produces seventy three percent of it’s domestic oil consumption. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada. So we could potentially come through a closure of the straight of Hormuz fairly well. It might even cause us to become an oil exporter for a time.
I can agree that the debt we are running up is a bad thing. However a lot of the money we spent on weapons was spent here putting Americans to work. Imagine what our economy would ave been like without those people working. [/quote]
Sifu, a lot of people will point out “guns or butter” and the “broken window fallacy” at this point of the argument, and with some merit.
Very good. I have read that oil prices could sky rocket due to all of this turmoil so I feel slightly relieved. Did anyone else lol when Obama asked for our drone back? I literally laughed when I read the headline.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Very good. I have read that oil prices could sky rocket due to all of this turmoil so I feel slightly relieved. Did anyone else lol when Obama asked for our drone back? I literally laughed when I read the headline. [/quote]
Yeah, I mean, come on…No, it’s not some HUGE thing, but it was silly. “Hey, can we get that spy plane back? What’s that? Yeah, the one that was spying on you. Exactly the one. We’re missing a bit of surveillance coverage without it up and running. And, obviously, we don’t want you picking over it and…hello? Hello?”
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Sifu, thanks for pointing that out. I should have been more specific. The economy has been negatively affected as measured by the debt to GDP ratio due to these “wars”. Forgive me for I’m on my phone and can’t easily look up and cite hard numbers but I think we can agree the debt to GDP has risen since these “wars” commenced.
Now, you say Iraq is producing 3 million barrels of oil. Iran, due to the mounting threat of attack by Israel and US, is threatening to try and shut down the strait of Hormuz. The implications of that would be a drastic rise in oil prices. In fact, if they did do that and were attacked, oil production would be affected regardless.
Would this not negate the positive effect of Iraq’s liberation?[/quote]
Nothing is pretty in international affairs/wars. A number of good and bad things came of the war.
It might be. That is the debate going on now. Others have pointed out some of the negative implications of any action in Iran and also the implications of a LACK OF ACTION in Iran. The closer Iran gets to nukes, the more dire the implications of inaction/not enough action.
I bet $10,000 dollars Iran gets the nuke. Nobody is going to stop them, let’s stop kidding ourselves. On some news channel they’ll still be debating about how to, and if, we can stop Iran from getting the nuke, when breaking news will come in that they’ve successfully carried out a test. Ok, I wasn’t serious about the 10K…You think I got that kind of money? I’m not Romney.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
Very good. I have read that oil prices could sky rocket due to all of this turmoil so I feel slightly relieved. Did anyone else lol when Obama asked for our drone back? I literally laughed when I read the headline. [/quote]
It is comical how he is handling such a serious matter. He’s just not up to the job. This is deadly serious business. The Russians and the Chinese are already in a bidding war with each other to get access to the drone so they can reverse engineer it. What the Iranians are looking to get out of the deal is access to a lot of military technology from missiles to antiaircraft systems that is going to make them very dangerous.
I’m surprised they don’t have some kind of Lojack on it so they can find it and drop a MOAB on it. This a major fuck up if we allow this technology transfer to take place.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Why give Iran any motive?
[/quote]
Who’s ‘giving them motives?’ What are these motives?
No troops in Iran nor any country that Iran considers a friend.
Yes, close every single embassy. Good idea. Who needs embassies?
Sounds good. How much longer do we wait?
EDIT: Sorry I forgot. We have to ‘bring all our troops home’ from everywhere first, putting US at an extreme disadvantage strategically, abandoning every single ally we have in the world, leaving vital shipping lanes unprotected and so forth; close down every US embassy cutting off all contact with the outside world(not isolationism though it’s “anti-interventionism”) - leaving US citizens throughout the world without consular assisstance - inviting terrorist massacres of US civilians all over the globe, destablising the world economy, leaving commercial airliners prone to terrorist attack etc and THEN…only THEN can US sit back and wait to get attacked again. Then there’s something about having to get a declaration of war through Congress before the president can engage in any kind of hostilities. Wow. That’s…that’s really something.[/quote]
Watch out everyone, SM uses some wiki action to try and argue his stance. Watch out, this boy uses a website filled with opinion to argue his side.
What countries are American troops in? What numbers? Where do we get any re-compensation for policing the world? Who put our country in charge? Sounds like motives to me.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Who’s ‘giving them motives?’ What are these motives? [/quote]
Really? What country gave us permission to fight and help police their state? Re-compensation from whom? Again, who needs an embassy? If you don’t want to go into another country and commit crimes, don’t go. Novel idea I know.
[quote]
No troops in Iran nor any country that Iran considers a friend.
Yes, close every single embassy. Good idea. Who needs embassies? [/quote]
[quote] Wiki pages as some kind of reference . . . .
Sounds good. How much longer do we wait?
EDIT: Sorry I forgot. We have to ‘bring all our troops home’ from everywhere first, putting US at an extreme disadvantage strategically, [/quote] Who says this is a a board game where troops have to be stationed around the world? [quote] abandoning every single ally we have in the world, leaving vital shipping lanes unprotected and so forth; [/quote] Yup, these are the days of common pirate attacks! [quote] close down every US embassy cutting off all contact with the outside world(not isolationism though it’s “anti-interventionism”) - leaving US citizens throughout the world without consular assisstance - inviting terrorist massacres of US civilians all over the globe, [/quote] I never hung out at the embassy while in another country. Who gave you the idea this was the case? [quote] destablising the world economy, [/quote] Um, already doing that with Obama [quote] leaving commercial airliners prone to terrorist attack [/quote] How did it work back in '01? [quote] etc and THEN…only THEN can US sit back and wait to get attacked again. Then there’s something about having to get a declaration of war through Congress before the president can engage in any kind of hostilities. Wow. That’s…that’s really something.[/quote] Where are these terrorist attacks coming from if we leave another country alone? What reason? Jealousy maybe?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Watch out everyone, SM uses some wiki action to try and argue his stance. Watch out, this boy uses a website filled with opinion to argue his side.
[/quote]
Yes watch out everyone! Hiding his stance with wikipedia or something. Totally.
Hiding something^^
See above.
Stick to specifics. That’s a loaded question and an extreme generalisation.
It happened as a consequence of the Second World War.
Had to remove my quotes because it gets too messy. Think you’re saying having US forces stationed in the ME is a motive for the Iranians to wage war against the US? That’s nonsense. A large part of the reason those forces are there is due to Iran threatening everyone in the region and waging war against the US/West for 30+ years.
Loaded question again. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the Emirates in particular are keen on US/Western support - but US cannot afford to station troops in these countries protecting them from the Iranian batshit and their own al-Qaeda batshits forever. US/West needs to decisively defeat the threats - Iranian leadership/al-Qaeda & affiliates/Pakistani Army/ISI. Then there will be less need for deployments in far off lands.
Well I don’t know…?
Is this a trick question? I would say every country needs embassies all over the world to engage in “diplomacy” with other countries; diplomats/ambassadors discuss such important things as “trade,” the “economy,” “international law” etc and they resolve disputes over everything from trade tariffs to borders. These are just some of many reasons that embassies and diplomatic missions have been the norm just about everywhere on earth for thousands of years with the possible exception of the Japanese between the 17th and 19th centuries.
Wasn’t planning on it.
Like I said, it came about as a consequence of the Second World War. Perhaps you should look to some of the decisions that FDR made in relation to the Soviet Union that led to further necessity for ‘stationing troops around the world.’ I didn’t make up the rules fella I’m just telling it like it is.
Well yes; al-Shabab - but that’s the Horn of Africa. Another vital waterway. I was talking about Suez and the Persian Gulf which are under threat from the IRANIANS.
You really going to stick to this ‘no one needs embassies’ line? Okay, well let’s forget about all the other reasons and stick to your holiday. You’ve just been arrested for Verjahrungsvergewaltigung. If you would like to know what “Verjahrungsvergewaltigung” is, speak to your family or have any legal assisstance please contact your embassy.
Yeah I know. Get rid of him I say.
It didn’t. See “Bojinka Plot” for example. EDIT: I think maybe I misinterpreted your question because I removed my quote. Okay you’re saying having US forces deployed DIDN’T prevent 9/11 so why would it now? See Bill Clinton/bin Laden/Taliban “anti-interventionism” in the 90’s - actually relates to my point. Clinton wouldn’t kill bin Laden or deal with the Taliban because that’s “meddling” and some our Gulf state friends/Pakistan would not have liked that.
That is a nonsense question. What has “leaving” an unspecified “country alone” have to do with the war being waged against us by Islamic fundamentalits/sponsor states/Chinese/Russians/tinpots?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Watch out everyone, SM uses some wiki action to try and argue his stance. Watch out, this boy uses a website filled with opinion to argue his side.
[/quote]
Okay, I’ve done a little of your homework for you then:
‘In Iran the prudent and sophisticated Islamist leaders were absorbing the lessons of the 1995 operations. In the early months of 1996 Tehran started laying the foundations for the next phase in the terrorist jihad, establishment of the HizbAllah International, with bin Laden in a senior position. The significance of this organization for the prevailing terrorist threat was demonstrated in its first strikes: the bombing of U.S. barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the downing of TWA800; and the assassination of a U.S. intelligence officer in Cairo. The Iranians now clearly acknowledged not only the importance of the “Afghans”(al-Qaeda) and the other Sunni Islamist radicals but also the distinction of their chosen leaders - specifically, bin Laden and Zawahiri.’ etc
Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America - Yossef Bodansky, The Committee of Three p. 125
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Yes watch out everyone! Hiding his stance with wikipedia or something. Totally.
[/quote]
Glad you learned to ‘quote’ them again.
So our country learned that by sticking our nose in everyone’s business, it then got bloody?
Diplomacy never means picking a side because some small country cries and wants our help.
Why did the people attack us? Because we were minding our own business? Nope, they wanted us to spend billions of our money fighting them. Guess what? It’s working! Provide a source other than wiki to support your claims please.
Or you don’t want to answer it shrug
Many reaches here and you did nothing to prove why we have to spend MILLIONS of dollars to have these ‘stratigraphic embassies around the world.’ Plus don’t we have missiles that can bomb any single point in the world? Those embassies are were attacks are started and strategically important, to who?
How many years ago was WWII? Yeah, we need to worry about competing with other counties in this world market, rather than play referee.
I refuse to address your point when there is none :o ]
I would never rape a woman! If you are afraid of being accused, gasp don’t go to the country.
We agree! ; )
That was my point, we were attacked.
My point exactly, without a clear threat to our peaceful country, we leave everyone alone. They only attack us after we did something to deserve it in the minds of others. If American troops are not there, why would they attack us?
Why did we join the war in WWII? Did we try to wage a battle for one side of the war before being attacked? When we were attacked then war was declared and a later the war ended. After we were attacked, not until that point.
How many lives were lost in the 9/11 attacks? How many American soldiers have died on foreign soil since then? Is it still a good idea to be fighting a war that has no end in sight?