57 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

For your information Shah... We went into Afghanistan with a 90% approval and Iraq with a 70% approval. Trust me, it wasn't all Republicans. Kim Kardashian could have been the President and it still would have happened. The people demanded it. I am one that believes we didn't go far enough. I never thought we should occupy or rebuild anything. Destroy everything and leave. That's what I wanted, and Iran was on the top of my list. Pakistan should have been creamed as soon as we found Bin Laden there. We are hated because we allowed the Jews to have Israel, and we're not Muslim. It's not gonna change so let's keep fighting until someone gives up.

[onbekende]

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

[Lysistrata]

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

Yes, just duck and maybe hide in a basement if you have one.

The U.S. Military will let you know when it's safe to come back out. Some things never change.

[onbekende]

 

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

Yes, just duck and maybe hide in a basement if you have one.

The U.S. Military will let you know when it's safe to come back out. Some things never change.

 

to bad its lately a rather pre-empt deployment instead of a reactive deployment.

 

you can pre-empt alot, but you don't need boots to pre-empt everything >_>

[Shahenshah]

 

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

Yes, just duck and maybe hide in a basement if you have one.
The U.S. Military will let you know when it's safe to come back out. Some things never change.

Edited by Shahenshah, 03 April 2015 - 10:00 PM.

[Lysistrata]

You're a real Bush hater. I have never cared about Islamic leaders enough to even learn how to properly say their names, but it's good to know that he was effective enough to make you so angry. If your luck holds out, you may get a third one, it's still up in the air who we nominate. I would say with two more years of this crap, we can nominate Donald Trump and win... then you're all fired!

[Shahenshah]

Angry? I pity him, he carries a burden of all those sacrifices he caused, all in vain, I laugh at his administration, because it allowed pretty much all his rivals to fill in the space created by the defeats. Most of the people in US now think Afghanistan and Iraq were a mistake, that is his legacy.  You can bolster the opinions and what not for a period of time via propaganda etc, you know very well how that works. 

Only you seem angry here that your govt did not wipe out entire peoples and populations. You could petition Jeb in person for it? Do heil at the end.

Edited by Shahenshah, 04 April 2015 - 05:15 AM.

[Fox Fire]

Iranians lie about everything and never keep their word. The deal is good for them if they get the sanctions dropped, and bad for us because it's really hard to get the sanctions imposed. Obama just wants to screw everything up like he's been doing for 6 years now. Everyday it's some new way of screwing things up. They want nukes, maybe we should just send some over? Japan has never wanted anything to do with them, and everyone knows why.

We've had worse presidents. Now I'm not going to say Obama is a good president, but I equally wouldn't say that he only fucks shit up. Rather, I would simply say he's an unproductive president who hasn't accomplished anything, but most of that blame can go to congress for being a bunch of lazy fuckbags who don't do their job and decide to bail on the verge of government shutdown. 

Iran is not going to nuke anyone, just like NK isn't going to nuke the south. Half the nations out there who actually have nukes are more frightening than Iran. The only REAL reason we don't want them to have nukes is simply because they are a Russian vassal and here in the west, we've made it a sport to pick on Russia and it's allies. Not for any particular reason, but just because it's Russia.

 

 

So current news sources are stating the U.S. wimped out and agreed to better Iranian terms. Largely because Kerry wanted a deal.

 

I definitely fear a Middle East nuclear arms race. If it appears Iran has the capability of one day acquiring nuclear weapons, you can sure bet that North Korea will share technology on ballistic missiles. Mate the two together and you have some rather crude Intercontinental Nuclear Missiles. Saudi Arabia will probably begin development on their own program (with likely assistance from Pakistan). Israel may attempt to increase its stockpile (assuming of course the rumors of them possessing nuclear weapons are true.) And the Iron Dome Anti Missile Shield would be increased.

 

Even if Iran allows International Inspectors in the country, they have a huge network of underground bunkers and facilities. All of these can't be known to the International Community. So it wouldn't be extremely difficult for Iran to secretly be subverting a portion of its nuclear stockpile to classified facilities. Some of these sites are reportedly beyond the reach capabilities of U.S. Bunker Busters. Although the U.S. has upgraded some Bunker Busters to hit even deeper, more fortified targets.

 

I doubt Iran would be stupid enough to actually use nuclear technology as a weapon, for fear of repercussions. But what if that technology/materials ends up in the hands of unstable organizations or terrorist factions? Whether covertly given to them or a false flag security breach? Now that would be an incredibly scary event.

Pandoras Box. You can try, but you can't stop it.

 

 

Okay listen carefully... Israel is our friend. Iran is not. Fundamental enough?

Are you trying to make a "fairness" arguement? I myself feel much better with advantage.

Sincerely, Israel can get bent, fuck itself backwards and then suck Palestinian dick until it's lips fall off. That Nazi state does not deserve allies. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's why. Israel is the Jewish equivalent of Nazi Germany.

 

 

The thing about nuclear weapons is that they're fairly easy to make, as can be seen by the fact that 1940s technology allowed it, and even a 17 y.o. boy scout was able to assemble a sub-critical breeder reactor in his backyard once:

http://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy-scout/

 

Ultimately, the US was unable to prevent the USSR or China from developing nuclear weapons (the latter able to do so despite the massive economic disruptions of the Great Leap Forwrd).  The world was unable to prevent Pakistan or India from making their own, despite knowing that they hate each other as well.  Iran may make speeches about wanting to destroy Israel, and fund groups that attack it, but Pakistan and India have actually gone to war with one another - several times now.

Even the hated and internationally sanctioned Apartheid regime in South Africa was able to make their own:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

 

And of course, North Korea, despite a non-functioning economy, sanctions by most of the world, and other hardships, has almost been able to do so too.

Ultimately, it seems that the international community doesn't have the power to prevent countries from developing nuclear weapons.  Maybe that means the best we can do are treaties that try to have countries use atomic power for peaceful purposes ... I don't know.

Like I keep saying. Pandoras Box.

For your information Shah... We went into Afghanistan with a 90% approval and Iraq with a 70% approval. Trust me, it wasn't all Republicans. Kim Kardashian could have been the President and it still would have happened. The people demanded it. I am one that believes we didn't go far enough. I never thought we should occupy or rebuild anything. Destroy everything and leave. That's what I wanted, and Iran was on the top of my list. Pakistan should have been creamed as soon as we found Bin Laden there. We are hated because we allowed the Jews to have Israel, and we're not Muslim. It's not gonna change so let's keep fighting until someone gives up.

We didn't allow the Jews to have Israel. Britain forged a mutually beneficial conspiracy with European Jews and that's why Israel exists. Because the UK wanted to win a war. That's it. Nowadays, Israel survives on US holocaust sympathies while the rest of the world sees Israel for what it really is.

 

 

 

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

Yes, just duck and maybe hide in a basement if you have one.

The U.S. Military will let you know when it's safe to come back out. Some things never change.

 

War is stupid, and the worst part of conservative mentality like this is how wrong it is in this specific case. The more we wage war on the Wahhabbi movement, the more civilians we kill which gives the movement more and more fuel to recruit people to their cause.

It's no coincidence that the Wahhabbi movement exploded once we unjustly invaded Iraq and it's no coincidence that IS has thousands of fighters and unlike their predecessors, are actually taking over nations. We can kill ISIS as much as we want, but we will never win that way. We tried this shit in Vietnam and failed. We tried it in Iraq and failed. Now we are trying the same exact thing yet again with the assumption there will be a different outcome.

Wanna know why we can't win this?

Because there is an entire generation of kids who grew up in the middle of this war. These kids know loss far better than anyone posting here and who do you think they blame?

Here's a first hand look of the children I'm talking about.

 

So next you might ask what my solution is. Well, I don't have one, but I acknowledge the fact that all empires fall and I don't think it hurts anyone to sit down and have a conversation. But the egoist "Murica, Fuck Yeah" people will never accept that idea.

 

 

 

 

fight till everyone is down, definatly a winners mentality.

Yes, just duck and maybe hide in a basement if you have one.
The U.S. Military will let you know when it's safe to come back out. Some things never change.

 

lol. Such a dipshit he was. Good riddance and I hope we never see a Bush in office again. My family had the displeasure of fighting that mans warmongering in Iraq and that's something I find hard to forgive.

[Lysistrata]

Do you feel the same about Congress now that the roles are reversed? All those people are elected by their States, and they are sent there to do what their voters want them to do, not just to go along with whatever the President wants to do. Dirty Harry has been holding things up since Ditsy Nancy lost the house. Are you still proud of your precious Harry Ried? We will have to agree to disagree.

[Fox Fire]

Do you feel the same about Congress now that the roles are reversed? All those people are elected by their States, and they are sent there to do what their voters want them to do, not just to go along with whatever the President wants to do. Dirty Harry has been holding things up since Ditsy Nancy lost the house. Are you still proud of your precious Harry Ried? We will have to agree to disagree.

Is this in response to me or Shah? Because personally, I've never been a fan of any US politician with the exception of two people:

 

Barrack Obama, because he actually had ideas outside the norm, like his health care bill. Now even though I've hated his health care bill since I started reading it (and hate it even more now that I have to pay for it), I think it's at least a step in the right direction. You can't deny that our old health care system was fucked.

Also, pretty much anyone was a better choice than both McCain and Romney. You think war is an issue now? McCain still lives in the cold war and Romney would invade Mexico.

 

Ron Paul, I don't like many of his conservative ideals, but, and you'll certainly think I'm stupid for this, I loved his foreign policy ideas.

 

Other than that, I can only say I've ever really been a fan of politicians before my time and lately I've lost a lot of interest in even keeping up with my nations politics because I almost feel like it's hopeless that my ideas will ever be shared with our elitist class of politicians. I feel like there are so many normal, every day people out there who would make damn fine presidents. People that nobody ever hears about because they don't have a million dollars to blow on a campaign. I didn't vote in the last mid terms and probably wont vote in the next presidential election. I did hope Hillary would run and would vote for her if not for her calls for war in Libya and that whole ridiculous mess.

"There would have been a massacre in Benghazi!"

Yeah? Well now ISIS is taking over Libya, and I personally wrote a letter to several important people around the world the day France sent war planes in, explaining how stupid that idea was and expressing concern about perpetual anarchy in Libya being the result. I don't think any of them even read the 6 page letter, because who cares what a 20 something year old nobody thinks?

[ccabal86]

The moral of the whole Iraq/Arab Spring debacle is that before they happened, at least the respective states were stable. Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Qaddafi's Lybia were at least stable countries. You could go visit there without risking to be beheaded in a week. With the falling of these strongmen anarchy and terrorists took over. The only reason why Egypt is stable is because another strongmen of the same background took Mubarak's place.

 

Unfortunately the formula in the middle East is NOT Toppled Dictator -> Democracy and Liberalism, like we had hoped, but rather Toppled Dictator -> Islamism and Unchecked Terrorism

[Shahenshah]

The moral of the whole Iraq/Arab Spring debacle is that before they happened, at least the respective states were stable. Saddam's Iraq, Assad's Syria, Qaddafi's Lybia were at least stable countries. You could go visit there without risking to be beheaded in a week. With the falling of these strongmen anarchy and terrorists took over. The only reason why Egypt is stable is because another strongmen of the same background took Mubarak's place.

Unfortunately the formula in the middle East is NOT Toppled Dictator -> Democracy and Liberalism, like we had hoped, but rather Toppled Dictator -> Islamism and Unchecked Terrorism

Only Tunisia succeeded. Most Egyptians I've met would choose economic growth, stability and security over democratic rights etc etc.

IMO the issue is that each area has specific context, background and regional variables, one can't just use the cookie cutter approach here of bomb, liberate, install a government and hope for the best. It didn't work and frankly, at this point, who would you rather choose..Assad or ISIS?.


Tunisia, they were able to transition, albiet it was fragile at times, but they made it. Outside middle east, most Muslim countries are actually democracies and majority of Muslim populations live under democracies, not ideal democracies but varying degrees of it.

So this isn't IMO related to religion. I think its more about the local context etc, background, history of regions, what the populations want etc.

Edited by Shahenshah, 04 April 2015 - 10:23 AM.

[DeathMerchant]

We can kill ISIS as much as we want, but we will never win that way. We tried this shit in Vietnam and failed. We tried it in Iraq and failed. Now we are trying the same exact thing yet again with the assumption there will be a different outcome.

If you really want to get technical, the U.S. did win the Vietnam War. In 1973, as the U.S. military left,
South Vietnam was a stable country and a peace agreement between North and South was reached. The combat mission had been won and the Viet Cong were decimated. And the NVA promised to stay on their side of the border. The U.S. also promised to continue aiding the South in terms of money, vehicles, gear, and weapons. In late 1974, NVA troops broke the peace agreement and began attacking South Vietnam positions. President Ford asked Congress for funding to go toward the South Vietnam, but Congress refused. North Vietnam, supported by both the USSR and China easily swept the South and claimed Saigon by April 1975.

 

Same thing about the Iraq War, if you want to get technical, the U.S. also won that war. Iraq was relatively stable when the US pulled out in 2010. And the real reason why troops left was because the Iraqi Government wouldn't give U.S. Military members immunity from Iraqi Court trials. So the country was deemed safe, the Iraq military in good shape, and everyone left. Al Maliki then proceeded to degrade the military by offering positions to unqualified friends of his. Hence why half the country collapsed so quickly and ISIL ended up with bucket loads of former U.S. Military hardware.

If the U.S. Had kept a small presence in these countries its doubtful these countries would capitulate. There is a reason why Germany and South Korea still exist as stable, prosperous countries.

[ccabal86]

The part where the US failed in both Vietnam and Iraq is the "Nation Building" phase. They failed to properly stabilize both states from both a domestic and international perspective. Without that, military victory means little. The nation building also failed in Afghanistan, but it's less visible there, since it's still a step up from the previous Taliban government.

 

There are countless factors to this, but I believe one has to do with time and soft power. Nation building isn't just the literal reconstruction of roads and buildings, you need to provide the country with long-lasting stability and a game plan for the next 30-40 years. You need to have a generation grow up under new and improved conditions, if you want to succeed. If you don't want to seriously commit to that, better not start wars at all, otherwise you'll end up with ISIS types taking control.

[onbekende]

Democrats: good internationally

Republicans: good nationally

 

or thats usually the take of things

[Lysistrata]

Yes Foxy, that post was to you. Shah cares about American politics that affect his part of the world, and from what I can tell, he's no fan of the Sunni. Things like the ACA, attempting to change law through executive order, or creating treaties without the consent of Congress would mean very little to him. That's our fight.

 

You loved Barack Obama because of what he symbolized to you. He was someone that said everything you wanted to hear. The ACA was not his creation. It is a monster that was created by Senate Democrats that was never read, never went through committee, never amended, and forced through by reconciliation in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. It was never a good thing to do... it was only to stab Republicans with a political victory. We have been living in hell ever since because that action ensured that Barack Obama would never have the support of Congress. That was 2010... it's been a long 5 years.

 

Mitt Romney is one of the finest men I have ever met. He's a boy scout businessman. Attacking Mexico? Really? He would more likely be nogotiating the overthrow of their corrupt government and moving to make Mexico part of the United States. And you guys just wanted to malign his character and tear him down. Good job.

 

John McCain is a Naval Aviator. Defense is his business, and he would have gone the traditional route of working with our friends like the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Israel, ect. Peace through strength. Either of these men would have been better than what we have had.

 

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians are Conservatives. Notable Libertarians are John Stossel, Kennedy (MTV/Fox), Glenn Beck, Greg Gutfeld... a lot of Fox people aye? and me... I'm very Libertarian. We believe people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else... in a nutshell. I'm very happy you are one of us. But Libertarians don't win elections, and Liberals are not libertarians in the slightest degree. Republicans are more Libertarian and you can see that if you look.

[Shahenshah]

I'm Sunni, not a fan of extremism, whatever it's shape or form be. I follow American politics to some extent because I find it interesting and intriguing and very closely follow the elections in US, hoping one day we'd have something similar too. 

[Lysistrata]

I'm Sunni, not a fan of extremism, whatever it's shape or form be. I follow American politics to some extent because I find it interesting and intriguing and very closely follow the elections in US, hoping one day we'd have something similar too. 

Oh damn, I'm so sorry Shah. I hear from you so much support for Iran, never hear anything about the Saudi's, awful things from you about Assad, and never any support for ISIL. It was a gut-call and I apologize. My bad for assuming. You need to school me a little.

[Shahenshah]

Assad is a tyrant, but he's better than ISIL, that's the reality on the ground and my context in regards to Assad. Iran does its shens as others do shens to Iran, I'm not particularly fond of some of their shens, but bombing them and failure of Iranian state would just create IMO an ideal scenario for ISIS to completely take over a huge chunk of region. ISIS and AQ needs to be wiped out, utterly and completely, everything else is secondary. The threat is closer to home than you think. Libya falls and ISIS has a short boat trip to Italy. Iraq, Syria completely falls, then they can knock out already fragile Lebanon, that's another shot boat trip to Europe. 

 

ISIS are the others in this game of thrones and Iranians seem to be holding the wall. 

Edited by Shahenshah, 04 April 2015 - 04:40 PM.

[Fox Fire]

 

We can kill ISIS as much as we want, but we will never win that way. We tried this shit in Vietnam and failed. We tried it in Iraq and failed. Now we are trying the same exact thing yet again with the assumption there will be a different outcome.

If you really want to get technical, the U.S. did win the Vietnam War. In 1973, as the U.S. military left,
South Vietnam was a stable country and a peace agreement between North and South was reached. The combat mission had been won and the Viet Cong were decimated. And the NVA promised to stay on their side of the border. The U.S. also promised to continue aiding the South in terms of money, vehicles, gear, and weapons. In late 1974, NVA troops broke the peace agreement and began attacking South Vietnam positions. President Ford asked Congress for funding to go toward the South Vietnam, but Congress refused. North Vietnam, supported by both the USSR and China easily swept the South and claimed Saigon by April 1975.

 

Same thing about the Iraq War, if you want to get technical, the U.S. also won that war. Iraq was relatively stable when the US pulled out in 2010. And the real reason why troops left was because the Iraqi Government wouldn't give U.S. Military members immunity from Iraqi Court trials. So the country was deemed safe, the Iraq military in good shape, and everyone left. Al Maliki then proceeded to degrade the military by offering positions to unqualified friends of his. Hence why half the country collapsed so quickly and ISIL ended up with bucket loads of former U.S. Military hardware.

If the U.S. Had kept a small presence in these countries its doubtful these countries would capitulate. There is a reason why Germany and South Korea still exist as stable, prosperous countries.

 

What? When we left Vietnam, everyone knew the NVA was in Cambodia gearing up. Everyone knew that as soon as we left, the south would fall. That's why when we did leave, American supplies were slowly cut off to the point that South Vietnam soldiers didn't have the ammo to fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It's the same way we all knew Iraq would go to shit the moment we left. As will Afghanistan.

 

Iraq fell apart because the Mujahadeen Shura Council (now Islamic State) never went anywhere. They were there the whole time, consolidating power by merging groups and waiting. We never "won" anything. We removed a dictator, left a power vacuum and threw the nation into seemingly perpetual anarchy. If we won, then what exactly did we win?

 

You loved Barack Obama because of what he symbolized to you. He was
someone that said everything you wanted to hear. The ACA was not his
creation. It is a monster that was created by Senate Democrats that was
never read, never went through committee, never amended, and forced
through by reconciliation in the dead of night on Christmas Eve. It was
never a good thing to do... it was only to stab Republicans with a
political victory. We have been living in hell ever since because that
action ensured that Barack Obama would never have the support of
Congress. That was 2010... it's been a long 5 years.

Like I said, I'm no fan of his health care bill, but I supported it for the simple reason that nobody else was offering any productive ideas and our old care system is obsolete.

 

Mitt Romney is one of the finest men I have ever met. He's a boy scout
businessman. Attacking Mexico? Really? He would more likely be
nogotiating the overthrow of their corrupt government and moving to make
Mexico part of the United States. And you guys just wanted to malign
his character and tear him down. Good job.

Ever heard of his family in Mexico and what they do?

 

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians are Conservatives. Notable
Libertarians are John Stossel, Kennedy (MTV/Fox), Glenn Beck, Greg
Gutfeld... a lot of Fox people aye? and me... I'm very Libertarian. We
believe people can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt
someone else... in a nutshell. I'm very happy you are one of us. But
Libertarians don't win elections, and Liberals are not libertarians in
the slightest degree. Republicans are more Libertarian and you can see
that if you look.

I'm aware, and I'm also a libertarian. I'm just not a conservative, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, apparently.  But I should also stress that I'm not a marxist, communist or anarchist. In America, Libertarian is used to describe capitalist libertarianism, but libertarianism is more broad than that.