As most of us know, presidential hopeful Barack Obama has publicly promised us that within a year of his election, he will have troops out of Iraq. Any logical person would, instead of jumping to conclusions, analyze the open ended statement of his. Troops out of Iraq in a year; what does that exactly mean? Is it ALL troops out of Iraq, or just some troops out of Iraq? There’s a huge difference there, and one which must be clarified before people vote for him while being uneducated of his true views.
If it is as the latter, then he is no doubt being deceitful as nearly every presidential hopeful wish to have SOME troops out within a year, and he is stating his opinion in a way to dupe others into thinking he would be some sort of miracle worker in Iraq.
If it is the former, which I believe it to be so, then either Barack is lying or he is a fool. No person in their right mind could possibly believe that we can withdraw all of our troops within a year, or even within 16 months, it just simply can not be done without causing a huge strain on our Air Lift Corps, or causing incredible danger during a mass ground retreat from Iraq. For one, it took not only the US Air Force, but also leased Russian transport planes to bring all of the US equipment over to Iraq over the course of the entire war. To think that you could bring ALL of that back home would be foolish, it simply can not be done with the air transport resources we have. Also, if we were to use the Navy, all of this material and manpower would have to use similar roads on a mass migration to the sea, setting themselves up as easy targets for any terrorist with an RPG, IED, or mortar.
While his wishes may seem welcome to the American people, knowledge of a military operation that big isn’t widespread. Few know the risks associated with that, and the chance that with a few well timed shots the terrorist fighters in Iraq could bring down hundreds of US lives in an instant.
Yeah, I'm sure that the people fighting to get us out of Iraq will provoke our return by shooting at our troops as they leave.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
thats not completely true.
if you look at the number of attacks on US troops, and the number of attacks on Iraqi civilians, you would notice that the grand majority of foriegn insurgents attack civilians more then the military, what does that mean that they want the civilians gone more then the military? No, it means that they just want trouble in the region, turmoil, and are in a quest for power there; a quest we can not let them win.
If that's the case, then I still don't see why they'd attack us when we were leaving. And, yes, in a way, they want some of the citizens to leave. It's an ethnic thing, which is hardly new.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
They would attack us while we leave for the same reason that they attacked us on 9-11.
they dont view this as a war for Iraq, this is a multi-century war against the west/crusaders/infidels whatever key word you want to use.
And its a whole lot easier to kill Americans while theyre leaving then while theyre looking for you.
They attacked us on 9/11 because we've been meddling in the region. Osama, for example, is particularly pissed by our military bases in Saudi Arabia.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
so what?
Are we really going to let non-national groups determine our foriegn policy? The government of Saudi Arabia approved us being there, therefore it was legal.
We are letting non-national groups determine our foreign policy. That's why we went into Afghanistan.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?"
H. P. Lovecraft
That was retaliation.
Look at it this way,
If the city government knew that there was a gang that sold drugs in X part of city, would they purposely avoid that part of city with their police force and then pass laws that were favorable to gangs and drug dealers?
Or would they just make sure more police patrols went through there to keep crime on the run.
"That was retaliation."
True, but does that not mean that this bit of foreign policy was influenced by AL Queda?
"If the city government knew that there was a gang that sold drugs in X part of city, would they purposely avoid that part of city with their police force and then pass laws that were favorable to gangs and drug dealers?"
No. Unfortunately the United States wishes to continue it's ill conceived war against addicts.
"Or would they just make sure more police patrols went through there to keep crime on the run."
Yes. They would do that. (silly in my opinion, but that's besides the point) What they wouldn't do, though, is send more police off to another part of town to respond to what was happening in the drug area.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?"
H. P. Lovecraft
In a positive way for us. It shows the world you can't attack us or there will be hell to pay.
And sadly? Look at America and tell me we couldnt use less drug use and some more morals...
But the thing is, just because one area is where the specific drug dealers who ratted out were doesnt mean that there isnt another area thats higher up above those dealers.
"In a positive way for us. It shows the world you can't attack us or there will be hell to pay."
I didn't say that I disagree with moving against the Taliban. I was just saying that our foreign policy was influenced.
"And sadly? Look at America and tell me we couldnt use less drug use and some more morals..."
Looking. We could use a little more freedom. A little less addicts sitting in jail. And a little less attempts of ethical imposition.
"But the thing is, just because one area is where the specific drug dealers who ratted out were doesnt mean that there isnt another area thats higher up above those dealers."
Yeah, and if you get a bit of information that there are drugs in area Q, you don't send in a swat team. You look. If you find you act. We looked, didn't find and acted.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Weel if you look that way then every little thing anyone does influences our policy. Im saying dont let them INTIMIDATE our policy
more freedom?
people do enough wrong with what they have already. We have a huge murder rate, the highest industrialized nation teen pregnency rate, and drugs are so prevelant in our society its hard now-a-days to find teens who arent heavily into them. Doesnt sound like a society that needs to dig deeper into these things...
We looked, and every time we looked the guys ran away and then came back and let us search them. Even the extremely anti-action UN searchers said that alot of places they searched they either had to give 2 weeks heads up, or when they could do it in less then that, the places looked like theyd recently been deserted. Sounds a bit odd...
"Weel if you look that way then every little thing anyone does influences our policy. Im saying dont let them INTIMIDATE our policy"
Um. Yeah. If we weren't intimidated by them, why would we care so much about killing them?
"more freedom?"
Yup.
"people do enough wrong with what they have already. We have a huge murder rate, the highest industrialized nation teen pregnency rate, and drugs are so prevelant in our society its hard now-a-days to find teens who arent heavily into them. Doesnt sound like a society that needs to dig deeper into these things..."
Murder is not a freedom. The point when your freedom to act ends is when you impinge on the freedom of others. Teen pregnancy rates are certainly high, but I think that's the result of shit sex-ed, not having too much freedom. Again, the best way to deal with the drug problem isn't to criminalize addicts. As it is, we're spending a ton of money arresting and imprisoning people from doing things to themselves. Sounds kind of silly to me.
"Even the extremely anti-action UN searchers said that alot of places they searched they either had to give 2 weeks heads up, or when they could do it in less then that, the places looked like theyd recently been deserted. Sounds a bit odd..."
And yet, they were anti-action. And, guess what? We didn't find anything either. If there were nuclear or biological weapons, where are they now?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Iraq...Iraqis...Saddam...DID NOT ATTACK us on september 11th. Plain and simple...they weren't involved.
70% or Americans believe Saddam was DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11 when we went to war. 30% of Americans RIGHT NOW think he is still responsible.
They didn't do it.
"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference." Bill Hicks
Thank you.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
I dont exactly know what to discuss first. Though il give it a try.
I know Iraq didnt attack us on 9-11.
Germany didnt attack us on December 7th either.
They were still a terror supporting nation that had sworn to destroy America and Israel.
They did attack and invade Kuwait as well, in case you forgot.
As to the marijuana, can you point out to me where it helps you? Because I can surely point out where it hurts...
"Germany didnt attack us on December 7th either."
Indeed. But we declared war on Germany's ally and so...
"They were still a terror supporting nation that had sworn to destroy America and Israel."
No evidence was found that Hussein supported Al Queda. And, does that mean we should go into Iran and Syria and Lebanon...
"They did attack and invade Kuwait as well, in case you forgot."
Yeah, and we thrashed them because we wanted to maintain the Status Quo. That was a decade before we invaded them again.
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?"
H. P. Lovecraft
Just because alot of countries are bad doesnt mean that we can invade them all and fix them right away. Thanks to Clinton our military was slashed severely (part of the reason that so many are dead now is Clintons drawbacks) and therefore unable to fix to many things at once.
Plus, just because it was a decade ago doesnt mean that we didnt need to invade. And I dont remember Syria gassing thousands of its own citizens...
And, just to clarify because so many people think that, Al Qaeda is NOT the only terrorist organization, nor is it the only one we are at war against. There are MANY more, some of which Hussein sent monetary support to, especially banks that specificaly sent money to the families of successful suicide bombers. Sounds shifty...
"Just because alot of countries are bad doesnt mean that we can invade them all and fix them right away."
Wait, does this mean you would want us to go into those countries and "fix" them at some point? Because if that's the case, we can't even "fix" Iraq! They're still without power and water with sectarian violence and no ratified constitution after what, 5 years? Longer? Do you think we'd have more success going into a country like Iran?
"just because it was a decade ago doesnt mean that we didnt need to invade."
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that what the Gulf War was? An invasion or Iraq in order to punish them for said transgressions? Admittedly, we didn't go all the way to taking out Saddam, even though in that case we would have been much more justified since there was a section of the population revolting based solely on the promise of our help, but nevertheless, we did do it.
"Al Qaeda is NOT the only terrorist organization, nor is it the only one we are at war against."
You're completely right. There are other terrorist organizations. However, Al Qaeda is the one that orchestrated the 9/11 attack and arguably the largest and most well-funded. Therefore, shouldn't we be focusing on getting that one out before we started going after the others?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
In terms of this, no I dont think that, but if we use Iraq as an example it reduces the power of nations like Iran and reduces their threat.
We didnt invade Iraq after the Gulf War...
And we needed to, but even if we had we would also needed to have removed the Ba'athist party and Hussein.
No, thats to narrow minded. We cant really wipe out an organization like that, we need to hit hard at every organization we can because just cause ones down doesnt mean another wont step up.
"if we use Iraq as an example it reduces the power of nations like Iran and reduces their threat."
But that's not what has happened. It's made countries like Iran and North Korea worried about a "preemptive" strike by the US so they started pushing their nuclear programs. Thus, their threat has increased and the fact that our world image is severely deteriorated makes us more vulnerable.
"We cant really wipe out an organization like that, we need to hit hard at every organization we can "
But do you think that's seriously a good strategy? Do you realize how split our forces would have to be in order to hit at every organization we can? Terrorists don't reside in one country and in Iraq, after we invaded, more Al Qaeda operatives have moved in. How can we take down more than one at once without invading other countries from which the terrorists are coming?
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
North Korea and Iran have been looking for nukes for long before we even took back Kuwait more then 10 years ago.
You take away what they need, which are as follow-
Willing members (and some suicidal members)
Money
Space (For training, recruiting)
If you get nations fearful of what will happen if theyre found to have provided any of these, they stop helping, and actually start hunting the terrorist within their borders as well. Therefore, with some examples, we cause them to do some work to
"Just because alot of countries are bad doesnt mean that we can invade them all and fix them right away."
Ah, manifest destiny!
"Thanks to Clinton our military was slashed severely (part of the reason that so many are dead now is Clintons drawbacks) and therefore unable to fix to many things at once."
Actually Clinton did a lot of the same kind of stuff GW's doing in regards to nation building.
"Plus, just because it was a decade ago doesnt mean that we didnt need to invade."
But we did invade! We invaded a decade ago!
"And I dont remember Syria gassing thousands of its own citizens..."
OK then. Why aren't we in Darfur? Why is it ok to intervene in one place, where atrocities were committed in the past, but not intervene where they are happening now?
"And, just to clarify because so many people think that, Al Qaeda is NOT the only terrorist organization, nor is it the only one we are at war against."
Yeah, and where's the evidence that any of them were Iraq based?
"There are MANY more, some of which Hussein sent monetary support to, especially banks that specificaly sent money to the families of successful suicide bombers. Sounds shifty..."
Again, who said? Links are nice for that kind of thing. Oh, and, if we're going after every terrorist organization, then why aren't we attacking Hezbollah and Hamas? Why aren't going after the PKK?
"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travellers notoriously false?"
H. P. Lovecraft
actually, not. Clinton took our military from 2.5 wars to 1 war capability. Nice move bud
Did we take Iraq? no, thanks again. A mistake we needed to fix
The fact that hussein sent money to banks that specificaly supported suicide bombers and their families. He even founded his own terrorist org.
lack of rescources. We are supporting Israel which is going after alot of them for us. But mainly the lack of manpower and experience in doing this.
Turkeys already got the PKK down to bud
"actually, not. Clinton took our military from 2.5 wars to 1 war capability. Nice move bud"
I'll look into that. Not that I really see why we should need to be able to fight 2.5 wars at once...
"Did we take Iraq? no, thanks again. A mistake we needed to fix"
I think Dick Chaney said it best.
"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now....How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?"
I like the old Dick better. It's before he got senile.
"The fact that hussein sent money to banks that specificaly supported suicide bombers and their families. He even founded his own terrorist org."
Again. Verification please. Can you give me a link? Oh and did this terrorist group attack the United States? Were we aware of any such plans? If not, why aren't we in, I don't know, Sri Lanka, fighting those terrorists?
"lack of rescources. We are supporting Israel which is going after alot of them for us. But mainly the lack of manpower and experience in doing this.
Turkeys already got the PKK down to bud"
Exactly. Lack of resources. So, we attack, with our limited resources, Iraq? Why Iraq? Well, why not? See Dick quote above. Oh, and how about the fact that most of the world opposed the invasion. And how about the fact that now other countries we aren't on the best of terms with now fear that we'll attack them "preemptively".
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Remember World War 2? We had 4 war capability then and just barely kept back the enemy.
He's right, but that doesnt mean that we should do our best...
Isn't fear percieved power? How could that hurt us at all...
"Remember World War 2?"
Nope. I wasn't alive.
"We had 4 war capability then and just barely kept back the enemy."
Well, then what the hell justifies the size of an army being however many war capacities?
"Isn't fear percieved power? How could that hurt us at all..."
If I'm afraid of the bully, I have two choices, submit to its will or band together with other targets of the bully and strike back. What do you think nations are going to do?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Well if we want to play those games why does anyone say America is like Rome just before it fell? How do they know, they werent there.
The threat to the nation, and maintaing a favorable, or equal balance of power in the world. That justifies it.
Well seeings how the majority of these nations feed off of the aid we give them, and they havent yet had any inkling to band together against us, im saying neither or your two options.
That was me being sarcastic. I'm a sarcastic person by nature. I can't help myself. That and Recess Peanut-Butter cups are my two addictions.
My question is how is the size of an army judged to be war ready.
"Well seeings how the majority of these nations feed off of the aid we give them, and they havent yet had any inkling to band together against us, im saying neither or your two options."
Yeah, Iran and North Korea get aid from us.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I got that you were being sarcastic there...
And you see North Korea and Iran stepping up to ally and take us down. Ya thats a big threat right there, I'm sure DC is forming its defense militias right now...
"I got that you were being sarcastic there..."
Just making sure. Some people don't get it. You'd be amazed at the things a sarcastic comment can do when misinterpreted. :-(
"And you see North Korea and Iran stepping up to ally and take us down."
Actually, I don't. Why? Because our military is so bogged down in Iraq that our other enemies know that we aren't going to do anything.
However, if we were to step up our activities, I do believe that we would see a generally negative world reaction and, in combination with dwindling world support, we could see, not an attack against us, but nations we oppose will probably be drawn together in order to protect themselves from us.
I do not see a nation attacking us. I do see a terrorist organization doing so. Why? For them, the results have been great. With us more actively engaged in the middle east, they can play to less radical members of society who will fight against us because we are meddling.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Our pressure against them is great already. Do you not think that 130,000 troops on Irans border isnt a slighty powerful force that we could do tuff with?
A carrier strike group well within attack range. Im thinking we dont need much more to mess up Iran right now, and theyre still not interested in an Anti-US coalition.
Any group that banded together would already know they would lose, with the exeption of a Russia/China alliance, no one in the world even together is powerful enough to actually deal us a blow with conventional forces.
1) What makes you so sure that they're not interested in an anti-US coalition?
2) While we could attack them right now, the chance of us doing us is rather slim, what with Iraq still out of control.
3) I didn't say that a nation would attack us, or even a group of nations. I said a group of nations might band against us; that doesn't mean attack us militarily. However, with dwindling support, we could be hurt in unconventional ways. Which would, yes, include terrorism.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
The fact that theyve had plenty of time where weve been doing overseas things, and they havent even started any kind of an alliance process...
We have no reason to, so of course we wont attack them...
Terrorism is a military attack...So I dont see your point there
Responding below. Boxes to skinny.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Responding below.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I agree with what you are saying I am not really for Obama because his promises are empty. He seems to copy everything that everyone else says and there is no way that what he is saying about iraq would even be possiable. This really would cause a mass slaughter over there if he did that. Everyone is like he speaks in a wonderful manner. I hope people don't vote on just that aspect because if they do we are doomed.
Thats one of the problems in America, we see something advertising change, improvement, hope, and we immediately abandon our sense of logic and cling to hope. In all of his speeches (yes they do sound great) I have heard very little of what exactly he does plan to do, how he plans to do it, and what exactly it will accomplish. Its all a big "Change, Change, Change"
This is a huge problem with Obama's campaign, frankly, not just in this but in almost everything. Obama talks a good game, but little of what he says is expounded on. We're supposed to simply know what "change" and "hope" mean. Hope for who? Change to what? These are important questions that he'll have to answer if he's going to run in the generals.
Frankly, I'm a little afraid that he will run in the general elections. The Republicans will have a field day with his vague promises, no matter who runs against him.
-------------------------
You must be the change you wish to see in the world -- Mahatma Ghandi
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
I agree. But! What in the world happens to Iraq? It's incredibly selfish to just think about the affects our military. I know that our troops haven't exactly done much to improve the state of Iraq, but what do we think would happen to the place if we just up and left in a year or two? The dictator terrorists just stroll back in and begin dictating again? Yes we've tried to set up a democracy and yes it wasn't very successful. So perhaps we need a president who has a plan to restore peace and play referee between the three different religios groups fighting in Iraq. While Obama could eventually return our troops, does he have a plan to win this war? Retreat is defeat does America not know that?
Oh dont get me wrong, your completely right in that, I just refered to the US military because I wanted to break up all of my arguments into smaller and more identifiable debates rather then just one huge blog.
And I do agree with you 100%, as we saw in Vietnam (tens of thousands executed by the NVA just after America leaves, and American pride severely damaged) we can not allow ANY enemy to claim a psuedo victory over the American military, or the American people.
Many Americans seem to think that the terrorists will continue to fight no matter what, this is not the case. War is just a battle to see who gets sick and quites first, and although the terrorists can stomach much more loses then the American public can, I believe that if we keep on the offensive eventually people will see that extremism and terrorism are simply another word for suicide.
"Many Americans seem to think that the terrorists will continue to fight no matter what, this is not the case."
I don't think that. I think that if we stop provoking them, they'll stop attacking us.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
you were right in the first half.
We dont need to provoke them by doing anything. Our mere existence and support of Israel is quite enough for them. And if your saying then we should throw Israel to the dogs, and move our nation around to avoid stepping on anyones toes. Because by that definition, we could have attacked so many different people its not even funny.
I have mixed feelings about Israel. I'm not sure that I like the fact that we seem to have unconditional support for them, even when they are on questionable ground.
And I don't see how neutrality means that we would attack a lot of people. That seems to be what you're getting at in your second paragraph.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Are you saying that were going to hold them to a higher standard then we hold anyone else in the region to?
We already do, and they are so above everything else in that area of the world, it would be completely unfair to withdraw support because of them defending themselves and their tiny nation from being torn apart...
I was not advocating nuetrality. I think that if you become the premier power the world has ever seen, it becomes your responsibility to do your part to keep the world stable.
"Are you saying that were going to hold them to a higher standard then we hold anyone else in the region to?"
No. I'm saying holding everyone to the same standards.
"We already do, and they are so above everything else in that area of the world, it would be completely unfair to withdraw support because of them defending themselves and their tiny nation from being torn apart..."
Defense yes. Cutting off power to the entire Gaza population, :idk: I think that Israel, like every other country on Earth, has done some pretty questionable things. We don't even really reprimand them for that, instead support them unconditionally against Islamic nations, perpetuating the idea that we are waging a war against Islam. Take the war with Lebanon. Even a lot of Israeli's think it was handled pretty poorly. Did we even bat an eye? Nope.
"I was not advocating nuetrality."
I am aware of that. I, however, don't see how it would hurt.
"I think that if you become the premier power the world has ever seen, it becomes your responsibility to do your part to keep the world stable."
Do you know that only in America do people not consider the US an empire? Do you really think that a nation people see as an empire attempting to police the world is going to garner much support from other nations?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Well in that case we either need to lower those standards, or step up pressure on nearly every nation areound Isreal...
They think it was handled poorly yes, but not a bad idea overall. Just like if D-day had failed, wed think it was handled poorly but not a bad idea overall. And the things theyve done have all been in self defense, how is that bad when in self defense they do less then the nations around them do in aggressive manners?
Because, as youve seen, if America doesnt get involved, no one does; and history has shown that that doesnt lead to very good endings...
Im sure the people in Kosovo hate us for helping them, or the people in India where we sent over a billion dollars, or the hundreds of thousands of lives we saved in Somalia.
You see, an Empire goes over, takes things, and incorporates them into their Empire, taking their culture, melding it in, and shoving a new culture there. We dont take the lands we save...
Therefore, no Empire
"Well in that case we either need to lower those standards, or step up pressure on nearly every nation areound Isreal..."
I see no need for our standards to be dropped. I also don't see, though, a need for us to go in and force people to meet them. However, when we are dealing with an ally in a situation similar to that of Israel our unconditional support helps no one.
Again, I didn't say that they shouldn't have gone in. I said that we should have at least said something when it was so mishandled.
"We dont take the lands we save...
Therefore, no Empire"
Somalia's a dysfunctional country with no real government. When one was imposed by the UN, civil war broke out. Our actions there, in the long run, really didn't do much good. Kosovo, yes, wound up working out fairly well for people in Kosovo.
In Iraq, we are attempting to impose our culture. And, as a matter of fact, we have territories in the Philippines and we have Puerto Rico and Guantanamo. We have troops stationed all over the world. And, whatever our intentions are with Iraq, it's not a far stretch of the imagination for people who think of us as an Empire to see us trying to take it over.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
The fact that they meet way more of anyones standards then the other nations do means that we owe it to them to help. As well as the fact that they help us ALOT. So even with it in mind as a purely buisness type deal, its beneficial to us both.
Just because they didnt make a miracle doesnt make us an Empire, thats such a dumb analogy its not even worth refuting, though for the point of it I will. Hundreds of thousands were dying every year due to food shortages. We came in, helped food get out, and things were getting better until Bill Clinton got to sidetracked with gettin some and forgot to give some if you get what i mean.
Are you saying we should have let the genocide continue? Thats a great stand...
Were not imposing our culture, theyve absorbing it. We give them AK47's because its what their culture is based around, and they ask for M16's. What should we do, deny them OUR culture?
Just because we have troops in other countries doesnt mean were an Empire, we dont take their resources, enslave their people, extort them, purposely destroy them, or any of that.
Therefore, as I said, no empire.
Again, I'm not saying abandon Israel. I'm not saying not to support them. I'm saying that our unconditional support helps no one. It just makes people angry.
Well, Somalia isn't a great example, but the fact is that we certainly didn't save them. And I'm not aware of any genocide is Somalia...
"Were not imposing our culture, theyve absorbing it. We give them AK47's because its what their culture is based around, and they ask for M16's. What should we do, deny them OUR culture?"
Iraq is absorbing our culture! That's a laugh. How? In what way are they absorbing our culture?
"Just because we have troops in other countries doesnt mean were an Empire, we dont take their resources, enslave their people, extort them, purposely destroy them, or any of that.
Therefore, as I said, no empire."
I didn't say that made us an Empire. I said that people see us as one.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
We tell them not to do some things, and theres very little they do that they can find another, better way to do them
genocide by starvation.
Just because we didnt cause a miracle doesnt make us bad, we tried, and because of Clinton we ran away (again)
I just pointed it out, theyre military is trying their best to act just like their American instructors, all the way to begging for M16's from America instead of AK's from around the world. Thats a big change.
Well people see alot of things alot of different ways. Doesnt mean theyre right.
"The fact that theyve had plenty of time where weve been doing overseas things, and they havent even started any kind of an alliance process..."
That's not true, exactly. Chavez has his league idea whose main purpose is to oppose the US, should we take any action in South America.
"We have no reason to, so of course we wont attack them..."
We have no more reason to attack Iran or Lebanon or North Korea then we did Iraq.
"Terrorism is a military attack...So I dont see your point there"
I was talking about conventional warfare.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Chavez? Oh im shaking now...No threat from him, hes less able to do any damage (excluding oil) to the US then Al Qaeda is now
Lebanon? when did that come into this. Its not even really a set nation we can invade, its so splintered.
Well currently pressure from the US is working fine against North Korea and Iran
Well no one can touch us there, so were good.
lol
Well, I'm going to extract myself from this blog, just got a few too many things going on for all the blogs I'm currently on, so, yeah.
However, I shall be looking forward to further debate with you. It's been interesting. :dances:
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund