An interesting read on the Middle East and OIL - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #46 03-11-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

What is fighting the real war? How are they going to do it?

That's what you meant when you asked, "Invading Iran?"?

Good grief, they better not invade Iran.

I would expect Clinton or Obama to fight the real war by gathering intelligence, honestly assessing the threats, working with allies, forging new alliances where possible, and focusing our military where it will do the most good. The current administration has not left many good options for whoever takes office in 2009, but I expect things will start to improve after W leaves.

pj67coll · #47 03-11-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Agreed. And any politician advocates running away and playing traffic cop will be wrong, IMHO, but I am not aware of anyone who has made that argument.

From what I can tell that seems to be the standard democrat line.

- Peter.

pj67coll · #48 03-11-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I would expect Clinton or Obama to fight the real war by gathering intelligence,

Given the uselessness of our intelligence gathering agencies that's a pretty damm huge expectation, quite apart from the fact that civilizational clash's are not simply intelligence gathering police operations.

Quote:

honestly assessing the threats,

You cannot honestly assess a threat when you dont understand the fundamental probelm to begin with.

Quote:

working with allies,

What allies? With the possible exception of the British our allies are essentially worthless and will turn and run at the slightest sign of any real trouble.

Quote:

forging new alliances where possible,

Care to elaborate on which alliances you think would be feasible?

Quote:

The current administration has not left many good options for whoever takes office in 2009, but I expect things will start to improve after W leaves.

I guess that's the fundamental difference between you and me. It doesn't much matter to me which of the two dems get's into office in terms of their lack of suitablility for the job, but either way I expect things to get infinitely worse.

- Peter.

mamali · #49 03-11-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Did anyone not notice this statement? I think this shows how ignorant this general is. Is he saying that Al Qaeda in Iraq (which by the way wasn't there before we invaded) is sponsored by Iran? Or what about the Sunni-on-Sunni, Sunni-on-Shia and Shia-on-Shia infighting going on across the country? I agree with him though that one of the biggest mistakes we've made was to disarm Iraq (by disbanding its military). He doesn't admit it but that's what started the insurgency. As to oil, the only ME country that supplies us with oil of any significant quantity is Saudi Arabia. It has been suggested that we could stop relying on Saudi oil if we made 1/3 of our vehicles diesel-powered. I imagine similar if not bigger savings would be achieved if pickup and SUV owners who don't need these vehicles (which is the vast majority) switched to driving cars instead.

As to Pakistan, once Musharaf is out of power all bets are off. I'm afraid a firm pressure from the West may not be enough to keep the radicals there under control. Pakistan is a much bigger threat than Iran because in the tribal regions it is a safe haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban and unlike Iran Pakistan is nuclear-armed. Iran is our enemy only because of our own stupidity. We installed the brutal Shah that was corrupt and oppressed the people. We shouldn't have been surprised when he and the country were overrun by the Islamic revolution that persists to this day. Also stupid was Bush's total refusal to talk to Iran, even when the reformists within Iran's government reached out to us a few years ago. Bush ignored it and the reformists were ridiculed and side-lined, leading to the election of radical Ahmadinejad and his hardcore anti-US and anti-Israel attitudes. It will take a change in leadership in both countries for the relationship to improve. War with Iran would be beyond stupid. Not only do we not have money for it (we don't even have money for Iraq), but our military is already overstretched and given the size of Iran and its armed forces Iraq would seem like a walk in the park in comparison. Furthermore our invasion would turn the Iranian population against us and unite them behind the clerical regime that they currently don't like very much. It is time for us to stop thinking that invading other countries that have done us no harm can win hearts and minds in the Muslim world because it does the exact opposite and it only strengthens the radicals, making the war on terror all that tougher to fight.

I second your ideas. We should be worried about Pakistan, not Iran. remember both Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons!!! Its articles like this and the radical thinking that will bankrupt the US. We are followinfg the exact path the Soviet Union took in their war with Afhanistan with the exception that no one would lend them any money!!! Now we are living on borrowed money from the Far East and Middle East to wage wars!!! One should look at the bigger picture and why these Muslim Radicals are rising up in the first place.

Honus · #50 03-11-2008, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

From what I can tell that seems to be the standard democrat line.

- Peter.

Then I guess you should vote for the GOP candidate.

Hatterasguy · #51 03-11-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That's what you meant when you asked, "Invading Iran?"?

Good grief, they better not invade Iran.

I would expect Clinton or Obama to fight the real war by gathering intelligence, honestly assessing the threats, working with allies, forging new alliances where possible, and focusing our military where it will do the most good. The current administration has not left many good options for whoever takes office in 2009, but I expect things will start to improve after W leaves.

Bush is doing all of the above, and allies are often worthless. France may come around, but we can't wait for them.

As I am sure was posted before, pre 9/11 the CIA had its balls cut off because it couldn't hire shady people. You want to spy on bad people you have to hire bad people to work for you, spying 101. We decided to take pictures of there roofs with very expensive satillites.

DieselAddict · #52 03-11-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Bush is doing all of the above, and allies are often worthless. France may come around, but we can't wait for them.

True, we currently have few worthy allies because of Bush's arrogance and go-it-alone mentality. Look how different the first Gulf War was under Bush Sr.'s leadership. He was a much better diplomat than his son.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Given the uselessness of our intelligence gathering agencies that's a pretty damm huge expectation, quite apart from the fact that civilizational clash's are not simply intelligence gathering police operations.

I don't know what planet you live on but there is no civilization clash on this one, except in Al-Qaeda's, Bush's and a few of his supporters' brains. Fighting terrorism is all about intelligence gathering, especially infiltrating suspect groups. The alternative is to attack random countries, spend trillions in the process and further fuel the hatred toward us. Intelligence could have prevented 9/11 if some people only read their memos. Remember the Bin Laden determined to strike US memo in August of 2001? Or the knowledge we had about suspected terrorists training in flight schools? And what did Bush do? He was chopping down trees and chasing squirrels at his ranch in Texas.

Hatterasguy · #53 03-11-2008, 01:54 PM

I'll give you that, I liked Bush Sr a lot more, however putting the blame of 9/11 on Bush is pretty short sighted. Clinton, Bush Sr, and Reagon all let the problem fester. Bush was just the unlucky guy to have to boil over on his watch. The outcome on 9/11 would have been the same regardless of who won the election in 2000.

This is but one battle in a much broader clash of civilizations that has been going on since the Arab's took Jerusalem and the Europeans lead the crusades to free it. I'm not an expert on that part of history, but I know the Holy Roman Empire fought the Arabs for a long time, and eventualy lost.

Botnst · #54 03-11-2008, 01:54 PM

^^^ Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Your timeline does not conform to theirs.

Hatterasguy · #55 03-11-2008, 01:58 PM

Me? I should read it. Where am I off?

Botnst · #56 03-11-2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Me? I should read it. Where am I off?

My bad, you & I posted to this thread at about the same time and I thought I was referring to the post above yours -- Dieseladdicts. Shouldda quoted him but tried a shortcut.

B

Honus · #57 03-11-2008, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Bush is doing all of the above...

No way. Not even debatable.

Quote:

...France may come around, but we can't wait for them...

Wait for them? They were left to fight our battles in Afghanistan while we ran off to Iraq. Many allies have proven to be worthless, but people who live in glass houses can't throw stones.

Quote:

As I am sure was posted before, pre 9/11 the CIA had its balls cut off because it couldn't hire shady people. You want to spy on bad people you have to hire bad people to work for you, spying 101. We decided to take pictures of there roofs with very expensive satillites.

Agreed.

peragro · #58 03-11-2008, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

I don't know what planet you live on but there is no civilization clash on this one, except in Al-Qaeda's, Bush's and a few of his supporters' brains. Fighting terrorism is all about intelligence gathering, especially infiltrating suspect groups. The alternative is to attack random countries, spend trillions in the process and further fuel the hatred toward us. Intelligence could have prevented 9/11 if some people only read their memos. Remember the Bin Laden determined to strike US memo in August of 2001? Or the knowledge we had about suspected terrorists training in flight schools? And what did Bush do? He was chopping down trees and chasing squirrels at his ranch in Texas.

This paragraph completly ignores the history of the Crusades, The Ottoman Empire, the rise of Wahhabiism and the last 50 years of US/Middle East relations. Not to mention ignoring the complete gutting of the Intelligence services throughout the 90's and the complete willful ignorance of the Islamic threat that Western Civilisaton has seemed hell bent on pursuing for at least 30 years. That willful ignorance seems alive and well; partially in this country -as the above paragraph and other posts in this thread illustrate - and definitly in Europe. Perhaps France is starting to notice, that remains to be seen though.

Honus · #59 03-11-2008, 03:36 PM

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but it seems like a good place to mention the just-released study by the U.S. military finding that Saddam had no meaningful connection to al Qaeda: http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/exclusive-us-mi.html

I was particularly interested to see this part:

Quote:

...The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power...

DieselAddict · #60 03-11-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

This paragraph completly ignores the history of the Crusades, The Ottoman Empire, the rise of Wahhabiism and the last 50 years of US/Middle East relations. Not to mention ignoring the complete gutting of the Intelligence services throughout the 90's and the complete willful ignorance of the Islamic threat that Western Civilisaton has seemed hell bent on pursuing for at least 30 years. That willful ignorance seems alive and well; partially in this country -as the above paragraph and other posts in this thread illustrate - and definitly in Europe. Perhaps France is starting to notice, that remains to be seen though.

Are you saying most muslims today are hell bent on taking over the world and turning it into an Islamic empire? I realize there are groups like Al Qaeda whose goal is precisely that, but they don't represent the muslim world. Most muslims are migrating to Europe for economic reasons, just like hispanics are migrating to the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ Read the 9/11 Commission Report. Your timeline does not conform to theirs.

I've seen the 9/11 Commision Report DVD documentary, as well as a Frontline episode or two on this topic. I don't remember all the details but I believe what I said is more or less true. Where am I off?