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

Honus · #1 03-10-2008, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

At least about fifty percent of the US population. Everybody screaming orgasmic over obama and hilliary. And quite possibly many undecideds too. Any time you hear someone say Iraq had nothing to do with 911 you already know you are talking to someone who wouldn't have a clue what the general was going on about.

- Peter.

That comment makes no sense at all. In order for your comment to make any sense, then all of those Obama and Clinton supporters must think that "the current battle we are engaged in is [not] much bigger than just Iraq."

I cannot conceive of any way to twist any of the positions advocated by Obama or Clinton that remotely resemble that statement.

pj67coll · #2 03-10-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That comment makes no sense at all. In order for your comment to make any sense, then all of those Obama and Clinton supporters must think that "the current battle we are engaged in is [not] much bigger than just Iraq."

I cannot conceive of any way to twist any of the positions advocated by Obama or Clinton that remotely resemble that statement.

I wasn't talking about the candidates themselves. I was talking about their supporters. But you don't have to twist either of their positions to hear them say plainly that they want out of Iraq. The assumption has to be that they think this will be a positive experience. Wheras the general, and I, clearly believe it will be catastrophic.

- Peter.

Honus · #3 03-10-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

...But you don't have to twist either of their positions to hear them say plainly that they want out of Iraq...

Right, which seems pretty close to the opposite of what you said before. Obama wants out of Iraq so that we can get back to fighting the real war on terror. I don't know what Clinton's reasons are.

Hatterasguy · #4 03-10-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Obama wants out of Iraq so that we can get back to fighting the real war on terror. I don't know what Clinton's reasons are.

Invading Iran?

Honus · #5 03-10-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Invading Iran?

I don't understand your question.

Hatterasguy · #6 03-10-2008, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I don't understand your question.

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

Honus · #7 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 · #8 03-10-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Right, which seems pretty close to the opposite of what you said before. Obama wants out of Iraq so that we can get back to fighting the real war on terror. I don't know what Clinton's reasons are.

There is no real "war on terror". The whole point of the generals thesis is that this is a civilizational clash that has to be persued to the fullest. If that means being in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years so be it. If it means war with Iran instead of or in addition to being in Iraq then so be it. But to pretend that you can just run away and play traffic cop every time a "terrorist" pops up someplace is to fatally misunderstand the situation. Terrorism is simply the tactic used by our opponents as it's the most effective one at present. As such the term "war on terror" is as misleading and silly as the term "war on blitzkrieg" would have been in 1940.

- Peter.

Honus · #9 03-10-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

...But to pretend that you can just run away and play traffic cop every time a "terrorist" pops up someplace is to fatally misunderstand the situation...

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.

pj67coll · #10 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.

Honus · #11 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 · #12 03-10-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

There is no real "war on terror". The whole point of the generals thesis is that this is a civilizational clash that has to be persued to the fullest. If that means being in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years so be it. If it means war with Iran instead of or in addition to being in Iraq then so be it. But to pretend that you can just run away and play traffic cop every time a "terrorist" pops up someplace is to fatally misunderstand the situation. Terrorism is simply the tactic used by our opponents as it's the most effective one at present. As such the term "war on terror" is as misleading and silly as the term "war on blitzkrieg" would have been in 1940.

- Peter.

Correct this struggle has been going on for a very long time, since the Holy Roman Empire at least. Its probably not going to end in our life times either. This clash of civilizations is very active now because they have a ton of oil money and can afford to be. We need to attack the problem at the root, IE cut off the oil funds.