Close to Victory in Iraq!!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
But seriously, the blame mostly goes to those who thought they could underpay teachers and expect a quality education. Take a walk through any public high school in Cleveland to see how that worked out.

Teachers should start at $50,000 per year, with a $2000 annual raise. Otherwise, expect a K-Mart quality education for your children.

Rant over.

And where would this money come from? (I agree, and am genuinely curious)

Where does the money come from to pay doctors $200,000 per year? Where does the money come from to pay a new B.S. in Computer Engineering $57,000 per year come from?

All of these things are determined by the mostly free market. The same is pretty much true for teachers. Everyone is willing to part with a huge chunk of change to a doctor to treat their sick kid’s body, but scream if a teacher wants to make more than a K-Mart clerk does in training their child’s mind. They’re happy to pay $600 for some new horseshit i-phone (or wtf it was called), but don’t you dare ask for money to raise teacher pay!!!

So, the free market pays teachers the minimum that it can get away with, pretends that education is taking place, and we get mostly pre-adult babysitting services.

K-Mart pay, K-Mart results…then bitch about the quality. How very logical of my fellow humans…

So… are you implying we should intervene in the free market to give teachers better salaries?

How about paying high school teachers more than primary school teachers? Good start?

[/quote]

No. There’s nothing wrong with the free market. It is simply the fact that our society is a bunch of skinflints in matters of education. They are only willing to pay the absolute minimum. They want a Lexus at Chevy prices. Fat chance.

In my neighborhood is a woman who spends $2000/month for psychiatric care for her dog (my wife inherited a house in one of ‘those’ neighborhoods). This same woman would scream bloody murder if she were asked to put money in for teacher raises. Pretty sad, huh?

There is no solution to any of this, BTW. Public schools are a socialist concept and clashes with the capitalist system.

42

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Wreckless, the soviets didn’t “lose” a single battle in their 10 years in afghanistan, yet they withdrew with their tails between their legs to their crumbling, broke homeland.

Perhaps the americans just want to show that they can afford that kind of victory-addiction?
[/quote]

The Soviets were not liberators.

Do you want the Taliban back?

43

Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

44

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…[/quote]

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

45

I hope that they are right, and Al-Queda has been dealt a “Crippling blow”.

I also hope that this isn’t complete bullshit, which is just as likely. Or maybe not bullshit, but that it isn’t just wrong like it has been so many times before.

And what the hell is a “declaration of victory” going to do? As far as I’m concerned, you don’t have that until you’ve got someone signing papers on some battleship, and it’s assured that no more violence will come from their side… and we don’t seem close to that.

What kind of cluster fucked war can you just declare victory in when you’re fighting a guerilla group that operates in cells all over the world? Have we killed all of Al-Queda? Where’s Bin Laden?

One day these fuckheads will realize that it’s not about winning or losing in the conventional sense- keeping America safe through foiling plots and fighting Al-Queda where we can is not losing. Americans not dying is winning.

However, in the grander conventional sense, I suspect there will never be a “vicotry” like all these generals and King George wish to have so badly.

If this war is not a conventional one, why does everyone want to measure it by convetional standards? Why are we (again) fighting a damn conventional war against insurgents and guerillas?

Shit man. Nothing ever changes. This will be like the war in 1984 that just goes on at a low level forever where we can claim victory every couple months against the godless hoards and never withdraw troops.

Asinine.

46

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Wreckless, the soviets didn’t “lose” a single battle in their 10 years in afghanistan, yet they withdrew with their tails between their legs to their crumbling, broke homeland.

Perhaps the americans just want to show that they can afford that kind of victory-addiction?
[/quote]

I believe it’s called a pyrrhic victory.

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

[/quote]

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

[/quote]

…Did you totally ignore my question again?

Bring the troops home, dedicate war money to getting us totally off oil. No one dies.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…[/quote]

Are you saying headhunter and other members of the 101st keyboard kommandos are phony?

50

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

…Did you totally ignore my question again?

Bring the troops home, dedicate war money to getting us totally off oil. No one dies.[/quote]

No, I answered it. Oil is the very lifeblood of our civilisation. Without it, no food in the stores, no way to get to work, no ambulances to take people to the hospital, on and on. And despite all the blather about getting rid of oil, it’ll be at least 20 years for that to come close to happening.

Now, who should determine our future? Us or Ahkmajihad? The leadership in Somalia?

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…[/quote]

I’m no warmonger, just a realist. We live on oil. I wish we didn’t. But the ME is where the oil is so either we control it (and our destiny) or we do not.

Like many, Irish, you think the world would continue more or less w/o American firepower. Will it? Go into Newark and find a neighborhood which the police have given up on. There’s the world w/o the USA.

52

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You won when you defeated their army.
You won when you killed sadams sons.
You won when you got Sadam.
You won when you strung him up.
You won when you killed that local Al Quada leader (can’t even remember his name).

Isn’t all this winning rather tiresome?

You’d have to be particularly stupid to believe this really is the last win, the fatal blow. Well, we know HH is that stupid, but I don’t think a significant part of the US population is.[/quote]

Nah, we never get tired of winning. So what’s it like being a loser?

53

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

…Did you totally ignore my question again?

Bring the troops home, dedicate war money to getting us totally off oil. No one dies.

No, I answered it. Oil is the very lifeblood of our civilisation. Without it, no food in the stores, no way to get to work, no ambulances to take people to the hospital, on and on. And despite all the blather about getting rid of oil, it’ll be at least 20 years for that to come close to happening.

Now, who should determine our future? Us or Ahkmajihad? The leadership in Somalia?

[/quote]

Twenty years with current funding. We poor ALL the war money into finding alternative energy and encouraging that market, and that’ll be a LOT quicker.

54

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

…Did you totally ignore my question again?

Bring the troops home, dedicate war money to getting us totally off oil. No one dies.

No, I answered it. Oil is the very lifeblood of our civilisation. Without it, no food in the stores, no way to get to work, no ambulances to take people to the hospital, on and on. And despite all the blather about getting rid of oil, it’ll be at least 20 years for that to come close to happening.

Now, who should determine our future? Us or Ahkmajihad? The leadership in Somalia?

Twenty years with current funding. We poor ALL the war money into finding alternative energy and encouraging that market, and that’ll be a LOT quicker.
[/quote]

So the future of this country becomes contingent upon Congress (Congress!!??!!) funding energy research? The research is a gamble in and of itself, and you then want the same guys who built the levees in New Orleans to be in charge of distributing the money saved from the war?

Ann Coulter is right: If liberals had any brains, they’d be Republicans (title of her new book).

And its ‘pour’, not ‘poor’.

55

Maybe an analogy is in order. Can you quit fighting cancer when most of it is gone? “We got 3/4 of that tumor out, so your fine.”

No. That cancer will come back, which is why doctors try to get every little bit of it they can.

It is similar here. We don’t need to beat anyone as much as we need to simply make sure that Iraq can stand on its own without having to worry about anyone taking them over. Anyone who suggests otherwise is asking us to not only throw everyone in that country to the “wolves”, but if anyone thinks that having another Mid-East country run by extremists is a good thing, funded by all that oil, then I seriously have to question your motives.

After the first Gulf war we abandoned the people fighting for freedom in Iraq. And when people bring up this argument, they are right. But why do the same people argue about doing the exact same thing?

We should not leave until the “cancer” is gone, and the country is “healthy”.

56

[quote]100meters wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…

Are you saying headhunter and other members of the 101st keyboard kommandos are phony?
[/quote]

LOL. Scaled the walls of the politics forums with but their wits and khaki jackets to take out the big guns of the America hating liberals.

What would we do without them?

57

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You young guys are missing out!

Next Spring in Tehran!!! Fire up the Abrahms!!!

A warmonger at his finest.

So eager to send young men to die, yet never did it himself. Fuck me, you should be a Senator, HH.

Only assholes who don’t know the true horrors of war could be so gung ho about it. Oh, that you spent a week in Vietnam my friend! How eager you would be to send in your own sons, I bet…

I’m no warmonger, just a realist. We live on oil. I wish we didn’t. But the ME is where the oil is so either we control it (and our destiny) or we do not.
[/quote]

That’s empire talk there Headhunter. Your beliefs follow in heavy footsteps… a couple of things called the English, Spanish, French, Ottoman Empires… take your pick. Danger, boyo.

Newark is bad because everything is rife with corruption and the cops and the Mayor (for the past twenty years) have been as crooked as can be. That’s the American way.

So basically, if we can’t control our own cities, how in the fuck do you think we’re going to control the world, especially one that is exploding with sectarian enmity that has been seething for millenia? We’re going to control it with our American capitalist corruption and payoffs? (I’m not anticapitalist, I’m just saying that capitalism will inherently carry with it a good amount of corruption.)

Fuck man, you’re way off base here. I know you want that American Empire, but there are those amongst us who wish to use the pen before the sword- you know what happens to people (and countries) that live by the sword, don’t you?

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Wreckless, the soviets didn’t “lose” a single battle in their 10 years in afghanistan, yet they withdrew with their tails between their legs to their crumbling, broke homeland.

Perhaps the americans just want to show that they can afford that kind of victory-addiction?

The Soviets were not liberators.

Do you want the Taliban back?
[/quote]

You are also far from liberating these people.
Even you don’t think that. I mean , you have made pretty clear that it’s OK to you to exploit the region just for oil with sword and flame. So why you bluff with the shining white knight card if we already saw your hand?

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

[/quote]

I don’t understand. Oil prices are up because of the invasion. No dispute. And now you call for even more violence? So you admit you botched the initial job, because sheiks get rich instead of you and decide to mend it with more (dead) GIs?

EDIT: I don’t want to post a third time to address you, HH:
Concerning the “Lifeblood” of your civilization:
It’s not, it’s never been and it doesn’t has to be. Just because it’s convenient for the companies doesn’t mean we have to use it. Oil is wonderful because it’s good energy and can be made into so mauch useful stuff. But then, soy is also very convenient or asbestos or uranium. You can make a lot out of it but it’s not necessary.

60

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Still no word on the date for the troops to come home…

They don’t come home. The price of oil is starting to seriously impact the West. Either the West gets the oil or our civilisation falls into 2nd rater territory.

Do you honestly thinh that the USA is simply going to stand idly by while a few sheiks and tribal chieftains put the giant squeeze to us? Nope. We may even bring back the draft! Get ready, Beowolf, you lucky guy!!

I don’t understand. Oil prices are up because of the invasion. No dispute. And now you call for even more violence? So you admit you botched the initial job, because sheiks get rich instead of you and decide to mend it with more (dead) GIs?

EDIT: I don’t want to post a third time to address you, HH:
Concerning the “Lifeblood” of your civilization:
It’s not, it’s never been and it doesn’t has to be. Just because it’s convenient for the companies doesn’t mean we have to use it. Oil is wonderful because it’s good energy and can be made into so mauch useful stuff. But then, soy is also very convenient or asbestos or uranium. You can make a lot out of it but it’s not necessary.

[/quote]

After reading this drivel, I can see why you don’t want to address me again.

Tell you what there, Schwarzy: next time someone you love needs an operation to save their life, go in the operating room and turn off the power. There’s your world without oil, without that evil Exxon and company. Enjoy it.