Kerry might have just single handedly saved Obama, or undermined him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:
Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria
Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.
The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.
And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.
Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.
However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.
Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]
This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.
We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]
Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?
You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).
Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.
But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.
[/quote]
You still have much to learn. I’m surprised at this post. It’s Orion-esque to a fault.
[/quote]
Yep
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:
Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria
Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.
The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.
And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.
Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.
However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.
Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]
This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.
We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]
Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?
You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).
Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.
But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.
When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama? Doughty foes indeed. [/quote]
You don’t have to be so literal, you know.
Following their example in trying to control large parts of the world.
And I’m sure the people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, India, Egypt and Kenya are all very, very grateful for the “British experience” as you so genteelly put it.
How lucky they were to be colonized by such compasionate and loving people![/quote]
Compared to the Belgians or the Dutch… Yes, actually. [/quote]
Ah, the “kind slave owner,” argument.
I’m sure the “slaves” agree.[/quote]
Come on, in some of this hellholes the only infrastructure they have was built by colonial powers,the only lingua franca they have is their colonial language and they have been introduced to new and exciting things like electricity and the steam camel and of course indoor plumbing, which is always nice.
Big, big fan of indoor plumbing.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]harrypotter wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m against the Syrian intervention but the following makes me want to switch sides on the argument just for the sheer thrill of bloodying up the Iranian tyrants should they carry through on any kind of threats like these:
Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria
Read more: Iran threatens brutal attacks on Americans, Obama family if US hits Syria | The Daily Caller
[/quote]
You just don’t get it do you? Knowing how worldly-wise you are Push I am surprised you are being goaded so easily and not looking at your own country.
The US has invaded and destabilized how many country’s now through war and black ops courtesy of the CIA? Your country created the drugs problem in the Americas and now you’re creating huge problems in the Middle East through nothing more than securing resources (or the lack thereof) and influence in the region.
And you can sit there and tell the rest of the world “nobody threatens America!”? Well you’ve been doing more than threatening the world for a good few decades now in the guise of world police.
Iran and Syria are within their rights to defend themselves and issue threats, you attack a nation that poses no threat to you and ramp up economic sanctions you damn well bet they’ll want to hurt you.
However not even the most batshit insane person in power these days will commit suicide by nuking a US target. This isn’t a fantasy land where brown people = bad and Captain America flies in to act tough.
Russia has moved its assets into the region, so tell me. How do you feel knowing Russia will defend Syria and Iran? Hows the debt ceiling going? Do you think a protracted crash of economic proportions will play into your hands knowing full well Russia has little to no stake in the outcome of a dollar crash and they have more resources at hand than you do?
[/quote]
This shit is pretty funny coming from a Brit.
We’re just following your example, after all.
[/quote]
Following their example in Iran or their example in Afghanistan?
You can’t be referring to their example in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, or even in India, Egypt or Kenya. I can’t recall any of those places reduced to rubble as a result of British involvement. All, in fact, seemed to benefit greatly from the British experience…especially compared to how we’re running our occupied territories (“colonies” sounds so…imperial).
Or perhaps you’re referring to the British war with Argentina in 1982. I mean, that was a powerful nation sailing across the ocean to force its will upon a drastically weaker opponent over a triviality.
But no, that can’t be it either. I mean, the British won that war.
When was the last time we won a military engagement of any consequence? Grenada? Panama? Doughty foes indeed. [/quote]
You don’t have to be so literal, you know.
Following their example in trying to control large parts of the world.
And I’m sure the people of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Burma, India, Egypt and Kenya are all very, very grateful for the “British experience” as you so genteelly put it.
How lucky they were to be colonized by such compasionate and loving people![/quote]
Compared to the Belgians or the Dutch… Yes, actually. [/quote]
Ah, the “kind slave owner,” argument.
I’m sure the “slaves” agree.[/quote]
Come on, in some of this hellholes the only infrastructure they have was built by colonial powers,the only lingua franca they have is their colonial language and they have been introduced to new and exciting things like electricity and the steam camel and of course indoor plumbing, which is always nice.
Big, big fan of indoor plumbing.
[/quote]
Libertarian or die!
Plus, Hitler built great roads.[/quote]
Hitler war ein boeser Mann, doch baute er die Autobahn.
And he did.
The British held India with a few thousand bureaucrats, how despised were they really?
Considering the alternatives, they were the best, or close to the best option available.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Hitler war ein boeser Mann, doch baute er die Autobahn.
And he did.
The British held India with a few thousand bureaucrats, how despised were they really?
Considering the alternatives, they were the best, or close to the best option available.[/quote]
Don’t speak German, but it’s refresshing to see you condoning colonialization and subjugation.
Oh, how lucky those Native Americans and slaves were to be given civilization by the white man!
Blessed heathens, were they! [/quote]
Well, condoning…
They did it themselves, we just did it better.
Being all butthurt about it is the mark of a sore loser.
And they are doing so well now, are they not?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Hitler war ein boeser Mann, doch baute er die Autobahn.
And he did.
The British held India with a few thousand bureaucrats, how despised were they really?
Considering the alternatives, they were the best, or close to the best option available.[/quote]
Don’t speak German, but it’s refresshing to see you condoning colonialization and subjugation.
Oh, how lucky those Native Americans and slaves were to be given civilization by the white man!
Blessed heathens, were they! [/quote]
“Hitler was an evil man, and yet he built the Autobahn.”
I guess the most successful colony the United States has ever had after the British model would be Japan, which is ironic, inasmuch as Japan only got into a war with America by trying to emulate Britain.
Ihre Argumente stinken, wer mit ihrem Herzen denken.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A win in terms of military engagement and a win in terms of long term successful nation building are two different things.
When you conflate the two you err from the path of good, solid, intellectually honest debate.[/quote]
Why are you bringing up this non-sequitur bullshit about winning military engagements. That was NEVER the goal. The goal was ALWAYS to destroy al Qaeda’s and other terrorist organization’s ability to operate in the region. We clearly have NOT succeeded there. Conflating the issue is about as detrimental to good, solid, intellectually honest debate as trying to wash over the fact that, while we have won a military engagement there, we never went there simply to win engagements but to accomplish the larger goal of wiping away safe havens. If anything, we’ve actually created more safe havens since it seems as if Iraq is now a massive training ground for jihadists all over the region.
Iraq is to Johnny Jihad what Dagobah is to Luke Skywalker.
Do you mean…
Seal Team Six killed Obi-Wan?!
You guys have successfully derailed this thread.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
…The goal was ALWAYS to destroy al Qaeda’s and other terrorist organization’s ability to operate in the region.
[/quote]
No, that was not the (primary) goal if we are talking Iraq.
Yes, if we are talking Afghanistan.
It depends.
We DID succeed if we are talking the removal of Saddam and his Baathist regime.
We did succeed in that he is now a dead man who swung from a rope like a common criminal after attempting to assassinate a former president of the United States.
We did succeed if we are talking the fact that Iraq no longer occupies Kuwait and threatens the Arabian peninsula and a huge portion of the world’s oil supply.
We did not succeed if we are talking the capture of his WMD’s because we now know he shipped them to Syria.
We did succeed in that his nuclear weapon ambitions vanished when he drew his last breath before the trap door opened.
I could go on.
Distinctions, they’re always important.
[/quote]
We didn’t succeed at all in Iraq. It’s a hotbed of terrorist activity, which is NOT the goal in fighting terrorism. The alleged link between Hussein, terrorists, and WMDs was tenuous at best, but it was a link that was made. Hussein is gone, but the alleged WMDs either never turned up, turned up in amounts so small as to be completely unworthy of the military response to getting them, or are now being used in Syria. Either way, we were wrong in going in there and the stated goal of fighting terrorism there AND of capturing WMDs simply has not been successful.
Make all the distinctions you want. It doesn’t matter at all if you can’t rank those distinctions based on the stated goals at the time. There were the goals stated PRIOR to going to war in Iraq and there were the goals stated AFTER the fact in an attempt to gloss over the original reasons we went there, as if by shouting out the NEW goals loudly and as often as possible the ORIGINAL goals would cease to exist.
Hussein and his Ba’athist cronies were there long before 9/11. If Bush were so concerned about Hussein and the Ba’athists there, why didn’t he go to war there as soon as he was elected? Why did he instead go to war more than a year after he was inaugurated and as a delayed reaction of sorts to 9/11? Because the goals in going there were about stopping terrorism and capturing WMDs. All this other “removal of the Ba’athists” and “saving Kuwait and the world’s oil supply” is a bunch of revisionist bullshit. Besides, I would argue that the oil supplies in the region aren’t anymore safe now than they were then, so even the “new” goals weren’t completely met.
HIs nuclear ambitions were unrealistic, another false flag goal held up after the fact. I don’t want to argue the point any further. The bottom line is that no matter how you twist things around, the goal in going to Iraq BEFORE we actually went there have not been met, other than Hussein being dead. And it wasn’t even us who got him, anyways. Shit, if anything OUR goal was to capture him alive and not watch him get hanged on YouTube by the same motherfuckers who will be dragging American Marines’ dead bodies through the streets if we send troops into Syria.
If Syria gives up their chemical weapons, I would give my left testicle to see the look on Dick Cheney’s fucking face when he realizes we aren’t going to send more shit there and up the demand for his and his cronies’ war machines. Fucking war profiteers.
[quote]pat wrote:
The Vietnam War was carried out with complete ineptness, however it did succeed in keeping half a country free. [/quote]
You might want to let the Vietnamese people know about this. After the fall of Saigon the communist took over and it became the Soviet Republic of Vietnam in 1976. Are you perhaps thinking of Korea?
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
The Vietnam War was carried out with complete ineptness, however it did succeed in keeping half a country free. [/quote]
You might want to let the Vietnamese people know about this. After the fall of Saigon the communist took over and it became the Soviet Republic of Vietnam in 1976. Are you perhaps thinking of Korea?[/quote]
You’re right, my bad…