"Whaddaya want from me? How was I supposed to know?"

*facepalm*

I love it when the government figures shiat out the population knew years ago,and presents it as if its a revelation.

Acually, this statement only applies to the evil, shifty Turks. Their curly shoes and rampant use of eunuchs make them unfit to carry out military operations, and hence they must be restricted to fag-plomacy.

We, on the other hand, must continue with our plans to bomb the Iranians until they forget how to make nukyular weapons.

FTFA: "I think all our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan shows us that while dealing with a terrorist problem does require security operations, it also requires economic and political initiatives," Gates told reporters.

I believe Casper Weinberger set down some really thoughtful guidelines about going to war after the Vietnam fiasco. Too bad George II didn't read about them in his Bible. Given below from Casper's speech in Nov 84 titled "The Uses Of Military Power."

(1) ... The United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. . . .
(2) ... If we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. ...
(3) ... If we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. ...
(4) ... The relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed - their size, composition and disposition - must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. ...
(5) ... Before the U.S. commits forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. ...
(6) ... The commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort.

SilentStrider: *facepalm*

I love it when the government figures shiat out the population knew years ago,and presents it as if its a revelation.

Oh... they knew it years ago. The whole point of the War Against Terror is to increase terrorism. Unfortunately, their plan didn't work and there have been no attacks in this country.

Imagine how the world would be today if there was no oil in the Middle East.

Imagine how the region would be today if the CIA had never sponsored terrorist organizations like the Taliban, or propped up dictators like the Shaw of Iran or Saddam Hussein.

Imagine how our country would be today if most Americans even cared.

Ah, the Romans invaded the Middle East over salt. They always seem to have some essential commodity.

signaljammer: Ah, the Romans invaded the Middle East over salt. They always seem to have some essential commodity.

Don't forget figs.

And sand. Lots of sand.

Javacrucian: Don't forget figs.

And sand. Lots of sand.

And olives.

Javacrucian: Imagine how our country would be today if most Americans even cared.


That one hit the nail on the head right there.

Why is Bill Gates influencing our foreign policy?

Are they not buying our weapons or something? Setup a meeting with Raytheon so military assaults can go back to solving the problem of terrorism.

Javacrucian: Imagine how our country would be today if most Americans even cared.

Plenty of Americans care, they just care about all the wrong things. What can you say to people that believed in George W. Bush and Dick Cheney? Everyone with half a brain could see the disaster we were in for (albeit, probably not to the degree that it would happen). What can you say to people that still listen to the lies of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh? You've got people in this country that live in poverty and were convinced to back a spoon-fed, privileged frat asshole and his corrupt VP.

The way I see it, if you had a hand in any of this mess, you deserve to sit out 10 years of elections and participation in decision making so the rest of us can attempt to clean up the mess.

...but no, you've got the same idiots that will vote Republican...AGAIN.

(yes, I know TFA was about Turkey, but everything that was in TFA was a direct "slap in the face" to what our country did)

/and I'm glad to know there's still a "coalition"! Comedy Gold.

oil is a strategic resource, as such the government of the united states has the duty to protect this vital glop. also, America has vast untapped reserves. (by some accounts, more than exist in the mid east)
that all said, if you are planing for a future where the world has sucked these other regions dry, where does that place the USA (for that matter the west) in 20 or 40 years, and those upstart unproductive sand dwelling peoples?

when ever i read or see "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" on a bumper sticker or some daddys little darlings poster at a protest, i flash on how their well thought out world would be..and envision a Imac with wood casing, wood dowels holding the sides together, with rocks as keys.
i guess IM and emails could be slingshots and leafs tied around rocks with messages written in poop...

oil=plastics..battery's..clothes..shoes..electronics..meds..everything.
its not just to fill your tank for a taco bell run..

wildancrazy159: when ever i read or see "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" on a bumper sticker or some daddys little darlings poster at a protest, i flash on how their well thought out world would be..and envision a Imac with wood casing, wood dowels holding the sides together, with rocks as keys.



I think it looks beautiful...

Javacrucian: Imagine how the world would be today if there was no oil in the Middle East.

Imagine how the region would be today if the CIA had never sponsored terrorist organizations like the Taliban, or propped up dictators like the Shaw of Iran or Saddam Hussein.

Imagine how our country would be today if most Americans even cared.

WISH, ummm, I mean THIS!

After we got rid of Sadam we should have just handed the oil fields and a fark load of guns to the Kurds and told the rest of those simpering Arabs get lost. Let the Kurds have their own country, they seem to be the only political/religious faction that doesn’t want to put a jihad on the US anyway.

If a substantial part of the problem is the oil and oil profits, we should do our damnedest to devalue the oil. If this means subsidizing algal oil and cellulosic ethanol industries for a few years, it would be cheaper than our forays into Arab lands.

Seriously. In the late 90's, when the Asian markets crashed and oil was devalued, Iran was starting to get friendly.

BTW, the only reason oil was cheap when Bush went into office was the fact that Asian markets had collapsed and weren't demanding as much oil.

Born of Winter

After we got rid of Sadam we should have just handed the oil fields and a fark load of guns to the Kurds and told the rest of those simpering Arabs get lost. Let the Kurds have their own country, they seem to be the only political/religious faction that doesn't want to put a jihad on the US anyway.


a rather predictable fail, given it appears you cannot spell "saddam"

the kurds are hugely tribal and probably at least as heavily into honor killing as anyone. also kurdistan is spread over four countries, there's a huge desire for statehood, and a thriving, worldwide, organized crime network funding kurdish terrorism.

anyway, try to stick to nascar in future

wildcardjack: If a substantial part of the problem is the oil and oil profits, we should do our damnedest to devalue the oil. If this means subsidizing algal oil and cellulosic ethanol industries for a few years, it would be cheaper than our forays into Arab lands.

Seriously. In the late 90's, when the Asian markets crashed and oil was devalued, Iran was starting to get friendly.

BTW, the only reason oil was cheap when Bush went into office was the fact that Asian markets had collapsed and weren't demanding as much oil.

BAAHAHAHAhAHAHA... Oh lord. You _really_ don't know who is running the US do you?

glenlivid: ...but no, you've got the same idiots that will vote Republican...AGAIN.

Yes, they will. I had a (brief) conversation with an acquaintance the other night who absolutely believes that things can and will be worse if Obama or Hillary become president. He's sure that, once in office, the Dems will dismantle the entire nuclear arsenal and then declare war on Pakistan.

Well, at least he's an improvement on Rumsfeld.

Granted, *I* would have been a better Defense Secretary than Rumsfeld.

If you ever really want to have your blood boil, read Bob Woodward's State of Denial and consider Donald Rumsfeld's overall "management strategy".

Then if you'd like it to boil until at least two litres of it evaporates follow that up with Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command, which evaluates the the consequences.

If non-American, you should now be feeling a mixture of pity, anger and despair.

If American, you can skip right to anger and despair, but you are lucky, because there is hope:
1. There are still journalists in your country who report on the near-insane mismanagement of war and the tremendous human suffering that has followed.
2. You have a chance to cast a ballot for a presidential candidate who has an excellent understanding of foreign policy, appeals to the majority of the population, will actually deliver change in Washington and will not run a White House based on lies or inflammatory, meaningless rhetoric ("islamofascism" for instance) and pandering to the worst instincts of the population. John McCain is unfortunately not such a candidate, since lying about Iraq (on its safety, for instance, while wearing a bulletproof vest and surrounded by troops in the most fortified area of the country) makes him a charlatan already and not likely to improve once he gets actual power.
3. Not only do you get to vote, you can also volunteer for and donate to a candidate with a solid grasp on foreign policy issues, one who actually comprehends the challenges of the 21st century and is willing to face them, and to not pander and lie to you. Rare.

/the bit about hope above was not a pun. I'm actually more of a Hillary fan, although I also like Obama. I find policy more interesting than the Audacity to Dream of Hoping on Change. Despite Obama having an equally rigorous and intriguing policy outlook he hasn't been running on it, which is a turnoff for me.
//so... that turned into a rant then

Phil Moskowitz: BAAHAHAHAhAHAHA... Oh lord. You _really_ don't know who is running the US do you?

Yes, I know that top tier levels of AMWAY are contributing heavily to the GOP. I can't wait until the Dems come back and smack down that bullshiat again. Did you know that Amway and Blackwater have common relatives in power?

We went to Iraq largely because Saddam was threatening to take over the region and cut off our oil. We need the oil so badly because we don't have enough of a domestic supply. Why do we have such a crappy domestic supply? Because every single refinery development has been blocked by liberals, as well as most of the new drilling. So who is really to blame for the war?

Practically speaking, no, war will not solve the problem of terrorism. Only non-aggression pacts will bring peace to Iraq. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that war isn't needed to kill terrorists in the meantime. The only way to stop a suicidal nut job is to put a bullet in his head, preferably several.

Donald Rumsfeld managed the DoD like the office manager in the movie "Office". No, wait more like the guy in movie "Office" who had his stapler stolen and kept getting moved to different cubicles.

j0ndas

no matter how lame your contribution, i'd give you one out of a possible ten, just for at least trying. that is, if it weren't a dead thread. as such, although it pains me:

0/10

What? You can't beat terrorism with military force?

Who would have thought such a thing?

Oh thats right, all you flag waving apple pie baking ignorant conservative American motherfarkers.

In future, study military history, all the farking lessons are there you half-wit wankers.

"Because every single refinery development has been blocked by liberals, as well as most of the new drilling."

Odd how not a single one of your imaginary laws banning refineries was repealed while the Republicans were in power for six years. Odd how no oil company even APPLIED for a refinery license in that period. Odd how the liberals never even had to filibuster to prevent drilling in ANWR during that time. Odd how it was JEB BUSH who blocked drilling off Florida's coast.

Perhaps there's a more realistic explanation, that oil companies profit MORE when supplies are tight?

By "realistic" I mean "not pulled out of your ass". You've been used, and then fed a scapegoat which you've apparently swallowed whole.

Silver lining? I, on the other hand, did quite well in the energy sector, banking on rubes like you.

Hold still, so I can trickle down on you.

yeah but leaving them alone will stop them right?

of course it won't stop terrorism, but it sure will fark it up for awhile

heres a clue, nothing will stop terrorism

j0ndas: We went to Iraq largely because Saddam was threatening to take over the region and cut off our oil. We need the oil so badly because we don't have enough of a domestic supply. Why do we have such a crappy domestic supply? Because every single refinery development has been blocked by liberals, as well as most of the new drilling. So who is really to blame for the war?

Practically speaking, no, war will not solve the problem of terrorism. Only non-aggression pacts will bring peace to Iraq. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that war isn't needed to kill terrorists in the meantime. The only way to stop a suicidal nut job is to put a bullet in his head, preferably several.

No, the refineries have not been built because building more of them would increase the supply of gasoline and diesel, thereby reducing oil company profits. The "librals dun made us not git it" idea is an excuse to make sure "conservatives" have an short, easily understandable lie for the more gullible memberws of the Republican party.

Also killing terrorists is fine - but if you're creating more of them than you kill at the same, wouldn't it be prudent to rethink your position?

Well, I'll always wonder what the place would look like by now if Bush hadn't lied his way into Iraq in '03, and Ahmedinijad's arrival on the scene in '05?

This is assuming Hussein had not been overthrown in the meantime.

HowlingFrog: And olives.

And slaves.

wildcardjack: If a substantial part of the problem is the oil and oil profits, we should do our damnedest to devalue the oil. If this means subsidizing algal oil and cellulosic ethanol industries for a few years, it would be cheaper than our forays into Arab lands.

This times ten.

Or "rims", which I've seen as an alternative to "this", although I haven't figured out why.

j0ndas So who is really to blame for the war?

You are. You and idiots like you.

Glasgowsfinest: j0ndas So who is really to blame for the war?

You are. You and idiots like you.

Wow. Viewing this exchange has suddenly crystallized a whole new world view for me...

Bush & Cheney aren't evil. They're not even incompetent, uncaring or greedy! You guys are all reading it wrong!

They're trolling us!

God, I feel ashamed to have bit. Seems so obvious now.
10/10

i remember when kerry said that the war on terror is best fought by intelligence agencies and local police departments rather than armies and bush and the wingnuts pilloried him for it.

Um.... DUH?

""Because every single refinery development has been blocked by liberals, as well as most of the new drilling."

Odd how not a single one of your imaginary laws banning refineries was repealed while the Republicans were in power for six years. Odd how no oil company even APPLIED for a refinery license in that period. Odd how the liberals never even had to filibuster to prevent drilling in ANWR during that time. Odd how it was JEB BUSH who blocked drilling off Florida's coast."


THIS.

Oh, and you can add why they did not repeal the supposed laws that REQUIRE banks to loan money to people who cannot afford to pay it back. Yeah. My republican friends tried to lay that one on me and i LOL'd.

Uh, isn't that common sense?

wildancrazy159:
when ever i read or see "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" on a bumper sticker or some daddys little darlings poster at a protest, i flash on how their well thought out world would be..and envision a Imac with wood casing, wood dowels holding the sides together, with rocks as keys.
i guess IM and emails could be slingshots and leafs tied around rocks with messages written in poop...




GIS for "Amish computer":

j0ndas: We went to Iraq largely because Saddam was threatening to take over the region and cut off our oil.

Him and what army?

We already knew that.

wildancrazy159: oil is a strategic resource, as such the government of the united states has the duty to protect this vital glop. also, America has vast untapped reserves. (by some accounts, more than exist in the mid east)
that all said, if you are planing for a future where the world has sucked these other regions dry, where does that place the USA (for that matter the west) in 20 or 40 years, and those

upstart unproductive sand dwelling peoples?

They will use oil profit to buy multinational dollar company shares and companies.

They were once the center of human civilization in the Persian empire when they considered the rest of the world as jungle dwelling savages.

when ever i read or see "NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" on a bumper sticker or some daddys little darlings poster at a protest, i flash on how their well thought out world would be..and envision a Imac with wood casing, wood dowels holding the sides together, with rocks as keys.
i guess IM and emails could be slingshots and leafs tied around rocks with messages written in poop...

oil=plastics..battery's..clothes..shoes..electronics..meds..everything.
its not just to fill your tank for a taco bell run..

Plastic can be made from any hydrocarbon - even corn if it were economical to do so. Oil is not a strict requirement for plastic manufacturing.

To echo others who came before me : Duh.

I agree that terrorism cannot be defeated by military force alone. It is only one of many facets that must be used to defeat it.

However, the opinion that force shouldn't be used at all has been tried once before and failed miserably. Does anyone not remember Neville Chamberlain?