Is Another War on the Way?

[ACPlayer]

Do your own research and thinking.

[DougieG]

I am INCREDIBLY uneducated about this subject and have absolutely no business posting an opinion about what we should do but I am a history major and find it worrisome that ACPlayer (and possibly others on this thread) are seemingly forgetting the affects of treaties and alliances.

Every action in the world involving one country against another has an affect on the U.S., just as it does on every other country in the world. Power in the world is zero-sum, and alliances between countries helps to keep those with power powerful, and those without power minor players. In order for this to work it is obviously networks of protection and it makes countries in the Middle East (Israel) content not to be superpowers because they know they have protection from the U.S. if they don't.

Also, my understanding of terrorism is that it isn't good no matter who it is happening to, and while it isn't the job of the U.S. to play policeman for the world, it really is to some degree.

As I stated at the beginning, I am very uneducated about the subject, and just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on why terrorism not directed at the U.S. is still a serious threat to the U.S.

Feel free to flame away/correct anything I am wrong about as this is just my very basic understanding of the topic.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I am INCREDIBLY uneducated about this subject and have absolutely no business posting an opinion about what we should do

[/ QUOTE ]

Welcome to the politics forum.

As a poker player you should be aware that all plays should be evaluated for their EV. Where the word value is the value to us (and I like to think in terms of hard values).

Felix opined that under Saddam oil was being used to fund terrorism. However, when pressed he offered the only example the alleged attempt to knock of Bush 41. While an example of a criminal desire, it hardly qualifies as an example of terrorism. By that definition our targetting of Saddam (an elected - dubiously for sure - president of a soveriegn nation qualifies as terrorism).

Now, no doubt Saddam supported the Palestinians in their efforts to regain their homeland from Israeli control. And, no doubt, that the Palestinians have used reprehensible tactics of targetting civilians (but so do others in their wars and struggles).

But the question is was our implementation in Iraq positive EV for the US of A? Answer is a clear NO -- and NO ONE on this forum has offered a reason that passes muster. Whether we should stay on, the answer is a bit murkier. So, when Felix offered a game plan remarkably like the game plan we just went through in Iraq for taking on Iran, it should certainly be questioned.

However, when questioned, he responds with personal attacks hence undermining his own credibility and reducing debate to a gutter fight.

So, the question remains, where's the beef with Iran and what's the execution plan, is the Shock and Awe plan and what happens after Shock and Awe and before "Mission Accomplished"? And of course there is the question what was the beef with Iraq --> but we can leave that for a different thread. This one is about Iran.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Was I wrong in what you wrote originally, a little shock and awe, we will be welcomed as we overthrow the Saddam Govt, we will use the oil to rebuild?

[/ QUOTE ]
You are making things up. All my posts are on record. Feel free to quote me from any of my posts but don't invent things... And yes you are wrong....

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to provide an example of Iraqi oil being used to fund terrorism against the US. The linking of terrorism against us and Iraq is a lie

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said this. AGAIN you are making things up.
I ***SAID*** Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism and that their oil no longer sponsors terrorism. It is a FACT, that the US State Dept put Iraq on their list of nations that sponsor terrorism....years ago. How you came up with the claim that I said Iraq sponsor terrorism against the USA is a mystery to me.

It is hard to have an honest debate with a person that makes up fictional quotes about your position. Use the quote function but don't make things up... It is not honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly I have not made up fictional quotes.

I said that

this post
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the Iraq game plan.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then I said why it sounds like the Iraq game plan:

[ QUOTE ]
Shock and Awe, cheering hordes helping us overthrow the government, the key is oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you can read english. Perhaps it is not your first language -- in which case it is understandable.

No where did I say I quoted you when I asked you to provide an example of Iraq's terrorism against the US. I am quite fed up with you guys claiming that Iraq is a danger (and the only thing I am interested in is danger to US - the pronoun and the country!).

Frankly I dont give a damn if the state department put Iraq on a terrorist list. If I want to accept everything the state department did, I would have to shut my mind down and kowtow to the bureaucrats in DC. If there is evidence of their terrorist activities I want to know it, if there is none (and there is none) then I want the rest of us to hear it.

It really is difficult to have a debate with people who cannot read and pout if questioned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read last weeks Weekly Standard. the links between Iraq and terrorism are quite clear. It is well documented in our own intelligence, in documents recovered after the war and in the testimony of Iraqi detainees.

Edit: posted before I saw FN's exhaustive list, all or most of which is in the WS article, plus a few others.

Felix...what do you expect? they jump up and down and whine "there was no link" and then when you show them the links they say "oh but that wasnt an OPERATIONAL link", or ignore it totally. Appeasers will always rationalize things to fit their world view.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
The mission of the US Navy was to provide air support in the battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The US Navy completed this mission. The US Navy sailors were returning home to their families and Bush43 joined them in they celebration. If you noticed, the Army, Marines, and Air Force never displayed banners saying their mission was accomplished..... I don't understand why you cast scorn on the US Navy for celebrating a successful mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...wow. Most importantly, there is no way in hell that banner was there to say, the US Navy's job, and only the the US Navy's job, is finished. That was meant to tell the American people we won, and everything will be okay. I also very much doubt that the US Navy's job is finished over there anyways.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mission of the US Navy was to provide air support in the battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The US Navy completed this mission. The US Navy sailors were returning home to their families and Bush43 joined them in they celebration. If you noticed, the Army, Marines, and Air Force never displayed banners saying their mission was accomplished..... I don't understand why you cast scorn on the US Navy for celebrating a successful mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...wow. Most importantly, there is no way in hell that banner was there to say, the US Navy's job, and only the the US Navy's job, is finished. That was meant to tell the American people we won, and everything will be okay. I also very much doubt that the US Navy's job is finished over there anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banner and photo-op was about the air and ground war, which was finished, victoriously. The occupation and insurgency are separate and distinct from that and are ongoing, and will be ongoing for decades. We still have troops in virutally every country we've defeated.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mission of the US Navy was to provide air support in the battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The US Navy completed this mission. The US Navy sailors were returning home to their families and Bush43 joined them in they celebration. If you noticed, the Army, Marines, and Air Force never displayed banners saying their mission was accomplished..... I don't understand why you cast scorn on the US Navy for celebrating a successful mission.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...wow. Most importantly, there is no way in hell that banner was there to say, the US Navy's job, and only the the US Navy's job, is finished. That was meant to tell the American people we won, and everything will be okay. I also very much doubt that the US Navy's job is finished over there anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banner and photo-op was about the air and ground war, which was finished, victoriously. The occupation and insurgency are separate and distinct from that and are ongoing, and will be ongoing for decades. We still have troops in virutally every country we've defeated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The banner was about photo-ops and press.

All moves by this white house are about photo-ops and press there is no evidence of any substantive thinking on issues.