Talk-Polywell.org

djolds1 wrote: Iran will go nuclear.

You mean like the nukes we found all over Iraq? Oh wait!
Not a fan of Iran (they are the exact opposite of what I want to see in about every aspect), but if there is a chance for a reasonable and peaceful resolution to the problem, I prefer that.
Currently, we have the higher moral ground, which is a good position to be in.

As to blame for Iraq... it is debatable. As much blame can be placed on the surge itself as on the pullout, but the pullout is later on the timeline, and so will probably take the lion's share of the blame.

It is pretty clear to anyone who is not a republican American...

3) The Saudi Kingdom may collapse - the Salafi terrorists have been how the Saudis have exported their hotheads for decades

the Saudis are another example of the bad choice of allies, the US has made over and over again.
They are among the worst in the region. I preferred Saddam over these idiots.

Skipjack wrote:

djolds1 wrote:Iran will go nuclear.

You mean like the nukes we found all over Iraq? Oh wait!
Not a fan of Iran (they are the exact opposite of what I want to see in about every aspect), but if there is a chance for a reasonable and peaceful resolution to the problem, I prefer that.

No. I mean like the nukes the Iranians are working on at Natanz and a dozen other major industrial facilities. You were pooh-poohing the North Korean nukes right up until the first one blew, weren't you?

Ukraine was the final nail in the coffin of nonproliferation. No state on Earth with an interest in survival will ever again give up its nukes or end a nuclear program.

Skipjack wrote:Currently, we have the higher moral ground, which is a good position to be in.

Be sure to tell all of these guys about the value of your moral high ground. Oh, except you can't. They're all dead. Warning, highly graphic.

If you think we can stay out of the malestoms gathering, you're being foolish. War has an interest in us.

Skipjack wrote:

3) The Saudi Kingdom may collapse - the Salafi terrorists have been how the Saudis have exported their hotheads for decades

the Saudis are another example of the bad choice of allies, the US has made over and over again.
They are among the worst in the region. I preferred Saddam over these idiots.

Our ally of choice in the region was Iran. Then the Peanut insisted that the Shah's repressive security services switch to nicey-nice. Result - the Mullah Regime in Tehran. But the Obamessiah is doing MUCH better - Islamist regimes across the ENTIRE Middle East. Rehabilitating the Peanut... that takes SKILZ.

djolds1 wrote:Ukraine was the final nail in the coffin of nonproliferation. No state on Earth with an interest in survival will ever again give up its nukes or end a nuclear program.

Ukraine is also the final nail in the anti-fracking movement. The USSR has just shut off their (and Europe's) nat gas supplies.

BTW I saw a fracking commercial on US TV yesterday.

The other point to consider in this debate is that the inaction on Syria, Lebanon, Palistianian Sillibuggers, and Egypt/Lybia only fuels the fire in Iraq.
The ISIS activity in Iraq is DIRECTLY tied to the inaction in Syria.

The idiocy of this administration is beyond comprehension. Even a bad decision would have been better than this path of 'none' Obama has taken.

"Uhhh-mmmm, these things take time..." - The Obama Presidential Legacy.

ladajo wrote:The other point to consider in this debate is that the inaction on Syria, Lebanon, Palistianian Sillibuggers, and Egypt/Lybia only fuels the fire in Iraq.
The ISIS activity in Iraq is DIRECTLY tied to the inaction in Syria.

The idiocy of this administration is beyond comprehension. Even a bad decision would have been better than this path of 'none' Obama has taken.

It'll take the Iranians and Iraqi Shiia another 1-3 weeks to rally. After that, the Sunni in Iraq and Syria get wiped out. The consequence is that the "Shiia Crescent" will be established.

I don't see the Saudis, Jordanians or Turks stepping in to save the local Sunni. And after the Crescent is a fact on the ground, that's that.

Supply lines from Tehran to Hezbollahstan should become much easier.

ladajo wrote:"Uhhh-mmmm, these things take time..." - The Obama Presidential Legacy.

He's the worst sort of introvert. How he ever learned to be a rockstar-caliber stage and camera performer is a mystery for the ages.

djolds1 wrote: No. I mean like the nukes the Iranians are working on at Natanz and a dozen other major industrial facilities. You were pooh-poohing the North Korean nukes right up until the first one blew, weren't you?

The nukes in NK all fizzled, if they really were nukes (could have just been a pit full of conventional explosives. Also, my position was that one nuclear bomb test does not make someone a nuclear power, but at best a nuclear target. NK just is not capable of maintaining a nuclear program, neither economically, nor technically. As for Iran, they have not tested anything yet and until then, we cant say for sure. The dinnerjacket guy is gone now and the new guys seem to be at least superficially more moderate. There is still a chance for a peaceful resolution to this.
From my perspective, every time the US stepped in somewhere, things only got worse.
Examples: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt... Every time we get involved, we just attract more hatred from groups there. Best to leave it alone and only react when directly attacked.

djolds1 wrote: Ukraine was the final nail in the coffin of nonproliferation. No state on Earth with an interest in survival will ever again give up its nukes or end a nuclear program.

Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I would prefer less people to have nuclear weapons.

djolds1 wrote: If you think we can stay out of the malestoms gathering, you're being foolish. War has an interest in us.

Best to stay out of it. There is NOTHING to win there.

Skipjack wrote:Our ally of choice in the region was Iran. Then the Peanut insisted that the Shah's repressive security services switch to nicey-nice. Result - the Mullah Regime in Tehran. But the Obamessiah is doing MUCH better - Islamist regimes across the ENTIRE Middle East. Rehabilitating the Peanut... that takes SKILZ.

The Shah was another example of where US interference in other peoples affairs made things much worse. Iran had an elected government and we replaced it with the Shah. The Shah was western oriented, yes, but he was not a particularly nice man and thus not particularly popular there. And that gave the mullahs an easy game. Its the same every time.

Skipjack wrote:

djolds1 wrote: If you think we can stay out of the malestoms gathering, you're being foolish. War has an interest in us.]

Best to stay out of it. There is NOTHING to win there.

Iraq turmoil evokes painful memories for veterans

Was eight years of sacrifice — in blood and treasure, in lives lost and lives shattered — worth the effort?

To veterans of Iraq, the answer, like the war itself, is complex. There is pride in a difficult mission, and in gains made in Iraq’s civil society. But the flight of the Iraqi Army and the bitter political fragmentation there have prompted reactions ranging from disappointment to disgust.

“I’m not surprised that this is happening. I think it was somewhat inevitable,” said Chris Lessard, a 36-year-old Newton firefighter who was a Marine machine-gunner in Iraq from 2004 to 2005. “But to see it’s been pretty much handed over, it’s disheartening.”

Lessard said he believed in the US mission while he was fighting in Iraq, based near Fallujah. But now, with the Iraqi Army in disarray and Sunni and Shi’ite unable to work together, Lessard does not want the United States to reenter a centuries-old conflict that massive amounts of American money and military force could not resolve.

“This is Iraq’s problem now,” Lessard said. “I don’t think we should even give them one round of ammunition. They need to govern.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/0 ... story.html

Skipjack,

You may recall that we were at war with the Soviets when the Shaw was put in. Mossedagah (sp?) was a lefty and thought to be going over to the Soviets.

Mistake to replace him with the Shah? Maybe. Mistake to replace the Shah? Certainly.

MSimon wrote:Skipjack,

You may recall that we were at war with the Soviets when the Shaw was put in. Mossedagah (sp?) was a lefty and thought to be going over to the Soviets.

And that maybe is the difference...if we hadn't installed our pet murderous dictator the perception was that the other superpower at the time the Soviet's would have installed theirs...the old domino theory that got us involved in Vietnam, Korea, etc. Maybe the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism is a comparable threat down the line maybe not; but if so we would need far greater long term commitment from at home (reinstate the draft maybe), and from our largely free-loading allies. A volunteer army of 400K is maybe enough to defend our shores not enough to credibly maintain these garrisons all over the world. Better to get out now.

williatw wrote:

MSimon wrote:Skipjack,

You may recall that we were at war with the Soviets when the Shaw was put in. Mossedagah (sp?) was a lefty and thought to be going over to the Soviets.

And that maybe is the difference...if we hadn't installed our pet murderous dictator ...

The Shah killed about 3600 people in 30 years. The Islamic Nutbags killed 10,000 the first year.


Beyond that, it is my personal opinion that the only functional form of government which can exist in an Islamic society is the "Murderous Dictator" form of government.


Had our "Pet Dictator" remained in power, there never would have been an Iran/Iraq war, and that too would have saved a million lives.

Invading Iraq was against the prime directive. Not only that but klatau verada nickto!

Diogenes wrote:The Shah killed about 3600 people in 30 years. The Islamic Nutbags killed 10,000 the first year.

Beyond that, it is my personal opinion that the only functional form of government which can exist in an Islamic society is the "Murderous Dictator" form of government.

Had our "Pet Dictator" remained in power, there never would have been an Iran/Iraq war, and that too would have saved a million lives.

The Shah of Iran was dying of cancer when your fav living ex-prez Carter yes bungled the whole thing badly...however double downing on a soon to be dead man probably wasn't a good long term strategy at that point. The pro-western secular Shah killing/torturing maybe low thousands is one thing to Islamic minds the Ayatollah Khomeini killing 100's of thousands during the Iran/Iraq war (with incompetence like I remember "human wave" attacks) is entirely different to them. Most of them would probably choose the later over the former, what we think about the "logic" of their arithmetic is beside the point.

Skipjack wrote:

As to blame for Iraq... it is debatable. As much blame can be placed on the surge itself as on the pullout, but the pullout is later on the timeline, and so will probably take the lion's share of the blame.

It is pretty clear to anyone who is not a republican American...

That's just uninformed ignorance. Take an hour and get an education: http://www.hulu.com/watch/419214

GIThruster wrote: That's just uninformed ignorance.

You are talking about Skipjack. Uninformed ignorance is all he has. He's a perfect fit in Kooky Austin Texas.

djolds1 wrote:As to blame for Iraq... it is debatable. As much blame can be placed on the surge itself as on the pullout, but the pullout is later on the timeline, and so will probably take the lion's share of the blame.

I Know the neo-cons prefer to think of the Iraq War as starting with the surge; but why don't we start with Oh I don't know maybe the start of the Iraq War. An inadequate sized force around 160K to conquer(liberate) Iraq and nation-build to a democracy, all with a force a fraction of the size used by Bush Senior (500K with foreign monetary aid to help pay for it) merely to push Sadamm out of Kuwait back into Iraq during the Gulf War a decade or so before. 500K basically to reset things to status quo vs 160K for fundamental change in the region (while we were fighting another war in Afghanistan at the same time). Deluding themselves (Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) that this far more ambitious mission could be accomplished faster and with less cost and effort than the Gulf War (they will greet us with rose petals). The Surge was after all a last ditch desperate ploy to try to save ourselves from what was rapidly looking like a humiliating defeat that looked eminent; hardly military genius at work.