Forums | MacLife

If we let that area of the world fall under the thumb of regimes similar to that of Iran and Syria we will be losing a great deal of natural resources. The US economy is on the virge of collapse. We can't afford for that area of the world to go to hell.

I think one of the saddist things about this war is that our interest in it is a result of our lack of effeciency in our energy programs in the US and our lack of development of nuclear power, public transportation, and alternative fuel sources for vehicles.

For instance, France recieves about 80 percent of its power from nuclear power plants. As a result, it is not as reliant on the OPEC teet. The US is about 20 percent nuclear. That is crazy. The US uses 25 to 30 percent of the worlds natural gas. Its completely idiotic that this country doesn't develop its energy infrastructure better.

To put it simply, if the US was 40 to 60 percent nuclear and had better public transportation (monorails etc), and alternative fuels for vehicles were taken more seriously, this situation in the middle east would not be our problem. Until they attack the US for being infidels it wouldn't involve us. And when one of those countries did that we could then afford to wipe them out without having to worry about what would happen to all the oil. (Hey if you don't want the horns, don't f**k with the bull).

This country is run by special interests and corporations that are very short sighted. They use fear of terrorism as a means of manipulating the ignorant population toward their own goals, and its just not working out well for them or for the country in the long run.

America need to return to true democracy, and away from an oligarchy posing as one.

Last edited by Majestic_Lizard (2006-10-23 5:51 pm)

JakeTheTall wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Well personally I'm convinced that any nation has the ability to function as a thriving democracy. So many countries with no democratic tradition have taken to it in a huge way -- think of Taiwan and South Korea, those countries are thousands of years old, have strongly Confucian cultures and were never, ever democratic until the past ten or twenty years.

You forgot Poland!!

Dammit, I'm always doing that! I don't know what's wrong with me.

"Bring 'em on!"

:: craps pants ::

You're president. You want to win/leave Iraq. What do you do?

Build bases, man the bases, then make sure congress keeps those bases funded. The last part will be the tricky bit.  That's 'winning' and I think it is do-able as long as obscene levels of indebtedness can be stretched.

I believe that strategy will be the reality confronting the next administration in 2008. That could become very politically uncomfortable should that administration be democrat and stridently anti-war. But it's hardly a given that the Democrats will be as anti war/occupation/bases-in-Iraq etc, as their electioneering might imply.

What's not do-able is for the Bush regime or any subsequent administration to attempt live up to the ridiculous rhetoric and propaganda that was used to launch the war in the first place. That's not nor never was a true standard against which victory might be judged. It's politically useful and legitimate to bash the war hawks over their idiotic claims about Iraq, but when it comes to policy, real world considerations need to be considered; what does a few hundred billion dollars and counting (plus interest) in mid east investment get you, and are you willing to abandon that investment?

That's not to say bases is a good idea, but rather that as a strategy it's do-able.

Last edited by Ribtorus (2006-10-24 10:09 am)

User!

Iraq has no choice but to cooperate. They can't afford a failed state any more than America. They can barter oil for domestic security.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribsy! You back in the land of the big PX or what?

Nice to have you around, even if you're wrong around 95% of the time.

I'm almost always right. I just work about a year or two in advance of the mob. You just need to play catch-up with my brilliance.

I'm back briefly, then off to Moscow for some rides in some jet fighters that
I earned doing a job in civvy street, then back to the front.

Good to see you Ribs

Would the Iranians honor a basing agreement or would we have to bring in the Sauds as middle-men?

(who are the Saudis more aligned with, anyway? Sunni or Shiite?)

Well, the Persians did have an advanced civilization while the Arabs were still running around in the desert humping camels, right?

oatmeal wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Ribsy! You back in the land of the big PX or what?

Nice to have you around, even if you're wrong around 95% of the time.

I'm almost always right. I just work about a year or two in advance of the mob. You just need to play catch-up with my brilliance.

I'm back briefly, then off to Moscow for some rides in some jet fighters that
I earned doing a job in civvy street, then back to the front.

You work for the mob?http://homepage.mac.com/oatmeal/MAF/maxes/walleye.gif

It was a printing job for a Russian gas company.



...so, yeah, in a way...probably.

We should use the secular government of Turkey as a model for Iraq. Turkey is somewhat of a modern democracy and largely Muslim.  As far as I know it is one of the only stable Muslim democracies. We should look very closely at both Turkey's constitution and the personalities that enabled that constitution to work.

If Iraq can have that form of government and a healthy military force with US garrisons there to provide intelligence and guidance we should be able to phase about 75 percent of our forces from the region in the next three to five years without the country collapsing.

STAY THE COURSE

AND RESURRECT THE THREADS