Reinstitute the Draft now...

[conjur]

The rhetoric of the leadership of Iran doesn't match with the general trend in the youth toward wanting peace and democracy. I think it's Ahmadinejad playing a Middle Eastern version of Chavez. As for your questions, most of them (but the first) point to the US, too.

As for oil, sure it's important to world stability. So, why make things worse by threatening to attack or even invade Iran? Do you seriously want to pay $6-7/gallon of gas?

And, btw, oil isn't the most important natural resource. That would be water. We can survive without oil. Try going without water, though. And, another btw, guess who's been working on buying up water rights around the world (esp. making moves involving the US military in South America)? That's right, your fellow PNAC fvcks.

 

[Uhtrinity]

~Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored. ~

No doubt their current leader is sick, but I believe relations with Iran would be warmer if we weren't camped in their back yard with a finger on the trigger. Bush himself said we are not the worlds police and we are not nation builders :roll:

Now, are you gonna answer my previous question, what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

They do not care, they pity Africa.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

They do not care, they pity Africa.

You could say no one cares about the Middle East, they just hate it.

I mean in the past few decades, most of the worlds bombs have fallen in that region of the world.

I'd take 'not caring' and 'pity' over bombs anyday.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

ok, i dont think anyone is demented enough to ignore the atrocities in Africa, or callous enough to feel no remorse for their struggles. But ultimately leaders need to make difficult decisions, and the sad truth of the matter is that we cannot help everyone; so we must prioritize.

That is the case with the war on terror. While the struggles and atrocities in Africa make every sensible person want to reach out and help, we simply cannot afford to help everyone. So therefore, yes, those with power must make the difficult decision to help where it has more of an impact on geopolitical stability. A stable Greater Middle East will benefit the world moreso than a stable Sudan, in terms of economic and physical security. That is just the hard reality of it.

Here's an idea: how about all of those countries who refuse to help in the ME reach out and help those in Africa instead? How about those who are unwilling to aid us send their troops and money to Africa instead, since it is so much more of a "righteous cause?" How about asking China to get off of their 1,000,000,000 collective arses to help out Africa?

America needs to look out for its own interests moreso than anyone else. I know that it seems like a cold way to think, but it's true nonetheless.

We cannot help EVERYONE, so we must prioritize. Those in power must do so given the bigger picture.

The thing that bothers me most is that those that oppose our troops dying in the ME would have no problem with those troops dying in Africa. It's as if one just cause is worth it, while the other is not. Dont you recognize that the need to focus upon OUR OWN country's future trumps the need to help others? Isn't it ok to be somewhat selfish in terms of who you help? Shouldnt we be looking out for our own best interests?

So yes, unfortunately, the African mess has less of an impact on our own economic and physical security, so therefore we must focus elsewhere. Sad perhaps, but nonetheless true.

 

[Rainsford]

Unlike some people here, I believe that the OP really did serve (or is serving) in the armed forces...because I know a lot of military folks, and I've met some like him. I'm not going to dodge the draft question (no pun intended), but first I think it's important that I differentiate what I see as the two types of military folks. The first, and most common actually in my experience, is the people who think serving is a great way to help their country and who see it as a unique way to gain some interesting experiences and insight. Then there are the folks, like the OP, who view service as the one and only path to The Truth. Their experiences and service make them better than everyone else, only they have access to the truth, and the rest of us, no matter what we might do, can't join their insight club. It's not that military service is a way to find out something about yourself and the world around you, it's that military service is the ONLY way to find those things.

I'm not just knocking the OP, this actually has a lot to do with what he suggested about the draft. There are many reasons you might want the draft back, but the one that seems to be the focus of this thread is that it's the only way for us lazy, stupid civilians to see "the way things really are"...and it seems quite popular with that second type of military people. In fact, that's the whole premise of the book Starship Troopers (not at ALL like the movie). Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote the book, used to be of the same school of thought as palehorse74...going so far as to suggest only people who have served in the military should be allowed to vote. Later in life, he rejected this school of thinking, for the same reason reinstituting the draft for the reasons palehorse74 suggests is a bad idea.

Serving in the military does indeed give you a perspective, but like all perspectives, it doesn't show you everything. The most common argument in favor of the military perspective is something palehorse74 mentioned several times, seeing the good things your actions do...the people you help. Which is good, but being a set of those boots on the ground robs you of some of the larger perspective. After all, any war isn't black and white, and it's easy to get caught up in rebuilding schools and hunting down terrorists and totally miss the bad things that are going on. In fact, that seems to be a large part of the pro-war arguments of those who serve, the problems in Iraq are dismissed with uplifting stories of rebuilding schools. Great stuff, obviously, but those stories tell us very little about the larger picture. A war must look a lot different up close than it does from back home, and I'm not so sure the up-close view is the more accurate one.

In other words, the flaw with the idea of using the draft to force everyone to see things from the military perspective is that the military perspective is very persuasive, but it's not complete. It offers an interesting view of the world, but it does seem rather unbalanced. I don't trust the viewpoint offered by a group that leans so far to the right...or to the left for that matter, I would have the same problem with forcing everyone in the US to obtain a PhD in a politics or history.

 

[Uhtrinity]

So yes, unfortunately, the African mess has less of an impact on our own economic and physical security, so therefore we must focus elsewhere. Sad perhaps, but nonetheless true.



And again you sidestep the question. What did Iraq have to do with the war on terror, our economic, and physical security?

First it was a rush claiming Saddam was connected with 911 - Debunked
Then it was WMDs - No Wmds - debunked
Then it was Free the Iraqi people - That was so succesful we had to stage welcoming parties and are still fighting 2 years later and Iraq is ever closer to full out civil war.
Then it was, 'We fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here."

Your views on Iraq are based on so many lies I cannot ever take them seriously. At most I could accept an argument that we f@cked up and broke it, we should at least try to fix it, but with this adminstration I don't even see that happening. Hell, they won't even admit to having made a mistake and still don't have a solid plan for stabilizing Iraq.

If you want to truly fight the war on terror get your @ss back to Afganistan and get Bin Laden.

/rant off

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, i dont think anyone is demented enough to ignore the atrocities in Africa, or callous enough to feel no remorse for their struggles. But ultimately leaders need to make difficult decisions, and the sad truth of the matter is that we cannot help everyone; so we must prioritize.

Then our government's priorities are severely out of whack. Whatever happened to the "culture of life"? Oh wait, that's not for brown- or black-skinned people. That's just for the unborn or white women (esp. if they were blond and abducted).

That is the case with the war on terror. While the struggles and atrocities in Africa make every sensible person want to reach out and help, we simply cannot afford to help everyone. So therefore, yes, those with power must make the difficult decision to help where it has more of an impact on geopolitical stability. A stable Greater Middle East will benefit the world moreso than a stable Sudan, in terms of economic and physical security. That is just the hard reality of it.

Saddam was contained and Iran wasn't making threats about nuclear weapons until the US invaded its neighbors. Wouldn't stopping the massive loss of life in Africa and helping build those countries and establishing successful economies be more beneficial to the world than destabilizing the oil markets?

Here's an idea: how about all of those countries who refuse to help in the ME reach out and help those in Africa instead? How about those who are unwilling to aid us send their troops and money to Africa instead, since it is so much more of a "righteous cause?" How about asking China to get off of their 1,000,000,000 collective arses to help out Africa?

China has its own human rights problems and you want them to help out in human rights situations? How about having the Middle East work on their problems while we sit back and advise a little but stay the fvck out, esp. militarily?

America needs to look out for its own interests moreso than anyone else. I know that it seems like a cold way to think, but it's true nonetheless.

Too bad this administration is sh*tting on its own interests (Americans) unless they're rich and donate to GOP candidates.

We cannot help EVERYONE, so we must prioritize. Those in power must do so given the bigger picture.

The thing that bothers me most is that those that oppose our troops dying in the ME would have no problem with those troops dying in Africa. It's as if one just cause is worth it, while the other is not. Dont you recognize that the need to focus upon OUR OWN country's future trumps the need to help others? Isn't it ok to be somewhat selfish in terms of who you help? Shouldnt we be looking out for our own best interests?

So yes, unfortunately, the African mess has less of an impact on our own economic and physical security, so therefore we must focus elsewhere. Sad perhaps, but nonetheless true.

Troops dying in Africa? How? It's a humanitarian intervention for chrissakes! If some did die (from accidents or what not) it's at least a very commendable action: helping people. Not bombing the crap out of them.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I want more people to see all of the good that we are doing over there so that they come back and spread the truth.

2100+ have spread the truth loudly enough for the thinking Americans. Kthxbye

more than 2500 died on the first day of D-day.

Save your deathtoll comparisons for someone who buys your BS.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unlike some people here, I believe that the OP really did serve (or is serving) in the armed forces...because I know a lot of military folks, and I've met some like him. I'm not going to dodge the draft question (no pun intended), but first I think it's important that I differentiate what I see as the two types of military folks. The first, and most common actually in my experience, is the people who think serving is a great way to help their country and who see it as a unique way to gain some interesting experiences and insight. Then there are the folks, like the OP, who view service as the one and only path to The Truth. Their experiences and service make them better than everyone else, only they have access to the truth, and the rest of us, no matter what we might do, can't join their insight club. It's not that military service is a way to find out something about yourself and the world around you, it's that military service is the ONLY way to find those things.

I'm not just knocking the OP, this actually has a lot to do with what he suggested about the draft. There are many reasons you might want the draft back, but the one that seems to be the focus of this thread is that it's the only way for us lazy, stupid civilians to see "the way things really are"...and it seems quite popular with that second type of military people. In fact, that's the whole premise of the book Starship Troopers (not at ALL like the movie). Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote the book, used to be of the same school of thought as palehorse74...going so far as to suggest only people who have served in the military should be allowed to vote. Later in life, he rejected this school of thinking, for the same reason reinstituting the draft for the reasons palehorse74 suggests is a bad idea.

Serving in the military does indeed give you a perspective, but like all perspectives, it doesn't show you everything. The most common argument in favor of the military perspective is something palehorse74 mentioned several times, seeing the good things your actions do...the people you help. Which is good, but being a set of those boots on the ground robs you of some of the larger perspective. After all, any war isn't black and white, and it's easy to get caught up in rebuilding schools and hunting down terrorists and totally miss the bad things that are going on. In fact, that seems to be a large part of the pro-war arguments of those who serve, the problems in Iraq are dismissed with uplifting stories of rebuilding schools. Great stuff, obviously, but those stories tell us very little about the larger picture. A war must look a lot different up close than it does from back home, and I'm not so sure the up-close view is the more accurate one.

In other words, the flaw with the idea of using the draft to force everyone to see things from the military perspective is that the military perspective is very persuasive, but it's not complete. It offers an interesting view of the world, but it does seem rather unbalanced. I don't trust the viewpoint offered by a group that leans so far to the right...or to the left for that matter, I would have the same problem with forcing everyone in the US to obtain a PhD in a politics or history.

well said, and i respect the element of mature discussion you have brought to the table. Thankyou for that.

That said, I simply believe that military service would add one more frame of reference for those seeking the truth of the matter. I do not believe that they should stop there in their search for answers, but I DO believe that without that tool in their arsenal, they are in fact at a disadvantage in putting all of the pieces together.

So, I dont believe that military service is the ONLY way to see the bigger picture, but I do believe that is one of them. That is the main reason why I continue to study the subject as a civilian. I am trying to come at the subject from every angle, and since I began that quest, I have seen enough from every angle to justify my feelings on, and participation in, the GWOT.

Trust me when I say that I do not have some sort of "jarhead warmonger attitude." In fact, I can't really stand that attitude. If that is how I have come off around here, then I have screwed up in my delivery.

Bottom line: my military experiences added to my understanding of the bigger picture, but were not the only frames of reference.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Going into Africa would be to much like what we did in the Balkans, and the Repubs have shown how much they dislike that sort of thing.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Unlike some people here, I believe that the OP really did serve (or is serving) in the armed forces...because I know a lot of military folks, and I've met some like him. I'm not going to dodge the draft question (no pun intended), but first I think it's important that I differentiate what I see as the two types of military folks. The first, and most common actually in my experience, is the people who think serving is a great way to help their country and who see it as a unique way to gain some interesting experiences and insight. Then there are the folks, like the OP, who view service as the one and only path to The Truth. Their experiences and service make them better than everyone else, only they have access to the truth, and the rest of us, no matter what we might do, can't join their insight club. It's not that military service is a way to find out something about yourself and the world around you, it's that military service is the ONLY way to find those things.

I'm not just knocking the OP, this actually has a lot to do with what he suggested about the draft. There are many reasons you might want the draft back, but the one that seems to be the focus of this thread is that it's the only way for us lazy, stupid civilians to see "the way things really are"...and it seems quite popular with that second type of military people. In fact, that's the whole premise of the book Starship Troopers (not at ALL like the movie). Robert A. Heinlein, who wrote the book, used to be of the same school of thought as palehorse74...going so far as to suggest only people who have served in the military should be allowed to vote. Later in life, he rejected this school of thinking, for the same reason reinstituting the draft for the reasons palehorse74 suggests is a bad idea.

Serving in the military does indeed give you a perspective, but like all perspectives, it doesn't show you everything. The most common argument in favor of the military perspective is something palehorse74 mentioned several times, seeing the good things your actions do...the people you help. Which is good, but being a set of those boots on the ground robs you of some of the larger perspective. After all, any war isn't black and white, and it's easy to get caught up in rebuilding schools and hunting down terrorists and totally miss the bad things that are going on. In fact, that seems to be a large part of the pro-war arguments of those who serve, the problems in Iraq are dismissed with uplifting stories of rebuilding schools. Great stuff, obviously, but those stories tell us very little about the larger picture. A war must look a lot different up close than it does from back home, and I'm not so sure the up-close view is the more accurate one.

In other words, the flaw with the idea of using the draft to force everyone to see things from the military perspective is that the military perspective is very persuasive, but it's not complete. It offers an interesting view of the world, but it does seem rather unbalanced. I don't trust the viewpoint offered by a group that leans so far to the right...or to the left for that matter, I would have the same problem with forcing everyone in the US to obtain a PhD in a politics or history.

well said, and i respect the element of mature discussion you have brought to the table. Thankyou for that.

That said, I simply believe that military service would add one more frame of reference for those seeking the truth of the matter. I do not believe that they should stop there in their search for answers, but I DO believe that without that tool in their arsenal, they are in fact at a disadvantage in putting all of the pieces together.

So, I dont believe that military service is the ONLY way to see the bigger picture, but I do believe that is one of them. That is the main reason why I continue to study the subject as a civilian. I am trying to come at the subject from every angle, and since I began that quest, I have seen enough from every angle to justify my feelings on, and participation in, the GWOT.

Trust me when I say that I do not have some sort of "jarhead warmonger attitude." In fact, I can't really stand that attitude. If that is how I have come off around here, then I have screwed up in my delivery.

Bottom line: my military experiences added to my understanding of the bigger picture, but were not the only frames of reference.

Its not that you screwed up your delivery, its that you didn't anticipate your audience.

Not everyone respects people who have actually walked the walk and they like to be armchair quarterbacks. Personally when I have discussions with people about Iraq, I tend to give those with actual experience on the ground more respect. Not everyone tends to do that. Some people here, and it just so happens to be many of the Middle Eastern members, automatically disrespect you as soon as you come in to an argument. I can see how that is really annoying because they live in your country and yet have no respect for you.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

They do not care, they pity Africa.

You could say no one cares about the Middle East, they just hate it.

I mean in the past few decades, most of the worlds bombs have fallen in that region of the world.

I'd take 'not caring' and 'pity' over bombs anyday.

They care, the oil is there, so gas is there, people care about the ME.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

They do not care, they pity Africa.

You could say no one cares about the Middle East, they just hate it.

I mean in the past few decades, most of the worlds bombs have fallen in that region of the world.

I'd take 'not caring' and 'pity' over bombs anyday.

They care, the oil is there, so gas is there, people care about the ME.

People care about the resources. No one gives a rats ass about the people or their conditions.

Most of the aid in Africa is for humanitarian reasons.

 

[Uhtrinity]

"Its not that you screwed up your delivery, its that you didn't anticipate your audience. "

I sort of agree, but that isn't all. Most have been debating this stuff for years, and someone comes in with a day one mentallity expecting everyone to adhere to it. Second, there are people in this forum who have served in various branches of service (including myself - 5 years active Army) who don't neccesarilly agree with the op. He seems to have the view that simply by serving that we will see the light (his light), that just isn't the case. I have stated a few times that a friend of mine just returned from Iraq after 18 months, he believes we are wasting our time based on what he saw. Now I believe his view was based on the area he was stationed as no soldier has any idea of the big picture, just your little theatre. The military doesn't work that way.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Then our government's priorities are severely out of whack. Whatever happened to the "culture of life"? Oh wait, that's not for brown- or black-skinned people. That's just for the unborn or white women (esp. if they were blond and abducted).

I dont believe skincolor plays much of a roll, if any. After all, the people we are helping throughout the ME are not white. So therefore what's your point?

Saddam was contained and Iran wasn't making threats about nuclear weapons until the US invaded its neighbors.

you're dreaming about both of those mistatements. You just weren't listening, and perhaps know nothing about Saddam and Iran's rolls in the terror campaigns throughout the ME. Both funded suicide bombings in Israel. You may also wish to read up on Iran's direct founding and running of the Hezbullah militia which was responsible for more terrorist acts around the world than I could count. Their current President was a fine upstanding member of that proud group of murderers.

Wouldn't stopping the massive loss of life in Africa and helping build those countries and establishing successful economies be more beneficial to the world than destabilizing the oil markets?

sadly, no, it wouldnt.

China has its own human rights problems and you want them to help out in human rights situations? How about having the Middle East work on their problems while we sit back and advise a little but stay the fvck out, esp. militarily?

If we let them work it out themselves, then it will be worse than before we started. The ones with the guns are NOT the kind of people you want running their government. Can you imagine yet ANOTHER fundamental nation in ME holding hands with Iran as they nuke Israel off the map?! We cant let that happen, hence our continuing aid in the region in combatting insurgents. Our only hope in the region is to build democracies made up of non-fundamental persons (non-fanatics). If we cut and run anytime soon, then the insurgents will take over and make Saddam Hussein look like Mr. Rogers.

Too bad this administration is sh*tting on its own interests (Americans) unless they're rich and donate to GOP candidates.

I'm not rich by any stretch, nor have I ever contributed to any party; and I don't feel "sh*t on" one bit. I am quite happy in fact, and believe that I owe alot to the government that has kept me safe, and provided me with all of the opportunities I have had, or will have.

Troops dying in Africa? How? It's a humanitarian intervention for chrissakes! If some did die (from accidents or what not) it's at least a very commendable action: helping people. Not bombing the crap out of them.

so those who are massacring their own people would not take a page out of the insurgent books and plant bombs, etc? you're dreaming. Do you think we could just go in there and say "Please put down your guns and machetes so that we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya?" HA! again, you're dreaming. Troops would most certainly die there as well.

I don't think you really understand how things work. I believe that you believe that it really IS possible not to consider money into all of the decisions we need to make. Perhaps in some Utopian dream you've had, money does not play any role.

But in reality, money and econmic growth/stability are THE most important global variables to consider. Sad? yes. but true nonetheless.

Money = power = stability = security.

 

[imported_alp]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

I think it's Arab Muslims against black Muslims... a racial rather than religious thing

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: alp

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: conjur
Iran is a "sick part"? Why? Because the US doesn't agree with their leadership?

What about the millions dying in Africa? Shouldn't that be of more concern? Guess not since there's no oil there and no way for American companies to reap profits from raping the natural resources of conquered countries in the name of "spreading democracy"

How many Africans are lobbying for the complete and total destruction of the Jewish people? How many of them have overtly threatened nuclear destruction of another country (Israel)? How many of them are currently building nuclear facilities capable of refining uranium into weapons-grade material? How many of them give the finger to all of Europe and America while housing and supporting some the world's most-wanted terrorists? How many of them sponsor terrorism outside of their own countries, and do so overtly? (Hezbullah)...?

Are you seriously doubting the sickness that is Iran's leadership? seriously?

And how can you ignore the direct impact oil has on the stability of the global economy? While it's never a "pretty" coorelation to make, it's ultimately true and therefore cannot be ignored, no matter how unpopular such a material dependance is.

How many stories do we hear about genocide in Sudan, white farmers in South Africa, wide rape and murder of different tribes.... oh wait..you are suppose to ignore these to further your cause. If you are at least going to make a point, try to do so without looking like a fool by ignoring another point. Yes, Iran, Iraq have a sick leadership, as many countries do, and your first paragraph is mute, no one cares about Africa, they do not have the money to do what you pointed out.

People do care about Africa, they get the most foreign aid of any region in the world.

African peacekeepers are no currently in Sudan.

The thing is Sudan is also an Arab country and its the Arab Muslims that are killing the black Christians.

I think it's Arab Muslims against black Muslims... a racial rather than religious thing

Read up a bit more bro.

 

[arsbanned]

Heh. This is rich. The U.S. used to consider the Jews to be inferior. Ever heard of Eugenics? Now all of a sudden someone ELSE is inferior. From one fear to another. Stop being afraid and start questioning the government.

Those ignorant of history are bound to repeat its mistakes

Also:
You're passionate about the "War on Terror" and yet you support attacking and occupying a country which had nothing, it has been proven, to do with any terror attacks on the U.S.

I'd go for drafting the children of the politicians who support this "war", along with the big mouthed supporters who talk big but aren't there.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
You're passionate about the "War on Terror" and yet you support attacking and occupying a country which had nothing, it has been proven, to do with any terror attacks on the U.S.

Not on US soil perhaps, but you have very little understanding about Saddam's actual role in the terrorist underworld... Most of which is still classified, but someday you will understand.

If you'd like, I could link you to some books that you probably wont find on moveon.org... books by insiders, agents, etc, that will paint the real picture for you in terms of Saddam's direct role in that underworld... send me a PM. all i ask is your willingness to be openminded for once as you read the other side of the issue from those who have been there.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
My intent with this thread was to state my frsutrations with the general ignorance my countrymen have toward the reality of the ME. The truth is that we are doing so much good over there, but the media will never say so. Their liberal agenda prevents that truth from eaching the average citizen.

Put up or shut up. Surely, there are sources for this OVERWHELMING "good?" Oh, wait, the "libural medjia" refuses to cover it, right? RIGHT? I listen to/watch the "most" liberal news sources and cant believe how right leaning they really are.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: palehorse74
My intent with this thread was to state my frsutrations with the general ignorance my countrymen have toward the reality of the ME. The truth is that we are doing so much good over there, but the media will never say so. Their liberal agenda prevents that truth from eaching the average citizen.

Put up or shut up. Surely, there are sources for this OVERWHELMING "good?" Oh, wait, the "libural medjia" refuses to cover it, right? RIGHT? I listen to/watch the "most" liberal news sources and cant believe how right leaning they really are.

Exactly what I was talking about in my above post.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: arsbanned
You're passionate about the "War on Terror" and yet you support attacking and occupying a country which had nothing, it has been proven, to do with any terror attacks on the U.S.

Not on US soil perhaps, but you have very little understanding about Saddam's actual role in the terrorist underworld... Most of which is still classified, but someday you will understand.

If you'd like, I could link you to some books that you probably wont find on moveon.org... books by insiders, agents, etc, that will paint the real picture for you in terms of Saddam's direct role in that underworld... send me a PM. all i ask is your willingness to be openminded for once as you read the other side of the issue from those who have been there.

No offense, but how is a grunt is supposed to be privy to this info? I'm sure for every piece of right wing literature you provide they can be countered by the left, proves nothing. If it was so concrete why didn't our government publish it in the 911 report? God knows they would love to have solid evidence. Link your sources.