GreekChat.com Forums  

Go Back   GreekChat.com Forums > General Chat Topics > News & Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

» GC Stats
Members: 332,033
Threads: 115,729
Posts: 2,208,094
Welcome to our newest member, znthantexaxdoz1
» Online Users: 2,758
1 members and 2,757 guests
ComradesTrue
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-30-2009, 04:35 AM
Zephyrus Zephyrus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron View Post
I don't disagree that leaving Iraq would be a disaster. Bush finally got it later on his administration, which is why you saw a lot of the neo-cons being swept out of power, with Wolfowitz being moved into the World Bank and Rumsfeld being replazed by Gates.

Listen, Hussein was a thug and he played chicken with Bush. He didn't factor in the psyched of the American mind after 9/11. If he played a long with Bush and open up, he would still be in power, right now or his son would've replaced him. Instead, he played chicken and lost.

Before 9/11, neo-con always had the plan to invade Iraq and try out this domino theory of spreading democracy in the middle east. The whole thing was written, look for it. However, back then they didn't have a reason to invade Iraq. Sanction was working and Saddam's army wasn't moving. Did you know that there was a deal between the regular armed forces and the Bush admin that when Saddam fell, the regular army would stay still and become the guard.

Remmember, Saddam himself didn't trust the regular armed forces, that is why he created the Republican Guard. However, when Bremmer came into power as the viceroy of Iraq, he didn't keep his word and instead broke a part the Iraqi military. Guess what happen, you have thousands of jobless, highly trained individuals with guns. They're all pissed that the promises wasn't kept. They became the insurgent. Not the same insurgents from Al-Qaeda though. Just pissed off, highly trained military folks.
I don't disagree with any of this. The only part I'm not familiar with was Saddam playing chicken with Bush. I can see that now. Kruschev tried that shit with Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis. I still feel Bush did the right thing. After 911, he said there will be a war on terror. I think to most people that it sounds like an intangible thing, and it is to a degree, but eventually people will see the progress. It just takes time. I know this sounds sick as fuck but I honestly think we need to take out a lot of the leaders in the Middle East one by one. Iran is another potential problem, and why is Saudi Arabia our friends? Those guys who hijacked those planes were all Saudis. No one in that region, with the exception of Israel, likes the United States, so why should we give a shit about them? Dude, I don't think he could have played along with Bush. I think Bush was ready to take him out long before 911.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-30-2009, 04:50 AM
moe.ron moe.ron is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,027
Send a message via AIM to moe.ron
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zephyrus View Post
I don't disagree with any of this. The only part I'm not familiar with was Saddam playing chicken with Bush. I can see that now. Kruschev tried that shit with Kennedy during the Cuban Missle Crisis. I still feel Bush did the right thing. After 911, he said there will be a war on terror. I think to most people that it sounds like an intangible thing, and it is to a degree, but eventually people will see the progress. It just takes time. I know this sounds sick as fuck but I honestly think we need to take out a lot of the leaders in the Middle East one by one. Iran is another potential problem, and why is Saudi Arabia our friends? Those guys who hijacked those planes were all Saudis. No one in that region, with the exception of Israel, likes the United States, so why should we give a shit about them? Dude, I don't think he could have played along with Bush. I think Bush was ready to take him out long before 911.
You see, to me the War on Terror was just propoganda, you can't defeat an method that been used by everybody, including the US government. Beside, the real threat had nothing to do with Iraq, it was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where the real danger lays. Bush was right in the beginning by going out and try to take out Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, he fumbled when he redirected the war toward Iraq.

By the way, not all the hijackers were Saudis, they were also Egyptians. Why should you give a shit about the area? Too many interest by the elite like Halliburton and the like in that area. Plus, lots of the US government debt are also own by them.

Bush always wanted to finish his daddy's mission. Before 9/11 he could've never pulled it of. He even said that nation building is not his forte. The neo-con were always looking for any reason. They got it in 9/11. Too bad they didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and it's getting worst there.
__________________
Spambot Killer
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-30-2009, 04:58 AM
Zephyrus Zephyrus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron View Post
You see, to me the War on Terror was just propoganda, you can't defeat an method that been used by everybody, including the US government. Beside, the real threat had nothing to do with Iraq, it was in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where the real danger lays. Bush was right in the beginning by going out and try to take out Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, he fumbled when he redirected the war toward Iraq.

By the way, not all the hijackers were Saudis, they were also Egyptians. Why should you give a shit about the area? Too many interest by the elite like Halliburton and the like in that area. Plus, lots of the US government debt are also own by them.

Bush always wanted to finish his daddy's mission. Before 9/11 he could've never pulled it of. He even said that nation building is not his forte. The neo-con were always looking for any reason. They got it in 9/11. Too bad they didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and it's getting worst there.
Yeah, I forgot about the Egyptians. The bottom line is most of that whole region hates the US. that's why I don't feel we should give a shit about them. The debt? Dude, we're the biggest consumers in the world. If we stop spending, the rest of the world is fucked, including those Mid Eastern assholes. I think Bush spread himself too thin when he redirected the war on terror to Iraq. It should have been done one country at a time. Yes, the danger was in Afganistan and Pakistan, but Iraq was still a threat. Iran is also a threat. They should be next on the list.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-30-2009, 05:12 AM
moe.ron moe.ron is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Southeast Asia
Posts: 9,027
Send a message via AIM to moe.ron
Trust me, you don't want to go against Iran. It will wreck havoc in the world's economy. Plus, who do you think gave inteligence against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, it was the Iranian. Iran will not be doing anything stupid. The media might make them out to be brainless nation hell bent on war, they're far from it. All their actions are calculated against the threat they perceived the US have against them. Yes, they fear the US too.

Why are they going for the nuke? Simple, it's their ticket to not getting invaded. They saw what happen to North Korea and figured that they better get the bomb so there will be no war on their shore.

Nobody can afford to invade the whole region and its pure stupidity to even think about it. Iraq was a stupid move, big time stupid move. Now the payment is paid in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have re-taken over part of the country again. We can also blamed that on the corrupt Afghan government, but thta is another thread all together.

As for the debt, I think your mistake government debt with consumer debt. The two different concept. You see the deficit spendings, wars need to be finance somehow. The US government sell bonds to finance it. Guess who busy em, investors and foreign governments. Who own the biggest US debt, your friendly Chinese government. (Sarcasm in case you didn't notice) Middle Eastern governments also own many of those bonds.
__________________
Spambot Killer
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-03-2009, 04:09 AM
Zephyrus Zephyrus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron View Post
Trust me, you don't want to go against Iran. It will wreck havoc in the world's economy. Plus, who do you think gave inteligence against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, it was the Iranian. Iran will not be doing anything stupid. The media might make them out to be brainless nation hell bent on war, they're far from it. All their actions are calculated against the threat they perceived the US have against them. Yes, they fear the US too.

Why are they going for the nuke? Simple, it's their ticket to not getting invaded. They saw what happen to North Korea and figured that they better get the bomb so there will be no war on their shore.

Nobody can afford to invade the whole region and its pure stupidity to even think about it. Iraq was a stupid move, big time stupid move. Now the payment is paid in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have re-taken over part of the country again. We can also blamed that on the corrupt Afghan government, but thta is another thread all together.

As for the debt, I think your mistake government debt with consumer debt. The two different concept. You see the deficit spendings, wars need to be finance somehow. The US government sell bonds to finance it. Guess who busy em, investors and foreign governments. Who own the biggest US debt, your friendly Chinese government. (Sarcasm in case you didn't notice) Middle Eastern governments also own many of those bonds.
Thanks for clearing that up. It all makes sense, but we can't win a war on terror unless we invade the root of the problem, and it's coming from that region.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Iraq war. AXEAM News & Politics 52 04-21-2006 02:05 PM
Lord Goldsmith's Papers on Iraq - Trouble for Blair over the legality of the Iraq War RACooper News & Politics 12 06-19-2005 09:58 PM
greetings from iraq SPC_LZ Theta Nu Xi 0 02-13-2004 05:40 PM
War on Iraq? Maybe not... Betarulz! Cool Sites 1 02-16-2003 03:33 PM
war on Iraq? hendrixski News & Politics 48 01-09-2003 11:21 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.