|
Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
:wtf: Talk about oxymorons. That's like a rapist professing to be a feminist or something. |
for national security. Here's my idea of national security. Self-reliance. Get the hell out of the middle east, and stay out of their business unless we're discussing trade with them or the ISrael/Palestine conflict. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Get the hell out of the middle east, and stay out of their business unless we're discussing trade with them or the ISrael/Palestine conflict. |
well thats pretty vague. in fact your whole conceptions about why we've been in the Middle East, i bet, is just as vague if not completely mal-informed.
if we've ever been in the Middle East it's because of those two ideas you just described: Israel and trade.
aside from those two vagaries:
Iranian hostage crisis and the subsequent murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon on a UN sanctioned peacekeeping mission.
Afghanistan to defend against Russian imperialism.
the liberation of Kuwait.
the BIG one, American imperalist Army on the Saudi Peninsula which enraged Bin Laden in the first place.
if anyone has any other issues they'd like to add because i'm sure you have more but i bet they'll fall in the Israel catagory.
let's forget the fact that ALL Arab countries enjoy the relationship they have had with the U.S. for decades despite the small normal issues that every country has with us and every other country they deal with.
Iran is not Arab.
excuse me if i beg you to be more specific. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
well thats pretty vague. in fact your whole conceptions about why we've been in the Middle East, i bet, is just as vague if not completely mal-informed.
if we've ever been in the Middle East it's because of those two ideas you just described: Israel and trade.
aside from those two vagaries:
Iranian hostage crisis and the subsequent murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon on a UN sanctioned peacekeeping mission.
Afghanistan to defend against Russian imperialism.
the liberation of Kuwait.
the BIG one, American imperalist Army on the Saudi Peninsula which enraged Bin Laden in the first place.
if anyone has any other issues they'd like to add because i'm sure you have more but i bet they'll fall in the Israel catagory.
let's forget the fact that ALL Arab countries enjoy the relationship they have had with the U.S. for decades despite the small normal issues that every country has with us and every other country they deal with.
Iran is not Arab.
excuse me if i beg you to be more specific. |
We're in the Middle East basically because Zbigniew Brzezinski thinks that's what's necessary to win this imperialistic, geopolitical game of chess.
He may have even wrote about it in his book, THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: AMERICAN PRIMACY AND ITS GEOSTRATEGIC IMPERATIVES :eek: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
well thats pretty vague. in fact your whole conceptions about why we've been in the Middle East, i bet, is just as vague if not completely mal-informed.
if we've ever been in the Middle East it's because of those two ideas you just described: Israel and trade.
aside from those two vagaries:
Iranian hostage crisis and the subsequent murder of 240 Marines in Lebanon on a UN sanctioned peacekeeping mission.
Afghanistan to defend against Russian imperialism.
the liberation of Kuwait.
the BIG one, American imperalist Army on the Saudi Peninsula which enraged Bin Laden in the first place.
if anyone has any other issues they'd like to add because i'm sure you have more but i bet they'll fall in the Israel catagory.
let's forget the fact that ALL Arab countries enjoy the relationship they have had with the U.S. for decades despite the small normal issues that every country has with us and every other country they deal with.
Iran is not Arab.
excuse me if i beg you to be more specific. |
I was saying we need to be more self-reliant when it comes to national security. For example, we need to reform the way we use energy if first we want to prevent climate change caused by humans, and second so we have no incentive to launch operations in the middle east with the inherent goal of maintaining our energy supply. If North Korea, which has made it known they have a nuclear weapon has the same amount of oil as the the middle east does, don't you think the emphasis would be there? Why havn't we attack North Korea which has demonstrated a nuclear weapon DEFINATIVELY, but you support a stupid war in Iraq, which had no such weapons nor was a threat to the US.
We were in Afghanistan not to support the Afghans, but to counter the USSR. The Muslim anger manifested in their move towards radicalism is a direct result of Western meddling. What I'm saying is, we need to stop meddling.
Nothing has done more to help radical Islam than the invasion of Iraq. You don't see that? |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
well thats pretty vague. in fact your whole conceptions about why we've been in the Middle East, i bet, is just as vague if not completely mal-informed.
|
Weapons of mass destruction, duh. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Weapons of mass destruction, duh. |
I find it interesting how liars keep forgeting their old lies lol. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Weapons of mass destruction, duh. |
what about them? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
what about them? |
He was making it clear to you, that you calling me mis-informed is totally ironic, when you support a war based on again, lies which djshibby pointed out.
Lie #1: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Qecho, it's ok to be pissed off at the government, especially when they are doing stupid . It's getting pissed off that changes the situation for the better. You know, we know that the currect administration are all tards who dragged our country into a hole. Case closed. The war on terror? Al-Qaida? But nooooo, we go to Iraq... |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
[Congressional Record: August 2, 2007 (House)]
[Page H9548]
AMERICA NEEDS A PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Most Americans would agree that it would be prudent to have a plan to provide for the continuity of government and the rule of law in case of a devastating terrorist attack or natural disaster, a plan to provide for the cooperation, the coordination and continued functioning of all three branches of the government.
The Bush administration tells us they have such a plan. They have introduced a little sketchy public version that is clearly inadequate and doesn't really tell us what they have in mind, but they said, don't worry; there's a detailed classified version. But now they've denied the entire Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives access to their so-called detailed plan to provide for continuity of government. They say, trust us. Trust us, the people who brought us Katrina, to be competent in the face of a disaster? Trust us, the people who brought us warrantless wiretapping and other excesses eroding our civil liberties? Trust us?
Maybe the plan just really doesn't exist and that's why they won't show it to us. I don't know. Or maybe there's something there that's outrageous. The American people need their elected representatives to review this plan for the continuity of government.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2007/cog.html |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I was saying we need to be more self-reliant when it comes to national security. For example, we need to reform the way we use energy if first we want to prevent climate change caused by humans, and second so we have no incentive to launch operations in the middle east with the inherent goal of maintaining our energy supply. |
i would completely agree with you if you had suggested we find our own oil supply domestically or in this hemisphere exculusively but until you come up with a better way for me to get to work without the use of petroleum, again, you'll have to be more concise if you wish to cure the ills we have alledgedly brought upon ourselves in our dealing with the Middle East.
| quote: | | If North Korea, which has made it known they have a nuclear weapon has the same amount of oil as the the middle east does, don't you think the emphasis would be there? |
two words: CHI-NA nothing happens in their sphere of influence without their say-so. i would rather have them on our side than not. wouldn't you?
the emphasis has been there. where the hell have you been? we've been negotiating with Kim Jung Il for a decade. guess what? whatever we've been doing has had an affect. why can't we fight for what we, as Amercans, believe in the ways we see fit for them to be dealt with. we don't have to go in with a hammer to NK and we didn't. good call, i say.
Iraq and NK were two different animals. Iran is another. Neo-Cons know this.
| quote: | | Why havn't we attack North Korea which has demonstrated a nuclear weapon DEFINATIVELY, but you support a stupid war in Iraq, which had no such weapons nor was a threat to the US. |
because we believe Iraq is the lynchpin to which the whole idea of Islamic fascism could come apart at.
| quote: | | We were in Afghanistan not to support the Afghans, but to counter the USSR. The Muslim anger manifested in their move towards radicalism is a direct result of Western meddling. What I'm saying is, we need to stop meddling. |
Afghanistan was not the "call" to radical Muslims to fight Americans. aside from our ongoing social influence throughout the Middle East not compatible to their interpretation of Islam, it was our military presence on the Saudi peninsula and our military presence in general during Kuwait that was the irritation.
| quote: | | Nothing has done more to help radical Islam than the invasion of Iraq. You don't see that? |
and i believe nothing will do more to subdue radical Islam than our advancement of Iraq. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
He was making it clear to you, that you calling me mis-informed is totally ironic, when you support a war based on again, lies which djshibby pointed out.
Lie #1: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Qecho, it's ok to be pissed off at the government, especially when they are doing stupid . It's getting pissed off that changes the situation for the better. You know, we know that the currect administration are all tards who dragged our country into a hole. Case closed. The war on terror? Al-Qaida? But nooooo, we go to Iraq... |
who lied to you? or should i say who do you think lied to you?
you don't think Madelene Albright lied to you in '98?
or Al Gore in '99?
or any countless number of other people when Bush was the Governor of Texas? |
|
|
|
|
