PDA

View Full Version : US missile defence system in Europe



Rooster
08-22-2008, 03:20 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm

What are your thoughts? While the intention may be good, it created even more tension between US and Russia, and could lead to a new cold war.

edit: probably the cold war is exaggeration of the problem

F@ BANKZ
08-25-2008, 01:51 AM
Since Russia has taken the proposition lightly there is no cause for concern unless the situation escalates; it's not like we killed one of their spies on their own soil. Relationships between Russia and The West are still stable even during the Georgian crisis, and it's clear that Russia acknowledges there is need for better nuclear-defence for that area (if I remember correctly they were actually the ones who suggested that a defence system be put there in the first place).

Rooster
08-26-2008, 05:37 AM
Really? I heard they were pretty ape-shit at Poland right now for agreeing to it, even going as far as saying "we have nukes - bow down bitches" and such.

I heard on the news that they stated Poland will have to face the consequences and will be punished...

Superdope
08-26-2008, 06:55 AM
It's just words. It's not in Russia's interest to start another cold war, and the same goes for the States.

The missile defence system is a way for the Americans to tell the Russians to relax, and of course they had to respond to it, but I doubt it will go any further than that.

Besides, it's still in the planning phase, there's plenty of time to talk things over.

Rooster
08-26-2008, 07:24 AM
It's just words. It's not in Russia's interest to start another cold war, and the same goes for the States.

The missile defence system is a way for the Americans to tell the Russians to relax, and of course they had to respond to it, but I doubt it will go any further than that.

Besides, it's still in the planning ohase, there's plenty of time to talk things over.

You're probably right. I hope that they would find a solution that will suit everyone.

IamSam
08-26-2008, 09:10 AM
The Russians have no reason to be pissy. It's a missile defense system, not a missile assault system.

wheelchairman
08-26-2008, 05:40 PM
It can't lead to a new cold war. Russia's strength is oil. They can hold it from Europe for a period of time, but it's not like they have pipelines anywhere else. What are they gonna do? Not sell it?

There's not gonna be a cold war. Naturally Russia feels like this is an encroachment, but they were also offered to be part of the defense. However why would they need protection from missiles from their ally Iran? Which is supposedly what the whole thing is for.

F@ BANKZ
08-30-2008, 05:00 PM
Iran has evinced its capability to launch missiles with enough range to reach as far as where the defense system is scheduled to be located. By the time they hypothetically develop a nuclear weapon it would be too late to build a defence system to not be exposed to a nuclear threat.

wheelchairman
08-30-2008, 05:23 PM
Iran's missiles aren't a huge worry. In this case the MAD effect would still be...in effect. They are only building them to ensure that they won't be invaded. Which is why they are so frantic about it.

metalmania
09-03-2008, 02:44 PM
hm.american war ships in black sea now!:rolleyes: why? they say that " hey world we re there for help georgia's people" haha! if you bring to help there,why you re bringing this help with war ships .its a big lie. usa just wanna to become established there remember they say 5 years ago " hey world we found dangerous weapons in iraq so we will save people and we will bring the freedom there":rolleyes: but where re the weapons? and all world saw the reality :they came iraq for oil in kerkuk,musul. they say always "freedom,humanity blablabla" they just want the money-oil . its a simple explanation about usa-georgia-russia :D

IamSam
09-03-2008, 03:47 PM
hm.american war ships in black sea now!:rolleyes: why? they say that " hey world we re there for help georgia's people" haha! if you bring to help there,why you re bringing this help with war ships .its a big lie. usa just wanna to become established there remember they say 5 years ago " hey world we found dangerous weapons in iraq so we will save people and we will bring the freedom there":rolleyes: but where re the weapons? and all world saw the reality :they came iraq for oil in kerkuk,musul. they say always "freedom,humanity blablabla" they just want the money-oil . its a simple explanation about usa-georgia-russia :D

Ignorant fool.

metalmania
09-04-2008, 10:16 AM
oh my little uncle sam :D

Hombre
09-05-2008, 02:35 AM
hm.american war ships in black sea now!:rolleyes: why? they say that " hey world we re there for help georgia's people" haha! if you bring to help there,why you re bringing this help with war ships .its a big lie. usa just wanna to become established there remember they say 5 years ago " hey world we found dangerous weapons in iraq so we will save people and we will bring the freedom there":rolleyes: but where re the weapons? and all world saw the reality :they came iraq for oil in kerkuk,musul. they say always "freedom,humanity blablabla" they just want the money-oil . its a simple explanation about usa-georgia-russia :D
Good message!:cool:

IamSam
09-09-2008, 01:40 PM
It might be the American welling up inside me, but I don't think any of you understand how much I would like to drown some idiots around here as if they were puppies I didn't love.

Commie
09-13-2008, 01:24 PM
Honestly, I don't understand why does Poland allow this defense system to be build, 'cause if it is going to be build - than Poland would be the first country to get a nuclear strike.

And, by the way, there is not much talk about this system in Russia, among ordinary people:) All the news here are still about Georgia and about some other international events - not much (if any) about this defense system.

Poland has preconceived attitude towards Russia, due to... hmmm... to some historical reasons:) So may be this is the reason for the talks about Russian saying "we have nukes - bow down bitches"... at least nobody says like that in the streets and I haven't heard anybody saying that on TV.

Sunny
09-13-2008, 02:08 PM
Poland has preconceived attitude towards Russia, due to... hmmm... to some historical reasons:)

yeah, that's putting it lightly.

Rooster
09-13-2008, 02:19 PM
Poland has preconceived attitude towards Russia, due to... hmmm... to some historical reasons:)

Why did you put this happy smiley in this sentence? I don't think that Polish users would find this funny...

Jojan
09-19-2008, 07:43 AM
USA should just do the rest of the world a favour and die. USA is too big and has too much influence on everything.

KHWHD
09-19-2008, 07:50 AM
USA should just do the rest of the world a favour and die.

That's a bit harsh don't you think?

metalmania
09-19-2008, 03:31 PM
hm usa is livin' the one of biggest crisis of history.i think usa tried to reach to allworld and their economy couldnt carry this.oil wars,weapons and different places,faraway countris and now usa's economy's so bad,the government is tryin' to fix it,this crisis can come to england too.cause this is an effective factor for europe.russia's exchange is even so bad now and their government's searchin' the ways of salvation from this.anyway bad policies,bad governments re still working;)

IamSam
09-19-2008, 03:45 PM
hm usa is livin' the one of biggest crisis of history.i think usa tried to reach to allworld and their economy couldnt carry this.oil wars,weapons and different places,faraway countris and now usa's economy's so bad,the government is tryin' to fix it,this crisis can come to england too.cause this is an effective factor for europe.russia's exchange is even so bad now and their government's searchin' the ways of salvation from this.anyway bad policies,bad governments re still working;)

I hope that you realize that this effects the entire world, not just America.

PS: Stick to what the thread is about, you kneecap. This is about the missile defense system that Russia believes threatens its national security. Defense. Defense threatening a country. Laughable at best.

jacknife737
09-19-2008, 03:54 PM
hm usa is livin' the one of biggest crisis of history.i think usa tried to reach to allworld and their economy couldnt carry this.oil wars,weapons and different places,faraway countris and now usa's economy's so bad,the government is tryin' to fix it,this crisis can come to england too.cause this is an effective factor for europe.russia's exchange is even so bad now and their government's searchin' the ways of salvation from this.anyway bad policies,bad governments re still working;)

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g178/jacknife737/CaptainHyperbole-1.jpg 10 characters

metalmania
09-19-2008, 04:37 PM
yes sure its not just for usa ,i know but i said just reasons of this crisis,its valid for all countries. just mistake policies did it! and what do u think about it?

IamSam
09-19-2008, 04:44 PM
yes sure its not just for usa ,i know but i said just reasons of this crisis,its valid for all countries. just mistake policies did it! and what do u think about it?

Make a thread about it and I will talk about it.

HeadAroundU
11-22-2008, 05:46 AM
There's another problem. NATO is reaching Russian border. I think that Russia has a right to be pissed off. I was watching the disscusion with Zakaria on CNN, they were talking about splitting Ukraine, don't remember exactly how. I should probably look for it on youtube.

As for US missile defence system, I love the fact how it's placed in Poland and Czech Republic. They both H8 Russia for the past. The reason why they want it is probably because of the boost in local economy and acquiring the new technology.

EU totally fails here. It should be a decision of the entire EU. Not just Poland and Czech Republic. Either that or EU needs a president. I suggest Sarkozy. I love how he is against US defence system. We look like a fucking clowns. If there is a threat from Iran, we should build our own defence system. EU should be independent and the balance for the world peace. Let's break away from NATO. If there is a need for a defence system, and we can't build it, let USA and Russia build 2 defensive systems here.

lexs
11-23-2008, 10:49 AM
... This is about the missile defense system that Russia believes threatens its national security. Defense. Defense threatening a country. Laughable at best.
Today u call it defensive. Tomorrow u ll admit it offensive. Most powerfull country like US is the last one i have to trust.

P.S. what had u done with your sig?! Sig you removed was very suitable for u.

IamSam
11-23-2008, 05:55 PM
A surface to air missile is a defensive weapon. Sure, it can fire first, but you would need the aircraft to be close.

It's pure common sense. Plus, for it to be offensive it needs to be fired at an airplane. Does Russia even have an air force anymore?

That was just kidding.

Jesus
11-24-2008, 02:23 PM
Missile defense systems are regarded as first strike weapons though, since they limit the possibility of retaliation. Hence they are part of an offensive strategy.

Add to this the countries that are chosen (as HeadAroundU explained) and that the argument for defense against Iran is quite laughable. It isn't surprising that I'm opposed to the missile defense system.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists had a good article (http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/c520186p76821x57/) on missile defense deployment:

U.S. (and British) nuclear planners responded to the Soviet deployment of a limited missile defense system with enormous firepower. The large number of nuclear weapons that were assigned to overwhelm the Soviet ABM system and the substantial technical efforts the U.S. undertook to defeat it provide chilling examples of the attention missile defense systems attract from hostile nuclear planners. It is a history that fundamentally contradicts the portrayal of missile defenses as non-offensive,threatening no one. Ballistic missile defense systems threaten secured retaliation,and for smaller powers, deterrence itself.
Missile defense systems also indirectly threaten populations. The Soviet ABM system was intended to protect Moscow against nuclear attacks, but rather than shielding the capital from nuclear peril, the system in fact had the opposite effect of attracting nuclear warheads. Many other facilities would have been targeted in addition to the ABM system,including political and military leadership targets. “We must have targeted Moscow with 400 weapons,” a former Stratcom commander has stated.

What is the relevance of this today? One could argue that all of this occurred during the Cold War,that U.S.–Soviet/Russian strategic competition is over, and that smaller nuclear powers do not have enough nuclear weapons to overwhelm missile defense systems. That may or may not be so. But at the superpower level, the action-reaction momentum seems to continue.

The United States apparently still targets the Moscow ABM system,and Russia appears to have begun adjusting its own forces to a future U.S. missile defense. The Bush administration’s claim that its system will not be of concern to Russia maybe true in a hypothetical Russian first-strike scenario with hundreds of missiles. But Russian planners are likely to be much more concerned with the effect on their surviving retaliatory capability after a hypothetical U.S. first strike has reduced the number of operational missiles. This will almost certainly drive new modernization efforts, newfound U.S.-Russian partnership or not.

IamSam
11-24-2008, 03:26 PM
All Russia has to do is stay in its own airspace and not bomb places it doesn't belong. By 'first strike weapon' it's implied that there has to be a reason to fire the missile. If a Russian warplane is not where it is supposed to be and isn't responding to radio communications what would you assume its intentions are?


I can't believe Russia is being defended. It's not like they actually care about Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia....

lexs
11-24-2008, 11:52 PM
All Russia has to do is stay in its own airspace and not bomb places it doesn't belong. By 'first strike weapon' it's implied that there has to be a reason to fire the missile. If a Russian warplane is not where it is supposed to be and isn't responding to radio communications what would you assume its intentions are?


I can't believe Russia is being defended. It's not like they actually care about Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia....
Sam, don't say where Russia has to stay until US will learn where its own territory ends. Following your point Russia had pretty right idea to put missiles on Cuba but it clearly was wrong to admit it was nuclear :)
And as for warplanes... I read nothing about russian warplanes not responding to radio (that's clearly shit) but everyone read about american ones. And not only planes (do ya remember 60th?) but even 'bout warships!!! (Crimea, late 80th). That shit happens all times around; so if we are looking for things making world more stable and peaceful we'd rather put "defensive" missiles around US bases as close as it can be (Missile-air-naval I dont care). It's following your point of view, dude.

Personally, I dont think there is any other reason to build "a-missiles" then providing funds for hitech military bosses. But their interests stay for war by definition whatever they say. What is your personal gain supporting them?

IamSam
11-25-2008, 07:33 AM
I'm done talking to you Russian individuals. Your point of view is so diluted as to what you believe based off of the information you have been fed that it is pointless for me to even mention anything to the contrary. Talking to you about this is as helpful as me talking to a wall.

lexs
11-25-2008, 01:24 PM
I'm done talking to you Russian individuals. Your point of view is so diluted as to what you believe based off of the information you have been fed that it is pointless for me to even mention anything to the contrary. Talking to you about this is as helpful as me talking to a wall.
Having nothing to say u goes to ignore, u wait a bit then fuck the same, on and on! So simple algorithm I even could t say if ur so stupid or so righteous being a duty man. But if you stay for last one dont forget: duty is not always a pleasure.

IamSam
11-25-2008, 02:59 PM
Having nothing to say u goes to ignore, u wait a bit then fuck the same, on and on! So simple algorithm I even could t say if ur so stupid or so righteous being a duty man. But if you stay for last one dont forget: duty is not always a pleasure.

Fuck you. I'm done with you because you're just a worker bee; blind to what is going on, taking in what you want, and apathetic to others point of view. That is why I'm done talking to you about anything related with your own country.

Jesus
11-25-2008, 03:45 PM
All Russia has to do is stay in its own airspace and not bomb places it doesn't belong. By 'first strike weapon' it's implied that there has to be a reason to fire the missile. If a Russian warplane is not where it is supposed to be and isn't responding to radio communications what would you assume its intentions are?
I'll repeat, missile defense systems are part of an offensive strategy since they limit the possibility of retaliation. And sure there has to be a reason to launch an attack against Russia (in which the missile defense complex would be used to limit retaliation). But we're talking about a country which gets framed as a corrupt human rights violating dictatorship which invades other countries and on top of that it sits on a shitload of oil and gas. Enough reasons right there. You're under the assumption that it would only be used 'purely defensively', and that it couldn't be used in an offensive strategy. Since we're talking about a US missile defense complex and not a Swiss one, it seems obvious to me that we can't neglect this offensive part. And therefor Russia's opposition is quite justified. The US would (and basically has) react the same way (and rightly so) if it were the other way around.

Llamas
11-29-2008, 09:02 PM
EU totally fails here. It should be a decision of the entire EU. Not just Poland and Czech Republic. Either that or EU needs a president. I suggest Sarkozy. I love how he is against US defence system. We look like a fucking clowns. If there is a threat from Iran, we should build our own defence system. EU should be independent and the balance for the world peace. Let's break away from NATO. If there is a need for a defence system, and we can't build it, let USA and Russia build 2 defensive systems here.

I so agree. We all know how much I totally <3 Europe, but it's time the EU stops trying to be all passive and neutral, and stands up for itself... rather than letting the US do it for them. Especially with a less aggressive president in office here, the EU is going to probably have to become less passive if they don't want to see themselves in some trouble.

wheelchairman
11-29-2008, 09:18 PM
I'm not entirely sure why people believe Obama will have a passive foreign policy.

And also the EU really doesn't have a common military, not to mention Russia is much closer as a trade ally, and well potential enemy than it is to the US (yes I know, it can be seen from Alaska).

It would be uncertain how much it would be in the best interests of the EU to act so belligerently towards Russia.

Smash_Returns
11-29-2008, 09:48 PM
I think the world needs to quit letting the US resolve shit for them and deal with it themselves. I mean, I can understand if we try to help prevent some nutjob like Kim Jung Il from getting nukes, but this really falls under the category of "Europe's problem".

If you want to defend your land, do it, rather than making someone else do it for you.

And for the ignorant anti-americans -
You do realize how much worse shit would be if the US wasn't here. Now I'm not saying Bush was a great man, because he had shitloads of failed policies, and we should have focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden, rather than this pointless Iraq war.

However, if the US were to break up, the world would be in deep shit.

Hell, just a freakin' recession here in the states has had horrid consequences on the global economy.

If you'd quit watching the freakin' TV that shows anti-american, plastic america, you'd realize that what you are saying is blatantly ignorant. How about we just nuke western civilization as we know it? Save Europe the decade or so of struggling before falling to the might of Iran and North Koreas ICBMs.

IamSam
11-29-2008, 09:54 PM
I think everyone needs to fuck off and find out who will be controlling said missile defense sites. If it is American soldiers, then it is of course another imperialistic notch in America's bedpost. If they are manned by Europeans then it means that it's all on them and their wants/needs/desires to protect themselves from outside influences that scare them. Which means, either they are really scared of a country other than Russia spreading havoc with nuclear missiles, or they are afraid of Russia and its sudden wants/needs/desires to try and be the other big boy on the block. Again.

wheelchairman
11-29-2008, 09:59 PM
I think the world needs to quit letting the US resolve shit for them and deal with it themselves. I mean, I can understand if we try to help prevent some nutjob like Kim Jung Il from getting nukes, but this really falls under the category of "Europe's problem".

If you want to defend your land, do it, rather than making someone else do it for you.

And for the ignorant anti-americans -
You do realize how much worse shit would be if the US wasn't here. Now I'm not saying Bush was a great man, because he had shitloads of failed policies, and we should have focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden, rather than this pointless Iraq war.

However, if the US were to break up, the world would be in deep shit.

Hell, just a freakin' recession here in the states has had horrid consequences on the global economy.

If you'd quit watching the freakin' TV that shows anti-american, plastic america, you'd realize that what you are saying is blatantly ignorant. How about we just nuke western civilization as we know it? Save Europe the decade or so of struggling before falling to the might of Iran and North Koreas ICBMs.
you don't think it's in American interests to protect Western Europe?

America isn't playing world police, international relations is far more complicated than that.

IamSam
11-29-2008, 10:03 PM
America isn't playing world police, international relations is far more complicated than that.

This. This by 1000 times.

Smash_Returns
11-29-2008, 10:08 PM
you don't think it's in American interests to protect Western Europe?

America isn't playing world police, international relations is far more complicated than that.

I know it's in America's interests to protect Europe.

We'd be fucked if we didn't.

Be should we foot the bill for everything? Our own protection and theirs, while they have overly passive policies?

If Europe is unwilling to protect themselves, we definately should protect them. No matter the cost. I just think Europe should take a more active role in it's own place in the world.

IamSam
11-29-2008, 10:15 PM
I know it's in America's interests to protect Europe.

We'd be fucked if we didn't.

Be should we foot the bill for everything? Our own protection and theirs, while they have overly passive policies?


How would we be fucked? Like a Great Depression type fucked or this kind of fucked:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a199/don_veto/mad_max/madmax.jpg

jacknife737
11-29-2008, 10:48 PM
So, i'm having a bit of a personal crisis. I've always considered myself a liberal internationalist (and still do), however, the more i think about Iraq, i have very little objections to it on an idealogical basis; perhaps i'm becoming a neo-conservative..... i mean even Christopher Hitchen's jumped ship....

Anyways; on a semi-related note, historian Robert Kagan has claimed that the US and Europe have been drifting apart as of late, and that the reason that Europe and the US have such different views on defense expenditure and legitimacy of military force is due to the power imbalance between the two, Europe simply does not have the power projection capabilities that the US has, thus tries to rely more on multilateralism and diplomacy to achieve its goals. I'm not sure that i entirely buy his thesis, but when one examines the way the two sides deal with Russia, there is a noticeable difference.

To be honest, i haven't studied missile defense in Europe to have a solid opinion on the matter. One has to wonder if pissing off Russia is worth the strategic gains the US would achieve with the installation of the missile shield. However, given Mr. Putin's holiday in Georgia earlier this year, i'd say, that to a degree, American concerns are justified.

I will say, that the Canadian opposition to joining the North American missile defense treaty is completely irrational and just stupid. The US is going to do what it wants; and all we achieved was to piss off our closest ally and trading partner.

P.S. I lol'd at the pic, IamSam.

lexs
12-04-2008, 12:53 AM
I think the world needs to quit letting the US resolve shit for them and deal with it themselves. I mean, I can understand if we try to help prevent some nutjob like Kim Jung Il from getting nukes, but this really falls under the category of "Europe's problem".

If you want to defend your land, do it, rather than making someone else do it for you.

And for the ignorant anti-americans -
You do realize how much worse shit would be if the US wasn't here. Now I'm not saying Bush was a great man, because he had shitloads of failed policies, and we should have focused on capturing Osama Bin Laden, rather than this pointless Iraq war.

However, if the US were to break up, the world would be in deep shit.

Hell, just a freakin' recession here in the states has had horrid consequences on the global economy.

If you'd quit watching the freakin' TV that shows anti-american, plastic america, you'd realize that what you are saying is blatantly ignorant. How about we just nuke western civilization as we know it? Save Europe the decade or so of struggling before falling to the might of Iran and North Koreas ICBMs.
Sorry I dont understand what are you talking with but what hypothetical shit are you talking about? And about that american and all-world recession that is just a consequence of stupid dollar printing without proper production backup? I cant say what line the Russia would draw if it would be seating in place of US (hypothetically). But until now I see no reason to blame any other gov instead of US 'cause it is trying to teach others instead of dealing with its own shit. I see no anti-americans here.

After all... If America scared about Iran then let it deals with Iran in either way; no need to fuck the others brains. Now it looks that some clerk is secretary of state wrote IraQ instead of IraN and shit happens (democratic mistake in cost of about 1 million lives is ok?). If Europe is so scared of Russia then it is in need of either kind of shield let the EU build one; but there s no need of paranoids help. And now looks EU is still not sure about this 'couse it s finally stupid to build gaz pipes and missiles defences at ones.

Jesus
09-17-2009, 04:56 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8260230.stm

So the whole thing is canceled, good to see a bit saner people back in office in the US. Also it's nice to see a couple countries not being rewarding for supporting the Iraq war and putting blinders on in regard to torture/renditions while pissing off pretty much everyone else.

Not that this actually comes as a surprise (at least for the people who understood this had shit to do with Iran to begin with) considering Obama's focus is on Afghanistan and so it's best not to annoy the rest of NATO, the EU and Russia (and also Iran to be honest) while at the same time rewarding countries for a war Obama himself didn't support! Seems like people in Israel got the message too, since Barak just said that Iran doesn't constitute an existential threat against Israel.

NGNM85
09-17-2009, 11:03 PM
So, i'm having a bit of a personal crisis. I've always considered myself a liberal internationalist (and still do), however, the more i think about Iraq, i have very little objections to it on an idealogical basis

What basis is that? The Bush administration had a rotating cycle of excuses and distortions for the war in Iraq. The first involved WMD, which is a really stupid phrase, and some sort of threat to the United States. Well, Iraq was a secular regime that generally had an atagonistic relationship with the various jihadists groups. This was pretty common knowledge.

We also know that they had been monitored by international inspectors, and experts like Hans Blix and ex-marine Scott Ritter. Many Bush administration officials and their associates were members of an extreme-right pac called "Project For a New American Century" in the 90's, this think tank published a lot of material, really extreme stuff, expressing a desire to exert massive military force globally, especially in the middle east, and explicitly, to invade Iraq. We also now know that the administration, in Wolfowitz's words, "fixed the intelligence" around the policy. We now nknow of dissenters inside the intelligence community like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson who spoke out against this or thought it was basically insane. This was confirmed after our forces moved throughout the country and found nothing of consequence, just like the inspectors said we would.

Then, we come to the "humanitarian" justification, which might be even more bogus. Oh, I agree Saddam was awful, but the idea that anybody pushing for this war cared about Iraqi civilians is laughable. First of all, many of the Bush cabinet members were old Nixon/Reagan people. Wolfowitz had been deeply involved in the military and political support for the CIA-backed Suharto regime even as they invaded and annexed East Timor and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, not to mention similar instances in Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. These people were the biggest supporters of those policies. The Reagan administration was extremely supportive of Saddam Hussein, removing Iraq from an official list of rogue states to facilitate arms sales without congressional interference. Perhaps you've seen this footage of Rumsfeld and Saddam hanging out? I love it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPb-3zkh0c
Then Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, and then Bush Sr. took action. Not because of the Kuwaiti people, but because Saddam had proven to be a bad puppet, he defied orders. Killing innocent people was perfectly alright. Then came the first gulf war and the sanctions. There was a great article, I can find it if you'd like, in the center-right establishment journal Internal Affairs which pointed out that the trade sanctions against Iraq caused more death than all WMD ever used up to that time. Iraq had been on the brink of being a first world country, after the Gulf War and the sanctions it collapsed.

The conduct of the war is also very telling. The administration did everything it could to prevent the Iraqi elections, there were massive riots, and then they had to capitulate and acted like it was their idea. Obviously, the feelings of the Iraqi people are insignificant.

That takes us to the last reason, we have to be there, because we are there. Because we've fucked up that country so badly we have to stay. This is the most compelling reason. However, our continued presence has less to do with keeping peace or saving lives, and more to do with making sure that if anything like a stable society comes out of this that it will be politically and economically supportive of the west, particularly the US. I'd say we probably have an obligation, a moral obligation, to maintain some kind of peacekeeing effort and some kind of support for the effort to rebuild. There are reliable polls that suggest the majority of Iraqis want us gone, a slightly smaller number say life was better under Saddam, however, Washington clearly doesn't care.

Jesus
09-18-2009, 01:43 AM
hmm, wait, did you just reply to a 10 month old comment with a tl;dr reply.... well okay

jacknife737
09-18-2009, 10:10 AM
Don't take this the wrong way, because i do appreciate the effort you put into your posts. I just don't care enough right now to discuss this topic.

AllIn All It's Not So Bad
09-18-2009, 02:51 PM
tl;dr

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/page/tldr-41233.jpg

NGNM85
09-18-2009, 03:06 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, because i do appreciate the effort you put into your posts. I just don't care enough right now to discuss this topic.

The effort was very minimal, I didn't even have to look anything up, or consult any sources. however, if you're going to make public pronouncements like that, you should expect, and be prepared for a response. You either contest an idea, successfully or unsuccessfully, or you concede, theres' no third option.

jacknife737
09-18-2009, 04:57 PM
I made that post 10 months ago; if you somehow manage to procure a time machine, i'm almost certain that my past self would love to chat about Iraq with you.

dexter12296566
09-18-2009, 07:20 PM
I made that post 10 months ago; if you somehow manage to procure a time machine, i'm almost certain that my past self would love to chat about Iraq with you.

No one will ever make a time machine because not only would it change the future but it defies everything that has happened in the past. In order to have a time machine you would need one at the beginning of time, unless of course the future you has come to visit you several times and then you grow up and visit the past you.

wheelchairman
09-19-2009, 07:22 AM
The effort was very minimal, I didn't even have to look anything up, or consult any sources. however, if you're going to make public pronouncements like that, you should expect, and be prepared for a response. You either contest an idea, successfully or unsuccessfully, or you concede, theres' no third option.

There are no options at all, this is a message board. It's bizarre that you even think this is like a win/lose type of thing.

Al Coholic
09-19-2009, 09:58 PM
I don't know man I usually win. Don't take that away from me.

IamSam
09-20-2009, 08:37 PM
NGNM85, this is why nobody likes you.

PedroACastro
09-21-2009, 04:08 PM
No one will ever make a time machine because not only would it change the future but it defies everything that has happened in the past. In order to have a time machine you would need one at the beginning of time, unless of course the future you has come to visit you several times and then you grow up and visit the past you.

you just need a delorean and plutonium and your good to go!

chicapowerpunk
09-21-2009, 04:18 PM
edit: probably the cold war is exaggeration of the problem

LOL... i donīt believe in this......this is a real problem, so real that Russia was involved with opposition.....itīs a problem of global security!!!:eek::confused: