A Republican chatty cathy doll. Pull the string for talking points. My only regret is chasing the rabbit down the "expound on goodies" hole.

Obama, Clinton, McCain, Graham and all the rest of the neocons were 100% involved with supporting the Arab Spring and overthrowing Mubarak as well as Gadaffi and the current Assad effort and handing those countries over to the terrorists in the name of "spreading democracy". We need a complete overhaul of our foreign policy and respect others' sovereignty unless they are a direct threat to the USA and our own sovereignty.

See what Owl did up there.

IMATY, I agree with you on more issues that I agree with Mach, by a long shot. But trust me, on this one he's right.

You will never.... ever..... get someone to look at a viewpoint opposite of your own. You don't have the capabilities. I challenge you to formulate and think outside your (narrow narrow) viewpoint and get someone out of your spectrum to say. Hey he's on to something here. Niner's viewpoint has originality. Take yourself and creep outside of an area where you are challenged. I'm challenged on here daily. But I like it because it keeps me sharp. I also enjoy conversation that challenges my viewpoint. You on the other hand are cradled. You post in like numbers. 90% of the people agree with you on here. Now that's about 22% of America but it's still a SOLID 22%. The day that you get someone who is your ideological opposite to see your point. Well.... that will be your first day. There is a lesson to be learned there.

(04-26-2013 08:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 07:54 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 07:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Arab Spring is analogous to a forest fire. The lightning strike or the kid with matches was the Iraq invasion.

Uh, no.
Positive rep me or I'll sell you to gypsies.

IMATY, I agree with you on more issues that I agree with Mach, by a long shot. But trust me, on this one he's right. And this is coming from someone who has been heavily involved in the Mideast since 1970.

Obama's not right, no way I'll give him that. And Mach and I probably disagree about how much culpability Obama has in all this. But the process was put in motion by our efforts to bring "democracy" to Iraq. Bottom line, neither Bush nor Obama, nor anyone in either administration, seems to have even the slightest clue how to deal with the Mideast.

Ok, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong but please explain how a war almost ten years ago led to the Arab spring that started largely due to younger Arabs who were barely teenagers when that war began in a different country. Didn't the Arab spring begin in Egypt? I just don't see how that connects to Iraq.

(04-26-2013 08:44 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  See what Owl did up there.

IMATY, I agree with you on more issues that I agree with Mach, by a long shot. But trust me, on this one he's right.

You will never.... ever..... get someone to look at a viewpoint opposite of your own. You don't have the capabilities. I challenge you to formulate and think outside your (narrow narrow) viewpoint and get someone out of your spectrum to say. Hey he's on to something here. Niner's viewpoint has originality. Take yourself and creep outside of an area where you are challenged. I'm challenged on here daily. But I like it because it keeps me sharp. I also enjoy conversation that challenges my viewpoint. You on the other hand are cradled. You post in like numbers. 90% of the people agree with you on here. Now that's about 22% of America but it's still a SOLID 22%. The day that you get someone who is your ideological opposite to see your point. Well.... that will be your first day. There is a lesson to be learned there.

Who are you taking to and what are you talking about? Rambling....

I believe ..... now this is "Only" an opinion..............

That when people are institutionalized under an authortarian dictatorship they have to overthrow that themselves. The lessons they learn in the struggle will help them govern. It will help them respect the right of the minority. That power can't be given. It has to be learned. When the oppressed are given power they return the harsh lessons they have learned and they will not respect the minority once they have power.

All of that sounds confusing but in the end remember these words.

You can't import democracy. You just can't.

(04-26-2013 08:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A Republican chatty cathy doll. Pull the string for talking points. My only regret is chasing the rabbit down the "expound on goodies" hole.

Please quote the republican talking points I used.

Wait, you're not into backing up your claims. That would take intelligence and effort. Two things you are very deficient in. It would also have to be true. Which it isn't. But why let something as trivial as the truth stand in your way eh Mach?

It would be rather easy to respond to your posts going forward where a talking point is parroted from Drudge, Red State, or The Corner. You are a walking bulletin board, but to be truthful, I don't enjoy your boorish behavior. I find you rude and narrow minded but I will choose to honor this last request.

The whole sensitivity to the oil angle in Iraq that you find in conservative reading circles. It's definitely a Conservative talking point. How "dare" people even think we embarked on our noble adventure for treasure or Imperial designs? How dare they.


My answer to this would be:

because we failed in setting up Amaco or BP because we didn't plan the reconstruction effort properly isn't proof. It just goes to show you how badly the reconstruction effort was planned.


I answered your question.

Now answer mine. Do you believe we go on our misadventure in Iraq if Saddam wasn't sitting on a pile of oil? Simple question. Yes or No will suffice, or you can extrapolate if you like.

(04-26-2013 09:46 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It would be rather easy to respond to your posts going forward where a talking point is parroted from Drudge, Red State, or The Corner.

Then do it. Every time. If it's so easy do it. See Mach this is how you roll. You post on here that you could do something to counter my points but you NEVER do. Why is that Mach? Could it be that the ability only exists in your head?

Quote:The whole sensitivity to the oil angle in Iraq that you find in conservative reading circles. It's definitely a Conservative talking point. How "dare" people even think we embarked on our noble adventure for treasure or Imperial designs? How dare they.

Wow. I don't know what's worse. The fact that you just posted that or the fact that by posting it you illustrate you don't know what a talking point is.

Mach do you realize that I could accuse you of parroting talking points using the same exact reasoning you just did? Let me show you.

Quote: The whole sensitivity to the oil angle in Iraq that you find in liberal reading circles. It's definitely a liberal talking point. How "dare" people even think we didn't embark on war for treasure and Imperial designs. How dare they.

See how easy that was Mach? Required only a few edits and I have just said exactly the same thing about you as you just did about me. So do you admit you're using liberal talking points boo boo?

I have an opinion that I support with facts. I ask you to do the same and you obfuscate, ignore, twist your way out of doing so. It's because you believe things to be true that you can't back up. Your defense of the "war for oil" claims you made in this very thread was to simply quote others who agreed with you. That was it.

Quote:because we failed in setting up Amaco or BP because we didn't plan the reconstruction effort properly isn't proof. It just goes to show you how badly the reconstruction effort was planned.

So you believe Owl is quoting from Conservative talking points as well then. Since he has made the same point about this that I have.

And Mach when your premise is that we went to war for the oil, and we made no effort to take the oil once there, that's a pretty good indicator your original premise is wrong. It is PROOF. You said we went there for the oil and we didn't take the oil.

Quote:I answered your question.

Um, no you didn't. I've asked many a question in this thread but this is the one I've posed to you more than once.

Quote:So then you are now on record as disavowing a claim you have made for years on this board? You have changed your mind, realize how wrong you were, and have altered your view?

You are on record over the course of the last 10 years that we went to Iraq for oil and that Bush lied to get us there. In this thread you have walked away from that assertion and said oil was only part of it (still without evidence) and that Bush fell victim to the idea of a democracy in the Middle East. Those are directly contradictory to the views you have had for 10 years. I want you to have the guts to admit you were wrong and are now changing your view because you wised up just a little.

Quote:Now answer mine. Do you believe we go on our misadventure in Iraq if Saddam wasn't sitting on a pile of oil? Simple question. Yes or No will suffice, or you can extrapolate if you like.

Yes. Why do I believe that? Because Iraqi oil was already flowing in the market via the UN Oil for Food program. We didn't need Iraqi oil to get into the system to lower the price because it already WAS in the system. Oh, and there's that pesky fact that when we got there WE DIDN'T TAKE THE OIL!!

Oh, and just to remind you, QE had nothing to do with the rise in the price of oil after the invasion. In case you missed it.

(04-26-2013 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Ok, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong but please explain how a war almost ten years ago led to the Arab spring that started largely due to younger Arabs who were barely teenagers when that war began in a different country. Didn't the Arab spring begin in Egypt? I just don't see how that connects to Iraq.

Fair question. It wasn't so much the war as the rebuilding effort. There's a reason why Shrub was right in 2000 when he said no more nation-building. Unfortunately he changed his tune somewhere along the way.

Go in, kill all the people that need killing (which we haven't done yet in Iraq or Afghanistan), blow up all the things that need blowing up, and leave. Don't worry about being liked, because we're not going to be liked. Worry about taking care of business. And leave the successors with the indelible message that if they screw up, this is what is going to happen to them. Let them do their own nation-building. Armies are good at killing people and breaking things, and bad at being liked. So let them kill people and break things, and don't waste time trying to be liked.

The rebuilding effort triggers all sorts of unreasonable expectations, both in Iraq and throughout the region. Those things take a while to ferment before they erupt. Ten years is probably about the right lead time for that.

I realize that's a very harsh approach. One that we'd better restrict to situations where we really NEED to take military action. Exactly.

(04-26-2013 10:36 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2013 08:58 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Ok, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong but please explain how a war almost ten years ago led to the Arab spring that started largely due to younger Arabs who were barely teenagers when that war began in a different country. Didn't the Arab spring begin in Egypt? I just don't see how that connects to Iraq.

Fair question. It wasn't so much the war as the rebuilding effort. There's a reason why Shrub was right in 2000 when he said no more nation-building. Unfortunately he changed his tune somewhere along the way.

Go in, kill all the people that need killing (which we haven't done yet in Iraq or Afghanistan), blow up all the things that need blowing up, and leave. Don't worry about being liked, because we're not going to be liked. Worry about taking care of business. And leave the successors with the indelible message that if they screw up, this is what is going to happen to them. Let them do their own nation-building. Armies are good at killing people and breaking things, and bad at being liked. So let them kill people and break things, and don't waste time trying to be liked.

The rebuilding effort triggers all sorts of unreasonable expectations, both in Iraq and throughout the region. Those things take a while to ferment before they erupt. Ten years is probably about the right lead time for that.

I realize that's a very harsh approach. One that we'd better restrict to situations where we really NEED to take military action. Exactly.

I agree totally. Rebuilding means to these people that we are now trying to inject OUR policies, culture and power on them. It fuels the hatred. Blow hell out of them and leave them. Next time they will think twice before they F with us again. When the neighborhood kid kicks your ass...you don't normally want anymore of him. Often times you end up a friends later.

In the words of John Prine "ain't it funny how an old broken bottle looks just like a diamond ring....... when it's far, far from me"

Liberal democrat who twice voted for O says Bush saved more lives than Dear Leader

Blow hell out of them and leave....I think that would work a lot better.