The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

So, Dip, since you are the Master Problem Solver, what are your thoughts about dealing with the problems in the Middle East? Very curious to see how you do leading from out front vs. taking potshots from the rear.

I'm convinced that the only thing these nuts understand is brute force. I think in the first attack on Iraq under Bush 41 they got the message. His problem is he stopped the whole damn thing after they left Kuwait and headed back to Iraq with their tails between their legs. In a 100 hours their whole damn "Elite Guard" was decimated. Should have kept on to Tehran, and sent Sadaam heading for the hills. Then occupy the oil field.

Once that was done do what 43 did and have them adopt a constitution and work towards free elections. When they've complied we leave. A little nation building, not a ten year ordeal.

If a full blown committed assault on tyrannical regimes is too much war for the American people to stomach then become an isolationist country, funnel bucket loads of money to Israel and let them police the region for their own safety. Personally I'm fine with either case. If we want to end the terrorist attacks we need to do a lot more profiling when handing out student visas.

In the mean time open up more federal land to fracking and try and bring them to the table by making $100 a barrel oil a thing of the past.

Or as DB likes to call it, SIMPLISTIC and CRAZY.

(06-14-2013 02:16 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  I'm convinced that the only thing these nuts understand is brute force. I think in the first attack on Iraq under Bush 41 they got the message. His problem is he stopped the whole damn thing after they left Kuwait and headed back to Iraq with their tails between their legs. In a 100 hours their whole damn "Elite Guard" was decimated. Should have kept on to Tehran, and sent Sadaam heading for the hills. Then occupy the oil field.

Once that was done do what 43 did and have them adopt a constitution and work towards free elections. When they've complied we leave. A little nation building, not a ten year ordeal.

If a full blown committed assault on tyrannical regimes is too much war for the American people to stomach then become an isolationist country, funnel bucket loads of money to Israel and let them police the region for their own safety. Personally I'm fine with either case. If we want to end the terrorist attacks we need to do a lot more profiling when handing out student visas.

In the mean time open up more federal land to fracking and try and bring them to the table by making $100 a barrel oil a thing of the past.

Or as DB likes to call it, SIMPLISTIC and CRAZY.

For starters, these folks have no interest or loyalty to freely elected government. Their culture is based upon tribal rule and closely held religious beliefs, which is why the Sunnis and Shiites are blowing each other up in Iraq today. How would declaring an earlier "mission accomplished" get compliance? What's in it for them?

How many troops are you willing to commit forever to guard the oil fields? Do you think they could just be pumping away without interference and attacks?

As for your "full blown military assault", who do you leave in charge after the assault? Who pays for rebuilding the country? How do we pay for the war? These things are always real easy to get into, and damn near impossible to get out. Where do these "bucket loads of money" come from that you are sending to Israel? I thought you were adamant about the national debt?

Give it another shot, I'll wait.

(06-14-2013 02:16 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  I'm convinced that the only thing these nuts understand is brute force.

AKA US foreign policy for the last 60 years. Look what it has done for us so far.

(06-14-2013 11:44 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 02:16 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  I'm convinced that the only thing these nuts understand is brute force.

AKA US foreign policy for the last 60 years. Look what it has done for us so far.

Won us two world wars, made us the greatest economic power on the planet, and we rebuilt Europe and Japan to boot. You just hate America or success in general.

Ahh - Look again. The events you mention were all beyond the 60 year reference. I have to agree with CCB. Our record of nation building has been disastrous since WWII. Think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (the shah was our boy).

And how many 10s of thousand lives were wasted in the effort? Not to mention billions of $$.

(06-15-2013 11:53 AM)Broncobelt Wrote:  Ahh - Look again. The events you mention were all beyond the 60 year reference. I have to agree with CCB. Our record of nation building has been disastrous since WWII. Think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (the shah was our boy).

And how many 10s of thousand lives were wasted in the effort? Not to mention billions of $$.

Math isn't CD/CD1/CD2's strong suit. Which is why he's overpaying on his "family plan."

Quote:For starters, these folks have no interest or loyalty to freely elected government. Their culture is based upon tribal rule and closely held religious beliefs, which is why the Sunnis and Shiites are blowing each other up in Iraq today.

Really. So tell us, how many actual democracies have been attempted in the Middle East. Let's try none. Afghanistan is tribal to the point where it's ungovernable. Middle East is not nearly as tribal. They have resources, a semi educated population, and they've tasted Democracy. Like most doom and gloomers you dismiss the idea that they could establish a government without giving it a chance. Might take a few generations to perfect it, but then even our version of democracy didn't come out of the gate like a well oiled machine.

Quote:How would declaring an earlier "mission accomplished" get compliance? What's in it for them?

You don't have to declare anything. The objective is to conquer in the fashion that Bush 41 did during Desert Storm. We're not instilling the Marshall Plan here, or nation building. Conquer, take over the oil wells, and give them a brief time frame to write a constitution, and elect candidates. Leave when the new government begins to take shape. Let them nation build. If they want our help let us know. The key is to get in, topple the regime with GREAT FORCE (let's say Basha Al-assad of Syria), seize their main source of cash (oil) and give them a brief time line to establish a government and hold election. Don't stick around long enough to let world opinion slow the regime change or bog us down there.

Finally you are so fixated on war that you completely overlook the other solutions, i.e. arm Israel (significantly more than we do now) and let them police the region. It certainly is in their interest. Solution 2, allow fracking on some/more federal land. Flood the market with so much oil that world wide prices decline to the point that the oil cartels are forced to negotiate not only price but changes in how they govern. Solution 3, become complete isolationists. I'm guessing that within 5-10 years China and Russia would have established puppet regimes that would make the current crop of loons look good.

(06-15-2013 02:15 PM)Charm City Bronco Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 11:53 AM)Broncobelt Wrote:  Ahh - Look again. The events you mention were all beyond the 60 year reference. I have to agree with CCB. Our record of nation building has been disastrous since WWII. Think Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran (the shah was our boy).

And how many 10s of thousand lives were wasted in the effort? Not to mention billions of $$.

Math isn't CD/CD1/CD2's strong suit. Which is why he's overpaying on his "family plan."

Sorry man, I don't think your Walmart Trac Phone plan would work for us.

(06-16-2013 07:46 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

Quote:For starters, these folks have no interest or loyalty to freely elected government. Their culture is based upon tribal rule and closely held religious beliefs, which is why the Sunnis and Shiites are blowing each other up in Iraq today.

Really. So tell us, how many actual democracies have been attempted in the Middle East. Let's try none. Afghanistan is tribal to the point where it's ungovernable. Middle East is not nearly as tribal. They have resources, a semi educated population, and they've tasted Democracy. Like most doom and gloomers you dismiss the idea that they could establish a government without giving it a chance. Might take a few generations to perfect it, but then even our version of democracy didn't come out of the gate like a well oiled machine.

Quote:How would declaring an earlier "mission accomplished" get compliance? What's in it for them?

You don't have to declare anything. The objective is to conquer in the fashion that Bush 41 did during Desert Storm. We're not instilling the Marshall Plan here, or nation building. Conquer, take over the oil wells, and give them a brief time frame to write a constitution, and elect candidates. Leave when the new government begins to take shape. Let them nation build. If they want our help let us know. The key is to get in, topple the regime with GREAT FORCE (let's say Basha Al-assad of Syria), seize their main source of cash (oil) and give them a brief time line to establish a government and hold election. Don't stick around long enough to let world opinion slow the regime change or bog us down there.

Finally you are so fixated on war that you completely overlook the other solutions, i.e. arm Israel (significantly more than we do now) and let them police the region. It certainly is in their interest. Solution 2, allow fracking on some/more federal land. Flood the market with so much oil that world wide prices decline to the point that the oil cartels are forced to negotiate not only price but changes in how they govern. Solution 3, become complete isolationists. I'm guessing that within 5-10 years China and Russia would have established puppet regimes that would make the current crop of loons look good.

So where is all this money to execute these plans going to originate? Our tax dollars? You want our government to run up debt?

Your fracking solution is already happening, we're one of the leading energy producers in the world now, and guess what genius? The prices are rising, not falling down. So much for that theory, the world cartel isn't an "us or them" proposition. You really don't get that do you?

DB

Quote:So where is all this money to execute these plans going to originate? Our tax dollars? You want our government to run up debt?

You're thinking Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Long and drawn out. I'm proposing a quick strike of overwhelming force such as happened in Desert Storm. I'm not talking a long occupation or nation building. If Syria were the example, the goal would be to take out Al-assad so he stops killing his own people, restore a semblance of order, and leave.

Quote:Your fracking solution is already happening, we're one of the leading energy producers in the world now, and guess what genius? The prices are rising, not falling down. So much for that theory, the world cartel isn't an "us or them" proposition. You really don't get that do you?

Yes, but mostly on private land. If federal land is freed up for fracking you're talking enormous potential. At some point if there's a glut of oil on the market it will drive world wide prices down significantly. I don't think we've reached that point yet.

(06-17-2013 02:07 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  DB

Quote:So where is all this money to execute these plans going to originate? Our tax dollars? You want our government to run up debt?

You're thinking Vietnam and the war in Iraq. Long and drawn out. I'm proposing a quick strike of overwhelming force such as happened in Desert Storm. I'm not talking a long occupation or nation building. If Syria were the example, the goal would be to take out Al-assad so he stops killing his own people, restore a semblance of order, and leave.

Quote:Your fracking solution is already happening, we're one of the leading energy producers in the world now, and guess what genius? The prices are rising, not falling down. So much for that theory, the world cartel isn't an "us or them" proposition. You really don't get that do you?

Yes, but mostly on private land. If federal land is freed up for fracking you're talking enormous potential. At some point if there's a glut of oil on the market it will drive world wide prices down significantly. I don't think we've reached that point yet.

The First Iraq war cost $60 Billion. Not exactly chump change for your proposed little skirmish. How do you plan on paying for that, Dip? And even if somehow we came up with a method to pay for another war, who do you align yourself with? There are no black hats and white hats, just gray. And you take out Assad so "he quits killing his own people", and you think there won't be reprisals? You sure seem to have cornered the market on simple solutions to complex problems.

Freeing up Federal land for more fracking (a technology that has a lot of doubters) doesn't assure an oil glut. In 2012 the oil producers had their most profitable year in history, but did nothing to increase production. Refineries are in short supply and inefficient, but yet the oil companies sit on $58 Billion in cash and continue to lay off production employees (11,200 over past 5 years). If you think "drill, baby, drill" is going to help, good luck with that. The oil companies are happy to keep things as they are and keep those government subsidies rolling in.

I am just amazed that you conservatives hate paying taxes, but don't blink at getting screwed by the oil companies. Michigan has had the highest gas prices in the US (Hawaii excepted), due to a refinery shutdown that should not have happened had the oil companies managed production properly. Just the $2 Billion subsidy the Repubs insist on paying should have covered the refinery maintenance.

Quote:The First Iraq war cost $60 Billion that is not exactly chump change.

On the contrary it is chump change. We have a 3.6 trillion dollar yearly budget i.e. 3600 billion. 60 billion is 1/60th of the budget. Of course we only take in about 2.5 trillion in revenue, but the same people who scream bloody murder over spending on war don't seem to mind that we're trillion short of paying our bills. You folks seem fine with spending as long as it's on anything but defense.

Quote:How many troops are you willing to commit forever to guard the oil fields?

Here's a novel concept. You commit what ever it takes. Half the reason we didn't succeed in Nam and early on in Iraq was because we tried to do it with too few troops and in Nams case we fought a defensive war. I'm thinking we have more than enough fire power to keep a bunch of low tech Syrian troops at bay.

Quote:Freeing up Federal land for more fracking (a technology that has a lot of doubters) doesn't assure an oil glut.

Typical. Libs are all for spending tax payer money on boondoggles like Solyndra Solar (500 million gov. loan, went bankrupt), but they want absolute guarantees when private capital is used to frack on federal land.

Libs are always the first to whine about high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil, but they're also the first to demand that we stop off shore drilling, don't go near Anwar, and don't build the Keystone pipeline.

Take a look at that federal land map. Do you support monopolies? Well how do you like one east coast city controlling half the land in the US?

So $60B is chump change to CD. Glad you enjoy paying taxes. It is attitudes like yours that has gotten us into a $T plus of national debt.

I'd rather we spend $60B on our infrastructure or reducing deficit spending versus wasting it in the middle east. Besides it's not just money, it's human lives when your talking war. Takes boots on the ground to win. US has been all to free squandering it's young in needless wars.

Lets face it. They have been fighting and waging war in that region for 6,000 years. And we think we can bring peace in our lifetime? Not gonna happen.

(06-17-2013 04:22 PM)Chipdip2 Wrote:  

Quote:The First Iraq war cost $60 Billion that is not exactly chump change.

On the contrary it is chump change. We have a 3.6 trillion dollar yearly budget i.e. 3600 billion. 60 billion is 1/60th of the budget. Of course we only take in about 2.5 trillion in revenue, but the same people who scream bloody murder over spending on war don't seem to mind that we're trillion short of paying our bills. You folks seem fine with spending as long as it's on anything but defense.

Quote:How many troops are you willing to commit forever to guard the oil fields?

Here's a novel concept. You commit what ever it takes. Half the reason we didn't succeed in Nam and early on in Iraq was because we tried to do it with too few troops and in Nams case we fought a defensive war. I'm thinking we have more than enough fire power to keep a bunch of low tech Syrian troops at bay.

Quote:Freeing up Federal land for more fracking (a technology that has a lot of doubters) doesn't assure an oil glut.

Typical. Libs are all for spending tax payer money on boondoggles like Solyndra Solar (500 million gov. loan, went bankrupt), but they want absolute guarantees when private capital is used to frack on federal land.

Libs are always the first to whine about high gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil, but they're also the first to demand that we stop off shore drilling, don't go near Anwar, and don't build the Keystone pipeline.

Take a look at that federal land map. Do you support monopolies? Well how do you like one east coast city controlling half the land in the US?

I ask legitimate questions and get smack in response. Confirms my point: Dip loves shooting down ideas but can't provide any in response. Reminds me of the guy sitting in the bleachers at basketball games screaming at every call the Ref makes, but knows nothing about officiating.

So Dip your plan is to invade Iran, and Syria, you'll probably need to do Jordan, Egypt, Palestine as well then when the terrorist move out of those countries invade where ever they go next. Where are you going to find the troop strength for that? Draft every 18-25 year old in the country? even that probably wouldn't be enough.

Your plan is so far to impossible its laughable you are talking about invading roughly a third of the world, after we do a few these (even if we have the strength) where would we strike from? Rammstien in Germany would be taken away as would Diego Garcia (Britain). The Navy and Marines don't have the capability to 'hit the beach' like they did in WW2 and the logistics of getting troops there to come ashore add another layer of impossibility to crack headed scheme.

I'm not for intervention in Syria in any way. That ship sailed two years ago and I see little upside in getting involved. I didn't want intervention two years ago.

IF we get involved in any way, I would only support a massive RAID (not an invasion) to secure Assad's chemical weapons and retrieve them. Then leave. There would need to be good intel first, perhaps from special forces.

We should take no sides because I can't identify ANY actual moderates in that conflict, despite what that old fool McCain says after getting his pic taken with kidnappers and terrorists. No to a no-fly zone. No to arming any parties against Assad.

We've done the nation building thing in the ME and it always fails and ends up with a situation almost as bad and often far worse than what was there previously.

(06-18-2013 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I'm not for intervention in Syria in any way. That ship sailed two years ago and I see little upside in getting involved. I didn't want intervention two years ago.

IF we get involved in any way, I would only support a massive RAID (not an invasion) to secure Assad's chemical weapons and retrieve them. Then leave. There would need to be good intel first, perhaps from special forces.

We should take no sides because I can't identify ANY actual moderates in that conflict, despite what that old fool McCain says after getting his pic taken with kidnappers and terrorists. No to a no-fly zone. No to arming any parties against Assad.

We've done the nation building thing in the ME and it always fails and ends up with a situation almost as bad and often far worse than what was there previously.

Broncobelt

Quote:I'd rather we spend $60B on our infrastructure

Well they're not spending it on infrastructure or defense. Fact is in 1962 we spent 49% of our budget on defense and 31% on entitlements. Today it's 18% for defense and 65% on entitlements. Factor in what's left over after paying the interest on our debt, and we have virtually nothing for infrastructure.

My point was, that from a mathematical stand point $60B is only 1/60 of our yearly budget. I agree these wars are pretty much a waste of resources as we don't fight to win until it's too late in the game, and we drag them out too long. That said, if............IF............we're going to have a red line to cross as Obama has done, and IF we are going to act upon that with force, we either do it as a second party by giving aid in weapons, or IF.............if were to put boots on the ground it has to be swift and short similar to how Desert Storm was carried out.

(06-18-2013 01:40 PM)DesertBronco Wrote:  

(06-18-2013 11:14 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I'm not for intervention in Syria in any way. That ship sailed two years ago and I see little upside in getting involved. I didn't want intervention two years ago.

IF we get involved in any way, I would only support a massive RAID (not an invasion) to secure Assad's chemical weapons and retrieve them. Then leave. There would need to be good intel first, perhaps from special forces.

We should take no sides because I can't identify ANY actual moderates in that conflict, despite what that old fool McCain says after getting his pic taken with kidnappers and terrorists. No to a no-fly zone. No to arming any parties against Assad.

We've done the nation building thing in the ME and it always fails and ends up with a situation almost as bad and often far worse than what was there previously.

Wait a minute, that's exactly what I said and you pissed on it. You're more predictable than my 6 year old.