Tweet
Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Germans showed us how relaxing it can be. Wasn't it thier nastional sport for a while?
The Germans showed us how relaxing it can be. Wasn't it thier nastional sport for a while?
-
They now prefer football"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
"I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
"I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis -
Not really. Mutual invasions were part of the neighbourhood for a 1000 years like barbecue and witchburning.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
1. That is a very long chain of events with other actors involved. (And I thought when you said 20 years ago, you meant that we should have propped up the shah.)Originally posted by HershOstropoler
GP:
"1. The regime change 20 years ago wasn't "ours" in the sense of being engineered or of being an invasion."
"your" regime change was the overthrowing of Mossadeq in the early 50s. Which resulted in the Shah regime. Which resulted in the islamist revolution in 1979.
"Appeasement avoids a conflict, but it has consequences as well."
Who's talking appeasement? Do you see Truman as an appeaser?
2. The appeasement comment is meant as more of a general principle. Just because an event leads to negative results on one time scale doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done anyway for moral reasons or because of the result on another time scale.Comment
-
Well their treshold for ripe-for-attack so far is 1.5 billion $ military spending. Going after Iran would raise the treshold to I think 10 billion.Originally posted by Spiffor
Don't misjudge the Yanks' balls“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
Damn, that was a lot of posts, I have to quote now.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Explain it again. It was too whacky a conspiracy theory for me to remember.
In summary (back before we over-ran Iraq, I believe):
-we take Iraq, move bases to Iraq and other, friendlier nearby nations.
- move bases out of Saudi
-we withdraw support from Saudi regime
-Saudi regime falls (one way or the other) to Wahabist extremists, threatening regional stability
-we move in, "to restore order".No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
"1. That is a very long chain of events with other actors involved. (And I thought when you said 20 years ago, you meant that we should have propped up the shah.)"
Ah, just the usual misreading. I said: "Well, we know what your last regime change in Iran created about 20 years later."
No word about "20 years ago". But I guess that's sophism, right? At least got the reference.
"Just because an event leads to negative results on one time scale doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done anyway for moral reasons or because of the result on another time scale."
And when an event leads to negative results, the action should not be repeated without considering the risk of those results.
If this Iraq adventure fails, democracy in the arab world is dead for another 50 years. And it's about certain it will fail. It would be very difficult anyway, but with an administration that manages to drive even ancient allies to apoplexy? Forget it.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
The real plan is to build Iraq up into a swing producer. Iraq and Russia would then be swing producers and the fall of Saudi Arabia wouldn't mean the end of the world economically. Right now, if Saudi Arabia decides to embargo, we're Fvcked with a capital F.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
But what's the point in that? You think you can reeducate the Saudis? Or just another gaspump-conquest?Originally posted by The Mad Monk
-we move in, "to restore order".“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
He's doing ok, right now. Public opinion shifted in the direction of supporting his position rather than the opposite. So far events have gone his way...Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Well, Tony wouldn't survive being a poodle on this one. I still think he'll be in deep **** once it gets clear how much he lied to justify the Iraq war.Comment
-
After a "successful" war, no surprise, though the nrs are weak in comparison to gulf war 2 or Falklands.Originally posted by GP
He's doing ok, right now. Public opinion shifted in the direction of supporting his position rather than the opposite. So far events have gone his way...
Just wait.“Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)Comment
-
The goal is the same as it has always been.
Did you see, they're already moving bases out? They're moving a bit faster than I expected.No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.Comment
-
1. Yeah, I didn't understand your comment about 20 years later. I guess my bad. It doesn't help how you like to drop in little non-explained grenades. Many, many people have a problem with you in terms of your communication. But I will try to be better at reading your comments and about asking for clarification.Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"1. That is a very long chain of events with other actors involved. (And I thought when you said 20 years ago, you meant that we should have propped up the shah.)"
Ah, just the usual misreading. I said: "Well, we know what your last regime change in Iran created about 20 years later."
No word about "20 years ago". But I guess that's sophism, right? At least got the reference.
"Just because an event leads to negative results on one time scale doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done anyway for moral reasons or because of the result on another time scale."
And when an event leads to negative results, the action should not be repeated without considering the risk of those results.
If this Iraq adventure fails, democracy in the arab world is dead for another 50 years. And it's about certain it will fail. It would be very difficult anyway, but with an administration that manages to drive even ancient allies to apoplexy? Forget it.
2. Yes, actions with bad results should not be repeated. Neither should non-actions. The point is which will have more effect--the action or the nonaction. And you have to consider different time scales.
3. You're not one of our allies. Your country is neutral. You advocate a European military union (without the US). And you agree that the raison d'etre for NATO went away in 1989. And is it us driving the "ancient allies to apoplexy"? Or is it the French continuting their Gaulist seperatism (force de frappe, non-full participation in NATO, etc.) And so what if we drive them to apoplexy. If I decided to do the right thing and it drove you to apoplexy, it would still be the right thing. Why should you be able to Jewish-mother me and not the reverse?Comment
-
Do you know how to speak?Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"1. That is a very long chain of events with other actors involved. (And I thought when you said 20 years ago, you meant that we should have propped up the shah.)"
Ah, just the usual misreading. I said: "Well, we know what your last regime change in Iran created about 20 years later."
No word about "20 years ago". But I guess that's sophism, right? At least got the reference.
"Just because an event leads to negative results on one time scale doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done anyway for moral reasons or because of the result on another time scale."
And when an event leads to negative results, the action should not be repeated without considering the risk of those results.
If this Iraq adventure fails, democracy in the arab world is dead for another 50 years. And it's about certain it will fail. It would be very difficult anyway, but with an administration that manages to drive even ancient allies to apoplexy? Forget it.Comment
-
Fair enough. Time will still tell. It is very early in the story. But opposition was much stronger earlier. One could imagine a scenario where things had gone different and opinion swung the other way (remember the Bagdhad entree dillema?Originally posted by HershOstropoler
After a "successful" war, no surprise, though the nrs are weak in comparison to gulf war 2 or Falklands.
Just wait.
). But it hasn't happened so far. If we have a Vietnam situation, than things may still play out to your side.
Anyway, Saddam is gone from his position of power in Iraq. That makes me breath easier. He signed his death warrent with the Kuwait invasion. No reason for him to be around anymore after continuing to misbehave during "parole".
GW2 is an interesting comparison. It was opposed by 80% of the Democrats in the Senate. (Actually voted for a resolution AGAINST the use of US forces in the conflict as well as against a tandem resolution supporting the president using these forces.) I doubt even many of the Democrats who voted this way, would do so again. Witness there votes this time round...Comment
-
Oh...and it's still a long chain of events.Comment
Comment