Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:29 pm    Post subject: America wanted to fail in Iraq Reply with quote

Was a broader war the ultimate goal of the invasion of Iraq? Was America's goal to destabilize the region in order to create an Islamic civil war?
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think so to me helping those begin liberated is one thing in order to prevent a empire from happening.
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: America wanted to fail in Iraq Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Was a broader war the ultimate goal of the invasion of Iraq? Was America's goal to destabilize the region in order to create an Islamic civil war?


I think the question is flawed. US is not there to destabilize any thing.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well if Iran develops nuclear weapons then so will Saudi Arabia and probably Egypt as well. If the US pulled out of Iraq today, the result would essentially be a proxy war fought in Iraq between Saudi Arabia and Iran, each vying for control of the country. The Saudis have already said that they would back the Sunnis if the US pulled out. (They probably already are.) And, of course, Iran has been supplying the insurgency and has found a potential ally in Iraq’s Shiites, co-religionists of the Islamic state. The Kurds would probably stay out of the conflict and separate to form their own country.
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There could be some truth to that. If you remember before the invasion that US citzens figured would be a cake walk, the russians spelled out what the US would be in store for and they predicted it to a tee.So did most countries in the region.

I don't think the US was nieve to not know this. They knew and what they are really hoping for is an engagement with syria and iran...we all know it and Bush even spelled it out via his axis of evil speech.

It's been a game of taunt taunt and more taunting. I think the name of the game now is to get Iran to fire torpedo missles at there aircraft carriers in hopes of somehow securing Iran's technology. I don't think Iran will do this before they have nuclear strike capability however, but you never know.

Of course Bush has been sucessful at keeping the terror out of the US and in Iraq and other countries so maybe that's the name of the game. By sacrificing american kids in Iraq the elite can go to the bank and not worry about there brains flying out there hind end. As long as they are in there face their safe.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Either way Iraq and afganistan must succeed if WW3 is and a Islamofascist empire is ever formed.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Israel will never allow a radical Iran to posses nuclear weapons. Period. The result of a large-scale nuclear attack on Iran will result in a brief unification of the Muslim sects, and Israel will be in deep trouble. Damned if you do…damned if you don’t.

Winning wars is easy, the USA won Iraq, however they only planned the war not the victory. They should have toppled the Iraqi leadership, and installed a new dictator and got the hell out. Leave the military and government institutions in place.

Stability is the name of the game. It doesn’t matter the kind of government, it doesn’t matter how they treat their people, what the world wants is stability.
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well if you really want to scrape things down to the bare bone, what the US should have REALLY done is enlist Saddam's Iraq for a war against Iran. Strategically that would have made much more sense. Iran was always the bigger threat. Sure, Saddam funded Palestinian terrorism to a degree. And sure, he killed a lot of his countrymen. But he was fundamentally a secular ruler, and therefore less of a potential threat than Iran's radicalized Islamic fundamentalism.

Even from the very beginning (Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech) taking out Iran was always the ultimate goal. Iraq was merely a stepping stone towards a regime change in Iran, perhaps not an invasion, but certainly some sort of coup supported by the US in one way or another. The fatal flaw in the plan turned out to be that Iraq was not as easily pacified as some had hoped. Actually, Iraq could have been pacified, but Bush and Rummy made several tactical errors that proved to be unforgiving.

Now what were left with is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it's unfolding right before our eyes in Iraq with the US stuck in between.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

True enough, but Iran use to be, and is in many ways, a very modern state. Once the moderates resume control again, and they will, Iran will be a great ally. Problem is it may take a generation or two.
You do not want to fight Iran in a war. Iraq is a flat country, Iran is mostly mountains, air power is not the greatest tool in a mountainous country.
Saudi has $$ and nothing else.
Hell I say develop alternative fuels and leave the buggers alone over there. Wash our hands of the whole region.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sad enough hat there are not compassionate people in this world today.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duck Tory wrote:
Sad enough hat there are not compassionate people in this world today.


You have to define Compassion?

Does it mean becoming the world police force? Does it mean violating all international law and imposing our will on the rest of the world? By what right do we do this? Of the 230 or so countries in the world a huge percentage of them are places we would find appalling, but I am not willing to put my kids into uniform to go “free” everyone.

There were worse countries in the world then Iraq. North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, half of the former Soviet republics, half of the rest of Africa pop into my head without references. We have our allies, and we have our sovereignty all to protect.

Aid in helping poorer countries set up democracy, yes.
Aids in helping poorer countries develop better farming techniques, yes.
Aid in helping poorer countries educate their people yes.
Aid in helping poorer countries develop an infrastructure, yes.
Who isn’t compassionate?

We fight when we or our allies are attacked or seriously threatened.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Compassion is where we do action compassion is where people like us DO NOT SIT AROUND and think it will go away, LACK OF COMPASSION,Conscience lead to the Rwandan Geoncide,Somali Disaster and 9/11. Blood of so many are on our hands and people don't care cause they see them in steorotypical view....BELEIVE ME i live in a Community where Ingorance is BLISS.
Guelphfirst





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 56
Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2Reputation: 44.2
Location: Guelph

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Duck Tory wrote:
Compassion is where we do action compassion is where people like us DO NOT SIT AROUND and think it will go away, LACK OF COMPASSION,Conscience lead to the Rwandan Geoncide,Somali Disaster and 9/11. Blood of so many are on our hands and people don't care cause they see them in steorotypical view....BELEIVE ME i live in a Community where Ingorance is BLISS.


I don’t necessarily disagree, but we need to sit down and define what the circumstances are for when we get involved. I agree we need to be action takers, not just sitting on our hands. BUT there are hundreds of atrocities that occur ever year, which ones do we get involved in? Just the ones we can win at little cost? (Politically? monetarily? Loss of life?) Sometimes letting a nation state decide its own fate IS the best course of action, (Soviet bloc).

Millions of North Koreans have died in the past few years, it is a shit hole that needs to be changed, but the cost would be millions of lives, and trillions of dollars in cost. The current leadership will be overthrown, (guaranteed the Japanese and Americans are working hard on that), attacking them will as a net result cost us more.

We need to be involved in stopping genocides. Rwanda is a good example, the Balkans, even Darfur. However what do we do if a country like China, or North Korea started killing their own people…the cost would be exorbitant.

You simple cannot go out and kill everyone who disagrees with or acts contrary to our way of thinking,
Joahob





Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 403
Reputation: 75.3Reputation: 75.3
votes: 2
Location: Spaceship Earth

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guelphfirst wrote:
True enough, but Iran use to be, and is in many ways, a very modern state. Once the moderates resume control again, and they will, Iran will be a great ally. Problem is it may take a generation or two.
You do not want to fight Iran in a war. Iraq is a flat country, Iran is mostly mountains, air power is not the greatest tool in a mountainous country.
Saudi has $$ and nothing else.
Hell I say develop alternative fuels and leave the buggers alone over there. Wash our hands of the whole region.


Iran is a modern state is really quite true. However, the ruling class is still of the extreme Islamist variety. And their month piece, the Mad Mullah should not be downplayed. He means what he says. And clearly the ruling class has no trouble with him saying the things he says.

An invasion of Iran would indeed require a tremendous amount of manpower. Which is why it won't happen. I believe the top brass in the Pentagon are still committed to Rumsfeld's light footprint strategy, which works wonderfully for short wars but fails miserably when it comes to occupations.

We should develop alternative fuels. And the best thing we could do to start is to eliminate subsidies for oil companies. They’re a relic of the 90s when oil was rock bottom cheap.
Duck Tory





Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 826
Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3Reputation: 40.3
votes: 4

PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What you need to understand GF is Bush,Rumsfeld and others want to change the world,end the cycle of violence and give freedom a chance. Yes i am a foreign policy advocate but that does not make me a ignorant fool as some in my community has said. all the geoncides you have address were due tot he Liberal-Democrat Ignorance that lead to the raise of Al'Qaeda as a group and Kim Junior's rant as a psychopath. the War on Terror has two fronts Iraq and Afganistan as of right now i do not trust a LIBERAL OR A DEMOCRAT'S word since they are so align with appeasers,ignorant narrowminded Peace activist fraudters who have a hidden agenda.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


America wanted to fail in Iraq

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB