Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2008-06-06 21:41:28
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6784|Vancouver

FEOS wrote:

Pretty much crickets chirping...
You are rather smug of some sort of argumentative victory after one hour of no posting. Not much of time, especially with CamPoe wasted on his couch after a night of binge drinking.

Even if no one responded, what does that mean? The only revelation to the news story that Kmarion posted is that the US is not doing something that many of us disagree with. I'm happy, and so would CamPoe and others. What else do you expect? Anti-imperialists complaining that the possible imperialism will not take place (at least according to the diplomat)?
2008-06-06 23:24:36
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

M.O.A.B wrote:

No what I'm getting at, and what seems so hard for anyone to grasp here, is that following a war like Korea, you establish military bases to deter any further aggressive action from the common enemy in that theatre, which was North Korea then and the insurgent armies in Iraq now. You leave a region that has suffered a large scale war completely like many suggest and you're going to create a hell of a lot of problems. Pulling back the bulk of your forces while leaving a sizeable amount in permamnent bases to oversee security and prevent any acts of corruption will have far better results than just leaving. In terms of Vietnam what I suggest does not in any way run along the lines that leaving would ensure peace and stability, I'm talking about using bases to maintain it.
You see to be the on having trouble: you keep talking about a war like Korea, yet you have yet to demonstrate any similarity between the two wars.  I'm then pointing out that I can bring up a random war in which leaving led to the quickest peace.

M.O.A.B wrote:

But didn't you say that Mugabe can't be associated with the violence because there's no link?
I said that it can't be proven in a court of law.  That's not to say I don't consider him linked to it.

M.O.A.B wrote:

And that as poor a leader he is, he's still the leader?
Which, as it turns out, may be wrong.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Iraqi government may not be perfect but its still in charge and they invited the US to operate permanent bases.
How do you figure they're in charge if the strongest military presence is that of the US and there are significant areas which they've only recently gained any semblance of control over?
2008-06-07 00:41:35
maffiaw
ph33r me 傻逼
+40|6843|Melbourne, AUS

ZombieVampire! wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Iraqi government may not be perfect but its still in charge and they invited the US to operate permanent bases.
How do you figure they're in charge if the strongest military presence is that of the US and there are significant areas which they've only recently gained any semblance of control over?
it's actually quite simple. Without US military support, the current 'government' would not exist for a second. Just like a puppet in the hand of the puppeteer, if the puppeteer leaves the puppet "dies". Except with Iraq, there are a pack of hounds waiting to rip the puppet apart.

And you ask why the Iraqi government wants the US to stay. Just because you have been told they happen to be conveniently 'democratically elected' doesn't mean they represent the viewpoint of the entire populace and its complex demographics.
2008-06-07 00:45:05
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
The problem with your puppeteer analogy is it suggests the US is in control, backing up the Imperialist suggestion.
2008-06-07 06:07:53
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

FEOS wrote:

Too bad there aren't any opposing views...oh wait:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24988101/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_ … pe/us_iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01542.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p … siraq.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world … ocker.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/06/ … 6diplo.php

http://www.rationalreview.com/content/47173

There's a lot more. And none of them are from Fox News to compare against Al Jazeera for bias cancellation.
Observe the words 'might actually' in the OP. It's quite telling how vehement a rebuttal of the allegation is doing the rounds all over the press and the middle east now...
2008-06-07 06:08:59
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Strangely enough I couldn't give a flying fuck for a rolling doughnut what some liberal in Ireland thinks of my country, nor anyone else.  The US does what the US does, if you don't like it go on some internet forum and pout.

Carry on.
Why bothering posting then Mr. 'Couldn't Give a Flying Fuck'?
2008-06-07 06:10:32
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E7746317-B6C6-4D42-B2DD-03BCDBC89D02.htm

We all know it but now it looks like 'Imperialist USA' might actually be made official.
Always good to know I made a good decision months ago. Thanks for the reminder Cam.

I told you and the DS&T thread readers' years ago we had constructed permanent bases in Iraq. This "news" is nothing new, and your constant prejudice, dribble is nothing new either.

I know you cant be friends and make everyone happy, its a two-way street.

btw Capitalism ftw

I<3 Iraq
'btw Capitalism ftw'

Note to Teflon: The Cold War ended in 1989. Carry on.

I live in a capitalist nation and believe in the merits of capitalism. What that has to do with imperialism I don't know....
2008-06-07 07:55:34
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Too bad there aren't any opposing views...oh wait:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24988101/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_ … pe/us_iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01542.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/p … siraq.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world … ocker.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/06/ … 6diplo.php

http://www.rationalreview.com/content/47173

There's a lot more. And none of them are from Fox News to compare against Al Jazeera for bias cancellation.
Observe the words 'might actually' in the OP. It's quite telling how vehement a rebuttal of the allegation is doing the rounds all over the press and the middle east now...
"Might Actually" was an important edit to your original post. You might actually make sure your propaganda has a source next time.

Or at least do a little research first:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex … =h110-2929
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washi … Mw8amHKIoQ
“We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and an author of the proposal.

House Republicans offered little resistance, saying the plan essentially reflected current law and Bush administration policy. But they criticized Democrats for what they said was meaningless legislation since the administration had not called for permanent bases.

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-07 07:59:47
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

Kmarion wrote:

"Might Actually" was an important practically immediate edit to your original post. You might actually make sure your propaganda has a source next time.
Why pray tell did anyone feel it necessary to put a roadblock in the way of permanent military bases in Iraq...?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 40512.html

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-07 08:07:27)

2008-06-07 08:08:26
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6645|Escea

ZombieVampire! wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

No what I'm getting at, and what seems so hard for anyone to grasp here, is that following a war like Korea, you establish military bases to deter any further aggressive action from the common enemy in that theatre, which was North Korea then and the insurgent armies in Iraq now. You leave a region that has suffered a large scale war completely like many suggest and you're going to create a hell of a lot of problems. Pulling back the bulk of your forces while leaving a sizeable amount in permamnent bases to oversee security and prevent any acts of corruption will have far better results than just leaving. In terms of Vietnam what I suggest does not in any way run along the lines that leaving would ensure peace and stability, I'm talking about using bases to maintain it.
You see to be the on having trouble: you keep talking about a war like Korea, yet you have yet to demonstrate any similarity between the two wars.  I'm then pointing out that I can bring up a random war in which leaving led to the quickest peace.
I'm not drawing a link between the Iraq war and the Korea war in terms of the actual conflict I'm talking about the use of permamnent bases after the war which have kept the peace for the past 50 years. I didn't draw any links between the fighting similarites of the two wars because that wasn't what I was talking about.
2008-06-07 08:09:59
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

"Might Actually" was an important practically immediate edit to your original post. You might actually make sure your propaganda has a source next time.
Why pray tell did anyone feel it necessary to put a roadblock in the way of permanent military bases in Iraq...?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 40512.html
To give the impression that there was some great movement for permanent occupation. Political pandering to types like you.

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,”

A source is a name. Not just another article saying the same thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-07 08:16:25
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

"Might Actually" was an important practically immediate edit to your original post. You might actually make sure your propaganda has a source next time.
Why pray tell did anyone feel it necessary to put a roadblock in the way of permanent military bases in Iraq...?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 40512.html
To give the impression that there was some great movement for permanent occupation. Political pandering to types like you.

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,”

A source is a name. Not just another article saying the same thing.
Why would Rafsanjani of Iran feel like commenting on an agreement that doesn't exist? Did he conjure this up in cahoots with the Independent newspaper in the UK?
2008-06-07 08:18:25
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7129
Are you aware, CameronPoe, that the US still has troops based in Germany and Japan from WWII?
2008-06-07 08:19:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6978

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Are you aware, CameronPoe, that the US still has troops based in Germany and Japan from WWII?
Really??!?!??!1111one Isn't one of them responsible for co-planning the attack on Pearl Harbour along with Iraq?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-06-07 08:22:59)

2008-06-07 08:28:30
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7023|132 and Bush

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Why pray tell did anyone feel it necessary to put a roadblock in the way of permanent military bases in Iraq...?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 40512.html
To give the impression that there was some great movement for permanent occupation. Political pandering to types like you.

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,”

A source is a name. Not just another article saying the same thing.
Why would Rafsanjani of Iran feel like commenting on an agreement that doesn't exist? Did he conjure this up in cahoots with the Independent newspaper in the UK?
Rafsanjani of Iran is your source of unbiased information? Rafsanjani knows something that Congress doesn't now? The Independent was simply reporting what he said.

All of these things have to go through Congress to get paid for. There has never even been a proposal.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-06-07 08:35:55
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|7129

CameronPoe wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Are you aware, CameronPoe, that the US still has troops based in Germany and Japan from WWII?
Really??!?!??!1111one Isn't one of them responsible for co-planning the attack on Pearl Harbour along with Iraq?
What the hell?  I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Please, elaborate.

The point I am trying to make is that, when the US goes to war, it keeps some soldiers in the area after the war in order to maintain stability.  It seems standard procedure to me.  Before you bring up Vietnam or operation desert storm, let me remind you that we lost Vietnam, and that some of the events that occurred after desert storm could have been prevented, had we left some soldiers there.
2008-06-07 10:24:43
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6828|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD91417D0C
I really hope that's true.  I don't want us to stay there.
2008-06-07 12:27:02
Vax
Member
+42|6274|Flyover country

Kmarion wrote:

Rafsanjani of Iran is your source of unbiased information? Rafsanjani knows something that Congress doesn't now? The Independent was simply reporting what he said.

All of these things have to go through Congress to get paid for. There has never even been a proposal.
Yep, it's called rumor mongering.

We should keep in mind that the writer of that article in the UK Independent(Patrick Cockburn) is partly the source of this whole rumor in the first place, and we can take a look at his main venue to see fairly easily what his political angle is.

I think this is pretty widely believed, not only in those leftist circles, but now on the Iraqi street. I wish that people knew how dangerous this kind of rumor mongering can be, but they don't seem to care what the impact is beyond stirring up hate for Bush and Cheney, and America in general.

Even if in the future there turns out to be some kind of "permanent bases" in the country, the point is, it is not part of the agreement they are working on now.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hcWJu9bbzrJZ7uNHjvMn0BuTGqHQD91417D0C
I really hope that's true.  I don't want us to stay there.
I agree.

Last edited by Vax (2008-06-07 12:35:46)

2008-06-07 12:38:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6833|'Murka

Drakef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pretty much crickets chirping...
You are rather smug of some sort of argumentative victory after one hour of no posting. Not much of time, especially with CamPoe wasted on his couch after a night of binge drinking.
Check your math.

Drakef wrote:

Even if no one responded, what does that mean? The only revelation to the news story that Kmarion posted is that the US is not doing something that many of us disagree with. I'm happy, and so would CamPoe and others. What else do you expect? Anti-imperialists complaining that the possible imperialism will not take place (at least according to the diplomat)?
Maybe owning up to the fallacy of using Al Jazeera as a source without even checking for alternate views?

For someone who bitches incessantly about the bias of Fox News (and its subsequent inadmissability here as a source) to use Al Jazeera is at best ironic.

However, I can believe it if he posted this while drunk. It's far below his normally high standards.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-06-07 13:48:40)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-06-07 20:36:56
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

M.O.A.B wrote:

I'm not drawing a link between the Iraq war and the Korea war in terms of the actual conflict I'm talking about the use of permamnent bases after the war which have kept the peace for the past 50 years. I didn't draw any links between the fighting similarites of the two wars because that wasn't what I was talking about.
By your logic you can draw similarities between anything simply by finding a similar point.  Unless you can demonstrate a similar political situation there is no reason to draw comparison.
2008-06-07 20:38:08
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

What the hell?  I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Please, elaborate.

The point I am trying to make is that, when the US goes to war, it keeps some soldiers in the area after the war in order to maintain stability.  It seems standard procedure to me.  Before you bring up Vietnam or operation desert storm, let me remind you that we lost Vietnam, and that some of the events that occurred after desert storm could have been prevented, had we left some soldiers there.
He's pointing out that both those countries attacked the US beforehand, and the troops in Germany were part of a multi-national force.
2008-06-08 07:52:23
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6645|Escea

ZombieVampire! wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

I'm not drawing a link between the Iraq war and the Korea war in terms of the actual conflict I'm talking about the use of permamnent bases after the war which have kept the peace for the past 50 years. I didn't draw any links between the fighting similarites of the two wars because that wasn't what I was talking about.
By your logic you can draw similarities between anything simply by finding a similar point.  Unless you can demonstrate a similar political situation there is no reason to draw comparison.
What in gods name...?
So setting up a permanent base in Iraq for security purposes is not the same as setting up a permanent base in Korea for security purposes? This has bugger all to do with political situations, virtually all permanent bases established in warzones are for the exact same reason regardless of the events preceeding them. The Iraqis didn't put up some huge super fight like NK did but despite that a permanent base in Iraq will serve the exact same purpose as a permanent base in Korea, which is keep check on the situation, keep security and react to anything that may harm that security.

I can draw a similarity between a chocolate bar and a chocolate milkshake, why? Cause they both contain chocolate, and that is a similarity.
2008-06-08 08:43:36
ZombieVampire!
The Gecko
+69|6250
Certainly, but that isn't a logical comparison to my statement.  Essentially your logic is this:

Chocolate bars contain chocolate, therefore we should put chocolate in milkshakes to make them chocolate milkshakes.  This makes sense because both contain chocolate.

Your argument relies on itself.  Unless you can find a similarity before the creation of bases, you've failed to demonstrate a good comparison.
2008-06-08 08:47:07
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6645|Escea

Alright then, tell me why a permanent base to maintain security in Iraq to prevent violence is different from a permanent base in Korea?

They were both wars, there was heavy fighting in both, the levels of violence have dropped and now the bases are to be used to maintain security. Where's the difference there?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard