The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Descendant X
Skyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered User regular
Skyrim is my god now.Outpost 31Registered User regular
Story here.
The leadership of the American military has got to be comprised of the biggest group of morons on the planet. "We are going to arm the Sunnis, who hate us, so that they will fight Al Queda. It is a win-win situation! But do not worry about them using our weapons against us, we are gathering biometric info on them, namely fingerprints and retinal scans, to make sure that we can identify the corpses of the ones who do. We also have the serial numbers of the weapons so that we can identify them if they are somehow used against us."
I do not know how you Americans resist the urge to rise up as one and form up to take your government over by force. This is how Saddam Hussein AND Osama Bin Laden got their weapons. Hell, Iran got weapons in this manner as well. I am sure that the morons who armed them did not think the weapons would be used against them, either. Are these idiots incapable of learning from the past?
The leadership of the American military has got to be comprised of the biggest group of morons on the planet. "We are going to arm the Sunnis, who hate us, so that they will fight Al Queda. It is a win-win situation! But do not worry about them using our weapons against us, we are gathering biometric info on them, namely fingerprints and retinal scans, to make sure that we can identify the corpses of the ones who do. We also have the serial numbers of the weapons so that we can identify them if they are somehow used against us."
I do not know how you Americans resist the urge to rise up as one and form up to take your government over by force. This is how Saddam Hussein AND Osama Bin Laden got their weapons. Hell, Iran got weapons in this manner as well. I am sure that the morons who armed them did not think the weapons would be used against them, either. Are these idiots incapable of learning from the past?
Garry: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time I'd rather not spend the rest of the winter TIED TO THIS FUCKING COUCH!
Descendant X on
0
Posts
Because our unprecedented wealth makes us extremely lazy and complacent. If the economy wasn't this strong I do not believe this would be occuring.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
I think this everyday, its just a matter of convincing people to share my views.
It's just that right around 75% of people, at least in my experience, are sheep. No, really they're more like cows. The funny thing about most Americans is that they don't ask intellectual questions, so when the government and companies and so forth spew bullshit and propoganda, it sticks.
It's why people like Bill Orielly have careers.
Yes, they are incapable of learning from the past, they assume that they are so much better than the Sunnis that they won't have anything to fear. It seems that they see the whole situation as some sort of war game, they give one party pointier swords so they can kill the enemies, once the enemies are dead, they take away the pointy swords and every rejoices.
NO YOU IDIOTS
1) It's not open warfare, it's a guerilla, it are terrorists. They don't meet on a field at sunset.
2) The Sunnis are not going to turn in their weapons, they'll be as hard to find as the Al-Qaida people in a while.
3) You can not solve a situation by blowing it up, you will only spark new problems.
/fightin' the Man
Maybe that's just something I made up. O_o
its not just a learn from the past issue. its also an issue of corruption of politics.
our government is so pathetic right now its depressing. both sides.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
And the cycle continues forever onward.
Forethought is for unAmerican pansies.
For many of us there's not a day that goes by that we don't think about exactly this, but no matter how satisfying it would be, there's something more important at stake:
Our founding principle is acceptance and belief in the rule of law.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I was going to post a well thought out rebuttal, but pizza is here and American Idol starts in 5 minutes.
PSN: Broichan
And gunships are scary.
PSN: Broichan
...And the states' National Guard troops and equipment are all overseas. How convenient...
I thought overthrowing the government now and then was the point in the right to bear arms? Refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots and all that.
But, they might thought twice if the British had gunships instead of muskets.
maybe but I read somewhere that Thomas Jefferson felt that our country would only be perfect if we had revolution every 20 years or so. He couldnt envision a country as powerful as we are today back then but his principles were still sound imo.
so one of the main constitional framers was not all about rule of law. we were founded and have the deepest respect for breaking the law (rejecting our king) if the need arises.
us being about the rule of law is propaganda (guys like O'Rielly constantly push forth this notion) imo. americans hate the law. look at two things we respect most in our history: The Old West legend and the Revolutionary War. In the South toss in the Confederacy.
very much against the rule of law but we relish it. sorry that got ranty and didnt flow well :whistle:
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Yes and no, it's subject to interpretation (no surprise here).
Rejection of the British monarchy was justified in part by portraying George III as a usurper of law, i.e. he "didn't follow the rules" by not respecting the slow process of democratization that was occuring in British government.
Plus, for every person who idolizes "lawbreakers" from the Old West or the Confederacy, there's soemone like me who lionizes "law-followers" who seek authority in the Constitution.
*Sorry, also "ranty and didn't flow well."
**P.S. I also like rebels, just not the kind who rebel against fairness in favor of injustice
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
The idea behind this is traingulation with one foot out the door. We play the Sunni militia's against Al Qaeda since they pretty much have started to lose patience with Al Qaeda's tactics and won't tolerate it anymore. So we get them to route them out and play both those sides against each other, then when the militia's win (they can't lose, there's too many of 'em and Al Qaeda is reliant on them to a certain degree) we get the fuck out since Iraq will have been 'stabilized' from the absence of foreign fighters. It's a risky as hell gamble that's likely going to blow up in our faces, especially since the government isn't even trying to work together, but what else can be done at this point besides pulling up stakes and running like hell.
[Puts on Conspiracy Theorist hat]
Oh, it's going to fail, and miserably.
As a result of violence and instability Iraq will be the "breeding ground for terrorists" that Bush mistakenly (lyingly) claimed it was in 2003. These terrorists will start lashing out at the USA, and a decade or so from now the resulting terror acts against us here will help shore up support for Republican presidential and congressional candidates. An interesting insurance policy for the Republicans.
[/Conspiracy Theory]
No, just no.
You cannot lump all the collective peoples of the middle east in one giant bin just because you feel like it.
And also, to the questioned posited in the op: Yes, actually, the enemy of my enemy can be my friend.
Why is this? It is because enemies are not all created equal.
People on this board, and generic internet 'intellectuals' love bringing up America's meddling in the Soviet-Afghan war as some sort of proof of our idiotic/evil intention in screwing around in parts of the world. But judged on it's merits, it was a net positive for the United states.
A) We did not fucking fund al qaeda in 1980 - 1988. You know why? Because they did not fucking exist until after the soviet afghan war. Osama bin laden was in afghanistan, with a bunch of other Arabs who came to afghanistan to fight in the defensive jihad against the soviets, working as a combat engineer. This does not invalidate our funding of that proxy war. Especially because...
Now, why do I bring this up? Because it fits a pattern, a pattern of 'olololol Amerikkka shouldnt fund people who i am ignorant about because it always bites us in the ass amerikka sux'. Hey, hey guys. Those iraqi sunnis? Yes, they like sovereignty and control of their territory. And Al-Qaeda is blowing their shit up. They have already been attacking al-qaeda and in our absence, in the vicious fight for a nation that is occuring, Al-Qaeda very well could get torn apart by the hate they have engendered there. No, Iraqi Sunni's != Al-Qaeda and it's ultra-militant Sunni ideology. And who knows, they may actually become an ally if we get out of their shit, which is a big deal to them, and help them get others out of their shit.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the new ignorance about the middle east. This time, the burden seems to fall on the left, and it is hilarious to watch.
The US will pay the price by dead soldiers and throwing a shitton of money at it, the local population will suffer for years to come, because no one is capable of creating stability.
Thank you, America.
What? No.
Do you have any clue what kind of numerical superiority the Shi'a have in Iraq? And also, they do have, at least theoritically, an Iraqi military at the moment. Guess what? heavily Shi'a, like Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
Read up, fella.
i think we can both agree on the advantages of both then when done correctly and at the right time. that right time might be approaching in our lifetimes. i hope so and i hope i am young enough to participate in a meaningful way.
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Name me one government, besides the Israel, that does like the US.
Also note that I said "It's save to assume", meaning that I do not expect every human being in the Middle East to hate the US, but that general opinion in the area is strongly anti-American and anti-Israel.
Yeah, woo, that military. Damn, those fuckers you don't want to mess with, what with their kalashnikovs and shit.
Problems with your claims:
1. Whether or not the organization now known as Al-Qaeda existed during the USSR-Afghan war, Osama bin Laden and most major Al-Qaeda figures did, and their radical, militant ideology didn't change before or after we gave them weaponry. Had we thought things out a little better, we might have realized that the Wahhabi goal of a radically conservative Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal would be a bad thing, especially since bin Laden was making the exact same threats and claims about US interventionism as he was about the USSR.
2. Assuming the Al-Qaeda and other foreign fighters are defeated in Iraq as result of arming the Sunni militants, how do you think a radicalized, militant Sunni minority is going to handle their loss of power post-Saddam Hussein regime? Especially when a tremendous amount of the bloodshed going on in Iraq is Shia vs. Sunni Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence? Are the Sunnis just going to hand over their weapons, or are they going to use them against their militant Shia enemies and to regain power in Iraq?
Egypt. The Iranian people love us, but the Ayatollah's not so much.
President Mubarak of Egypt is very cooperative.
Musharraf of Pakistan is as well.
King Abdullah II of Jordan is kind of buddy buddy.
Hell, the Saudi's asked us to protect them in the first Gulf War. Ironically enough, we are able to jerk their chain around quite a bit. This is a pet peeve of the left in this country since their government is practically, other than Bhutan, the last remaining absolute monarchy.
I could go on if you wished.
Ever been shot by one, you dumb fucker?
You mean the army trained largely by the US military that is likely superior to these armed sunni groups in weapons and tactics? Sure.
Dan Smith disagrees, and I quote~
"Mubarak's foreign policy in relation to Israel and the USA is not very different from that of many western European states; an ally of the USA but with growing disillusionment, and a critic of Israel but without taking action against it."
I bet the population is less pragmatic than the government.
And then there's the Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya, a terrorist organisation targeting tourists.
--
Iran is probably the most aggressive opponent of Israel in the region and the Ayatollah's have nearly all the power.
The Pakistani people are very anti-American policy, despite Musharraf (who's been derided by the people as "Busharraf"), who also happens to be a military dictator.
Ditto Mubarak (I think--I don't know as much about Egypt as I should). Both Egypt's and Pakistan's populations are becoming more radicalized and anti-American as a result of their political situations.
EDIT: To second Aldo, there's also the Muslim Brotherhood radical group, which may not have gotten started in Egypt but certainly has had lots of Egyptians as prominent guiding members.
Actually they aren't. At least, according to the US military that trained them with those weapons and tactics. Iraqi military and security forces aren't worth shit.
I for one don't think an army trained by the US is going to beat Sunni guerillas with superior equipment. Just sayin', maybe they do.
Here's the way I see things right now in Iraq.
The United States, under the Bush administration, has destabalized the region by deposing of the strong-arm dictator who uses force to keep the population in line. This is because the neo-cons are dumbasses.
However, Iraq is divided into a few different religious groups, and each of them want control over the nation, and now the presence of American and British troops is the only thing that is forstalling an inevitable civil war, which seems very similar to what occured following the break-up of Yugoslavia.
If the troops are pulled out, the country would immediatly erupt in a civil war, followed by the intervention of Iranian and Turkish troops, which would both very likely annex part of the nation, Iran sharing a very heavy Shiite majority with Iraq. In all likelyhood, there would be some ethnic cleansing of Kurds and Sunnis.
A larger Iranian state, of course, would pose a larger threat to Israel. This is why you see Lieberman voting for continiued troop presence in Iraq, because United States control keeps pressure from Iran off of Israel.
I feel that the fate of the region will largely come down to the events of the 2008 elections.
In the event of an attack upon Israel by Iran, there are two possibilities that I see.
Iran invades, and is stopped immediately. Israeli troops along with massive support from United States and NATO forces invade Iran and the Ayatolla is deposed.
or
Iran Invades, and makes some headway into Israel. Israel deploys tactical nuclear weapons to stop the invasion. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, they try to chuck it at Tel Aviv.
Here's the part for the devil's advocacy:
Why does the United States bear the responsibility for preventing a civil war with the blood of American soldiers. Before the advent of CNN, people were happily oblivious to events occuring in far-off parts of the world. If a civil war breaks out in another country, it should be the United Nation's decision to send in peacekeepers to restore stability with legitimacy, not the decision of our own government. Possibly insurgents would be a little less likely to shoot at somebody wearing a blue helmet, due the presence of internation cooperation and coelition.
People is a different ballgame entirely, however. Israel is most definitely the lightning rod that fucks with us when it comes to popularity among the people, which is important in this conflict, since militant islam in the same vein of Al-Qaeda is practically a grassroots anti-american uprising with deep religious roots.
And Zalbinion, we actually did forsee it as a bad thing. At the end of the Afghan Soviet war the Afghan rebels groups were split ideologically into different factions, and we supported the most pro-american groups against the Anti-american groups. Save seeing the future, which no nation is good at, this was a logical choice. Read Through our enemies eyes, it was written by a now ex-CIA analyst who founded the Osama Bin Laden group after he declared war on the United States in 1994.
T moniker: I think it is possible not to have all out genocide in Iraq after we leave, largely because the violence was a reaction to what they felt was our occupation of the country. It is unpopular to say, but it is true. Not just chaos, but our presence fueled large amounts of violence since our military was not trained for it's environment and counter-insurgency tactics and ended up using lots of heavy handed, counter productive techniques which angered Iraqi sentiments, and then groups started fighting each other largely based on their associations with us. See: Fiasco. Fantastic primer on the Iraq war.
It may be far past that point, however. It is not known to me.