swede316 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 They want us out of the middle east, not just our troops but our weapons, our political support, the regimes we lend our weight to, everything. If we did that, we would not be attacked but we would have to walk to work. For now, we have no choice. Only a few fanatics want us out of the Middle East. They make Billions off our reliance on oil. I've been there and they love the dollar. They may not trust us or even like us...but most of them tolerate us because we keep them out of the stone age....It's the old saying...Don't bite the hand that feeds ya.
GG Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 They want us out of the middle east, not just our troops but our weapons, our political support, the regimes we lend our weight to, everything. If we did that, we would not be attacked but we would have to walk to work. For now, we have no choice. 376420[/snapback] What a bullcrap copout of an answer. Oil only goes into gas engines? Take a look around you. Anything that is plastic, PVC, "rubber" is oil based. Turn off your lights, because there's a good chance the electricity is being generated by an oil fired power plant. Oil is the leading commodity in powering the world, and even if we take your weakly naive solution of cutting ties with the Mid East oil regimes and pull out, you will not change a thing, because there are plenty of other countries that will continue to siphon oil out of those wells. This is more than just about walking to work. Do you also advocate US tourists stopping to visit Bali, because of the bombings there? Stop going to Spain, too. Let's throw the Jews into the Mediterranean and return the pristine lands to the native boys. Let's put up a 100' tall fence on every inch of US boundary and we'll be perfectly safe.
swede316 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Let's put up a 100' tall fence on every inch of US boundary Hey what's wrong with that?
aussiew Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Anything that is plastic, PVC, "rubber" is oil based Even our very own fellow Bills fan "Plastic Cup".
scribo Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 If you are attacked by a swarm of bees, even if you kill hundreds, you are still screwed. 376413[/snapback] Even if I could only kill hundreds, I'll be damned if I'm going to just let that swarm kill me without at least putting up a fight.
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Even our very own fellow Bills fan "Plastic Cup". 376434[/snapback] Of course. How do you think it slipped out of someone's hand?
Thurman's Helmet Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Mickey=Neville Chamberlain How'd that work out for him?
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Oh, this is about oil. Got it. Thanks, Mickey. Funny, I must have misunderstood why 3,000 people were killed in NY. You've cleared it up. It was about the oil. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but he's convinced me: we should ignore the people who attacked us...ignore the people who just attacked London...because if we do, they'll just kill themselves and THEN we can go get all the oil. Ding. 376418[/snapback] Are you really that stupid that you could misread that post that much? Who said anything about not going after these people? All I pointed out is that it won't put an end to terrorism. Isn't that pretty obvious? Has any nation attacked by determined terrorists been able to stop it with military operations alone? Is oil a factor? Until Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened Suadi Arabia, did we give a fig about what he was doing to his own people? Not hardly, he was an ally back then. What was the difference? Was it our love for the peaceable people of Kuwait or our philosophical brotherhood with the royal family of Saudi Arabia or, did it possibly have something to do with a threat to our vital oil supplies? Hmmmmm, gee I'm stumped, why don't you explain it. These whacks have made it very clear what they want, a new pan-Arab Caliphate and to do that they need to overthrow the house of Saud, Mubarak and the rest. They don't think they can do that as long as those governments have our support. So, they attack us. Military operations won't stop these kinds of attacks. Russia is not known for its devotion to civil liberties or military restraint yet it has not stopped Chechen "rebels" from carrying out terrorist attacks. I think oil is a great reason to go to war. One of the best I've ever heard. Our economy and standard of living depends on it. The price though is having to be knee deep in the most politically, culturally backward and unstable areas in the world. If we didn't need their oil, if it wasn't vital to our national interests we would not have to be there. We could deal with their turmoil and self destruction the same way we did in Rwanda, the Balkans and the Sudan. That is, do what we can without putting our own people at risk until things die down and the risks of involvement become acceptably low. If Saudis revolted against the royal family, would you send American troops to die in Mecca to keep Saudi Princes in power? Would we have a choice given our dependence on Saudi oil? If you really believe that our involvement in middle east politics beginning long before 9/11 or the invasion of Iraq or todays events, had and has nothing to do with oil, a position so palpably ridiculous I can't believe we are even discussing it, please explain to me the reasons for our staunch support of the Saudi royal family. Would it be the common ground we share with them on human rights? Could it be that they are a democracy? Could it be their support of Israel? Could it be their support of religious freedom? Explain to me the insignificance of oil in geopolitical struggles. This I gotta hear.
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Are you really that stupid that you could misread that post that much?376445[/snapback] I stopped reading after this, Mick. You had me at "stupid." Nice communication skills. I'm sure you're very successful in your debates.
pkwwjd Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 What a bullcrap copout of an answer. Oil only goes into gas engines? Take a look around you. Anything that is plastic, PVC, "rubber" is oil based. Turn off your lights, because there's a good chance the electricity is being generated by an oil fired power plant. Oil is the leading commodity in powering the world, and even if we take your weakly naive solution of cutting ties with the Mid East oil regimes and pull out, you will not change a thing, because there are plenty of other countries that will continue to siphon oil out of those wells. This is more than just about walking to work. Do you also advocate US tourists stopping to visit Bali, because of the bombings there? Stop going to Spain, too. Let's throw the Jews into the Mediterranean and return the pristine lands to the native boys. Let's put up a 100' tall fence on every inch of US boundary and we'll be perfectly safe. 376429[/snapback] While I lived in WI, we advocated putting up a 100' wall around Illinois, then filling it with water ...
OGTEleven Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 You are kidding, right? If we evacuated EVERYTHING from the Middle East, stopped all aid and severed all ties to anything even remotely Middle Eastern, we would still get attacked. It is part of the fundamental principles of the radical Islam practiced by these extremists. They want all countries to be Islamic states. We are not an Islamic state. They will attack us until we become an Islamic state. 376425[/snapback] Bin Laden has stated exactly that in writing. Mickey's expectation level (that it won't stop whatever our immediate tactics may be) is probably correct from a short term view. From a longer term IMO, it needs to addressed in BOTH a harsh and diplomatic way. The harsher the better. The diplomatic side involves convincing the rest of the muslim world to deal harshly with their own problems. It ain't gonna be easy, but if we aren't harsh there is no way the muslim world will come down hard on their terrorists. They need to be more afraid of us than the terrorists. It's not nice, but it's true.
EC-Bills Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Best wishes to everyone of the UK. Hang in there Nick and be careful!
Thurman's Helmet Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 From my favorite liberal over at patsfans.com (mind you, this is in a condolences thread that was requested to be made NON political) What will the people of GB want to do now. Will they demand Blair pull out of Iraq , where there is no major Al Qaida presence, and go after them in other areas?
swede316 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 They need to be more afraid of us than the terrorists. It's not nice, but it's true. Exactly...hit the nail on the head.
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Mickey=Neville Chamberlain How'd that work out for him? 376444[/snapback] I have not advocated forswearing the use of force against terrorists, just pointed out the starkly obvious: military operations will not stop terrorism. If you disagree, please submit your military plan to stop terrorism to the governments of the United States, Great Britian, Spain, Russia and Israel. I am sure they would love to hear it, you must know something they don't. Chamberlain faced a different situation. Nazi Germany was a state, a nation, a government. Military operations work very, very well against states, nations and governments. Unfortunately, terrorists are not goverments are they? They are not protecting territory, they have no real geography do they? Surely you appreciate the difference between the armies of nation states clashing over territory and the struggle against terrorism. They are entirely different conflicts requiring different strategies. I don't advocate appeasment, far from it. I do find it interesting however that by simply pointing out how ineffective military operations are against terrorist attacks, I am attacked as an appeaser. Quite a leap in logic there. Why must so many of you go into hyper hawk drive at the first sign of anyone suggesting other ways of fighting and winning the war on terrorism?
Ramius Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 best wishes nick, i hope things go well over there... at least this thread had a little bit of time before it turned into a crappy political debate (i thought we had an entire board for that?) can we go back to discussing london now?
bobblehead Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Thanks all for your kind words... I am just back now from the House of Commons. I have to head back there soon - but it all seems very calm now. The sirens have quit and most people seem to be going about their business as normally as possible. The mood is sombre outdoors and people are being very wary of everything... That there are no tube services and buses is making the city sound very quiet and the roads empty... You can't get a Taxi for love nor money. I hope we are through the worst of it now in terms of bombs. I trust that the explosions have ceased (been centred around 08.49) and we have to pick up the pieces as best we can. The death toll will rise - the casualties will rise - but we will go on anyway, because that's all you can do. I will be walking home today - not going to trust the public transport for a while. It is a 7.1 mile walk thru London... 376402[/snapback] Hey Nick, if you don't mind, what have you been hearing on what really happened? I'm getting alot of conflicting stories: 3 bombs, 4 bombs, 6 bombs, a power surge, one was a suicide bomber.. Have you heard anything more concrete?
Mickey Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 I stopped reading after this, Mick. You had me at "stupid." Nice communication skills. I'm sure you're very successful in your debates. 376454[/snapback] Right, and your response was respectful, insightful, designed to stimulate intelligent debate without even a hint of sarcasm, right? Typical, you post a snickering reply and then pull your skirts up and run when you get what you dish right back. If you want to cut the crap and really discuss this, let me know.
VABills Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Why must so many of you go into hyper hawk drive at the first sign of anyone suggesting other ways of fighting and winning the war on terrorism? 376465[/snapback] Mickey, I have not seen you suggest anything other than what we are doing doesn't have the immediate Hot Pocket effect to make you feel comfortable. You don't know Military opns won't work in the long term. Your suggestion was diplomatic. What does that buy you and who do you talk to? They don't want to negociate they simplay want the world to be an islamic state, where woman are scum, and they rule and kill at their desire. They are not geographically located someone what what bargaining can they do?
swede316 Posted July 7, 2005 Posted July 7, 2005 Chamberlain faced a different situation. Nazi Germany was a state, a nation, a government. Military operations work very, very well against states, nations and governments. Unfortunately, terrorists are not goverments are they? They are not protecting territory, they have no real geography do they? AHHHHHHH...But they are supported by certain states/nations/governments (IRAN, SYRIA) ....Do you advocate military force against them? Did you support the invasion of Afghanistan? They were a government that sponsered terrorism. So should we nuke Tehran? Maybe we should....Let em know we mean business.
Recommended Posts