You are being lied to about pirates

[chore boy]

I guess it breaks down to two groups... the anti-violence, tree huggers and the people that feel that war and weapons are/have been necessary to achieve results against resistant entities. There might be a middle ground between the two parties but I think the majority of the population will fall into one of those two groups.

 

[The Gardener]

Like what, Iran and N. Korea? They know we're not invading them and as you've seen, they're flipping us a fat birdie while they continue to do whatever the fuk they want.

What would YOU do about Iran or North Korea?

Our military is stretched thin, troops doing three or four tours, stop loss orders, and this is JUST to CONTAIN the problems in Iraq and Pakistan. Add to this the fact that this country is broke, tens of trillions in debt, and have NO allies (save Israel) that might potentially support us in such an endeavour. And if we did use military action on Iran, what stops them from retaliating? They have an arsenal of missiles and could launch a massive barrage on the Baghdad Green Zone, as well as on our bases in Iraq, and on Iraqi oil infrastructure. And what impact would the loss of oil exports from Iraq and Iran have on global oil prices? What impact would $150+/bbl oil have on a US economy in a desperate recession?

Have you thought through any of this?

Folks like YOU need to screw your thinking caps on and realize that the US can't make the entire world do what we want it to do by us using military solutions all the time. It's NOT a matter of being a "tree hugger", its a simple matter of reality and being pragmatic about the choices this country makes relative to the potential outcomes.

I guess it breaks down to two groups... the anti-violence, tree huggers and the people that feel that war and weapons are/have been necessary to achieve results against resistant entities. There might be a middle ground between the two parties but I think the majority of the population will fall into one of those two groups.

As I said above, I am NOT against using the military option when situations call for it, case in point being the release of the hijacked crew, among other situations which I agreed with in the past. I am not of the sort who thinks the military should not be used at all. I think the conclusion of your entry here is illogical and deeply flawed.

 

[chore boy]

Gardener-

Off-topic real quick, but what's your opinion on American's gun ownership rights?

Good points on Iran and N.Korea. I know things appear easier than they really are... I'm not delusional. I guess I'm just a Bush-era lemming.

I'm not sure I appreciate being called illogical... maybe we have different views on things. I happen to believe in escalation of force.

What do you suppose we do against countries that violate U.N. restrictions? Impose embargos? I can't help but think that Iran and N.Korea are laughing at us because they know we're in over our head in Iraq and they know were not gonna be invading them anytime soon.

Speaking of Iraq, a couple of my buddies have completed several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe them when they say that all the red tape is prohibiting our troops from actually winning the war over there. It sucks that all the politics surrounding the war are essentially costing soldiers their lives in that they can't really be on the offensive because of collateral damage to the civilian population. Instead, they have to ride around like sitting ducks, falling victim to IEDs and whatnot. I can't say I fault the Taliban and friends for resorting to such tactics... unconvential warfare is really the only way they can fight us.

 

[HughJass]

Is there something wrong with being a patriot?
Is there something wrong with having pride in your country and fully supporting its military endeavours? I apologize to everyone that thinks all the world's problems can be solved through negotiations.

you say your a patriot, would pull the trigger and support your nation's military actions, so why aren't you in Iraq or Afghanistan?

you wouldn't want us to think you're just another of those neoc*nt internet windbag 'why go when my neighbors kid can go' type of patriot, would you?

 

[The Gardener]

I'm a Ron Paul-type libertarian at heart, and am VERY supportive of the right to own arms... but I'm not an idealogical zealot, I consider myself to be pragmatic. I think ANY "...ism" followed strictly is a recipe for disaster... I prefer leaders who think and reason.

I'm not against military intervention, I just think that we need to pick and choose the spots in which we use it, or else the military tool starts to loose its effectiveness. There is a point where constant reliance on the military to advance foreign policy objectives starts to have a diminishing return. It's not about me being a "tree hugger", its about me worrying that this country is following the Roman road to ruin as a result of overstretch.

I don't doubt what your friends say about a potential to win in Iraq. I hope they do!

 

[chore boy]

Hmmm... could it be that my background disqualifies me from service? Did you ever consider that? Because you can bet your Aussie *** that I didn't go through all those years of ROTC if I didn't have every intention of joining the military.

Why do you keep saying "pull the trigger"? That must have struck a chord with you.

 

[chore boy]

Ron Paul would have been a sweet gig... Romney, too.

Personally, I've always like Jeb Bush... he'd never get elected just because of his last name.

 

[HughJass]

Hmmm... could it be that my background disqualifies me from service?

then I guess I'll have to change my opinion of you from suspected chickenhawk to rabid, uninhibited neoc*nt jingoist

 

[Bryan]

How do you guys quote a portion of what another poster said like Bryan did up there? I tried it just now and obviously it didn't work out too well.

Click the "quote" button at the bottom of someone's post, and it will quote that text for you in your own post. It's then up to you to edit that material as you see fit.

 

[Dblbass128]

"terrorist" operations?

While I might agree that they are engaging in criminal conduct to make money, I would HARDLY call them "terrorists". It's not like they have killed anyone, or done ANYTHING with the intent of creating "terror".

I am so tired of this Orwellian "Bush-speak" where all who oppose sovereign interests are labelled "terrorists".

Did you happen to catch the DHS report that was sent out?

If you oppose abortion and illegal immigration you are a threat or should at least not be looked over lol crazy

 

[Dblbass128]

Is there something wrong with being a patriot? Is there something wrong with having pride in your country and fully supporting its military endeavours? I apologize to everyone that thinks all the world's problems can be solved through negotiations.

'Terrorism' is a vague and dangerous word with too broad of a spectrum in its meaning

 

[ali777]

Guess it's the patriot in me but I'd like to have been the one that pulled the trigger. They were threats to America's freedoms and they were dealt with accordingly.

criminals here :bigun2: chore boy pulling the trigger

Problem solved unk: !!!!

Is there something wrong with being a patriot?

HELL NO!!!

Is there something wrong with having pride in your country and fully supporting its military endeavours?

:bravo:

I apologize to everyone that thinks all the world's problems can be solved through negotiations.

So, you don't think the US of A should be bringing "democracy and civilisation" to the rest of the world? You might be right... Why waste time and money on stupid negotiations when brute force can solve everything.

Problem solved again!!!

Like what, Iran and N. Korea? They know we're not invading them and as you've seen, they're flipping us a fat birdie while they continue to do whatever the fuk they want.

Excuse my ignorance, I'm not aware of what N Korea and Iran have done to threaten your sovereign rights. Maybe you can enlighten me!!!

What do you suppose we do against countries that violate U.N. restrictions? Impose embargos? I can't help but think that Iran and N.Korea are laughing at us because they know we're in over our head in Iraq and they know were not gonna be invading them anytime soon.

Since we are on the subject, I do not know what UN restrictions you are talking about. Could you please inform ignorant people like me what those restrictions are!!!

I guess it breaks down to two groups... the anti-violence, tree huggers and the people that feel that war and weapons are/have been necessary to achieve results against resistant entities. There might be a middle ground between the two parties but I think the majority of the population will fall into one of those two groups.

I love trees...

Speaking of Iraq, a couple of my buddies have completed several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe them when they say that all the red tape is prohibiting our troops from actually winning the war over there. It sucks that all the politics surrounding the war are essentially costing soldiers their lives in that they can't really be on the offensive because of collateral damage to the civilian population. Instead, they have to ride around like sitting ducks, falling victim to IEDs and whatnot. I can't say I fault the Taliban and friends for resorting to such tactics... unconvential warfare is really the only way they can fight us.

Hold on, my English is very rusty... So, we aren't "Speaking of Iraq", but we are "Speaking of Iraq and Afghanistan" here? I thought the Taliban were in Afghanistan?

Civilian or military loss of lives should be avoided at all costs!!! I guess one of the problems is that the soldiers can't be on the offensive because most of the time they don't know who the enemy is. Why is "the red tape" that stops soldiers from being on the offensive against civilian population bothering you?

Hmmm... could it be that my background disqualifies me from service? Did you ever consider that? Because you can bet your Aussie *** that I didn't go through all those years of ROTC if I didn't have every intention of joining the military.

Criminal record????

Why do you keep saying "pull the trigger"? That must have struck a chord with you.

I once watched a documentary on the BBC about "Are we capable of killing people". Psychologists think only 2% of the population is capable of "pulling the trigger" when there is no direct danger to our lives, and they call them psychopaths. I guess the likes of Aussie and me fall in the 98%, ie those who can't pull the trigger, and the whole concept of pulling the trigger is very foreign to us.

In your case, you either view the criminals as a direct threat to your sovereign rights, and pulling the trigger as a means of self defense or you have serious psychological issues. I guess, being a patriot you fall in the first category, and you just want to defend the rights of US companies that legally sail in international waters.

Then again.... I do not know if you have a criminal record, but if you do have a criminal record, are you not supposed to pull the trigger on yourself as well???

I'm really confused now....

 

[chore boy]

Your English is fine... but you knew that already.

Was there something wrong about using the term "endeavours"? Or were you just being a punk?

We see what "wasting time and money on stupid negotiations" yeilds:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/wor ... ction.html

Enlighten you? Correct me if I'm wrong, my good sir, but Iran and N. Korea aren't allowed to have a nuclear program, yet do so anyways. Apparently several nations view this as a threat to their "sovereign rights" and this is where the U.N. restrictions come into play, buddy.

I'm sure you do love trees.

If my criminal record were an issue, I don't reckon I would have passed the FBI background check or have gained CCW approval.

I guess it's just my mode of thinking but if I were in a combat scenerio, it would instantly become a me-or-them situation. I'm not sure it would make a difference if they were 1000 yards away and weren't even aware of my presence. If they could, they would kill me before I could get them... sorry about their luck as I happened to get the jump on them. I couldn't really fault them from taking me out either... Lord knows I would have. Pretty sure this clears up the 2% you were trying to place me into.

And you're not confused... you're a smart ***.

 

[ali777]

Was there something wrong about using the term "endeavours"? Or were you just being a punk?

Honestly? I was just being a punk. I guess you knew the answer already.

Here is the dictionary definition of endeavour:
1. A conscientious or concerted effort toward an end; an earnest attempt.
2. Purposeful or industrious activity; enterprise.

The whole point is that if you are going to put so much effort into military action and turn the whole exercise into an "endeavour", you might just as well spend some time negotiating.

 

[chore boy]

Can you name a US military endeavour/operation/action that wasn't preceded by talks/warnings?

 

[Dblbass128]

Can you name a US military endeavour/operation/action that wasn't preceded by talks/warnings?

CIA overthrowing the Shah in the early fifties

 

[The Gardener]

Actually, the US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s, and we INSTALLED the Shah as a result. The Shah of Iran was a staunch US Ally (cough coughpuppet cough).

Mossadegh was nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, so that actual Iranians could reap the profits from Iranian oil. US big oil didn't care for this, so we overthrew him (see "Operation Ajax") and installed a brutal and bloodthirsty dictator (the Shah), so that US big oil could continue to get their cut of the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

The Shah was overthrown in a revolution in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

 

[patagonia]

Actually, the US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s, and we INSTALLED the Shah as a result. The Shah of Iran was a staunch US Ally (cough coughpuppet cough).

Mossadegh was nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, so that actual Iranians could reap the profits from Iranian oil. US big oil didn't care for this, so we overthrew him (see "Operation Ajax") and installed a brutal and bloodthirsty dictator (the Shah), so that US big oil could continue to get their cut of the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

The Shah was overthrown in a revolution in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

just adding to "Gardener`s" post, for those interested in the subject I recommend:

"All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer


http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240856773&sr=1-2

 

[Dblbass128]

Actually, the US overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950s, and we INSTALLED the Shah as a result. The Shah of Iran was a staunch US Ally (cough coughpuppet cough).

Mossadegh was nationalizing the Iranian oil industry, so that actual Iranians could reap the profits from Iranian oil. US big oil didn't care for this, so we overthrew him (see "Operation Ajax") and installed a brutal and bloodthirsty dictator (the Shah), so that US big oil could continue to get their cut of the money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

The Shah was overthrown in a revolution in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution

Blow Back

 

[The Gardener]

Blow Back

Yep. Blow Back... FTL!..