• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What should we do?

How many of you would support a nationalized war effort? example nationalize businesses and producti

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

RoperAB

Well-known member
There were 50,000 AlQauda/Taliban in Afghanistan when the coalition first went in. Basically the amazing American Air Force went in. God I love those old B-52s! Anyway to date we have only killed about 5000 Alquadi. The rest fled to Pakistan since we did not have ground troops in place to cut them off. Basically it was a missed opportunity. So there are about 45,000 of them on the Pakistan border and we cant touch them.
Pakistan is basically friendly but the Paki government has little control over the border region.
Afghanistan is important to AlQaudi because of the money they can make from Poppie production<herion>. They want it back. Americans are pulling out of Afghanistan because really they are needed in elsewhere.Dont forget this is not a war against a country. This is a war against an organisation that has no borders and to a certain extent lives among us.
Nato does not have much of a force in Afghanistan. Some AlQuadi is slipping back from Pakistan but so far not in big enough numbers to have any kind of decisive battle.
Whats to be done?
Leave Nato there as bait in hopes that they come back?
Secure the border with Pakistan and then eventually expand the war into Pakistan? Really I think this would be a mistake.
Secure the border and get on with rebuilding Afghanistan and just try to forget about Pakistan for now? The problem is we went to Afghanistan to kill AlQuadi. Not Nation build. However we are hurting AlQuada in the pocket book if we can cut them off from the herion trade. Without money wont the 45,000 in Pakistan just fizzle out?
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
All good questions, Roper. I don't have an answer and, apparently, neither does the President of the United States. Just recently the president of Afghanistan was complaining to the world media that too many innocent Afghans were being killed by coalition troops.

This all boils down to Bush taking 9/11 as an opportunity to get Saddam rather than going after Bin Laden.

Afghanistan has defeated powerful armies since history started being recorded. I seriously doubt NATO is going to defeat the warlords or the Taliban.

As you say Al-Qaida is not a country, it's a cause. It can't be defeated by guns. It must be defeated with our minds and hearts. The hateful, spiteful, anti-muslim posts you see on this board only inflame the hateful, spiteful, anti-Christians on the other side.

They just arrested a group of home grown terrorists in Florida, USA, today. What happens in Afghanistand or Iraq will have little effect on those groups, expect to inspire them.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
" Just recently the president of Afghanistan was complaining to the world media that too many innocent Afghans were being killed by coalition troops."

News to me, but it would make sense because friendly fire happens. Example if you have 60 afgans being lead by 10 coalition soldiers and if this group gets hit with friendly fire the odds are that more afgans will die than coalition. Friendly fire happens :( A lot of people just dont understand this.

"This all boils down to Bush taking 9/11 as an opportunity to get Saddam rather than going after Bin Laden."

I honestly dont believe that Jr would kill American soldiers just to settle a an old score. G Bush senior would never approve of something like this. Sr was not my favorite President but I have never questioned his moral integrety.

"Afghanistan has defeated powerful armies since history started being recorded. I seriously doubt NATO is going to defeat the warlords or the Taliban."

We already have

"As you say Al-Qaida is not a country, it's a cause. It can't be defeated by guns. It must be defeated with our minds and hearts. The hateful, spiteful, anti-muslim posts you see on this board only inflame the hateful, spiteful, anti-Christians on the other side. "

Its not anti muslim. Its anti finatic. Look do Christians on here give a crap about Jews in Israel? You know Israel is Holy to Christians to. There are all kinds of Muslims in Alberta that are glad the United States went into Iraq. They hate Saddam. Thats why they came to Canada to get away from his regime. There are actually muslims in Calgary that hate the Iranian government. Its just like all the Cubans in Florida that hate Castro and would like to see him kicked out.
You know im not from Alberta originally but im an Albertan first and I would fight for it.

"They just arrested a group of home grown terrorists in Florida, USA, today. What happens in Afghanistand or Iraq will have little effect on those groups, expect to inspire them."

Good that the traitors are being drawn out from among us. They should be shot without delay.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
I didnt hear that about Rumsfeld. Honestly I dont know why you would want to get rid of your best man.
Problem with SR was that he was always almost a liberal. Dont get me wrong, he is a great man. But he borderlines on "Peace At Any Cost".Sort of like Carter or Chamberlan.
I dont hold it against him because I know his heart is in the right place.
But back in Operation Desert Storm he had the most powerful military thanks to Reagan at his disposal that the world has ever seen.
Much more powerful than what Jr has today!
It would have been a lot easier to have gone into Iraq back then instead of putting it off until it had to be done. But hind sight is 20/20.
I know the reason Sr did this was because he was hoping that it would never have to be done. Really we cant hold that against him.
Are you sure Sr actually wanted Rumsfeld replaced? Im thinking Sr would have a lot of influence and I havnt heard anything about this from any reliable sources. You would think something like that would be all over the CBC up here.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The Iraq war should have been a war that everyone in the U.S. pays for equally. I will admit, having 3 under age 18 children, I did recieve some tax breaks under GW. My gripe with how this war is being run is that it is not being paid for by everyone. The war has been considered off budget for some time and we have just borrowed the money from our children's future taxes instead of making everyone pay for it.

You shouldn't be giving extra tax breaks (I did get some) and borrowing the money from the Chinese or Japanese or whoever and sign your nation's kids future tax receipts. It is pretty disingenous.

Roper, we don't need to let off the rich in our society (top 30% of asset owners) have tax breaks and deficit fund a foreign war. That allows the rich to enjoy the "benefits" of the war on my kid's future dime.

We are not going to have a war with Pakistan. They are a nuclear power and we have already bit off more than we can chew right now (I wish this wasn't so).

Iran is not Iraq. I totally disagree with Iranian poltics (as many Iranians do) but we can not change it soley by force. Iran is a much, much bigger country than Iraq and we would should try to affect the inside politics through other means than force. If Iran has or can acquire the bomb, we will be in a foreign land locked war in Afganistan surrounded by at least two hostile nuclear powers (if we don't keep Pak on our side) and WE WOULD LOSE!

I had a close family member who was arrested after posting a F--- Iran during the hostage crisis, a classmate whose uncle was in charge of all of the military forces under the Shaw, and my two oldest kids went to a home daycare run by one of the best child care providers and people I have met (she was Iranian and her husband was in the Shaw's airforce).

We need to find another way to skin that cat.

If you know anything about me at all, you know I don't stand down from a fight that needs fighting. Some things must be settled in other ways.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
" had a close family member who was arrested after posting a F--- Iran during the hostage crisis, a classmate whose uncle was in charge of all of the military forces under the Shaw, and my two oldest kids went to a home daycare run by one of the best child care providers and people I have met (she was Iranian and her husband was in the Shaw's airforce). "

Im not sure what you mean by the above?

Okay why not destroy the oil fields in Iraq? Then we could leave the region and it would not matter who filled the vacumn.
This would free up troops for Afghanistan and or Pakistan.
All these AlQaudi types hate us anyways so who cares if we piss them off?
Im not sure about your point on Pakistans nukes. Pakistan is sapposedly friendly but if they dont play ball im thinking we could take out their nukes before they ever got off the ground.
Im thinking if push comes to shove that they will play ball.
Air Power is a wonderful thing. When it comes to Iran all we would have to do is take out their nuclear vacilities. Every time Iran flexes its muscles just take out one of their oil fields. If we hit them in the pocket book the leaders in Iran will soon smarten up.
About tax cuts
Under Reagan didnt the treasury actually make more money when it reduced taxes due to increased GDP? "Trickle Down Economic"
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
" had a close family member who was arrested after posting a F--- Iran during the hostage crisis, a classmate whose uncle was in charge of all of the military forces under the Shaw, and my two oldest kids went to a home daycare run by one of the best child care providers and people I have met (she was Iranian and her husband was in the Shaw's airforce). "



Okay why not destroy the oil fields in Iraq? Then we could leave the region and it would not matter who filled the vacumn.
This would free up troops for Afghanistan and or Pakistan.
All these AlQaudi types hate us anyways so who cares if we p*** them off?
Im not sure about your point on Pakistans nukes. Pakistan is sapposedly friendly but if they dont play ball im thinking we could take out their nukes before they ever got off the ground.
Im thinking if push comes to shove that they will play ball.
Air Power is a wonderful thing. When it comes to Iran all we would have to do is take out their nuclear vacilities. Every time Iran flexes its muscles just take out one of their oil fields. If we hit them in the pocket book the leaders in Iran will soon smarten up.
About tax cuts
Under Reagan didnt the treasury actually make more money when it reduced taxes due to increased GDP? "Trickle Down Economic"


Im not sure what you mean by the above?

The sign was posted on an overpass in D.C.

The point I wanted to make about Pakistan is that there are good people and bad people there. You can't put them all in one pool just like you can not put all Iranians in one pool. It would be like painting all Canadians with one brush or all Americans with one brush.

As far as the oil fields are concerned, we need them. Our economy is a petro economy. Not so much as before, because we have shifted manufactoring to China, but we still use most of the world's oil. If we took out the Iraq oil fields and or the Iranian ones, we would lose all that oil and our allies in the world would all be against us because they use the oil also. China uses a lot of Iranian oil. That would make 3 nuclear powers against us for what? Afghanistan?

Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005
Rank Country Proved reserves
(billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 261.9
2. Canada 178.81
3. Iran 125.8
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 77.2
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.0
10. Nigeria 35.3

Iran and Iraq are strategic for their oil alone.

On your point about Reagan:

Reagan was, I think, one of our best presidents. He came at a time the country needed a different attitude about the U.S. position in the world. He broke communism without firing a gun.

Here is a link that has a lot about the supply side arguments:
http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

You will notice that during the Reagan years, the tax rate (which was way up in the 70% range) was way out of whack. Reagan changed the policy a whole lot which helped put things in a better balance after whipping inflation. The one bad thing about Reaganomics was an increase in the deficit and a decrease in the personal savings rate. After reading the link's information, we will have to save that for another discussion as it could pretty long. In short, a lot of things changed under Reagan and we beat back the negative feeling we inherited from the previous time periods. On balance he was a good pres.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Econ said
The sign was posted on an overpass in D.C.

reply
hahahahahahah

about Iraq oil
We dont need it. We would actually be paying less at the pump if there was no oil in Iraq. Here this Wall Street Journal article explains
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm.

About Pakistan
You know with tensions so high between evenly matched Pakistan and India. It would not take much of a covert operation for us to start an all out nuke war between them. We could just stand back and let them go at it. Then move in to clear any Taliban/AlQaudi that was left.
But no Econ im a people person :lol: . I know you cant paint all people with one brush. That is why im not advocateing any covert missions to stir up India and Pakistan against one another.
Like I said before the Paki government is on our side. However they are under pressure from the AlQuadi/Taliban supporters within Pakistan. If we use leverage on the government im thinking they will stay on side with us. Really if we push it, they have no choice. Trust me I can think of lots of ways to leverage them. Besides all we would be doing is helping Pakistan get control over its own Country. Since Pakistan is a nuclear power im thinking this would be in everybodys best interest. Right now Pakistan has very little control over the western part of its own territory. This is the region where we need to surround, pin down, bomb the hell out of and shoot whats left.
But like I have said all a long im thinking its better not to expand the war into Pakistan at this point. All im saying is that it is an option. Personally I see N. Korea and Communist China as bigger priorities. Iran can easily be put in its place. Distroying the oil fields would also have a domino effect in helping to deal with the growing problem of China. We have lots of oil. Communist China doesnt. I dont know about you Econ but I see this as a great way of crippling the Communist Chinesse economy and slowing down the Communist military machine. Personaly im starting to think that we are presently just building a monster by trading with Communist China. Why should we be trying to buy influence with Communist China? They work against us every chance they get. Lets put them in the third world with the Soviets.

About pissing off the world
Your looking at it the wrong way. Just my oppinion but I think its time the world started worrying about pissing off the good old US of A.
Really besides our true allies I really could care less about the rest. Especially France, F-ck France!

About Reaganomics.
Your right this deserves a whole thread of its own. But if I was to talk about it I would use Alberta and to a lesser extent Wyoming as examples of what works. Look at your 5 poorest States to see what doesnt.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
Econ said
The sign was posted on an overpass in D.C.

reply
hahahahahahah

about Iraq oil
We dont need it. We would actually be paying less at the pump if there was no oil in Iraq. Here this Wall Street Journal article explains
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-oil_oil.htm.

About Pakistan
You know with tensions so high between evenly matched Pakistan and India. It would not take much of a covert operation for us to start an all out nuke war between them. We could just stand back and let them go at it. Then move in to clear any Taliban/AlQaudi that was left.
But no Econ im a people person :lol: . I know you cant paint all people with one brush. That is why im not advocateing any covert missions to stir up India and Pakistan against one another.
Like I said before the Paki government is on our side. However they are under pressure from the AlQuadi/Taliban supporters within Pakistan. If we use leverage on the government im thinking they will stay on side with us. Really if we push it, they have no choice. Trust me I can think of lots of ways to leverage them. Besides all we would be doing is helping Pakistan get control over its own Country. Since Pakistan is a nuclear power im thinking this would be in everybodys best interest. Right now Pakistan has very little control over the western part of its own territory. This is the region where we need to surround, pin down, bomb the hell out of and shoot whats left.
But like I have said all a long im thinking its better not to expand the war into Pakistan at this point. All im saying is that it is an option. Personally I see N. Korea and Communist China as bigger priorities. Iran can easily be put in its place. Distroying the oil fields would also have a domino effect in helping to deal with the growing problem of China. We have lots of oil. Communist China doesnt. I dont know about you Econ but I see this as a great way of crippling the Communist Chinesse economy and slowing down the Communist military machine. Personaly im starting to think that we are presently just building a monster by trading with Communist China. Why should we be trying to buy influence with Communist China? They work against us every chance they get. Lets put them in the third world with the Soviets.

About pissing off the world
Your looking at it the wrong way. Just my oppinion but I think its time the world started worrying about pissing off the good old US of A.
Really besides our true allies I really could care less about the rest. Especially France, F-ck France!

About Reaganomics.
Your right this deserves a whole thread of its own. But if I was to talk about it I would use Alberta and to a lesser extent Wyoming as examples of what works. Look at your 5 poorest States to see what doesnt.

Limited nuclear war is not in our interests. War in general is not in our interests. Afghanistan was won mostly by the rebel Afghanis and a big help from our air power. It was an easier war to win in that respect.

I totally supported both wars but I believe you have to win the peace after the war for it to be a success. We now have low level wars in both countries. This type of conflict is not easily won with conventional military power. It is won in the politics of the countries. To not recognize it is misguided. When you do recognize it, you realize that you must change course from the military to the political side. Iraq has had years of propaganda about the U.S. under Sadamm. We should not make that propaganda have truth in it by our actions (Abu graib did not help). In short, some of the military objectives were "won" by an abuse of the political objectives. That is no way to win the peace. There is a question as to whether we ever really gained by some of these policies. You can not have the moral foundation of your position be chipped away by your actions. You will fail.

We started trade with Communist China in the hopes that liberalized trade would lead to liberalized China. We have not done enough to push the liberalization of China, and instead have settled with allowing it to happen on its own. If we do what you suggest, we will throw away the previous investment in China in this regard.

Blowing up the oil fields and leaving is one way to handle things. Sadam tried it. Do we want to emulate Sadam?

It would not be a good policy to follow for a variety of reasons. China is the largest producer of coal in the world and the largest consumer of coal. The U.S. is the largest consumer of oil at just over 20 million barrels per day with China at just under 6 million. Any cut off of oil in the world would affect the U.S. much more than China. It would also pit everyone in the world against us.

I don't mind going against other countries when we need to. In this case, it would not be in our best interests and holds no moral high ground.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
RoperAB said:
"
News to me, but it would make sense because friendly fire happens. Example if you have 60 afgans being lead by 10 coalition soldiers and if this group gets hit with friendly fire the odds are that more afgans will die than coalition. Friendly fire happens :( A lot of people just dont understand this.

Perhaps you should volunteer for duty in Afghanistan and explain to the relatives of the thousands of dead Afgans about friendly fire. I'm sure they'll be greatly reassured. :roll: Or talk to Pat Tilman's family. I take it that if someone invaded your country and accidently killed your wife, child, mother, you'd be very understanding about it. :roll:

I honestly dont believe that Jr would kill American soldiers just to settle a an old score. G Bush senior would never approve of something like this. Sr was not my favorite President but I have never questioned his moral integrety.

The arrogance of the Bush Bunch, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, knew no bounds when they dismissed out of hand the advice of the top general in the US Army and laid their own plans for taking Iraq. The problem is they didn't plan for after the invasion, well, one of the problems. I don't think George HW approves of his son's handling of this mess. But he is a Republican and it is his son, so he doesn't have much to say.

We already have

You're not paying attention if you think we've defeated the Taliban. They are making a comeback in Afghanistan.

Its not anti muslim. Its anti finatic. Look do Christians on here give a crap about Jews in Israel? You know Israel is Holy to Christians to. There are all kinds of Muslims in Alberta that are glad the United States went into Iraq. They hate Saddam. Thats why they came to Canada to get away from his regime. There are actually muslims in Calgary that hate the Iranian government. Its just like all the Cubans in Florida that hate Castro and would like to see him kicked out.
You know im not from Alberta originally but im an Albertan first and I would fight for it.

No, if you read the posts on this board, you'll see anti-muslim posts. Did you see the post where they picked certain parts of the Koran and used them as proof that the religion was a bloodthirsty, intolerant religion that called for killing anyone who is an nonbeliever?

Good that the traitors are being drawn out from among us. They should be shot without delay.

But it shoots down the claim that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Invading another country does not make us any safer, it only inflames the haters.
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
"Perhaps you should volunteer for duty in Afghanistan and explain to the relatives of the thousands of dead Afgans about friendly fire. I'm sure they'll be greatly reassured. :roll: Or talk to Pat Tilman's family. I take it that if someone invaded your country and accidently killed your wife, child, mother, you'd be very understanding about it. :roll: "

You know nothing about me. BTW You air force has bombed and killed Canadians in Afghanistan and so far the British have lost more soldiers to friendly American fire than they have to the enemy.
Friendly fire happens in every war. It happens a lot less now a days than it used to years ago its just that years ago the public never heard about it.

"The arrogance of the Bush Bunch, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, knew no bounds when they dismissed out of hand the advice of the top general in the US Army and laid their own plans for taking Iraq. The problem is they didn't plan for after the invasion, well, one of the problems. I don't think George HW approves of his son's handling of this mess. But he is a Republican and it is his son, so he doesn't have much to say. "

Pure speculation and or disinformation.

"You're not paying attention if you think we've defeated the Taliban. They are making a comeback in Afghanistan."

Did it ever occur to you that we are trying to lure the Taliban/AlQaudi that escaped into Pakistan back into Afghanistan?

"No, if you read the posts on this board, you'll see anti-muslim posts. Did you see the post where they picked certain parts of the Koran and used them as proof that the religion was a bloodthirsty, intolerant religion that called for killing anyone who is an nonbeliever? "

Actually I dont have time to read most of the threads on this forum but I have read some of the stuff your talking about. Isnt that the preeching of these extremist that are on this Jihad? Really you wont believe this but I dont hate all muslims. Just the ones who are at war with us.
But between you and me I would feel a lot better about muslims in general if I heard more of them denoucing these extremist. If more of them were outspoken against Ben Laddin and more supportive of our efforts. If more of them that live a mong us were trying to enlist in our militarys to fight against our enemys.

"But it shoots down the claim that "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here." Invading another country does not make us any safer, it only inflames the haters."

Reply have they been successful in any terror attacks since 9/11 on American soil?
If wishes were horses beggers would ride.
 

Latest posts

Top