Phx The War Room: Open Forum

In the hopes of fostering open communication about a variety of topics that interst many people - from politics and current events, to history and correllative events - I am starting this thread. My hope is that, given the fact that this is NOT the JCC and we are far more civilzed then most of the people who post there, we can discuss anything that strikes our fancy and still maintain some semblance of decorum.

I have spoekn with Void about this and he has given his blessings. But he agrees with me that this WILL NOT become a vehicle for people's angst. As the progenitor of this thread, I will diligently attempt to keep a close eye on the content herein. If necessary, I will ask that it be locked and removed. I care about you guys and I don't want something that I create to be used to sow disent among anyone. If you have hard feelings about something that is said or take issue with a topic matter, please, say so in the most polite way possible and/or PM me and I will do what I can to rectify the situation.

Remember that I value your opinions and want to know what you think about a great many things, all of you. It is my hope that we can learn from each other and perhaps solve all of the worlds problems together. LOL Or not, but we can have some fun and know more about each other and the views we each hold dear.

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT:

1) There will be no use of profanity or name-calling of any kind.

2) Critical rebuttal is not only acceptable but encouraged, if done in a civil manner.

3) Topic matters can be drift as desired but will not enter into areas deemed inappropriate or sensitive. For example, the topic of AIDS can be discussed but there will be no slanderous comments about those who have AIDS or negative remarks about the methods with which some people derrive the syndrome. Politics can be discussed and you may say that you detest so-and-so politician or what have you, but no defamatory or disparaging comments will be made about someone's personal opinion, other than to say that you disagree and to post facts as to why this is so, and no derrisive remarks about the character of the person posting his or her opinion or facts.

4) The premise of this thread is to discuss FACTS, not just whim or opinion. If all you have is opinion, feel free to say so, but don't argue facts if you don't have any.
And be prepared to have you opinion disputed with facts.

5) Please try to take other people's feelings into account when posting. We're all friends here and I'd like to keep it that way.


All that being said, I'll start off with one of my favorite topics. Being that this is called the War Room, I'd like to start off with war. More specifically, strategy and tactics.

What do you guys think about the current strategy of our Presidential Andministration in regards to the situation in the Middle East? Do you think we should continue to support Isreal despite their own attrocities commited against the Palestinians? How about the Road to Peace? Do you think it's a viable solution to the decades old blood-bath between the two factions?

Personally, I think we have to continue to support Isreal because of their strategic position against those governemnts that remain hostile to the US. If, for no other reason, we should work on improving our relations with those nations of Islamic predominance and help ease the tensions between their divisive religious sects so that there will be less reason for us to be there at all. Taking a big step back, I think we shouldn't be meddling our noses in where they don't belong in the first place. But, seeing as we are already here, there's no good way to go back now. So plod onwards, I say. The state of affairs between the US and the rest of the world is fractious, at best. So we have to continue to make in-roads toward more strategic relationships with cretain governments around the world. Despite our growing unpopular foriegn policy in the world view, I think we don't have much choice as to whether or no

 

Personally, since we got ourselves into this little debacle, we ought to resolve it the same way we got into it... Randomly chose a piece of land and declare that it is now Palestine... This seems to be the key point of contention among the islamic countries, that we took Palestine away and support the Israeli suppression of the Palestinian peoples...

Okay, give them their plot of land move the Israeli's out of that one, put the Palestinians on it and call it even... Sending both parties into their respective corners and giving them both a time out.

But then again, I'm using logic and we all know the UN is not famous for its application of the principles of logic

 

I completely supported the war in Iraq. With so many of my relatives in the service and with the long history of service in my family, I have no problem with war. With that being said I think we (as in the people, all people) should make every effort to settle disputes through negotiation. There does come a time when it is obvious that war is unavoidable.

My wish is that we could now get out of Iraq and let the UN send in a peacekeeping force. I feel we've done our job. Let the UN step up to the plate now.

 

Personally, I would rather that the UN had nothing to do with anything. If I had my way, it would be disbanded and a new model of a world governing body would be established. I most CERTAINLY wouldn't put someone like Kofi Anon in charge. The man who said, "The whole world is against Isreal. The whole world can't be wrong." And known human rights violators being the heads of the Human Rights Commision for the UN. What's that all about?

We have always needed to have a presence around the world and in these governing bodies to have some say as to what they can and can't do, but that time is past.

 

The UN does have its problems. I'm thinking in terms of ideal. It would be ideal if the UN had its act together for them to step in now with a peacekeeping force. The current state of the UN is tragic. It was never meant to be the way it is. Is Anon the one from Italy?

 

Annan is from Ghana, in Africa.

 

I'm thinking of something I saw on CNN and it escapes me right now.

 

ZOO: I don't think it's going to be as easy as drawing some arbitrary lines on a map and saying to both the Palestinians and the Isrealis, "Now sit down and shut up." LMAO Though that sure would be nice and they may in fact deserve it.

What I DO see happening, is the current deliniation of the Gaza Strip will become a Palestinian state and part of the West Bank, as well - but not all of it. The trouble is going to come with the situation in Jeruselem. Neither side will abdicate their position there.

But none of this will stop the terrorist organizations from finding something to die over.

 

you're thinking of the PM from Italy who has the presidency of the EU right now and made the barb against the German delegate. Then another Italian official made a remark against not wanting German tourists. Not a good week for Italian PR over there.

 

LMAO So much for foriegn diplomacy.

 

Thank you, VOID. That is who I was thinking of.

 

Stinkin' Abbas. He's such a puppet. Arafat's got his hand so far up Abbas' butt... Arafat says and Abbas does. What's the point of making him Prime Minister of the Palestinian state anyway?

 

wardenx I totally agree, but we seemed to think that it worked the first time, since we have no intentions of abandoning Israel (and we did just that to create the state of Israel). And that's what everyone is crying for, a place for the Palestinians... So we give it to them... Then what, now they want a place for the Summarians... Oh, wait, that's a dead culture... Right, so it has nothing to do w/ this situation... However, we did re-institute a dead culture once before, what was that?... Oh yeah, the Israelis!

Sorry, the sarcasm meter is set to kill right now. Seriously though, I honestly believe that we need to let them have their little wars and stay the heck out of it. It's not like these things haven't been going on for 1000's of years... I mean just look at the mess we created when we meddled in the Iran/Iraq war

 

Amen, sister. Agreed. The problem is that we are already involved and we can't pull out now because of the political backlash we'd face. According to von Clausewitz, the 18th century Prussian military strategist, war is mearly an extension of poiltics and therefore a natural extension of human culture. Nothing wrong with a little, wholesome war to get the blood pumping, so to speak. LMAO Get the blood pumping! I kill myself. (If only...)

 

I agree with some of what you all say but not all. But that's why we live in this great country that allows us the chance to disagree.

I do believe that we need to stop getting involved in the mess in the Middle East. Unfortunately, we've involved ourselves deeply because not only did we help create Isreal but policy makers in the US government seem to have vested interest in its survival. So my question would be to policy makers, did our soldiers die in Iraq for Isreal expansion or did we really need to liberate Iraq? Don't get me wrong, I believe Saddam deserves a shot to the dome.

FYI, I can criticize the state without criticizing the people.

[image=http://store4.yimg.com/I/politicalgifts_1744_1475605.gif]

 

Good point, Maxchewie

I don't see any reason why going to Iraq, for example, with a whole host of agendas is bad. If it's partly to help Isreal, who is our ally and friend, then I'm all for it. I think we should do much to support our allies. If our reason for going to Iraq was for oil, then I'm all for that. We currently live in a society where we are dependant on natural resources and a threat to our continued survival because of natural resources denied would be plenty of reason in my book to have at someone, personal or national. I don't think that was why we went over there because only a small percent of our oil imports came from Iraq, less then 10% if I'm not mistaken.

If our reason for going to Iraq was to liberate the people there from under the oppressive regime, then that's heroic in my book.

I don't see anything wrong with going over to Iraq.

If, on the other hand, our reason for going over there was to assret our new-found power as the strongest nation on the planet and to forcibly put ourselves on the inside of other governments through strong-arm tactics, then I don't think it was right.

But we'll never know the real reaons or all of them. But, I think there should be a number of reasons for any politic move.

 

It couldn't possibly be about revenge and political posturing though, could it? I mean, w/ the country moving well past the criteria of a recession, and into a straight on depression (no matter they keep telling us), th epeople being concerned for their welfare here and abroad in a way not felt since WWII, and w/ big business breathing down the administrations' back to help them break into and hold onto certain markets, why would this administration make such move to increase their popularity ratings?

And just for the record, I believe that the lovely Mr. Bush II, is not the one in charge, he's just the guy out front. AS with most Republican governments, it's the guys behind the front man doing all the manuevering, so they can always say the front guy was the smoking gun when it back fires (Think Nixon, MacNamara, North).

 

We currently live in a society where we are dependant on natural resources and a threat to our continued survival because of natural resources denied would be plenty of reason in my book to have at someone, personal or national.

Kinda funny that...

Japan said the same thing about the U.S., this was part of the drive for "the greater east asian co-prosperity sphere", and part of the reason for pearl harbor. They wanted us to mind our own business, and they figured with the pacific fleet out of action, they would be able to conquer korea, the marianas, the solomons etc, un-molested.

 

But CHoad, japan was denied resourses by the US because of their involvenemt in WWII. It was a sanction against their posturing and to prohibit their launching an assault on our assets abroad and allies.

ZOO sounds kind of like a conspiracy theory to me. I have many a theory about what really hapens behind the scenes, but, without proof, it's just conjecture. Also, we were at a 25% unenmployment rate during the Depression. At the highest we can get for employment saturation, we'd be at 4% unemployment. Right now, last I saw, we were at 6.4% unemployment. I don't see that as anywhere near a depression.

 

Actually, the US was sanctioing the Japanese prior to our involvement in the war - and the Japanese were trying to obtain the natural resources that they needed in order to survive, that's most of the reason that they were trying to expand - good ol' imperial expansionism, just like the british in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries... Japan just started a cupla hundred years too late... - Japan doesn't have the resources to run a modern economy. Everything is imported... This is one of the reasons that they are so strict about importing of finished products (especially american) -

 

Right, Choad, but Japan didn't follow through with political attempts before launching their attack. Our sancitions were designed to stop them from going to war and continue with the political discourse.

 

Which is why proof is always so hard to come by and thus are labelled "conspiracy theories."

The term that emerged most vividly for Presidential noninvolvment in any situation is "Plausible Deniability." Hence, currently, President Bush didn't lie about taking us to war, he was provided bad intelligence. It will be hard to prove he knew the truth and that's where Plausible Deniability comes into play. It's some else's fault.

 

Maxchewie Given the nature of intelligence and the way that it is encapsuled into a theory of action (because it's never fact), it's not a stretch that the information that President Bush got was indeed faulty, therefore skewing his decisions. Of course, I can also see that it's a convenient excuse for having a 'scapegoat for outright lying to us all.

 

I caught bits and pieces of this on the news tonight.

The democrats are now calling into question information Pres. Bush gave them supporting action to go to war. They are saying he lied.

Here is my thought or thoughts:

1) The information they referred to and the clip I saw clearly indicated the source of GWBs info . . . the British govt

2) Congress, as far as I remember, unanimously voted to go to war.

3) If the democrats didn't believe Bush, why did they wait until now. Couldn't they have checked out the information themselves? Wouldn't you want to check out any information given to you that required a major decision such as going to war. I believe these senators and reps have the resources to do this.

4) Isn't it funny that the democrats are going after Bush now? Could this be retribution for the Clinton impeachment? It seems like this could be the new bandwagon that is popular to jump on - Hey, let's criticize the President. I also find it ironic that Kennedy is leading the pack.

A thought? Anyone?

 

Ah... McCarthyism... There is this new book out that deals with the research done by one of the Conservative pundits who has taken a new view that McCarthy wasn't the evil man that history painted him to be. I'm trying to find the book because I want to buy it. I love military and political history.