PM Elect - Spain out of Iraq

[Nickatilynx]

Here is the story


Interestingly this online vote on CNN is being taken

Do you agree with Spain's premier-elect that his country's troops should be pulled from Iraq?

Yes 54% 2807 votes

No 46% 2354 votes

Total: 5161 votes

[Mike AI]

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.

This guy is out of touch. The War in Iraq was one of the most successful ever. What other country could have pulled off such a swift victory with so few casualties? Militarily speaking it was amazing. ( were there mistakes? of course - it is war. )

The occupation has had some problems, definatly some lack of planning and knowledge of mid east mind sets and such. However, I think it has gone pretty well.

It has not even celerated the first anniversy of the start of the war yet....
This is but a small snipit in time.

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 01:14 PM
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040315/1/3irv0.html

This guy is out of touch. The War in Iraq was one of the most successful ever. What other country could have pulled off such a swift victory with so few casualties? Militarily speaking it was amazing. ( were there mistakes? of course - it is war. )

The occupation has had some problems, definatly some lack of planning and knowledge of mid east mind sets and such. However, I think it has gone pretty well.

It has not even celerated the first anniversy of the start of the war yet....
This is but a small snipit in time.

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.

There was opposition almost from the beginning of American involvement in combat - right around the '64 election. In the beginning it was very small.

It didn't become a major political force until 2 years later. By '68, it was THE issue - and Nixon won on the outright lie that he had a secret plan to win the war.

[Nickatilynx]

PD you are an old guy, how long before Vietnam became an major politcal issue with regards to the occupation and war? I know it was not less then a year.

An indication of what a mistake this war was?

The execution of the military action, by the military was without doubt superb, both by the US and the British Forces.

However ,The delaration of War and the order to mobilise was a fuck up off biblical porportions.

Based on erroneous inteligence and precipitous in the extreme.

There was in fact "No clear and present danger" whatsoever , and I suspect that over time Bush will be reviled as a warmonger and possibly a fabricator of Inteligence.At best his decision will be shown to be unsafe and unsound.

As time goes on more and more inteligent people , who are not blinkered by fanatical political belief , come realise that fact .

Some realised at the time of course , others just shouted "Housar!"

;-)))

I've said before the scariest thing I have seen is the American people agreeing that the President was wrong , but believing they should back him regardless. !?!?

WTF!!! LOL

[Mike AI]

Nick if you assume the reason for gonig to war was WMD, then it looks like a fuck up.

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

More then one President, Prime Minister has thought about getting into the oil fields on the middle east.

Bush has pulled it off, pretty effortlessly ( militarily speaking), and there has not been a huge "arab street" counter...

Iraq is about oil, stabilization of middle east, putting pressure on saudi arabia, the WMD and getting ride of a tyrant are nice window dressing.

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

[PornoDoggy]

The VC and the NVA never attacked outside of Southeast Asia - and while you can claim they internationalized the war by forays into Laos and Cambodia, who did what first is an arguement that fills libraries. They also were nominally tied to a state, and therefore much easier to target.

IMHO, AT THIS MOMENT the similarity of the situation of Vietnam to that of Iraq is tenuous at best (Afghanistan is an ox of a different color) ... but the longer U.S. troops remain in the country, and the more puppet-like the governing council appears the stronger that connection grows.

The extremists who argue that we should stay there, and/or in fact widen the war (Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran) will pour oil on that fire.

If the efforts of the governing council fail, and the U.S. is forced to intervene in a civil war (either because of the efforts of the terrorists or because of the inherent problems of Iraq), we will be in deep shit.

Add onto that the international nature of the backers of al Qaida and the improbability that they can be effectively taken on by the military, and you have what Senior Chief Trittle used to call "a cluterfuck of incalcuable magnitude."

Me personally ... I'm actively seeking out a decent book in English about the reasons for the French withdrawal from Algeria in the 50s, which lead to the fall of the 4th Republic, and brought DeGaulle back to power.

Just kinda wondering if we've stepped in a pile of shit we should have known to avoid, in a deja vu all over again kinda way.

[Nickatilynx]

Mike ,

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

And you say I spin things!!!!!!!!!!! Shiiiiit!!! ;-)))

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

So are you saying that the US has the right to commit an act of aggression against a soveriegn nation by purely using the "playing ball" doctrine? ;-)))


Gonzo, Bishop,

I reckon Opranoradio.com needs a political discussion program on.

"""Good evening ,From the left PD , from the center ,Nick , and way the fuck over on the right waaaay past Hitler , MikeAI"""

;-))))

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 02:09 PM
Nick if you assume the reason for gonig to war was WMD, then it looks like a fuck up.

If you see it as the US securing a base of operation to stablize a region of vital importance, to be near the precious oil for long term ecnomics - it is BRILLIANT!

More then one President, Prime Minister has thought about getting into the oil fields on the middle east.

Bush has pulled it off, pretty effortlessly ( militarily speaking), and there has not been a huge "arab street" counter...

Iraq is about oil, stabilization of middle east, putting pressure on saudi arabia, the WMD and getting ride of a tyrant are nice window dressing.

If Saddam had kept playing ball with the US, he would still be in power.

You say brilliant - I say fundamentally flawed.

What you are describing, Mikey, is imperialism. It's a failed policy that should have been laid to rest in the last century, mostly at the insistence of the Americans.

As a matter of fact, France and Britian tried something similar in '56.

If what you say is true, then Iraq WILL undoubtedly become another Vietnam - one that my 11 year old grandson might get to fight in.

It will then become a matter of whether the American people are willing to sacrifice their sons and daughter to the realpolitik you are espousing. And if they are not, the damage to American prestige and credibility will make Vietnam look like a victory.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 02:20 PM
Mike ,

And you say I spin things!!!!!!!!!!! Shiiiiit!!! ;-)))

So are you saying that the US has the right to commit an act of aggression against a soveriegn nation by purely using the "playing ball" doctrine? ;-)))


Gonzo, Bishop,

I reckon Opranoradio.com needs a political discussion program on.

"""Good evening ,From the left PD , from the center ,Nick , and way the fuck over on the right waaaay past Hitler , MikeAI"""

;-))))

Nick, that's not fair. Mike is definitely to the left of Hitler.

A little to the right of Franco, maybe ... but definitely to the left of Hitler.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 15 2004, 02:28 PM

[Mike AI]

Nick why does anyone have a concern about the middle east? Why is there much more attention paid to middle east compaired to Africa?

It is simple: OIL!! If there was no oil there, no one would give a hoot.

The reality is the US is there because we need cheap oil to fuel our economy. There is no spin, this is the reality. The spin is possible WMD, turning out an "evil" dictator, saving the kurds, etc... etc... that is the spin.


PD you are correct, it is a form of imperialism. Looking out for vital national interest is what drives foreign policy. It might be distasteful, but it is reality. This is the same thing we did in China and Japan with the open door policy.

Without cheap oil the US economy would collapse, which mean the worlds economy would collapse. The US gets its power from its economy. Our miltiary power is so good because of our economy. We are able to afford a top notch military, with weapon systems and tactics that are lightyears ahead of anyone else.

[Nickatilynx]

Of course Mike.

But use the search function and re-read your posts on why this was a fair and just war , spinmeister ;-)))

That aside , your current stance seems to be in its simplist terms:

The United States of America , with Britain , and other agressor nations , invaded Iraq in order to protect the agressor nations interest in the Oil reserves.

Damn!! You sound like the most militant of the militant Muslims!!!

I believe that is EXACTLY what they claim.

;-)))

[Mike AI]

PD this is not even close to Vietnam. The domino theory was a flawed theory. The thought that all communists got along and worked together was flawed. At the time it made sense, but looking back one has 20/20 hindsight.

Iraq is a completely different situation, we have many more national interests in that region ( OIL), and last I checked the Viet Cong were not sending people to the US to blow up buildings.

The American people might not be happy with the realities of foreign policy, but minute the oil stopped flowing there would be calls for action. Look at the reation to higher gas prices now. Imagine if gas became $5 a gallon, $10 a gallon, or you could not get gas at all. This is just one small aspect of what oil bring to our economy - oil heats our homes, gives us power, is the base for all plastic, etc... etc...

People have always fought over natural resources - as they continue to dwindle there will be more and more wars over them. Wars are promarily fought over economic issues....

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 02:54 PM
Of course Mike.

But use the search function and re-read your posts on why this was a fair and just war , spinmeister ;-)))

That aside , your current stance seems to be in its simplist terms:

The United States of America , with Britain , and other agressor nations , invaded Iraq in order to protect the agressor nations interest in the Oil reserves.

Damn!! You sound like the most militant of the militant Muslims!!!

I believe that is EXACTLY what they claim.

;-)))

I am sure they claim this, but the difference is history is written by the victors!

Fair and just war? Is there ever such a thing? Securing national interest, which include oil is fair and just for me. Our Anglo sensibilites are pushed out of wack when we have to use our military to secure economic gains. It is much more "Patriotic" to support a war againt "Evil" but this is not always a reality. It has to be sold this way to the mass public...

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 15 2004, 11:58 AM
Iraq is a completely different situation, we have many more national interests in that region ( OIL), and last I checked the Viet Cong were not sending people to the US to blow up buildings.



People have always fought over natural resources - as they continue to dwindle there will be more and more wars over them. Wars are promarily fought over economic issues....

If this was the case, then in both points, why wasn't Saudi Arabia invaded?

Oh, they play ball. Or do they?

I believe they fund quite a bit of terrorist orgs via dummy corps.

Hrmmmm, still trying to find a reason why they weren't invaded.

[Nickatilynx]

I am sure they claim this, but the difference is history is written by the victors!

And history decides the victors .

Vietnam , Korea both were "victories" of the US at one point.

Now considered at best , a score draw ;-)))

G-d forbid The US's economic war, becomes , in the eyes of Muslims everywhere, a war of faith.

Ooops too late it is and has.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Mar 15 2004, 03:09 PM

And history decides the victors .

Vietnam , Korea both were "victories" of the US at one point.

Now considered at best , a score draw ;-)))

G-d forbid The US's economic war, becomes , in the eyes of Muslims everywhere, a war of faith.

Ooops too late it is and has.

It was a war of faith even before Iraq.

The people who lost in Korea & Vietnam were the poor North Koreans, and Vietmanese... Think about it.

[PornoDoggy]

Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 15 2004, 03:24 PM
Mikey ... when I talk about the situation in Vietnam, I am not talking about the rationalizations for the war - I'm giving my opinion of the tactical situation we are getting oursellves into.

I honestly do not see the situation being the same at all.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI+Mar 15 2004, 03:32 PM-->