Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-08-2014, 8:34 AM Reply   
How long will the US be there this time.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-08-2014, 10:38 AM Reply   
No "Nation Building" please. If we have to make a mess, let them clean it up.
Old    "G" (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       08-08-2014, 11:53 AM Reply   
It's Very sad and consistent with the stupidity that seems to be the norm these days
We obviously can't or don't learn from our mistakes and keep repeating them.
This region of the world is a complete Hornets Nest and you can't fix stupid.

Let's keep throwing money and American lives down a rat hole!

I say F that place "Let Alla sort them all out"
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-08-2014, 12:06 PM Reply   
I agree, John. What's even more alarming is our government is spend billions of dollars overseas in other countries' affairs but can’t seem to enforce the laws on our books concerning our own border.
Old    J (Jmorlan)      Join Date: May 2013       08-08-2014, 12:10 PM Reply   
Hold on, let me grab my foil hat..

Ok, hats on.
It may sound ludicrous, but I'm convinced that this administration is out to bring our country down to its knees.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-08-2014, 12:25 PM Reply   
is spend [spending]. One day I hope to take typing lessons.
Old    bigdtx            08-08-2014, 1:12 PM Reply   
> It may sound ludicrous, but I'm convinced that this administration is out to bring our country down to its knees.

If they wanted to do that they would have invaded Syria, Egypt, Libya, and Ukraine like crazy ole' John McCain and his twink Lindsay Graham wanted so badly.
Old    Jonathan Bay (john211)      Join Date: Aug 2008       08-12-2014, 6:03 PM Reply   
Looking back, the criticized choice of the elder George Bush to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the U.S. had relatively safe open roads for tanks to Baghdad after Kuwait ... looks now to be the wiser choice of action.

Saddam's mayhem on his people is certainly a lot less worse than his peoples' mayhem on themselves.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-12-2014, 6:30 PM Reply   
It appears that every country in the ME that sheds it's dictator gets Islamic extremists as a result. Apparently Egypt put a stop to that just in time. And people were b*tch'n about overthrowing a democratically elected govt. People need to understand that democracy does not equal protection of individual rights. Or protection from human rights abuse. It's just means mob rule.
Old    Wes (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       08-13-2014, 2:32 AM Reply
Old    Jason Buffalow (buffalow)      Join Date: Apr 2002       08-13-2014, 9:18 AM Reply   
They have fought each other for thousands of years, why do we think we can stop that?
Old    Train (ttrigo)      Join Date: Dec 2004       08-13-2014, 10:10 AM Reply   
Originally Posted by buffalow View Post
They have fought each other for thousands of years, why do we think we can stop that?
Exactly. But it's american arrogance that feels they can throw some money and troops at any problem the world has, and fix it.
Our own american citizens are suffering on our own soil. Our veterans are treated like crap on our own soil. Yet, we spend more money and time worrying about what's going on thousands of miles away, with people that don't want us there. It's stupidity at its finest.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-13-2014, 4:27 PM Reply   
This is not the same kind of deal. This is much worse.

Watch 1-4 if you have time.
Old    bigdtx            08-13-2014, 4:33 PM Reply   
They have oil. We want it. End of story.

Syria has no oil - hence no intervention by the US. Libya has oil - that's why crazy ole' John McCain was so hot to trot to get in there - because that's what he's paid to do.

Afghanistan has no oil, but they may have other mineral deposits that are potentially valuable - therefore, we need to stick around.

From a global strategic standpoint these moves are perfectly logical. From a WTF standpoint it makes you say WTF.

The person/company/state that finds the replacement for fossil fuels will dominate the next century. Who is working on that? A lot of people I know, but unfortunately there are 1000x that number working on maintaining the status quo.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-14-2014, 8:39 AM Reply   
Big D, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It was easy to say it was all about the oil on the front side, but history simply doesn't support that theory any more.

First, America is not solely to blame for the situation in Iraq. The failure of the Iraqi government to actually govern and willingness of the majority of the population to accept and support the IS is. That said, in the short term there is a humanitarian crisis and the US must intervene. Not because it is our fault, but because it is the right thing to do. Consider the African civil wars of the 90s. We did nothing and millions were exterminated. It is estimated that 1,000 US/UN soldiers could have ended the Rwandan Genocides. It was too easy to ignore then. Today, when all you have to do is venture to the dark places of the internet to find video of men being beheaded, piles of dehydrated children, and women being raped and slaughtered simply for not pledging allegiance to the IS, we can't ignore it. These people need safe passage to Kurdistan and Kurdistan needs to be recognized and borders supported by the UN/US.

With only a few soldiers on the ground we can do the following.
1.) Create safe passage to Kurdistan for refugees and acknowledge an Iraqi-Kurd state.
2.) Draw a literal line in the sand to guard the totally screwed up govt in Bagdad
3.) Support Turkeys continued restriction of water into Syria/Iraq (guard their dam)
4.) Continue to allow the IS and Assad to wear each other down in Syria.

These are just all of the ideas that I have batted around with my friends. The Caliphate is the real deal and it is not going away unless something is done in the long term. I strictly opposed the 00s war in Iraqi, but this is different. Saddam was to content to stay in his borders after the 90s war in the Iraq. The IS is not. What do you guys think? These are just a few ideas that me and my buddies have throw around.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-14-2014, 10:16 AM Reply   
Justin, those may be some indirect result, but BigD pretty much nailed it.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-14-2014, 11:20 AM Reply   
Okay. If the US was there to loot the oil. Did we just completely fail at it or what?

We aren't in Syria because it is a no-win situation for the US or the people of Syria.

As for every person in America looking to change the energy game, you don't have to wait for a replacement--just use less. Using less minimizes your environmental impact, it extends the fossil reserves and lower consumption shortens the gap between the energy we want/need and what the greener alternatives to fossil fuels can produce. Step one, take all of the weight out of you boat.

Sorry for the soap box speech, but the "Oil Bad / Corporation Bad" speech is worn out.
Old    Onthe Creek (onthecreek)      Join Date: Apr 2013       08-14-2014, 11:38 AM Reply   
so our govt/military spent trillions of $s losing thousands of lives and many times that injured to secure oil then we turned around and let them set up their own govt. where does the plundering of oil come in? the govt isn't in the oil business so they just gave it to the big oil companies? how was all of this oil removed from the ground and transported? there aren't fleets of empty tankers sitting around.

bust out the tinfoil hats.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       08-14-2014, 12:36 PM Reply   
Define "loot"? Where some would agree to use less, most would not, and even if consumption were lessened, I'm sure other countries would step up and take our share. Unfortunately, when introducing an alternative fuel, the market changes and the name of the game is making money--not conserve--so some in power like things just the way they are.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       08-14-2014, 12:50 PM Reply   
Originally Posted by skiboarder View Post
Sorry for the soap box speech, but the "Oil Bad / Corporation Bad" speech is worn out.
No, it isn't wore out. Oil is indirectly a basis for most problems in the ME. If the world wasn't sending so much money there then the ME wouldn't be an issue. It's important to not forget that. It's not as simple as looting. It's interfering with the rule of the region to stabilize access to the oil. If there was no oil and revenue stream then nobody would give a crap about what goes on down there. Sorry but you telling BigD he's has no idea what he is talking about is ironic.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-14-2014, 1:20 PM Reply   
"They have oil. We want it. End of story." I stand by my statement that he doesn't get it. It is far more complex than that.

If you think the current situation is about oil, you are certainly wrong. Watch the series I posted above. The IS is not in it for the oil or $$.
Old    bigdtx            08-14-2014, 5:04 PM Reply   
> If you think the current situation is about oil, you are certainly wrong. Watch the series I posted above.

I watched it. So what? When you destroy a country's infrastructure and don't replace it then chaos ensues. No surprises there. We went to Iraq, destroyed their infrastructure (power and water plants), dissolved the government, disbanded the military and then went out and said "Who's with us?!?!". Predictably the response was nobody.

When that genius plan didn't work they were apparently out of ideas and Bush famously said the way out Iraq would be something the next President would have to deal with.

Now it looks like it will be yet another next President's problem to deal with.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       08-19-2014, 1:52 PM Reply   
Saddam was the only crazy bastard that could keep those crazy bastards in check. Unfortunately there is a reason the region is run by dictators and Tyrants. The US doesn't have the stomach to for it.
Old    Justin Harrelson (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       08-19-2014, 3:03 PM Reply   
Big D, I'm not arguing with that at all. Going to Iraq in 2003 absolutely made no sense. I really believe, as boneheaded as it may seem, they were on the hunt for WMDs and to rid the world of terrorism. The whole plan lacked vision. Deposing Saddam lead the region into chaos and a decade long war made space for and hardened the IS. You just took an opportunity to rant about oil and now your ranting about Bush.

I disagreed with the second Iraqi war (2003), but now we are at the threshold of the third Iraqi-American war. A clash of some sort with the IS is unavoidable as they expand their territories into more regions. I just hope that we are conservative in our approach and one week later, I'd say that Obama is handling them as well as possible.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       08-20-2014, 8:44 AM Reply   
We need to step it up a bit. They just beheaded an American journalist in Syria.


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:50 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us