Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92
  1.    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    If everytime I disagreed and the only time I could voice that disagreement was if I could come up with a suggestion or a better way...I might not EVER be able to dissent with my opinion. The other side to that though is that just because I cant come up with a better way or a suggestion or alternative doesnt automatically mean that my suggestion or point of view is wrong.

    I dont think that is the standard that we should choose to apply before speaking. I do think though that we should always be open to sitting down and discussing our points of view with each other (as politicians should do) in order to come up with a better plan or goal.
    I really do agree, but I have seen a common repeated offense on this specific question from the MSM, political personality interviews, and with personal contacts to the point that I noticed a trend....so I really wanted to focus on just this one arguement that I have not been able to get an answer for. Often times this is the basis for many other arguements. For the most part the most common answer I get is we shouldn't have gone and when asked they don't have a clue of what would have been the consequences of that position.

    This is just one question that I brought up because I am sincerely interested what they really thought was a better decision and why.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/01/2005 at 12:02 PM.
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Come on, you have to admit that until now it was not official that not only WMD or Terrorism, but als oil from the Middle East (or the potential lack thereof) were a national security problem for the US.
    I certainly don't disagree that oil is a piece of the puzzle - and a significant one at that.

    I guess my yawn was more about your regular stabs at the US as the only country it is important to......since over the next 20 years the ME will be the source of 40% (if I remember my numbers correctly) of the oil production I would think it is important to all nations of the world to stabalize the region politically before we get to that point?

    Personally I find it better to be proactive than reactive in this type of situation.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Good idea. (I hope your being serious).
    NOT!
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Come on, you have to admit that until now it was not official that not only WMD or Terrorism, but als oil from the Middle East (or the potential lack thereof) were a national security problem for the US.
    Clulup, are you aware of the Carter Doctine?

    http://www.answers.com/topic/carter-doctrine


    The Carter Doctrine was proclaimed by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address (http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/do.../su80jec.phtml) on 23 January 1980. In it he said:

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

    A 1980 pledge by Secretary of State Edmund Muskie went even further, putting the gulf states on notice that the United States would not allow anyone to interfere with oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. At the time, Carter's statement was widely considered to encompass the use of nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet advance into Iran. In February 1980, details of a Pentagon report emerged indicating that the United States might have to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to any Soviet military advance toward the Gulf. To add muscle to these pronouncements, the Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, what would eventually become CENTCOM. In the interim, the president relied heavily on naval power. Carter expanded naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean

    This redirection of U.S. national security policy was matched by an intellectual renaissance in the U.S. military. All the services began rethinking their strategy, operational concepts, tactics, and doctrine. By the early 1980s, the navy had developed what it termed the Maritime Strategy or maritime prepositioning, a highly controversial concept even though it embraced the established post World War II practices of forward, offensive operations by carrier, amphibious, and attack submarine forces.

    Initially this doctrine aimed at deterring the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, but its application has been the result of different events and contexts. The Carter Doctrine has been applied twice; in 1990 during the First Gulf War and in 2003 for the Second Gulf War.

    The Carter Doctrine was drafted to address the security of the Persian Gulf has grown in relevance after more than 50 years of American military presence in the region. President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry said in remarks (http://www.dod.gov/speeches/1995/s19950518-perry.html) to the Council on Foreign Relations: "Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to declare that the United States has vital interests in the region."
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    NOT!
    Dang it (I was hoping we could agree on one more thing...)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #66  
    And isn't it interesting that Carter now forgets this doctrine......
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I certainly don't disagree that oil is a piece of the puzzle - and a significant one at that.

    I guess my yawn was more about your regular stabs at the US as the only country it is important to......since over the next 20 years the ME will be the source of 40% (if I remember my numbers correctly) of the oil production I would think it is important to all nations of the world to stabalize the region politically before we get to that point?

    Personally I find it better to be proactive than reactive in this type of situation.
    Cool, we are making progress. A proactive occupation of a foreign nation with major oil reserves, is that what you meant?

    Since the US use about twice as much oil per capita as e.g. Western Europe, it seems fair to say that you are twice as dependent on it than Europe.

    Maybe a reasonable energy policy would have been the wiser way than being "proactive" in the Middle East and denying global warming against better knowledge.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe a reasonable energy policy would have been the wiser way than being "proactive" in the Middle East and denying global warming against better knowledge.
    Nahhh...H2s for everybody. Except daThomas and clulup
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Cool, we are making progress. A proactive occupation of a foreign nation with major oil reserves, is that what you meant?

    Since the US use about twice as much oil per capita as e.g. Western Europe, it seems fair to say that you are twice as dependent on it than Europe.

    Maybe a reasonable energy policy would have been the wiser way than being "proactive" in the Middle East and denying global warming against better knowledge.
    Insertion refered to the Carter Doctrine, I think the current actions of the US are in keeping with that doctrine. But make no mistake, the US is not about occupying in the sense that we wish to take any ME nation as a territory - what we're after is stability - and yes I do mean that is friendly to the US.

    With regard to energy policy - I do agree progress needs to be made to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, however this is not a process that can be reasonably advanced by leaps and bounds due to the global and national economic consequences. And, realistically, until there are economically viable alternatives (whether that is due to a significant increase in oil prices or the development of a cheap replacement - not likely IMO), we will likely make little progress.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Clulup, are you aware of the Carter Doctine?

    http://www.answers.com/topic/carter-doctrine
    No, thanks for the link. I find it interesting and honest, much better than the WMD and Saddam-9/11 stuff.

    Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
    Maybe one would have to add that lately no foreign nation was threatening to invade a country in the Middle East (apart from the US of course ). The two last invasions were Saddam attacking Iran (with the support of the US and other Western nations) and Saddam occupying Kuwait (which was set straight by an INTERNATIONAL effort led by the US. I think that was very positive, just like Afghanistan after 9/11).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Nahhh...H2s for everybody. Except daThomas and clulup
    Make it three, I'll pass on one of those glorified Avalanches...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Make it three, I'll pass on one of those glorified Avalanches...
    Actually, they're Tahoes. Avys are the same as the Suburban
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  13. #73  
    Oh, but the H3 is pretty sharp
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Actually, they're Tahoes. Avys are the same as the Suburban
    Whatever...

    and Tom Cruise is still an ***...
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Insertion refered to the Carter Doctrine, I think the current actions of the US are in keeping with that doctrine. But make no mistake, the US is not about occupying in the sense that we wish to take any ME nation as a territory - what we're after is stability - and yes I do mean that is friendly to the US.
    See, we agree on something: it is about stability - meaning stable flow of oil. If that means supporting a dictatorship such as in Saudi-Arabia or Kuwait - fine. If it means invading Iraq largely based on long gone WMDs or inexistent links to terrorist - fine, too.

    Regarding progress in oil consumption: as mentioned before, "we" use half as much oil per capita as "you", without major differences concerning quality of life. So progress does not seem to depend on future, miraculous developments, does it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Oh, but the H3 is pretty sharp
    That's just a dinky Trailblazer
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Regarding progress in oil consumption: as mentioned before, "we" use half as much oil per capita as "you", without major differences concerning quality of life. So progress does not seem to depend on future, miraculous developments, does it?
    Geez...your country is like twice the size of New Jersey. I bet you have peeps own the same car their entire lives, cause they dont drive anywhere.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Regarding progress in oil consumption: as mentioned before, "we" use half as much oil per capita as "you", without major differences concerning quality of life. So progress does not seem to depend on future, miraculous developments, does it?
    Right or wrong, progress in this country will be directly tied to geography and economics. Here you can drive for 2 days and still not be across more than 1 state, In Europe, how many countries could you cross in the same time frame?
  19. #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    That's just a dinky Trailblazer
    I hate the Trailblazers, how dare you stereotype me just because I live in Oregon
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    I hate the Trailblazers, how dare you stereotype me just because I live in Oregon
    Take it like a man...
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions