Salty

iTrader: (14)

Surprised nobody has posted anything about what's going on there. It's a mess right now...

I've been trying to figure out what we've done wrong in our strategies. There's no doubt that we've done a lot of good in that country, a lot of which you have to dig to find in business/investment reports, intelligence reports, and reports done by those on the ground.

Even though our strategies have the occasional mishap here or there, I think the backbone of our strategies have been relatively strong. So what's the problem? I think it may have everything to do with how America is supposed to view everything. We've become so involved with putting everyone and everything on such an even pedestal that we forget that we shouldn't always do this.

For example, we've come to a point in American society that some things you say, do, or suggest are truly racist and stereotypical. These should never be tolerated for obvious reasons. But whenever we must or should cross the fine line of cultural differences based on statistical evidence, we tread extremely lightly or baulk altogether.

You could go straight-up to a person with 100% Cherokee Indian blood that's never taken a drink of alcohol and say, "Your people tend to have problems with drugs and alcoholism." It would be a very ballsy move and the person would probably be very defensive and may even take a swing at you if you're not careful. For this very reason we tend to avoid such remarks in every form of communication.

We're dealing with a very ignorant part of the world. We're talking about a culture that's completely submerged in their religion. They eat, drink, and breath everything Islam. I think I read somewhere a year ago that Iraq has a 47% illiteracy level! This means that a massive share of the 97% devout Islamic population cannot even read the Qur'an they praise! We're basically dealing with the human equivalent of lemmings. If the literacy level is that low then imagine what the reading level is of those that can read. I wonder if a college reading level even exists outside of the very small percent of government officials at the top.

I think we're basically dealing with robots that like to fight. It's the nature of the beast when you combine low education with religious infatuation of different types (Shia, Sunni, etc.). Imagine a country packed full of those ******* friends you have that like to scrap and instigate drama at the bar or club. The guy that ruins your good time because you have to keep an eye on how much he’s had to drink.

So my theory on strategy is that we give other parts of the world far too much credit. We're so afraid of being criticized by the PC peanut gallery that we develop strategies that are way beyond the capacity and learning curve of Americans. The people running the show are like the 99% of American parents that think their child is a genius. The retarded kid may be precious to you but he's never going to amount to anything spectacular past the wheelchair for the rest of us.

psoper

I told you so

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I was expecting a response like that...

And in all honesty i've been leaning this way for well over a year now. Some of you have seen it in my posts.

But I don't think "I told you so" is the answer in this case. I think the answer lies in a more cutthroat strategy. A strategy that a majority of American people would never tolerate.

Does this mean going to Iraq was a bad idea based on not being able to bring our strategy to this next level? This is the question i've been asking myself for a long time now.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

AHahahahahahaahah.

lojasmo

It has been a mess over there since the bush administration made a case for war that simply didn't exist.

I'm glad that even ignorant Bush appologists are beginning to catch on.

**** off, "asthma" boy.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Per your own observatations (that the majority of Iraqis/Muslims in that area of the world are sheep, and like to fight...) I would suggest that a cut-throat policy will lead only to a battle to the death...I don't beleive we are prepared to eradicate a whole religion of people, nor should we.

In light of the way things have gone in Iraq, I think the best way to treat Islamic-run governments would be similar to how we treated many of the soviet states; maximal observation with minimal contact. Of course, that's what I thought before the war started too. And at this point, I don't have any clue on how we could transition from being an occupying force caught in the middle of a religous civil war to having little to no contact with Iraq...

lovesmysuby04

iTrader: (4)

Isn't world domination a good enough reason?

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Do you feel the same about Israel? Should we take a more neutral stance?

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, I do think we always should have had a more neutral stance with Isreal. In fact, I don't think we should have ever been involved with aiding the establishment of a religious country...or even be allies with any religous state. However, this is another case of what-do-we-do-know-that-we-already-f***ed-up. And I don't know what we could do to back out of all our dealings with Isreal and all the other middle eastern states without causing major economic turmoil or even another war.

It just seems like the cold war worked so damn well...we knew we were better, we told them we were, we spied on them constantly to make sure we were, and sure enough they eventually admited that we were and faded away. I know it's idealistic to think a modern cold war against the middle east would work so easily...

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Right, I was thinking more along the lines of Saudi oil and the funding of terrorism, etc. Should have been more clear on that.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Yeah economically it's a mess, that's a good point against what I was saying. The soviets didn't really have anything we wanted...but the middle east does. Weaning ourselves of oil would certainly make it easier for the US to extricate ourselves from the middle east. Unfortunatly the way the gasoline infrastructure is set up it's going to be a while before we can do that...until then I suppose we'll have to keep economic ties to countries we don't want to have contact with.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Don't want to drag a red herring into the argument but what about other parts of the world? I don't see any problem in pumping a reasonable amount of funds into parts of the world were there's human suffrage (starvation, tsunami, earthquake, etc). But if it ever came down to getting involved in a cultural and religious induced genocide then we'd be obligated to watch from the sidelines as well. I only say this because it's a common argument from those on the left when we're involved in other parts of the world besides Africa. Would you still be comfortable with this stance? I think we'd have to be.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Not even sure it's 138 days anymore as I lost count. Didn't realize the pony express still delivered mail. *shrug*

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

I guess I would suggest we should be more selective (for the long term) when making allies as opposed to this game we play in opportunism.

I'm certainly not suggesting any type of isolationism. Just being more careful about trading favors...no more giving money to guerilla warriors because we 'hope' that they never turn on us (AlQueda...)...no more supporting both sides of a religious war (Isreal and Palestine). Those things in particular seem almost suicidal, and I'm sure we've done a lot more of that type of spy vs. spy type of stuff.

Basically, we're in the position economically and militarily to give almost everyone in the world ultimatums...but we do it wrong. Now we say: do what we want or we'll invade and make your country like ours. I think we should say: do what we want (hopefully that is also what is right hahahaha) or face total isolation from every country in the world worth dealing with.

dr3d1zzl3

iTrader: (1)

what no remarks on rummys hardon for "acting on SH?"