Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

Some people how will remain nameless have history all mixed up so I wonted to clear some stuff up.

1) We had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out.

2) Iraq has no hope left.

3) The Republicans are trying to keep the war going so they can balm the dems for loosing and avoid repeatability.

4) Bush tax cuts along with many other decision have drained the treasury.

Debate ON!

1) We did NOT lose in Nam.  We pulled out due to diplomatic pressures.  The way the war was run was doomed for failure.  but we pulled out, and then the Existing southern gov't got overrun, which was a blatant violation of the agreement that northern nam signed with the other governments, and yeah.

Well seeing the capital was lost and we had no toe hold left we had lost countless lives and the enemy was just getting stronger and we had no way to revers ower luck I would say we lost.

Well we where virtually ejected what should we have done?

well
the capital was not lost, well, yeah, sort of.  but only because we stopped helping, and were pulling out.  after we left the US embassy, which was being overrun because the evil communist north decided to break their agreement and invade the south vietnam.

Be for we stopped helping we where still in a hopeless situation. After chinas red army got in it their was no way to win. Chana has a very very powerfully army we have lost at least broke even in 2 wars nam being one.

ewm, china was involved in korea, not in nam

NOM too they armed and trained ower enamys.


BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1979: China invades Vietnam (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/17/newsid_2547000/2547811.stm)

Point one, i know nothing of it i wont speak on it. 

Point two, your conjecture no fact.

Point tree, That defies all logic. it dosn't even make sense, it flipping blows my mind.

Point fore, show me, you make statements like its truth and dont show anything.   

2) it dose Bush speaks of wing but he dose not say what wing would be for him?

3) if not why do they not start making preparation for pulling out.

4) we had a surplus coming in before bush now we have the gap between monny coming and monny going out.

I love the way you state this like gospel.

In particular, this part:


I xfired that one to some good friends (including a couple diehard democrats whom I often debate) and we all had a good laugh because of it.

I'm only going to touch this once... and then stand 10 feet back. I won't beat around the bush, no pun intended, so I'll just say that I am quite staunchly anti-Bush to show that I am indeed biased.  :(
Also I am not going in order so that ... uhm.. :sweatdrop:

Ewm's point about the war and blame seems valid to me (of course you will say he would say this)... as I have indeed pondered about this... Bush can wash his hands of almost all the blame for the current war as a) if the US does pull out AFTER he leaves office and there is no success, the republicants can say "I told you so; you shoulda stayed the course" and b) if the US stays in and fails bush-supporters can just state that "we did not follow the proper action by throwing more money and troops into Iraq", or "circumstances changed". Take it or leave it... this is my opinion, but also based on what happened during the Korean and Vietnam war (do I have to provide evidence....?).

The fourth point is a little too vague in my opinion. I would have stated that current defense policies, scandals, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (yes afghanistan is still there), and tax cuts for the biggest and richest companies in the US have drained the treasury (namely the big petroleum industries and others.... vague eh?).

When one states "we had lost Vietnam thats why we pulled out" one needs to clarify what "lost" really means. Politically the US lost Vietnam. The US administration was no longer supported by the majority of the populace domestically, except for diehards, and in foreign concerns as well, dissent was quite clear (and well voiced). Militarily we had not lost Vietnam: now here me out please (Ewm maybe?). The Tet Offensive was quite devastating, but in all reality (my, hindsight is great) it nearly destroyed the north vietnamese military front. They lost the support of many many influential people pulling the attack off and they lost even more military equipment and soldiers/guerillas. However, when the US retreated, thinking the north would pull off yet another such attack, the support for the north's army and misfit guerillas skyrocketed. Recruitment went up and foreign support increased again. Maybe that answers that.... hopefully  :ermm:

"Iraq has no hope left" hmmm, too broad and generalized and oversimplified and.... This is a statement that is meant to spark anger or spawn meaningless arguments, not debates. This could mean that Iraq, the country, is now an artificial state and without the military and monetary backbone of the United States, the country would soon collapse. It could also mean that the US has already lost, that the US is retreating and that there is no hope of reconcilling any differences without making several new countries. Maybe it also means that .... help me out here. I am personally ambivalent about this. Iraq is indeed fragmented and the US presense is keeping things from a complete social collapse, but I also think that somebody with more wisdom than I and more knowledge should make the argument: I see that US money and military have not helped, with more houses and cities without basic needs (gas, electricity, water, you get the idea) than ever before. Politically, the administration is fumbling for excuses and retconning the reports, but still things are going south. Thank you for listening.
-dom (maybe not once, because if there is a really interesting post... or just a post...lol)

Thanks for your feed back RedShirt and Dominus_Noctis. Dominus_Noctis You have some relay relay good points. about the last part of your post Dominus_Noctis Well it all comes down to what you one means by no hope left.

Thar is no hope for a peace full state in Iraq their is no hope for a stable democracy. We maybe be able to make some computerizes and split up the contrite in to self sustain countries. But what ever comes out of this teravisty of justice and sanity will be a disaster is the best case scenario.

Well, I was over at a friend's house for the weekend.  Keep in mind who this friend is; he is not a democrat, although his views are almost entirely liberal. 

He is also willing to change his opinion based on the facts.  He's even changed his opinion on the war a couple times as facts and evidence emerges.  For instance, when the report that 260,000 people have been killed in Iraq came out, he gave me heck over it in our debates.  I responded that it was probably faked and that he should just wait and see.  When it turned out that it was faked, he, not me, brought it up and admitted that I was right, despite his views toward it previously.  He is quite a thinker.

When I brought this "argument" up to him (word for word) he just looked at me quizzically and said something along the lines of "What?!" and just started laughing.  I asked him what the funny part was and he said it was the joke I told.  I replied that it was not, in fact, a joke.  He responded to that with another bout of laughter and asked me to show him.  I did so, and he basically said "don't bother.".  I asked him why not, and he said that "anyone who would say that doesn't know enough about the issue to bother with".  He said it better (and with a tad more authority) than I could have, which is why I quote him here. 

Keep in mind, before judging him as a Bush lover or justifier or something (which I have no doubt that some of you will) that he has no love for Bush or Republicans in general.  At all.

Taking some of his further advise, I won't even bother with further rebuttal, it would be a waste of time.  :(

I can't be sure how to respond to this, because I do not want to start a flame war.  :( I would refer to one of the Doc's posts on how to be a good debater however. RedShirt I am very disheartened though that you would choose to say something like this.

We will probably never know the real number some body's will never be found some data from the grown is probably incorrect and political influence will fugued the numbers.

I am not totally clear on what debate you are referring to. please clarify my reading skill is not as good as I would like.

I am still trying to get the full understating of your point.


Just state what you think as long as you post it in a non confrontational way you are ok. You can control others all you can do is make sheer you are ok. If they chose to start a fite thats up to them and you are not responsible for their actions.

I think what RedShirt is trying to say is that what I said is complete bull-feces, because RedShirt's friend is more intelligent than me and knows what he is talking about. Consequently I think I am supposed to say something like "my entire argument is invalidated".

To Ewm, I am not sure if you are addressing me when you say "what debate you are referring to". If so I recommended Red reading Logical Thinking: one of the first couple a links that explain how to make a good debate.

to DN:

Well, sorts, but not nearly as harsh in phrasing.  May I point out that you put words into my mouth and tried to portray me negatively as if that was my meaning?

I'm disappointed.   :(

Perhaps I should convey what I meant, as I seem to have failed.

In part, DN, you are correct.  I do trust his political opinion more that yours.  Much more, in fact, as he has already proved himself flexible, reasonable, and logical.  He has a nose for the truth, and has a way of finding it.  I cannot say that you truly understand the political factors of the Iraq war, in fact, your defense of ewm's remark suggests that you seem to villainize the Bush administrations and perhaps the Republicans in general. 

However, I can say with measurable certainty that my friend does indeed understand that Bush and republicans in general are not some group of power-craving demons who care about nothing but power.

You seem to suggest that they are willing to needlessly sacrifice lives in Iraq just to prove a political point and thus stay in office.  In this statement, you basically label them as evil, and worst of all you have nothing besides supposition and political rhetoric.

This is why I think that your opinion is either ignorant to the point of make-believe or so politically charged that it does indeed become invalidated because you choose to use your imagination instead of reason or fact.

I suggest you refrain for portraying me as evil just because I choose to trust someone else (whom I know better) rather than you.  :(

Darn it, I knew this would happen.
I know that I put your words into your mouth, I was trying to reinterpret what you had said to me. That said, it certainly seemed you were attacking me as your comments were more directed towards how well versed I was in the political scene, and my “political opinion” rather than debating the falseness of my statements. Your comments “I do trust his political opinion more that yours.  Much more, in fact, as he has already proved himself flexible, reasonable, and logical ” can be misconstrued or perhaps correctly interpreted as being a direct assault on my own ability to be “flexible, reasonable, and logical ”.

Also, may I point out that I SAID that my OPINION of the bush administration and republicans of this time was not favorable? However, I also believe that most, if not all, politicians are “some group of power-craving demons who care about nothing but power”. But this is a debate for another thread. Yes, I seem to suggest that “they are willing to needlessly sacrifice lives in Iraq”, but I do not say it because for all I know “they” may not be thinking of the war in that human respect, but only in its political results. Assuming makes an arse… forget it, as this equally applies to myself.

I would prefer that you do not simply dismiss my arguments as based on “supposition and political rhetoric”, that is not a good stance for a debate.

I am sorry if you ever gained the impression that I was portraying you as evil (even though I do not believe in evil), but the way in which you stated that you believe somebody else because I don’t know anything (you DID basically say this) is cause for alarm when we are supposed to be debating information and not attacking a person’s credibility.

May I ask what the point of your reply was… because you were not debating, just merely stating that I have no clue what I was talking about as you already said you would not respond again (please disregard that I am putting words in your mouth). This is better suited for the PM system, and I would prefer to talk about things of this nature there, and debate here.
-dom (if any of this sounded harsh, I am sorry: I just have to finish an essay and I wanted to write this quickly... and please read my posts in their entireity... you seem to have a penchant for missing some of my key phrases)

Perhaps, then, this should be kept short to avoid further misinterpretations causing hard feelings:  Do you have any proof, at all, whatsoever, that the war is being used as a political tool?

Because if you don't, then it is based on nothing but supposition and political rhetoric.  And that is certainly no grounds for a debate.

You could suppose that the war goes on because of the selfish ambition of a few men.  However, what if I put for the theory that the war goes on simply because there is no way we can leave without the entire region erupting into civil, and possibly international, war?

It may take me a couple of days to respond... this is not a result of my idleness or unwillingness to respond. I just have a lot of work at the moment and to give you the accurate research, I need to compile it, which takes time. I apologize for the inconvenience.

May I suggest that you state an opinion/justify something about the other topics mentioned so others may reply too?
sincerely, dom

Well, that would be difficult.  Lets see...

'Nam was lost?  Who knows.  It was possibly the most screwed up time ever, and the discerning the truth from the lies and myth is a full-time job that I am neither qualified for nor interested in.  Vietnam is in the past; it is nothing but a ghost.  Just give it up.  Let it finally die, in peace.

Iraq has no hope left?  What, exactly, do you mean?  Hope in Iraq is indeed scarce.  I personally blame the British, who ever so stupidly decided to draw the borders by the ancient regions and split the Kurds between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran.  Because of that, war is inevitable.  It's just a matter of when and how.

Ewm, you are not an economist, neither am I.  The economy is hopelessly complex, and making a difficult and in no way clear-cut determination such as that is best left to the true experts.

Ewm, I hate you, I have always hated you, and I always will hate you.

Seriously dude, wtf.

-DEFIANT

Umm nice to see you posting again. But you will need to be for specific in what your cussing at.

lol, lol, lol, lol, LOL!!!

PD comes back after two years just to say how much he hates ewm!

Bloody hilarious!  :lol:

I had a good laff. it Keeps things lively.

I love you too PD.

1)well what to you do when your fighting a gorilla war it aint easy
2) on the contrary hope can keep comming from sorces such as joining the millitary why dont you try to belive in the strength of the united states
3)1st off no the war goes on so we win 2nd well if they keep it up what do you expect and 3rd this point is just plain retarded.
4)well if want to belive that why not help by working hard and buying expensive sh*t to enhanse the ecnomy

well plainly most of you statement are for nothing but to offend americans and american supporters so in sumattion people like you ane whats wrong with america and you need to stop or america will die


Vote republican

and welcom back PD its nice to see you back and represinting we republicans

Can you please state what you are responding too I am abit confuted to what you are trying to state.

your points of debate those are my views and opinions and truths belived my me and the greater portian of my family

Thanks, but I don't represent the Republican party, I represent common decency.

You ran for office? Some things wrong here?

Everyone but you knows exactly whats wrong here.

I did not saay I did not know I just did not say. So Ha! lol

What's going on here? :blink:

Oh yeah, and my macroeconomics course finally covered this area.

The US takes in trillions and trillions of dollars.  So far we have seen no significant effects of tax cuts or the war on the economy.  In fact, do you know what the biggest piece of the money pie is on the US budget?  Social security.  In fact, some girl made an idiot out of herself in class by grossly overestimating the money we spend on the war.

So ewm, if you really want to 'save our economy', go out and kill all the old people.  That will save much much much much more money than stopping the war.

But if you look at the state of the defasit you will see the affect of tax cuts tax was made to pay for the servuse rendered by a government to the people with out tax w cant pay for them. If a person had to pay for the sevuse the goverment reinders fire pertection safety rodes ..... it would be allot more and people of motets incomes would be left out. The war adds to the drain on the munny we have so tax becomes more inportent.

Grate idea or we could reform the health care systiom to more of a socialist plat for like 99% of the earth has.


Posted on: 12 September 2007, 06:15:30

---

Thar was a desterbing poll result on cnn and I wonted to see where the forum is on this.

The Q: Do you think its necessary to keep troops in Iraq to prevent tarism?

What do you think then I will give my feed back.

I actually do think it is necessary to keep armed forces in Iraq as the local executive is not strong enough to deal with violence and terrorism without support. It's a tragedy all this happend but now that the war has been declared over it's the least the military can do: support the local institutions to establish a stable government. This will take years, many years but if they leave Iraq now we will earn much more chaos as there already is.
It's a lose-lose-situation. It's dangerous to stay and you won't earn any credits for risking your live; the opposite will happen. If you leave things will only get much worse.
Whatever you might have thought about this war there's no alternative to keeping troops down there and try to prevent Iraq from slipping on an even more violent and chaotic level. But that's something the US should have had in mind when they invaded Iraq. I'm not sure if they had... The real war always begins after the war is over.

The deficit isn't bad at all, if you look at it.  The fact is, it has been much worse throughout much of history.  You seem not to understand the complexities of government economics.  The fact is that it is very, very complex.  Things that seem bad are really no cause to panic.  In fact, our economy is the strongest in the world.


What the Old Man said is pretty much accurate.  Although the truth is more complicated.  If we pull out, we'll not only be unable to save to Sunnis and Shiites for themselves, we'll also be opening to door for an international war.  Don't think that Iran doesn't have an interest in the area; they've been actively working against us in Iraq to destabilize the region for a very protracted amount of time.  If we leave, we give them an open Iraq, along with all of its oil.  Yes, even for Iran it is very much about oil.  Also don't think that the neighboring sunni nations will just let Iran invade either.  Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and others don't want Iran on their doorstep.  Syria could care less.  On top of all this is Israel.  They'd be cought up in the middle of it.  The Kurds may well use the opportunity to create their own state, thus dragging Turkey into the war.

My point is that if we leave, things will get very ugly.

I agree that the US budget defecit is not anywhere near as bad as it seems. As a percentage of overall GDP it is actually much smaller than the defecit in the 1930s before the Great Depression, even though it is bigger in absolute terms. The US GDP is a big animal, and the financial system is designed to some extend to operate on credit (that's why countries such as China and Japan buy US debt in exchange for what they can get in return (they're not doin it out of the good of their hearts, especially China). The debt is bought in exchange for services. And there are other wealthy economies, such as the UK, which operate a budget defecit (and in the case of the UK it's no doubt a larger chunk of overall GDP).

The only thing I don't like about the credit based system is the tendency of banks to lend money too readily when things are going "well", often to people who cannot really afford it. When the credit isn't sustainable it comes back to bite you. The money doesn't really exist in that case, so it literally gets shaved off companies in the guise of stock value. The current mortgage "crisis" is the banks' fault, and they should pay. It doesn't have to affect the wider economy significantly.

I'm no economics expert, but a little knowledge can go a long way. If the US economy goes into recession it will be because of bad decisions by bad bankers giving money to people who cannot afford to pay it back. The budget defecit is financed by other economies, and is a separate issue methinks.

Good you all gave a sain response. lol Not so on CNN.

___________________

My Ma, Just informed me of some unsettling news she read Hunt oil how CEO sits on G W B's national security counsel is making Oil deals with the Kurds and not the other ethic groups in Iraq with Iraqi Oil. It all most looks to a out sider that the Bush adminastration is trying to because ethic strife......