Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Regional Summary




Founded - 30 April 2005
Population - 165 Nations
World Ranking - 61
Regional Power - High

Government of the Global Right Alliance


Speaker of the People's Assembly and World Assembly Delegate
Pidgeon Island

Members of the Committee
TBA

World Assembly Delegate
Angusp (aka Bodegraven)

High General of the GRADF
Joe Bobs
Welcome to the Global Right Alliance's forums!

Firstly, you can only see a very limited amount of the forums at the moment. You will be able to see the full forums and properly participate in our region and its community when you register.

Join our Community


Now, on to the region itself. Don't let the name, specifically the "Right", fool you. We've got members from across the political spectrum, and our political parties have always reflected this. The Global Right Alliance (GRA), as primarily a gameplay region, has been everything from an anarchy to a monarchy to a homegrown rotatorship. The region has had such governments because of its culture, which adores political intrigue and thrives on confrontation. With the increase of the region's population, many veterans have returned. It is the beginning of a new Global Right Alliance and a new government system.

I know the forums can be quite intimidating; there's people who have been here for nearly a decade and have over 10,000 posts. However, we welcome new members and encourage them to get involved. If you want help finding your way around, we have resources to help you to get on your way.

Getting Started


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Democrats urge caution on claims against Iran
Topic Started: Feb 12 2007, 11:52 AM (396 Views)
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Senior members of the Democratic Party in the United States have urged the Bush administration to be cautious about accusing Iran of involvement in Iraq's insurgency.  

US officials had earlier claimed to have evidence that Iran was providing weapons to Shia militias who attacked the US military. 

However, a leading Democratic Senator, Chris Dodd, said the Bush administration had tried to falsify evidence before.
Write it up they did......WMD anyone?

World Democrats urge caution on claims against Iran

also

Democrats wary over Iran claims
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
:Laugh:

Point to Estion
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I am not sure how. :huh:

He said British troops were pussying out. I am yet to see a piece of evidence to say why they are being pussys and that this is not a valid military withdrawl that has been planed in the long term.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I feel like pussying out for once, just to see what being French is actually like...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think that people from a country that only went to war with Germany because Hitler casualy declared war on it really have a right to comment on people that actualy stood up, if only for a short time, to the Germans. At least the French fought for 27 days, realised they were defeated and withdrew. Rather than throwing themselves into a war they could not possibly have fought and which would have resulted in the wholesale destruction of their economy and Military and driven their nation further into debt than a Dutch sex addict.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I don't think professional murders have a right to talk about Dutch sex addicts.

This converstion is about to descend into farce.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jivdom
Member Avatar
Resident Insomniac
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
This converstion is about to descend into farce.


Personally I can;t wait...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well it was already farce when f4u started talking, but I think it's about to become even more farcical.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Estion
Persistent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Apologies to Dup, who, I think, took offense at my choice of words. Pussying out was meant to refer not at all to the bravery or quality of GB's soldiers, which isn't at issue. The point was to address F4U's claim that the fact that American people have no stomach for warfare or "any casualties," etc. In response, I referenced the drawdown of British troops in Iraq (any of the other coalition nations could've been named, of course) by way of suggesting that it was not solely Americans who could not deal with casualties.

Of course, I don't think the logic implied by that causal link makes much sense, but it demonstrates the fallacy of F4U's argument, so it's served its purpose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think it has to be looked at from more than one angle though. There is the very real point that Britain is getting to the point where less and less of it's troops are actualy needed because the Iraqi army and security force is now in a better position to deal with things. The thing with Iraq is, the form of combat is not one that requires a small well trained army like Britains, because it doesn't matter how well trained you are, it won't stop you being painted over the side your APC by a roadside bomb, or having your head blown off by a sniper. Simply, the large, moderately trained, moderately equiped Iraqi army is in a better situation to deal with things then the small British army.

Just as an interested but fairly unrelated note about Iran-Iraq relations. When Coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam made all of his airforce fly their planes and any excess equipment to Iran because he thought Iran would end up going to war with us and knew Iraq had no hope.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Estion
Persistent
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quick replies to your two major points, Dup:

1. You're absolutely right about the need to take varied perspectives. However, I really don't believe you can make a strong argument that troop drawdowns (by any country) are evidence of progress and/or greater Iraqi autonomy in the country. Your points about the dynamics of urban warfare, counterinsurgency, and the type of military needed to address them are valid. However, I don't think the current state of affairs in Iraq warrants that sort of optimism. The escalation of attacks on coalition troops and of sectarian violence more generally is pretty plain, and while I certainly think Iraqi forces should be replacing Western forces, I think the current drawdowns are more a "let's get the fuck outta here" phenomenon than a "they're ready to handle it on themselves" thing. See "Vietnamization" in 1969.

2. That's a really interesting point, isn't it? Especially when considering that Iran-Iraq relations sucked for decades. Saddam in particular hated the Iranians.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I think Iraq is on a fast track (if not already in) to Civil War and the
Quote:
 
"let's get the fuck outta here" phenomenon
is a more accurate appraisal of the current sentiment.

And I also think the Tony Blair "it wasn't me Gov!...Honest" attitude is further proof of his detachment from the reality obvious to everyone else.

See here.

Quote:
 
he denied any suggestion the "very grim" situation in that country was the result of a fatal lack of pre-war planning by himself and George Bush, or the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in the first place.


Quote:
 
Time and again he refused to apologise for the current situation in Iraq or accept claims the war had made the world and the UK more dangerous places.


Quote:
 
He again denied he had tailored intelligence to suit the policy before the war, or that he and the President had decided to go to war come what may, even before they pursued the UN route.


All this proves is that he still is a BLIAR
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oodge
Member Avatar
Nuckin Futs
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
what're we discussing here again?

Quote:
 
I think it has to be looked at from more than one angle though. There is the very real point that Britain is getting to the point where less and less of it's troops are actualy needed because the  The thing with Iraq is, the form of combat is not one that requires a small well trained army like Britains, because it doesn't matter how well trained you are, it won't stop you being painted over the side your APC by a roadside bomb, or having your head blown off by a sniper. Simply, the large, moderately trained, moderately equiped Iraqi army is in a better situation to deal with things then the small British army


ya sure? Australia has been requested to send another 20, 000 troops. show me evidence of "Iraqi army and security force is now in a better position to deal with things." and i'll take that back but for now i find that very wrong

The Brits pulling out is in my mind pressure from more so the public than a tactical "pussying out"

doesn't anyone else find it Ironic that Germany is one of the few large EU nations that opposed the war from the start?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Love and Honour
Feb 23 2007, 06:18 AM
All this proves is that he still is a BLIAR

Putting liar in big, red letters does not prove that you are either big nor intelligent.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dupitable
Member Avatar
How do you like THAT side boob?
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Unfortunately, speaking, has so far proved that you are not inteligent, PI.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Dupitable
Feb 23 2007, 07:47 PM
Unfortunately speaking has so far proved that you are not inteligent PI.

Have you ever grown up in inner city Stoke and ended up being top of the class in one of the best independent schools in the country? Don't underestimate me, I'll be far more successful than you ever will be. Not only do I have the intelligence, I have the natural drive and determination to succeed.

Unlike you I shall not fail so badly at acedemic pursuits that I feel the need to go into the army. Now I'm sorry if I've offended you and your (and other's) ignorant pride in a corrupt government and a thieving political system that is of no benifit to anyone but the Labour Party and it's donors, but you have offended me in belittling my greatest qualities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pidgeon Island
Feb 23 2007, 06:06 PM
Love and Honour
Feb 23 2007, 06:18 AM
All this proves is that he still is a BLIAR

Putting liar in big, red letters does not prove that you are either big nor intelligent.

I never said it did. Stating an obivious fact is no proof of intelligence. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fighter4u
Member Avatar
our land is fill with blood may our people know only love.....
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Estion
Feb 22 2007, 04:31 PM
fighter4u
Feb 20 2007, 11:04 PM
The U.S internal problems?It congress at any chance strip it mirtally buget and try to do whatever to cut it funding. It people don't want to be in any war where they lose anybody. They due to their parniod are building fences around their boraders.Spenting BILLIONS on protecting themself from every Joe or Jane who has a bomb and a score to settle while their schools waste away,their health care does more harm then good and more and more people spent their days in povetry.

You're completely naive, and, as it happens, almost wholly incorrect, F4u.

First of all, Congress has actually pussied out in a big way in terms of doing everything it might to scale back military funding in Iraq. Moreover, if you think legislative control over the waging of an unpopular and largely ineffectual war is somehow a bad thing, you might want to write to your own government representative and tell him to take an early retirement, 'cause you want the absolute monarchy back!

Now, that first point doesn't make you an idiot (so much as just superficially informed) until you put it with the last one. Apparently, it's a problem for the US Congress to try at every turn to cut funding to Iraq, but also a problem to spend "BILLIONS" on national security. Incidentally, given the fact of terrorist strikes on Borneo, London, Madrid, so on, and so on, I can't say without equivocation that this isn't money well spent, particularly since the US defense budget is a far smaller portion of total government spending (about 20% in 2006) than it was during the 50s and 60s (about 60% of the total budget in 1956). Incidentally, if you want to look those figures up, check the US Statistical Abstract for those years. They're online, though I'm sure you won't bother.

Let's examine just one more point, the one you make about the US not wanting to sustain heavy military casualties. I'm going to concede it right off the bat, and note that you haven't done anything to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing. God help us, we don't want our people to die! What a corrupt-at-its-core nation we are! I might note that Britain has (wisely, in my opinion) recently pussied out of Iraq, suggesting that we're not the only ones who don't want to see heavy military casualties. And, lest you think this phenomenon of some national character flaw rather than wise public policy shaped by public opinion, let me draw you to the Civil War as a valuable historic example. Since you're sure to deny each of my arguments by telling me how I'm suggesting something that appears nowhere in this post, however, I'll leave a discussion of that historical episode for next time.

Keep on being an idiot, F4U. You'll get there someday...I guess.

Estion you shouldn't called people idots when your one yourself.

First of all, Congress has actually pussied out in a big way in terms of doing everything it might to scale back military funding in Iraq. Moreover, if you think legislative control over the waging of an unpopular and largely ineffectual war is somehow a bad thing, you might want to write to your own government representative and tell him to take an early retirement, 'cause you want the absolute monarchy back!

1.A monarchy be better then a congress that plays potical with people lifes. In fact your right the congress has pussy out on cutting back mritally spending.Because now they have a chance to do something about it they won't. And the Iraq war is unpopluar alright. They lost a couple of men. Realise that maybe the terriortst aren't a rag tag army and they might have to put up a fight.So they want to get the hell out. The yanks are pussy.

Apparently, it's a problem for the US Congress to try at every turn to cut funding to Iraq, but also a problem to spend "BILLIONS" on national security. Incidentally, given the fact of terrorist strikes on Borneo, London, Madrid, so on, and so on, I can't say without equivocation that this isn't money well spent, particularly since the US defense budget is a far smaller portion of total government spending (about 20% in 2006) than it was during the 50s and 60s (about 60% of the total budget in 1956). Incidentally, if you want to look those figures up, check the US Statistical Abstract for those years. They're online, though I'm sure you won't bother.

2.And I the idot? :Laugh: Maybe my friend the U.S has a bigger buget and such their mirtally spenting is less of the cover all buget and note in the 60s they were fighting a cold war. Which cost a LOT of money.That and the fact mirtally are smaller in size today.

Let's examine just one more point, the one you make about the US not wanting to sustain heavy military casualties. I'm going to concede it right off the bat, and note that you haven't done anything to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing. God help us, we don't want our people to die! What a corrupt-at-its-core nation we are! I might note that Britain has (wisely, in my opinion) recently pussied out of Iraq, suggesting that we're not the only ones who don't want to see heavy military casualties. And, lest you think this phenomenon of some national character flaw rather than wise public policy shaped by public opinion, let me draw you to the Civil War as a valuable historic example. Since you're sure to deny each of my arguments by telling me how I'm suggesting something that appears nowhere in this post, however, I'll leave a discussion of that historical episode for next time.

3.You don't want your people to deid.Yet you want to win a war agaisnt men who want to kill you and will galdly give up their lifes to do so. I sure your people will be screaming for the army to scarfic their people in some other middle east country after the next 9/11 because for all the billions the yank have spend on their security.Their are still MAJOR flaws. The cargo holds of airplanes,the borader, the ramdom and ineffective screaches at ports. Thing is terriorts could easily bomb the U.S again. But this war will be won on who ever sticks it out longer. It more mental.And as we know from past wars.The yanks suck at that.As such the terriorts want to attack in such a way to cause mass panic and strike by say attacking planes again. Because even those it be easy to haul a couple of tons of TNT into the country. It be even better to attack the yanks where they feel the safest and prove noting can stop them.

The civil war? ROOLF.That was the dumbest war in histroy. It gave rise to a shitty ass country that wanted EVERYTHING for noting. The whole North Amercian contenit(sp) for example. Once they knew they were not gonig to win agaisnt Canada. Congress cut funding the armed forces and forgot about the war.

Like GOD DAM IT!THEIR SHOOTING AT US.RETREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or let wait for half the second great war to be over and have the germans already beaten and then jump in for the glory!After all we can then have our own world empire.And if you think that BS.The yanks don't want a world empire. Then I say they would had if it wasn't that the rest of the world deicde it wasn't a good thing and gave up on it(mostly because where the colonys had their own gurilla armys and suft by the end of the war.)

So Estions you call me navie. I call you a blind fucking idot and tell you to go back waving your amercian flag and beliving every word that your government says.After all their the governemt.They would never lie right????



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
fighter4u
Feb 23 2007, 08:25 PM
Estion you shouldn't called people idots when your one yourself.

Oh the irony...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Love and Honour
Member Avatar
Yes Sir; No Sir: 3 Bags Full Sir
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Pidgeon Island
Feb 23 2007, 08:50 PM
fighter4u
Feb 23 2007, 08:25 PM
Estion you shouldn't called people idots when your one yourself.

Oh the irony...

Oh double that irony :Laugh:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pidgeon Island
Member Avatar
Not so stale.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Not really, I don't call people idiots.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · OMAHD Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply