Pentagon to triple the number of drones

[mesaserf]

Every time someone brings up the "oil" argument, I just have to laugh.....and feel sorry for their ignorance.


....go back and correct your post.

Ugh. OK "Precedent" Happy now?

Please correct my ignorance. Unless you think your attack on the messenger and not the message is good enough for you. Please step up to the plate!

 

[JungleJett]

Ugh. OK "Precedent" Happy now?

Please correct my ignorance. Unless you think your attack on the messenger and not the message is good enough for you. Please step up to the plate!

Go back and correct it.

Show me irrefutable proof where oil was the reason for the Iraq invasion. Cite reputable sources, links, documents, personal knowledge, ect.

Balls in your court. If you cannot provide proof for your allegations, I would recommend remaining quiet.

 

[C40_Pilot]

And where is all that oil?

So if oil was the reason, where is it all? Why aren't prices cheaper? Are we hoarding Iraqi oil, putting it in ships and storing it someplace?

Where did all of that precious oil go?

 

[Mamma]

Ignorance? OK then give me some help. Why have we not invaded North Korea?

Are we afraid of them? Would we be up against the Chinese?

Oil has nothing to do with it? Why not?

Please do not just ignore the questions. Give me your opinion and I may just stand corrected.

Mesa,
I would rather not do all your homework but I will give some help.

1) Study the Korean War and pay particular attention to Chinese involvement. Try and focus on why they became involved and what they were willing to sacrifice.

2) Study the history of Korea...emphasize on the geographical significance of it over the ages. I'll throw in "buffer state" to get you in the right direction.

3) Get a subscription to Strafor and study the N. Korean military and their likely strategies should we attack them. How much artillery, tanks and men do they have right next to Seoul. How many millions would die in the Korean hoard raining south? Then look at the social and economic state of N Korea. Is that something we really want to deal with should be conquer them?

4) Oil does have something to do with the Iraq invasion but regional stability and reducing terrorism have a large part. Here, I would like you to google which Arab countries helped us in our Iraq invasion. Aside of Iran and Lebanon, please tell me which Arab countries did not base our troops, weapons or allow overflight rights. Then ask yourself, if we were there to steal all the oil, would these countries be in favor of it? Perhaps Saddam was a destabilizing force there? Perhaps a democracy in an oil rich state with better than average education rates would help stabilize the area thus reduce terrorism.

5) Ask yourself this. Do you think Iran will get a nuclear weapon in the next couple years? If your answer is in the affirmative, what do you think Saddam would have done to counter that threat?

6) Last, read up on the term "state interest."

That is all!

 

[Mamma]

He is actually quite correct.

A foreign policy that dictates we invade every nation that threatens to develop WMDs is both ill advised and completely unworkable.

Even had Iraq possessed WMDs the invasion was a poor strategic decision for the United Stantes.

Wrong. That is not our foreign policy. If you want to be educated, read up on my response to mesa and then to give you some homework:

Look up UN Resolutions against Iraq; Iraq's Gulf War I surrender agreement; ramifications to the world's oil supply should Iran and Iraq both no nuclear. Try to think not to think so short term in regards to whether the Iraq invasion was a good or bad idea. The fruits of the Iraq invasion will not be seen for a generation or two.

Now, was the Iraq war ill thought out? Did the Bush Admin completely bumble the aftermath? Did we screw it up by the numbers? You bet we did. But you did not ask that so I won't delve into it.

 

[Mamma]

So if oil was the reason, where is it all? Why aren't prices cheaper? Are we hoarding Iraqi oil, putting it in ships and storing it someplace?

Where did all of that precious oil go?

Ding Ding Ding!!!

 

[mesaserf]

Go back and correct it.

I can't unless someone knows a trick to doing it.

Show me irrefutable proof where oil was the reason for the Iraq invasion. Cite reputable sources, links, documents, personal knowledge, ect.

Well, I do remember someone in the Bush White House (I think it was Rumsfield) telling the press that the war would be paid off with Iraq oil. Other than numerous articles that you would just blow off as being leftest rants I would need a top secret clearance or a freedom of information act to do so. But then again you asked this so you can justify disregarding my comments and avoiding my questions. Fair enough.

Balls in your court. If you cannot provide proof for your allegations, I would recommend remaining quiet.

That's nice, I guess I'm the fool for trying to debate on flight info.

 

[mesaserf]

Mesa,
I would rather not do all your homework but I will give some help.

1) Study the Korean War and pay particular attention to Chinese involvement. Try and focus on why they became involved and what they were willing to sacrifice.

2) Study the history of Korea...emphasize on the geographical significance of it over the ages. I'll throw in "buffer state" to get you in the right direction.

3) Get a subscription to Strafor and study the N. Korean military and their likely strategies should we attack them. How much artillery, tanks and men do they have right next to Seoul. How many millions would die in the Korean hoard raining south? Then look at the social and economic state of N Korea. Is that something we really want to deal with should be conquer them?

4) Oil does have something to do with the Iraq invasion but regional stability and reducing terrorism have a large part. Here, I would like you to google which Arab countries helped us in our Iraq invasion. Aside of Iran and Lebanon, please tell me which Arab countries did not base our troops, weapons or allow overflight rights. Then ask yourself, if we were there to steal all the oil, would these countries be in favor of it? Perhaps Saddam was a destabilizing force there? Perhaps a democracy in an oil rich state with better than average education rates would help stabilize the area thus reduce terrorism.

5) Ask yourself this. Do you think Iran will get a nuclear weapon in the next couple years? If your answer is in the affirmative, what do you think Saddam would have done to counter that threat?

6) Last, read up on the term "state interest."

That is all!

Good points. Yes, If we did invade NK we would put a lot of civilians in harms way in Seoul. Not to mention the humanitarian problem that would develop in the aftermath. Also the Chinese response and/or involvement is a big factor. I think NK will just collapse on its own. Then the US and China will have to pick up the pieces.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were the major suppliers of bases for the invasion. Both have been in our pockets for years. We allowed Saddam to stay in power for years because he was a counter balance force against Iran. We played both sides against each other during the Iran-Iraq war to ensure neither side gained the upper hand. It only got out of control when Saddam invaded Kuwait. We could not allow him to become too strong. Hence the first gulf war.

We left Saddam in power because Bush Sr. knew Iraq was a tribal/religious mess that could spin out of control. Only later under Bush Jr. did Dick and Rummy decided that we could invade Iraq on the cheap and get control of those oil reserves. The rest is history.

Could Saddam have done something to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran? No. But let me ask you this. Did Iran begin its nuclear arms building, and then accelerated it because of the Iraq invasion? Or was it inevitable because of its increasing wealth and power?

If we cannot force a regime change in Iran with political pressure I think we will eventually have boots on the ground.

Who knows. Again, good points.

 

[mesaserf]

Ding Ding Ding!!!

Um.. Unless I missed something would not the oil still in the ground be considered oil reserves? You do know the stuff keeps pretty good while under ground, right?

Just asking.

P.S. It's been fun fellas but I have to sign off. I have a busy few days coming up and I have to get packed.

Peace out.

 

[Mamma]

Good points. Yes, If we did invade NK we would put a lot of civilians in harms way in Seoul. Not to mention the humanitarian problem that would develop in the aftermath. Also the Chinese response and/or involvement is a big factor. I think NK will just collapse on its own. Then the US and China will have to pick up the pieces.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were the major suppliers of bases for the invasion. Both have been in our pockets for years. We allowed Saddam to stay in power for years because he was a counter balance force against Iran. We played both sides against each other during the Iran-Iraq war to ensure neither side gained the upper hand. It only got out of control when Saddam invaded Kuwait. We could not allow him to become too strong. Hence the first gulf war.

We left Saddam in power because Bush Sr. knew Iraq was a tribal/religious mess that could spin out of control. Only later under Bush Jr. did Dick and Rummy decided that we could invade Iraq on the cheap and get control of those oil reserves. The rest is history.

Could Saddam have done something to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran? No. But let me ask you this. Did Iran begin its nuclear arms building, and then accelerated it because of the Iraq invasion? Or was it inevitable because of its increasing wealth and power?

Who knows. Again, good points.

Nice post. Much better grasp. But, aside of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, you forgot to mention Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Syria, Turkey, most of Europe and Eastern Europe. All had a hand in getting rid of Saddam.

Good point on Iran and their nuclear ambitions. I don't know the answer. I think they have always wanted a nuke so they could be a major player in the region vs western powers. A nuclear Iran and non Nuclear Iraq would have been an out of balance situation there so there is no way Saddam would have not tried to acquire one.

I still don't see where we are controlling any oil reserves. We are not paying for the war with oil nor are we stealing it. I think we should charge them in the form of oil and we should take some for a certain amount of time. But who am I to make that call.

Thanks for the back and forth.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You are a real piece of work there chief. A class act all the way.

So is war.... save it for the next gen to figure out this whole peace thing.....


War is peace.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

So if oil was the reason, where is it all? Why aren't prices cheaper? Are we hoarding Iraqi oil, putting it in ships and storing it someplace?

Where did all of that precious oil go?

The CPA under Bremer failed to stabilize Iraq into the free market utopia so desired by multinational companies....

Iraq is not secure enough......

The Iraqi's are creating agreements for their oil fields to be tapped, but.... surprisingly, US oil companies aren't in the front of the line....

 

[JungleJett]

That was easy....

Go back and correct it.

I can't unless someone knows a trick to doing it.

Show me irrefutable proof where oil was the reason for the Iraq invasion. Cite reputable sources, links, documents, personal knowledge, ect.

Well, I do remember someone in the Bush White House (I think it was Rumsfield) telling the press that the war would be paid off with Iraq oil. Other than numerous articles that you would just blow off as being leftest rants I would need a top secret clearance or a freedom of information act to do so. But then again you asked this so you can justify disregarding my comments and avoiding my questions. Fair enough.

Balls in your court. If you cannot provide proof for your allegations, I would recommend remaining quiet.

That's nice, I guess I'm the fool for trying to debate on flight info.

 

[CFI2766]

Lost in this thread is the potential ramifications of the military slowly getting out of the business of training human pilots. Sure, it won't happen tomorrow, but the stage is being set for the end of the manned military aircraft.

1) Without manned military aircraft, the Air Force will ultimately cease to exist. If everything that carries a weapon is remotely piloted, the term for the person who controls that airframe will become 'operator', not pilot. Training will adjust to become more efficient and cheaper for the military to the point where a specialist with a computer background will control the UAVs in the field from an office somewhere stateside. These are capabilities that other branches of the armed services do well currently. What need would there be for a branch dedicated to flying UAVs? (Granted, space and missiles could ultimately be the only reason for the continued existence of the Air Force. How much of a budget priority would there be for a capabilities that are thought to be handled by NASA, or, not necessary since the end of the Cold War?)

2) The commercial aviation industry as a whole will ultimately change if the military is no longer producing the same quantity of pilots. There will be unintended consequences.

A social debate is good for the people in the debate, even if you strongly disagree with the opponents in the debate...Rez. All that being said, this whole thread has missed the point of the article.

 

[splatt]

Sometimes it hard to tell who is dumber, the drunk or the guy arguing with the drunk.

 

[AvroGuy]

2) The commercial aviation industry as a whole will ultimately change if the military is no longer producing the same quantity of pilots. There will be unintended consequences.

The airlines have not had a steady flow of Military pilots for a while now, really since 9/11. In fact, there were many who got out before 9/11 and were able to get back in after 9/11. Also there has been a decline becuase the Airline environment change dramatically after 9/11. Yours is an invalid point in my view.

 

[CFI2766]

The airlines have not had a steady flow of Military pilots for a while now, really since 9/11. In fact, there were many who got out before 9/11 and were able to get back in after 9/11. Also there has been a decline becuase the Airline environment change dramatically after 9/11. Yours is an invalid point in my view.

Really? You see no effects on the airline business with the possible downturn in military trained pilots?

 

[JohnQ]

So is war.... save it for the next gen to figure out this whole peace thing.....


War is peace.

The libertarian, pro-military (and anti-religion) sci-fi author Robert Heinlein said it best:

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."


He wasn't talking about you Rez?

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

The libertarian, pro-military (and anti-religion) sci-fi author Robert Heinlein said it best:

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty."


He wasn't talking about you Rez?

Nope.... I'll go to war.... for the right reasons...... hindsight is 20/20... even WWII could have been significantly reduced... suggesting... that we learn....

 

[MGlobemaster]

I kinda got bored reading the same argument over and over and skipped to the last page so forgive me if we talked about this already. The drones that have sparked this debate, the ones firing into pakistan, are a teeny tiny percentage of the drones operating in Afghanistan. Most of the drones I had experience with were unarmed, purely observation drones. These drones observe towns suspected of making IED's or LZ's (landing zones, rez) before we drop our troops in with helicopters to make sure they're clear, and various other activities that don't involve killing "innocents". BTW, if you're just bringing food, water, and other necessities to say...Bin Laden...you are knowingly aiding a terrorist. Although you might not be a terrorist yourself are you really "innocent"?