They also pointed out that the Iraqi oil reserves were amongst the most untapped in the region. Also if you get the drilling dereck over on an angle from Iraq you can drill across the border into Saudi!
Isnt that exactly what the Iraqis were accusing Kuwait of on 1990? Also I think Iraq has 30% of the middle east proven oil reserves
Perhaps, but the average Iraqi is still poor by western standards.
I don’t see how anyone could expect a new government in Iraq, while democratic, to not also be theocratic. As I stated previously, Iraq is culturally linear. Expecting a culture based largely on religion to not have religion play a major part in it’s political thinking would be folly, don’t you agree?
That’s not at all why the US did not succeed in preventing communism in all of Vietnam. As I have said, the US simply did not devote enough resources to the task, and that was because our government feared inciting China. It had nothing at all to do with technology or weapons systems. Think about it: You are China and the US plants 200,000+ men and gobs of supplies into a small country on your border. Are you going to like that? The Chinese have never trusted outsiders, particularly the US. It would not go over well. That is why when the USMC got within a few miles of the Chinese border chasing the North Koreans up to the Chosin Reservoir, there were 220,000 or more Chinese soldiers waiting for them, and they attacked. What do you think the US would do if the USSR had dropped of 200,000 men in northern Mexico? Do you think they would wait for them to get to the border of the US and say, “We’re here!” Hell no. They’d hit them with everything they had without hesitation.
China had already proven their willingness to do that. Consequently, the US did not send what would have been necessary to Vietnam to take the country.
The USSR tried the same thing in Afghanistan that the US did in Vietnam, and they dropped the ball too.
No, going to Syria would mean the terrorists there would take to the hills running for their lives just like they have done in Afghanistan. Terrorists are always trying to create another 9-11. They’ll keep trying whether the US were to go to Syria or not. By “mess” I assume you mean a nation with an emerging democracy.
It sure as hell beats sending a smattering of men. The USSR tried the same stupid crap in Afghanistan. Look what it got them. Nothing. At least the US managed to salvage half of the country without sending more than a trickle of men. But, it was somewhat a failure, because they did not commit to it.
Seductress? First of all, a seductress is a woman who entices men for the purpose of obtaining sexual satisfaction through or combined with: money, power, or the emotional high of seeing a man desire her both physically and emotionally. Seductresshood has nothing to do with this whatsoever. BTW, a seductress does not have to sleep with her “victim” to be a seductress. Often times, to a seductress, it’s not about having sex at all. It’s about personal and/or sexual empowerment and achieving a goal. This goal is often nothing more than the satisfaction of having a man grovel for her.
A woman does not have to be a seductress to wish to be desired. If you see a woman’s lips does that mean she’s seducing you? Every women wants to feel desired. It is a primary need for women as a gender. It is one of the reasons why many relationships get stale; because he stops expressing to her that he is attracted to her even if he no longer is. When that happens, a woman harbors resentment for it, and that will surface as a lack of sex in the relationship (if there already isn’t one) or by other means. In return, the man harbors resentment because she refuses his sexual advances, feeling that she is not attractive to him so he must simply want sex because he needs IT, and not because he desires HER. It is a “vicious circle” that requires effort to break. Similarly, men desire the empowerment of “capturing” or “conquering” a woman. It’s the male equivalent.
Women of the mid east today are buried in centuries old religious oppression. That does not mean that if they get the chance they are going to start wearing Channel Red No. 5 on their lips and run around biting their tongues as they thumb through a book or shop in the market to get men staring at their mouth and thinking about sex. They simply want to feel like women - desired, needed, feminine, attractive. Left to their own devices, the women of the Middle East will loose the veils, as they have been doing more and more where they can get away with it. To the men of the Middle East, this represents harlotry.
The sexual qualities of the mouth is the reason that many women of Arab cultures have been required to wear veils in public to conceal their mouth and bosom. A direct allegory can be made of the symbolic resemblance of the lips of the mouth to the lips of the vagina. Veiling is more common today than it was prior to the foundation of Islam (6th century A.D.), when veils were often reserved for women of stature. The ancients of the eastern world understood very well how physically and visually pleasing the mouth of a woman can be. The Quran states, “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their mahrem men.” and also “O Prophet! Tell Thy wives and daughters. And the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (face) when abroad, that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested.” The semi-transparent veil is largely a modern notion for costumes. Traditional veils are virtually if not completely opaque. The idea of a translucent veil reflects the fact that a woman’s mouth is alluring, and that it is titillating to have the sexy, curvaceous lips shrouded in mystery. It also reflects that in the western world of today a woman’s mouth is more prominently a part of our image of women’s sensuality and sexual prowess.
Veiling accomplishes more than one thing. It prevents men from looking at a woman’s shapely mouth and becoming interested in another man’s woman. It also prevents a woman, should she be so inclined, from knowingly using her mouth as a means of titillation and to make men desire her. The most prominent reason for veiling is that the veil is a form of subjugation whereby a man can keep his woman in a submissive and controlled mindset. Indeed the veils women of these cultures are required to wear cover not only the mouth and bosom, but the hair as well. In certain Arab cultures, the totalitarianist subjugation of women is taken to a greater and more hideous extreme, and girls are forced to have their clitorises cut off to keep women from indulging in masturbation. By their thinking, women should find pleasure only through intercourse with their husbands, and any sexual pleasure for women not by intercourse is condemned. Today the use of the veil is increasingly despised by Arab women as they seek greater independence under the influence of western culture, and wish to deploy their feminine whiles to attract a man of their own choosing, and not a man for whom they have been arranged to marry.
Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let’s make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I’ll be there.
I have not suggested that Female Genital Mutilation is widely practiced. However, it is indeed practiced in the Middle East some of the most religiously fundamental extremists.
It has been one of the most prolific sources of terrorism, yes. But so has Syria for the last 20 years. Today, Syria is the most prolific source of terrorits training.
EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES
That’s not at all why the US did not succeed in preventing communism in all of Vietnam. As I have said, the US simply did not devote enough resources to the task, and that was because our government feared inciting China. It had nothing at all to do with technology or weapons systems. Think about it: You are China and the US plants 200,000+ men and gobs of supplies into a small country on your border. Are you going to like that? The Chinese have never trusted outsiders, particularly the US. It would not go over well. That is why when the USMC got within a few miles of the Chinese border chasing the North Koreans up to the Chosin Reservoir, there were 220,000 or more Chinese soldiers waiting for them, and they attacked. What do you think the US would do if the USSR had dropped of 200,000 men in northern Mexico? Do you think they would wait for them to get to the border of the US and say, “We’re here!” Hell no. They’d hit them with everything they had without hesitation.
China had already proven their willingness to do that. Consequently, the US did not send what would have been necessary to Vietnam to take the country.
The USSR tried the same thing in Afghanistan that the US did in Vietnam, and they dropped the ball too.
No, going to Syria would mean the terrorists there would take to the hills running for their lives just like they have done in Afghanistan. Terrorists are always trying to create another 9-11. They’ll keep trying whether the US were to go to Syria or not. By “mess” I assume you mean a nation with an emerging democracy.[/quote]
(1) You dropped more bombs on Vietnam than you did on Germany in 1943/44/45, that’s a fair amount of resources. It was a war were you lost 50,000 odd dead - to me that’s a fairly large war, with a fair few resources committed. There’s no shame in losing laddo, we’ve been betrayed by politicians and had to pull out of countries before to.
(2) If you attack Syria, you will turn the whole Middle East (well, the bits that don’t already hate you) against the US. You will see suicide bombs as a normal occurance in American cities (and ours if we join you).
Face up to facts - Iraq is a fucking mess. How many suicide bombs go off every day in Baghdad? How long do you think the emerging democracy would last without half the American and British armies there stopping the factions trying to wipe each other out?
Iron man said…
‘Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let’s make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I’ll be there.’
Please expand? Im curious about the above statement, can I have an ISBN ref and a link to your website? Where is this institution? Love to know.
I would also like to say that I agree with BDL. In 1967/8 the US had 500,000 men in country. There are many factors for loosing that war. One was that the Vietnamese had figured out how to beat you, the way they beat the French with a persisting strategy, stick at it long enough and you wanted out. Heck the US couldnt get out quick enough.
At some point the same will happen in the Middle east, the situation there is already de-stabilising some countries and pushing others to find a counter. If I were an Iranian leader right now Id be doing everything in my power to gain nuclear technology as N korea appears to have done.
The sexual qualities of the mouth is the reason that many women of Arab cultures have been required to wear veils in public to conceal their mouth and bosom. A direct allegory can be made of the symbolic resemblance of the lips of the mouth to the lips of the vagina. Veiling is more common today than it was prior to the foundation of Islam (6th century A.D.), when veils were often reserved for women of stature. The ancients of the eastern world understood very well how physically and visually pleasing the mouth of a woman can be. The Quran states, “And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their mahrem men.” and also “O Prophet! Tell Thy wives and daughters. And the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (face) when abroad, that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested.” The semi-transparent veil is largely a modern notion for costumes. Traditional veils are virtually if not completely opaque. The idea of a translucent veil reflects the fact that a woman’s mouth is alluring, and that it is titillating to have the sexy, curvaceous lips shrouded in mystery. It also reflects that in the western world of today a woman’s mouth is more prominently a part of our image of women’s sensuality and sexual prowess.
that paragraph into this search engine
takes you to this location.
Highlight a random selection of Ironman’s post, transfer it into google and find his exact post written by someone else!
cnut - PLEASE REFERENCE YOUR POSTS AND DONT PASS THEM OFF AS YOUR OWN,
MODS
Bombs are not people.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.
And you believe that the Iraqi people will cave in to that once we leave? That’s not what the vast majority of Iraqis say.
I do like to keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. Sorry.
:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.
That’s not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:
The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. It will never happen in the Middle East (emboldened part). In case you haven’t noticed, in Iraq 1 the US killed tens of thousands of the Iraqi Army, virtually wiping it out, in less than 2 days, and only @ 137 men died.
By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.
I do like to keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. Sorry.[/quote]
so seperate infact that I refer to them in order to bolster my importance.
So seperate infact that they are infact two different people, unless you are of course the author of Eros Institute? in which case youre cover is appaling bearing in mind you directly copy from that website.
I will take that as a compliment. I am the author of that thesis.
Do you find it strange that I have the entire text of it yet you
cannot find it on the Net? 
EDITED TO ADD:
Because the full text is not available to web surfers.
:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.
That’s not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:
The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. It will never happen in the Middle East (emboldened part). In case you haven’t noticed, in Iraq 1 the US killed tens of thousands of the Iraqi Army, virtually wiping it out, in less than 2 days, and only @ 137 men died.
By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.[/quote]
Stonewall
again how seperate do you like to keep your cyber and real lives?
unless you are of course the author of Eros Institute? in which case youre cover is appaling bearing in mind you directly copy from that website
-I couldnt find a bibliography for erosinstitute either! or any referees for your “wisdom” and nowhere in the text did I find indications of footnotes, how the fuck did you get a degree?
incidentally: “real” is evidently comparative even your “real” life appears to be computer based?
And the Glosters?
Imjin River?
Gloster Hill?
Glad to see a contribution that earned the Regiment a Presidential Citation can be written off so glibly.
Bombs are not people.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.
And you believe that the Iraqi people will cave in to that once we leave? That’s not what the vast majority of Iraqis say.[/quote]
(1) Obviously it was bombs not men, bombs make bigger bangs than people and you’re unlikely to do much damage to a city by dropping people on it 
On a serious note - You had half a million odd men in Vietnam, how many did you need? Half a million men with the newest and shiniest kit in the world. Surely they should have been able to win the war? It’s nothing to be embarassed about kiddo, just type “America lost the Vietnam War” and see how much better it feels to tell the truth about something.
(2) “We’re winning the war on terrorism” - fuck me, you really are deluded, aren’t you sunshine? Winning the war on terror, yet NATO are deploying thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan early next year. Winning the war on terror, yet terrorists can bring London to a stand still. Winning the war on terror, yet hundreds of Iraqis still die in their hundreds every week. Face it - the terrorists at the moment are taking the piss. The Muslim world has hated the US for a long time, yet the US still armed Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, still armed Saddam to fight Iran, some great forethought there (and we were just as guilty of it).
The Iraqi people may not cave in to the terror, but if we pulled out of Iraq now, I’d be deployed there again in about 3 years to scrape up what was left of the Iraqi population off the roads, bury the whole country in one mass grave and clear the buildings ready for whoever is going to repopulate the shit hole.
:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.
That’s not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:
The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.[/quote]
The Marines weren’t quite fighting the war alone.
By November 24, from left to right on line, Eighth Army consisted of: I Corps, with the 24th Division, the British 27th Brigade, and the ROK 1st Division; IX Corps, with the 2nd and 25th Divisions and the Turkish Brigade; and ROK II Corps, with their 6th, 7th and 8th Divisions. 1st Cav was in reserve. In all, about 135,000 troops.
In the east, X Corps had about 100,000 men: the 1st Marine Division (22,000), and the Army’s 7th Division, with the under-strength 3d Infantry Division in reserve at Wonsan; and the ROK I Corps, consisting of the 3rd and Capital Divisions, operating along the east coast.
Total UN strength was about 250,000 men, plus a huge advantage in tanks, artillery, aircraft and ships.
Are you an expert in sexuality and relationships in the same way as you’re an expert in tactics, i.e. by having no experience ?
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/stalemate.htm
STRENGTHS
Peak strength for the United Nations Command was 932,964, on the day the cease-fire was signed:
Republic of Korea 590,911
United States 302,483
United Kingdom 14,198
Canada 6,146
Turkey 5,453
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
Thailand 1,204
France 1,119
Columbia 1,068
Belgium 900
South Africa 826
The Netherlands 819
Luxembourg 44
only a ball park figure.
The war was faught in a way as to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians. Had the US wished, we could have carpet bombed them off the planet. But we did not. Fighting the war as we did was simply a meat grinder for men. The public outcry caused the US to withdraw after drawing the line in the middle.
(2) “We’re winning the war on terrorism” - fuck me, you really are deluded, aren’t you sunshine? Winning the war on terror, yet NATO are deploying thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan early next year. Winning the war on terror, yet terrorists can bring London to a stand still.
The Iraqi people may not cave in to the terror, but if we pulled out of Iraq now, I’d be deployed there again in about 3 years to scrape up what was left of the Iraqi population off the roads, bury the whole country in one mass grave and clear the buildings ready for whoever is going to repopulate the shit hole.[/quote]
But we (US) are not pulling out now. Where do you get that crap from. Just the other day Bush stated in a speech to the American people on TV that we will not pull out with the Iraqi’s so unable to take up the cause.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You first imply that we are making a mistake by being there, then you say that the Iraqia will cave in if we leave, now you say they won’t, then you imply we are not winning the war on terrorism, now you say we are, then you say “if we pull out now” but we aren’t pulling out…
Make up your mind about what you think already. What is the point in debating if you don’t have a clue about what you think? You’ve done such a good job debating yourself I have no reason to say more.
Walther’s link is worth the read.
http://www.sftt.us/HTML/article07072005a.html
The document was put together by;
The seminar itself is composed of officers from the U.S. Marine Corps, Royal Marines, the U.S. Army and the Army and Air National Guard. It is led by Mr. William S. Lind, who created the framework of the Four Generations of Modern War in the 1980s.
Have only managed to get through half of it so far, but this stood out. It justifies earlier comments on how HM Forces do business.
These changes point to another of the dilemmas that typify Fourth Generation war: what succeeds on the tactical level can easily be counter productive at the operational and, especially, strategic levels. For example, by using their overwhelming firepower at the tactical level, Marines may in some cases intimidate the local population into fearing them and leaving them alone. But fear and hate are closely related, and if the local population ends up hating us, that works toward our strategic defeat. That is why in Northern Ireland, British troops are not allowed to return fire unless they are actually taking casualties. The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that they have taken more casualties than they have inflicted.
It also clearly identifies the problems the US is having.