[quote]lunchbox wrote:
The “war” in iraq is nothing more than an excuse to increases defense spending which lines the pockets of GW and his constituants. I.E. halliburton. Terrorism is not going to harm this country nearly as much as fear and ignorance. And for you so called patriots who feel we are fighting the good fight WAKE UP!!! You are being lied to and have been from day one. Ten percent of what you hear on the news is only half true and the rest is a dog and pony show. [/quote]
And you have proof for all this right? I am particularly interested in how you substantiate the “10% of what you hear on the news is only half true” part.
ABBer’s come out at election time like roaches out from under the refrigerator when the lights go out.
I hope you return as quickly when the republicans hold congress.
The point is the invasion of Iraq sidetracked to war on terror, tied down the US military and therefore the US political options globally (when dealing with Iran and NK), fueled the fundamentalistic muslims and increased their recruitment pool.
The point is also that this was explained to Bush. But he dismissed the warnings and went ahead anyway.
The world will be stuck with the consequences for decades.[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lothario 90210 or whatever.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
And how much oil have we taken? As much as the French received in the OFF scandal?
Please show some documentation that we are indeed over there for the oil. Easy to accuse when you don’t have to back it up with pesky little things like facts. [/quote]
You can’t possibly deny we are there in part to secure oil—I mean that would be stupid.
[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lothario 90210 or whatever.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
And how much oil have we taken? As much as the French received in the OFF scandal?
Please show some documentation that we are indeed over there for the oil. Easy to accuse when you don’t have to back it up with pesky little things like facts.
You can’t possibly deny we are there in part to secure oil—I mean that would be stupid.[/quote]
Read what he wrote, 100M - here…I’ll make it easy The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
It’s a big jump from “the only reason” to “in part”.
One would have to be a complete idiot not to see that we are there to protect our interests - as well as that of the entire modernized world.
But this nitwit is saying that Bush went over there soley for the oil grab. There is absolutely no oil being taken by the U.S. - or Bush for that reason. Surely you can see what the kid is accusing, no?
ABBer’s come out at election time like roaches out from under the refrigerator when the lights go out.
[/quote]
Yeah, I lived in Texas for a while. Loved the roaches in the lawn. Nice to know you have a roach problem in your house. Maybe they’re crawling into your ears and eating your brains. Maybe that explains the backwards ass comments you post here.
ABBer’s come out at election time like roaches out from under the refrigerator when the lights go out.
Yeah, I lived in Texas for a while. Loved the roaches in the lawn. Nice to know you have a roach problem in your house. Maybe they’re crawling into your ears and eating your brains. Maybe that explains the backwards ass comments you post here.
Enjoy the kool aid down there knucklehead.[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint you there dipshit - but you really need to learn what an analogy is.
As for the backward assed comments. I would love to have you list them.
You won’t last around here very long unless you start bringing more to the table than the pussy shit you consider clever currently. Seriously - start thinking harder and using either better wit, or more logic. Right now - you sound like you are 18.
The point is the invasion of Iraq sidetracked to war on terror, tied down the US military and therefore the US political options globally (when dealing with Iran and NK), fueled the fundamentalistic muslims and increased their recruitment pool.
The point is also that this was explained to Bush. But he dismissed the warnings and went ahead anyway.
The world will be stuck with the consequences for decades.[/quote]
The invasion of Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror. It has been explained thousands of times.
Whether it was the right strategy is debatable but it the course taken and there are reasons for it that go beyond the simplistic ones discussed in the media and latched on to by the dimwits.
The fact you don’t understand this makes you the dumbass.
[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Skystud wrote:
Lothario 90210 or whatever.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
And how much oil have we taken? As much as the French received in the OFF scandal?
Please show some documentation that we are indeed over there for the oil. Easy to accuse when you don’t have to back it up with pesky little things like facts.
You can’t possibly deny we are there in part to secure oil—I mean that would be stupid.[/quote]
Of course the oil is important. We want the Iraqi people to have a wealthy democratic government and the oil is how it is to be funded.
Iraq was to show the rest of the middle east they don’t have to live under dictators or religious zealots.
There is a better way.
The terrorists understand this and that is why they fight us so hard in Iraq.
The fact that the leftists on this board either don’t understand this or ignore it to just play politics for their party sickens me.
And as for those weapons of Mass destruction, WHERE ARE THEY. WE SOLD THEM TO HIM ANYWAY. WHERE DO YOU THINK HE GOT THEM. THAT GAS WAS USED ON IRAN.
…
You are grossly misinformed. Saddam got nearly all his weapons from the USSR and Europe.
The US only cooperated with Saddam for a very short while. Most of the cooperation was sharing satellite data to help him in his war against Iran.
The US quickly learned that just because he was Iran’s enemy did not make him our friend and withdrew support for Saddam.[/quote]
Uhh…the time wasn’t that short.
And while we didn’t sell him weapons…We did provide him with lots of $$$$ and extended huuuuuuge lines of credit for the purchasing of U.S. agriculture(a line of credit u.s.taxpayers ate for the gulf war).
As you mentioned , we provided lots of intelligence to Iraq which they used to gas(nerve,mustard) the Iranians and the Kurds with our non-disapproval. Keep in mind that even after this was done we still extended credit, gave cash, and provided intel (Your party was firmly against sanctions to boot!). All of this facilitated by the same people calling dems appeasers…ahhhh the irony, for Republicans were the ULTIMATE appeasers.
And as for those weapons of Mass destruction, WHERE ARE THEY. WE SOLD THEM TO HIM ANYWAY. WHERE DO YOU THINK HE GOT THEM. THAT GAS WAS USED ON IRAN.
…
You are grossly misinformed. Saddam got nearly all his weapons from the USSR and Europe.
The US only cooperated with Saddam for a very short while. Most of the cooperation was sharing satellite data to help him in his war against Iran.
The US quickly learned that just because he was Iran’s enemy did not make him our friend and withdrew support for Saddam.
Uhh…the time wasn’t that short.
And while we didn’t sell him weapons…We did provide him with lots of $$$$ and extended huuuuuuge lines of credit for the purchasing of U.S. agriculture(a line of credit u.s.taxpayers ate for the gulf war).
As you mentioned , we provided lots of intelligence to Iraq which they used to gas(nerve,mustard) the Iranians and the Kurds with our non-disapproval. Keep in mind that even after this was done we still extended credit, gave cash, and provided intel (Your party was firmly against sanctions to boot!). All of this facilitated by the same people calling dems appeasers…ahhhh the irony, for Republicans were the ULTIMATE appeasers.
[/quote]
Those damn Republican appeasers. If only we could elect a Democrat then we could remove Saddam from power.
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
And how much oil have we taken? As much as the French received in the OFF scandal?
Please show some documentation that we are indeed over there for the oil. Easy to accuse when you don’t have to back it up with pesky little things like facts.
You can’t possibly deny we are there in part to secure oil—I mean that would be stupid.
Of course the oil is important. We want the Iraqi people to have a wealthy democratic government and the oil is how it is to be funded.
Iraq was to show the rest of the middle east they don’t have to live under dictators or religious zealots.
There is a better way.
The terrorists understand this and that is why they fight us so hard in Iraq.
The fact that the leftists on this board either don’t understand this or ignore it to just play politics for their party sickens me.[/quote]
You are missing the point. Why should we care? Why are we there? What if China decided to do the same thing to us. Can’t you get that. What give us the right to fuck with people like that. We should have been like, " ok, no wmd, I guess we’ll just pull out now, sorry."
But we didn’t. and now that we totally destroyed any stability in the country, we are trying to instal a government the people don’t even want.
Do you understand?
Lunchbox is right. We are in a war and we’re not doing very well. face it. Our mission was accomplished when GW said it was. We should declare victory and leave. Let those people fix their own country without our military. The only reason we are there today is because of all the oil.
WAKE UP.
And how much oil have we taken? As much as the French received in the OFF scandal?
Please show some documentation that we are indeed over there for the oil. Easy to accuse when you don’t have to back it up with pesky little things like facts.
You can’t possibly deny we are there in part to secure oil—I mean that would be stupid.
Of course the oil is important. We want the Iraqi people to have a wealthy democratic government and the oil is how it is to be funded.
Iraq was to show the rest of the middle east they don’t have to live under dictators or religious zealots.
There is a better way.
The terrorists understand this and that is why they fight us so hard in Iraq.
The fact that the leftists on this board either don’t understand this or ignore it to just play politics for their party sickens me.
You are missing the point. Why should we care? Why are we there? What if China decided to do the same thing to us. Can’t you get that. What give us the right to fuck with people like that. We should have been like, " ok, no wmd, I guess we’ll just pull out now, sorry."
But we didn’t. and now that we totally destroyed any stability in the country, we are trying to instal a government the people don’t even want.
Do you understand?
[/quote]
Are you playing dumb or is this stuff over your head?
2.Iraq, doesn’t want to show that, the Bush administration does. If they wanted it, they wouldn’t need us, duh.
3.No, they hate us, As most arabs over there do.
4.If my view makes you sick, get over it. Unlike you, I served in the military and can tell you I wouldn’t be caught dead following orders from some of the pencil dicks in the whitehouse now. Go and watch some more of the fox network’s brilliant journalistic slander. Or better yet, why don’t you pick up a rifle and go fight for Iraq’s cause. You don’t have the guts.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhh…the time wasn’t that short.
And while we didn’t sell him weapons…We did provide him with lots of $$$$ and extended huuuuuuge lines of credit for the purchasing of U.S. agriculture(a line of credit u.s.taxpayers ate for the gulf war).
As you mentioned , we provided lots of intelligence to Iraq which they used to gas(nerve,mustard) the Iranians and the Kurds with our non-disapproval. Keep in mind that even after this was done we still extended credit, gave cash, and provided intel (Your party was firmly against sanctions to boot!). All of this facilitated by the same people calling dems appeasers…ahhhh the irony, for Republicans were the ULTIMATE appeasers.
[/quote]
Cool, the US made the monster. Or, at least strengthened him. Ok, I’ll accept that. However, seems like the US had a moral obligation to remove it’s WMD using, massmurdering, monster. Right? Just curious.
Cool, the US made the monster. Or, at least strengthened him. Ok, I’ll accept that. However, seems like the US had a moral obligation to remove it’s WMD using, massmurdering, monster. Right? Just curious.
[/quote]
Not if bush lied about wmd to get us in a war. Maybe you would view this differently if the shoe was on a different foot. Suppose Japan and China invaded us because they found out we shipped them beef with mad cow disease in it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uhh…the time wasn’t that short.
And while we didn’t sell him weapons…We did provide him with lots of $$$$ and extended huuuuuuge lines of credit for the purchasing of U.S. agriculture(a line of credit u.s.taxpayers ate for the gulf war).
As you mentioned , we provided lots of intelligence to Iraq which they used to gas(nerve,mustard) the Iranians and the Kurds with our non-disapproval. Keep in mind that even after this was done we still extended credit, gave cash, and provided intel (Your party was firmly against sanctions to boot!). All of this facilitated by the same people calling dems appeasers…ahhhh the irony, for Republicans were the ULTIMATE appeasers.
Cool, the US made the monster. Or, at least strengthened him. Ok, I’ll accept that. However, seems like the US had a moral obligation to remove it’s WMD using, massmurdering, monster. Right? Just curious.
[/quote]
If it did, then Reagan-Bush would have done it. He was a mass-murderer with the active help of the U.S. For those actions we rewarded him. Those currently in positions of high power fought with all of their might to block sanctions and increase aid. When he killed his own people, it was in retaliation for rising up—at Bush’s urgings. In the south our soldiers were told not engage—they watched the slaughter. In the north, stormin’ norman gave permission for the Iraqis to fly armed helicopters to mow down kurds. Stormin’ described it as a concession…(concede to a badly beaten opponent?).
It seems, well hypocritical for the same people to want his removal for the same reasons they rewarded him earlier doesn’t it…
No, the best policy is the most effective one…and that was no-flyzones,sanctions, and strategic strikes. We eliminated WMD for little $$ and contained Saddam…and it worked liked gang-busters!
Ironically one of the reasons pre-invasion was the wear and tear on the military enforcing the no-flyzones…ahh, irony.