[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Elk,
“Thunder, you’re not half the intellectual powerhouse or strategic war planner you think you are. Real good at regurgitating neocon talking points that’s about it I’d say.”
I wouldn’t call myself either an intellectual powerhouse or strategic war planner, just a guy who reads and I write above a fourth grade level.
If that bothers you, so be it.
[/quote]
How witty you are! And, no doesn’t bother me, knock yourself out General Schwarzkopf.
Vroom,
“Ahahahahaha. Yes, that is why I said what I did.”
I see. That’s convenient.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I feel for people who have to fight for something that they may not believe in.
I feel worse for those people that convince themselves they believe in it when they do not.
I feel still worse for those that never stopped to think if they believe in it or not.
A Florida paper recently printed the photos of all of the troops from Florida who’ve died. When I saw that, I searched through the photos for a friend of mine who signed up for the Air Force on 9/10/01. I’m sure he’s seen some action and I – for some reason – was sure I was going to see his face in the paper. Fortunately, I didn’t. If I did though, I would have felt just terrible. I would have felt bad mostly because I would have felt that he died for an unnecessary cause… [/quote]
Shaking head… My dear, dear friend. If you do not believe in the goals of the USA government you should have never joined the service. I for one am damn proud, and appreciative, for what I have here. And I’m even more appreciative of what the service has given me!!! “Oh you might die you little misguided child they say…” BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! It comes with the job. I am prepared to die for what “I” believe in. Not what “YOU” believe in.
You talk of people as if they did not know what they were getting into. LOL… I’m not one of those ;). I knew what I was getting into. That’s why I joined!
I’m not confused, nor misguided, I’m determined!
P.S.
Don’t put words in my mouth!!! Don’t pretend we are fighting for the same cause. Don’t bug me with propaganda. I’ve already got mine served to me and it tastes delicious!!!
OD
[quote]lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.[/quote]
Actually the art of war wouldn’t have suggested that Iraq be the battlesite for the war against al queda–that would just be stupid-what with no al queda there.
Whoops! looks like you got suckered by cheney too! When Cheney sold rubes on al queda connections he already knew those connections were sketchy AT BEST(Even better he then lied in the debate that he’d ever said it!). Even the brits weren’t buying that crap (see latest memos) This was one of many fake reasons for going to war. Note that long before 9/11 happened the same administration members were hungry for attacking Iraq, see PNAC for details.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you harbor terrorists you are a terrorist. If you fund terrorists you are a terrorist. If you plot to kill an ex-president, you are a terrorist.[/quote]
And if you shake hands with a terrorist you’re a terrorist? Or maybe he wasn’t a ruthless dictator at that moment? And we had no idea that he might be killing his own people? (He was, and we did—we just didn’t care)
As you can see from the notes of the meeting:
there’s not a mention of wmd, and we knew they were using them on iranians, but as you can also see Rummy does want to talk about oil pipelines.
[quote]100meters wrote:
lincono wrote:
Please read ‘The Art of War’ by Sun Tzu to understand about choosing the site of battle. If you don’t think the Iraqi government was involved with AlQuida, then you should also study Middle Eastern history as well. You are the same type of person who used this same type of rhetoric in the 20’s and 30’s that Hitler wasn’t going to attack Europe or America; he did attack Europe and he would have attacked America.
Actually the art of war wouldn’t have suggested that Iraq be the battlesite for the war against al queda–that would just be stupid-what with no al queda there.
Whoops! looks like you got suckered by cheney too! When Cheney sold rubes on al queda connections he already knew those connections were sketchy AT BEST(Even better he then lied in the debate that he’d ever said it!). Even the brits weren’t buying that crap (see latest memos) This was one of many fake reasons for going to war. Note that long before 9/11 happened the same administration members were hungry for attacking Iraq, see PNAC for details. [/quote]
You’re right. We had no reason being in Iraq.
I am so naive…
What was I thinking…
Wait…
I wasn’t thinking.
I’m just an automaton droid following commands. “Kill… kill… kill…” ROFLHGBFAO!!!
OD
lumpy wrote:
“Actually the art of war wouldn’t have suggested that Iraq be the battlesite for the war against al queda–that would just be stupid-what with no al queda there.”
Oh, really? Did you just say that there was no al qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion?
For the lazy, I’ll summarize: The King of Jordan stated that he had been trying to get saddam to turn over al zarqawi. Let me put it together for you:
zarqawi in Iraq=protected/harbored by saddam=zarqawi in Iraq prior to invasion=saddam harboring al qaeda in Iraq prior to invasion.
Or do you care to assert that zarqawi wasn’t/isn’t al qaeda.
OH, please, please, PLEASE!!!
"Jordan: Iraq refused to hand al-Zarqawi over
19/05/2005 - 12:05:06
The regime of Saddam Hussein rejected repeated requests from Jordan to hand over Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who now heads al-Qaida in Iraq, the Jordanian king said in an interview published today.
King Abdullah II told the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat that Jordan exerted ?big efforts? with Saddam?s government to extradite al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian sentenced to death at home for terrorist activities.
?But our demands that the former regime hand him over were in vain,? Abdullah said.
?We had information that he entered Iraq from a neighbouring country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we had, but they didn?t respond,? the king said.
Washington accuses al-Zarqawi, 38, of forming a network of terrorists to attack US-led forces in Iraq and has a ?13.5m (?19.6m) bounty on him.
Abdullah also addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, insisting that Israel withdraw from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
?If withdrawal from Gaza isn?t followed by withdrawal from territories in the West Bank, we will go back to square one,? the king said.
?The demanded peace is one that would end occupation and reinforce justice and establish a balanced relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis, on one side, and between Arabs and Israelis, on the other.?
On Mideast democratic reforms, an issue the US has pushed for, Abdullah said Jordan has started reforms that are in harmony with the country?s Arab and Islamic heritage.
?I?m fully convinced that reform is essential and important for the Middle East,? Abdullah concurred but added: ?Our stance is that reform that comes under foreign pressure won?t succeed.?
Many Arab leaders have taken a similar stance.
?I believe that the Middle East is at a crossroads and we have to root in reform to combat poverty, unemployment and tension,? Abdullah said.
?The coming two years are crucial.?
Since ascending to the throne five years ago, Abdullah, 43, has sought to press ahead with reforms introduced by his late father, King Hussein, who died in 1999. A computer and internet enthusiast, Abdullah wants to make Jordan a regional information technology hub.
He also wants to see his nation geared toward open-market economy and globalisation and has introduced relevant legislation in recent years."
JeffR
/[quote]Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq?
If we weren’t in Iraq there wouldn’t be insurgents. What planet are you from?[/quote]
If your enemy invades your country (World Trade Center-twice), wouldn’t it make sense to take the battle to their part of the world? Again, please take my previous suggestions and study up. Also, read Plato’s Republic and understand what a Socratic argument is.
[quote]lincono wrote:
/Professor X wrote:
lincono wrote:
So, according to your argument, if they are coming from outside of Iraq to fight Americans in Iraq, wouldn’t they have come to America to fight Americans, if we weren’t in Iraq?
If we weren’t in Iraq there wouldn’t be insurgents. What planet are you from?
If your enemy invades your country (World Trade Center-twice), wouldn’t it make sense to take the battle to their part of the world? Again, please take my previous suggestions and study up. Also, read Plato’s Republic and understand what a Socratic argument is.[/quote]
Saddam didn’t invade New York. Iraq didn’t invade New York. Bin Laden was greatly behind the WTC tragedy and he hasn’t been caught, found, or even guestimated as far as location. What are you talking about? We keep hearing that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 yet here you are trying to act as if it did. Wake up, you were fooled like so many other Americans.
Read into it what you may?
ATTRITION: Breaking Down Iraq Casualty Numbers
June 15, 2005: From May 1, 2003, through June 5th, 2005, 1,674 American troops were killed in Iraq. However, 23 percent of those deaths were from non-combat causes (about 40 percent of being automotive accidents). Hostile gunfire accounted for 25 percent of the deaths, with PRGs caused another four percent. Roadside bombs also caused 25 percent of deaths, with car bombs contributing another four percent.
Over half the deaths occurred in a few locations. Twenty percent of the deaths took place in Baghdad, while 11 percent occurred in Anbar province (west of Baghdad.) Six percent of the deaths were in Mosul, eight percent in Fallujah and six percent in Ramadi.
Two percent of those killed have been women, while 31 percent were age 22 or younger. Only 11 percent of the dead were 35 or older. Active duty troops account for 78 percent of the deaths (but only comprise about 60 percent of the troops in Iraq). The army accounts for 69 percent of the dead, the marines 28 percent. Lower ranking troops (grades E1-E4) were 59 percent of the dead. Whites were 74 percent of the dead, blacks ten percent, Hispanic 11 percent. It?s a suburbanites war, with 40.5 percent of the dead coming from the suburbs, and a third from rural areas.
Some 1,300 Iraqi police and soldiers have been killed in the same period, with that number increasing as more well trained and led police and troops become available. From April 2003 to the end of 2004, about 65 Iraqi police and soldiers died each month, on average. But in the last three months, that average has been over 200 a month.
In the last two years, terrorists have also killed 721 men who were applying to join the security forces. In addition, over a hundred Iraq interpreters have been killed as well. Also, 232 foreign civilian contractors have died in the last two years.
Crime is also high, and is worst in Baghdad, where the murder rate is about twice that of Washington, DC (where it is currently 43 per 100,000 population per year.)
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Saddam didn’t invade New York. Iraq didn’t invade New York. Bin Laden was greatly behind the WTC tragedy and he hasn’t been caught, found, or even guestimated as far as location. What are you talking about? We keep hearing that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 yet here you are trying to act as if it did. Wake up, you were fooled like so many other Americans. [/quote]
No Saddam didn’t attack NYC. All he did was financed terrorists, invaded Kuwait, shot at US planes, repeatedly violated a peace treaty and attempted to assasinate an ex-president.
When Pearl Harbor was bombed, did we immediatly invade Japan? No, we invaded North Africa! Why? Because it was determined to be the best strategy in defeating our facist enemies.
Why did we invade Iraq? Because it was determined to be our best strategy against our radical islamic enemies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we invade Iraq? Because it was determined to be our best strategy against our radical islamic enemies.
[/quote]
So, is the increase in “terrorist” insurgents a part of the strategy? So far, we have gotten a few thousand people killed and placed a country on the verge of civil war while increasing the numbers of people that hate us to the point of killing themselves over it. I truly don’t see how anyone can see this as the good outweighing the bad in the scenario.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we invade Iraq? Because it was determined to be our best strategy against our radical islamic enemies.
So, is the increase in “terrorist” insurgents a part of the strategy? So far, we have gotten a few thousand people killed and placed a country on the verge of civil war while increasing the numbers of people that hate us to the point of killing themselves over it. I truly don’t see how anyone can see this as the good outweighing the bad in the scenario.
[/quote]
Your failure to understand the obvious is your problem, not mine.
This is a long term war. All casualties are bad, but it is the real world. The fact that there are casualties does not mean the war was a mistake.
If we ignore the problems they will not go away. Bin Laden is/was not the only problem in the Mid East.
Thre are problems all over the world, but the problems in the Mid East take precedence right now for a number of reasons.
[quote]hedo wrote:
In the last two years, terrorists have also killed 721 men who were applying to join the security forces.
[/quote]
The fact that they are still signing up in droves leads me to believe that we are on the right side.
I just hope that as Iraq takes over more of its own security it will not turn into a police state.
The extremist muslims will ultimately be defeated by other muslims.