Elk
Maybe–maybe, on some level this war could be about oil and keeping availability. Do you really believe though, that it was at all brought up in conversation, or telepathically, that it would create windfall for the top 1% of Americans?
Hogwash
That is some pretty serious character assassination with not ONE shred of proof.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Elk
Maybe–maybe, on some level this war could be about oil and keeping availability. Do you really believe though, that it was at all brought up in conversation, or telepathically, that it would create windfall for the top 1% of Americans?
Hogwash
That is some pretty serious character assassination with not ONE shred of proof.[/quote]
Oh, proof, sure right here in my brief case. C’mon Yeti man that’s the kind of thing that even true, I would never have proof of.
Do I think that Bush sat around one day in his office with his staff and said “were going to invade Iraq to the benefit of our one per-center (not the hells angels) friends”. No I don’t think that for a minute. But, by the same token if you don’t think that their are actions undertaken by powerful wealthy groups in America that’s rather babe in the woods thinking on your part.
Your assertion is that these war actions were totally taken from a position of world safety and the suffering Iraqi people? Hey would you be interested in some beach front property I’m selling?
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Elk
Maybe–maybe, on some level this war could be about oil and keeping availability. Do you really believe though, that it was at all brought up in conversation, or telepathically, that it would create windfall for the top 1% of Americans?
Hogwash
That is some pretty serious character assassination with not ONE shred of proof.
Oh, proof, sure right here in my brief case. C’mon Yeti man that’s the kind of thing that even true, I would never have proof of.
Do I think that Bush sat around one day in his office with his staff and said “were going to invade Iraq to the benefit of our one per-center (not the hells angels) friends”. No I don’t think that for a minute. But, by the same token if you don’t think that their are actions undertaken by powerful wealthy groups in America that’s rather babe in the woods thinking on your part.
Your assertion is that these war actions were totally taken from a position of world safety and the suffering Iraqi people? Hey would you be interested in some beach front property I’m selling?[/quote]
I didn’t expect YOU to have secret proof, but really, that assertion is ridiculous.
You inferred what my assertion on the reason for going to war was. I have yet, in any thread,
to reveal that info.
Please don’t be so quick to resort to nonsense tactics like suggesting lack of acuity to the situation.
Maybe WMD and bad intel
Maybe future oil needs
Maybe terrorism
Maybe revenge
No I don’t believe, even one bit, it was done to increase the profit to Exxon or anyone with personal interest in oil.
Bambi
Fair enough, Sasquatch. We will respectfully disagree on this point. I liked the bambi reference.
I said, I believe other factors are involved as well, but call me stupid if you want, but the fact that Cheney is the former CEO of Haliburton and they are making money over there is a little fishy to me, Among other things.
Again if you want to disregard facts like this it is your perogative.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Okay, Hedo, I will entertain the idea that the current administration acted completely and solely out of a caring for one: the American people and their safety and two: peace and safety for the entire world as the benevolent power. Right?
That the chess game of strategic world peace had to be played out this way and if Iraq wasn’t invaded it surely would have meant some catastrophe somewhere in the middle east whether it be them giving a terrorist a dirty bomb or Iran and North Korea thinking they could get aggressive because the US OF A is soft and weak. Right?
Conversely, (as I like to point out) could you entertain the idea that the world would have kept rolling along smoothly (we know suffering was going on in Iraq, no more then is going on in Korea or Africa) and that a large part of the reason to possibly fix, put full faith in, or doctor, intelligence could have been fueled by desires that were other then fully noble.
Would you agree that the top one percent of America is going to reap some pretty nice profits off of the oil even if it’s indirectly? I think this administration did believe this action would be beneficial on a strategic level in terms of a power base in the Middle East, but I also believe a large part of their rush to war was fueled by corporate America.
Do people like Bush and his admin ever feel the pain of the actions undertaken. Will Jenna ever lose her legs to a roadside bomb or Barbara come home in a bodybag? Will Dick (I’ve got other priorities) know what it is like to live off of disability check for the rest of his life in a run down part of town because his arms are gone? I don’t think so.
Maybe, their intentions were totally above board and noble, I just have a hard time believing that. [/quote]
Elk
I think it would have kept rolling along. Smoothly or not I cannot say. Certainly not acting against Iraq was an option.
I can’t agree with you on the oil angle. It may secure more stable supplies but the oil market is a world market and if anything you could make a lot more money investing in China then you could big oil, regardless of it’s price. It wasn’t a secret we were going in and everyone who wanted to bet that big oil would profit certainly had the chance. I can’t agree that it was limited to the top 1% or that it was the reason we invaded. I just don’t see the connection.
As to the pain that Bush or Cheyney feels that’s a tough call. It’s a lot of responsibility and I don’t think they take it lightly. However your right the kids of Bush and cheyney may not ever serve a day in the military. I wish they did. GWB served and even though he didn’t see combat he still volunteered. I don’t think the next generation feels that need.
But back to the basic question. Were all of the motives for the war alturistic? Most likely not. On balance though I would have to say it was necessary and in the long run will be beneficial.
Brother E.,
I appreciate your recent turn toward being reasonable.
I think this is your best side!!!
However, when people insuiniate that Bush/Cheney had their own personal gain on their mind, I’m left scratching my head.
Let’s start with Cheney. When a man has an automatic defibrillator implanted, he knows what the score is. He knows the clock is ticking. He knows he’s living on borrowed time. He is already fabulously wealthy. His wife is wealthy and successful.
Do you really think that money is driving this guy right now?
I mean really?
Now for W. Unless you have pending lawsuits (billyboy), what money problems do you think W. will ever have?
All the man has to do is a few lectures per year. That coupled with his Presidential Pension, ability to write his memoirs, etc… means he will have exactly no money problems.
Do you really think this guy is that stupid? If he generated ONE DIME from Iraq in his lifetime, you guys would pillory him to high heaven.
I don’t doubt that the scenario you envision has happened and does happen. However, I just have a hard time believing it in this particular instance.
JeffR
Hedo, thank’s for the response.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Fair enough, Sasquatch. We will respectfully disagree on this point. I liked the bambi reference.
I said, I believe other factors are involved as well, but call me stupid if you want, but the fact that Cheney is the former CEO of Haliburton and they are making money over there is a little fishy to me, Among other things.
Again if you want to disregard facts like this it is your perogative.[/quote]
The Haliberton thingy has been discussed ad naseum. Clinton gave thgose same contracts. They are thr only ones able to perform job.
I never called you stupid or inferred that.
I don’t feel as though I’m ‘disregarding’ any facts. I take them into consideration given the whole, not individually. Haliburton is a by product of the war, not a reason for it. IMO.
Peace!
You know jerff, as much as I have wanted to dislike you, at times I can’t help but to feel the tiniest bit of dare I say friendship towards you. Ha!
I’ve said this before and I will say it again… I am not the all knowing creator of this universe and I very well could be wrong. I always have to contend that, but that being said, My viewpoint stands as far as I see it.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
There goes my pal lumpy cherrypicking the information to suit his silly little ends.
No mention of:
“And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace”
lumpy, you are hilarious!!!
Or are you trying to contend that the War on Terror wasn’t/isn’t an URGENT concern of the Administration.
Care to argue that W. didn’t consider ties to terrorists and URGENT reason to invade Iraq?
Oh, care to argue the facts in this paragraph right now?
Shall I type the other reasons he gave?
JeffR
P.S. I’ll bet you didn’t read it.
[/quote]
It seems you’re not getting something Jeff, Yes he did cite other justifications for going, but there was one specific reason for going to war. The ultimatum wasn’t stop dealing with terrorists, or torturing people, it was disarm yourself of WMD—remember the U.N.—the inspectors, the war resolution?
Bush said after resolution passed:
“The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said in a statement. “Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must.”
see what I’m saying? It’s not really cherry picking, it more like history.
p.s. I read it, and like I said yes those are justifications, but not the direct reason
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Yes, Bush not only had “bad intelligence” - he also had the stupidity to use it…
Along with apparently far too many people who actually support the action.[/quote]
They only support the actions because they’ve been propagandized to death. If the populous new the truth those clowns would be in U.S. and World Court awating their trials.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Brother E.,
I appreciate your recent turn toward being reasonable.
I think this is your best side!!!
However, when people insuiniate that Bush/Cheney had their own personal gain on their mind, I’m left scratching my head.
Let’s start with Cheney. When a man has an automatic defibrillator implanted, he knows what the score is. He knows the clock is ticking. He knows he’s living on borrowed time. He is already fabulously wealthy. His wife is wealthy and successful.
Do you really think that money is driving this guy right now?
I mean really?
Now for W. Unless you have pending lawsuits (billyboy), what money problems do you think W. will ever have?
All the man has to do is a few lectures per year. That coupled with his Presidential Pension, ability to write his memoirs, etc… means he will have exactly no money problems.
Do you really think this guy is that stupid? If he generated ONE DIME from Iraq in his lifetime, you guys would pillory him to high heaven.
I don’t doubt that the scenario you envision has happened and does happen. However, I just have a hard time believing it in this particular instance.
JeffR[/quote]
It’s not just money Jeff. It’s money AND power. I can imagine Bush and Cheney sitting in the situation room fantasising about moving their divisions across a map of Iraq,or perhaps to the west and Syria, or perhaps to the east and Iran?
What’s more fun for the megalomaniac, ruling your own country, or ruling a bunch of countries?
What really goes on in their heads? Impossible to tell, but Bush clearly enjoys being a ‘War President’.
That should spark some outrage from you conservatives!
JeffR:
You are wrong as usual.
Bush cited resolution 1441 in his press conference with Blair on Tuesday (6/7).
WMD was the reason given and that reason has proven to be cooked up and false.
Get over it.
The only thing you can hope for is the GOP remains in control of the House of Representatives otherwise articles of impeachment will be drafted by the Democrats and that will not be good for our economy or our country.
It does not matter now.
I have a message for JeffR—ENLIST!!
You sir really believe what ever thegovernment feeds you. You actually belive Al Qaeda have been flushed into the open. You believe whole heartedly what dubya et al has sold you. So go down to the recruiters, raise your hand. Go over there and make sure you know what you are talking about. You may find your whole world is changed when you actually start seeing reality.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I have a message for JeffR—ENLIST!!
You sir really believe what ever thegovernment feeds you. You actually belive Al Qaeda have been flushed into the open. You believe whole heartedly what dubya et al has sold you. So go down to the recruiters, raise your hand. Go over there and make sure you know what you are talking about. You may find your whole world is changed when you actually start seeing reality.[/quote]
Oh my God that was a really good point! Wow, you beat the argument with logic, fact, and tremendous rhetorical skill! If I was there I would bend down and pat your little head and go “Ooooh! Hisssss! You’re on fire baby!”
Awesome!
[quote]Cream wrote:
storey420 wrote:
I have a message for JeffR—ENLIST!!
You sir really believe what ever thegovernment feeds you. You actually belive Al Qaeda have been flushed into the open. You believe whole heartedly what dubya et al has sold you. So go down to the recruiters, raise your hand. Go over there and make sure you know what you are talking about. You may find your whole world is changed when you actually start seeing reality.
Oh my God that was a really good point! Wow, you beat the argument with logic, fact, and tremendous rhetorical skill! If I was there I would bend down and pat your little head and go “Ooooh! Hisssss! You’re on fire baby!”
Awesome![/quote]
Have you served? Have you been over there? Have you analyzed real intelligence from the war theater? Not analyzed some filtered reality from the news but real on the ground experience?
Just wondering
By the way someday I hope to exhibit your clear mastery of rhetorical skill
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Have you served? Have you been over there? [/quote]
Who? Creampuff??? HAHAHAHA, that’s pretty funny.
Maybe him and Jeffy can get ChickenHawk shoulder patches for their uniforms, too.
WHO WINS: The War on Terror
By:James Dunnigan
June 20, 2005: It?s difficult to keep track of who?s winning the war on terror when so many other issues are getting mixed up with an already complicated situation. ?Winning the war? takes on new meanings when it comes to the war on terror. A more conventional war also presents rather murky scorecards at times. While looking at a map, and noting whose forces are advancing, gives you an idea of how the war is going, it?s not over until it?s over. And as we discovered in Korea, where the front line didn’t move for over two years, everyone eventually declared it a draw.
In Vietnam, the U.S. declared victory and went home. That ?victory? lasted for several years until the other side decided that guerilla war wasn?t working, and just came across the border with tanks and divisions of infantry. They did that twice. First time (1972), it didn?t work. Second time (1975), it did. People kept saying the U.S. lost that war, but American troops were long gone by 1975. Even during World War II, when it was obvious that Japan was defeated, they still would not surrender.
Their fleet was sunk, their cities were bombed to rubble, but they would not surrender. Two atomic bombs, and Russians charging into Japanese occupied China finally changed their minds. But by then, it was still something of a surprise. It seemed that the Japanese would require a massive invasion of their home islands, and would keep fighting to the end, as they had done on the smaller Japanese island of Okinawa. It’s not over until it’s over, but you can often see how it’s going to end, when it eventually does.
Now we have the war on terror, where there aren?t even any front lines. How do you measure progress? The problem is more complex than that, as there is much dispute over exactly who the enemy is. If you examine all the people involved in Islamic terrorism, you will see some pretty strange patterns. Basically, Islamic terrorism is an effort by Sunni Moslem purists to impose their version of Islam on everyone. Starting with fellow Moslems, this has created a lot of violence against non-Sunni sects.
While Sunnis make up over 90 percent of all Moslems, Islamic radicals are only a small percentage of Sunnis. But these radicals are violent and determined to get their way. Islamic radicals have been persecuting other Moslems for centuries, and their radical ideas do not represent the feelings of most Moslems. This can be seen in the opinion surveys conducted in Moslem countries. The complaints of most Moslems have to do with bread & butter issues, especially the shabby performance of their own leaders, and the violence of Islamic radicals.
But when these Islamic radicals are around, you speak ill of them at great personal peril.
Islamic radicals have also been at war with the West for centuries, and the current spasm of terrorism has been going on since the early 1990s. But it was a police matter for the West, until September 11, 2001, when it became war. The police approach wasn?t working, because many wealthy Moslems in Saudi Arabia were providing lots of cash for the spread of Islamic radicalism, which led to more Islamic terrorism.
These wealthy Saudis could believe, if they wished, that they were not supporting violence, only the spread of conservative, and rigorous, Islam. But young men indoctrinated with these militant, and intolerant, ideas, often turned to violence. They were on a mission from God, a God that demanded martyrdom and blood.
Fortunately, militant Islam doesn?t demand a lot of deep thought or attention to discipline and detail. Most Islamic terrorism is inept, and doesn?t come off. You hear a lot about the successful attacks, but not the much larger number of ill-conceived and bungled efforts. While many educated (in the Western sense) Moslems are attracted to Islamic radicalism, most of the manpower has the typical low levels education so common in Moslem countries.
But these guys make for great street theater, as it is easy for religious leaders to gather an angry crowd, and shout about how all the local problems are the fault of distant infidels.
Poor leadership, poor planning, poor training and poor material to work with means that the Islamic terrorists have not done so well since September 11, 2001. A few hundred American troops invading Afghanistan, and defeating the local Islamic dictatorship in two months, was quite a shock to Islamic radicals the world over. But the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a chilling reminder of what supporters of Islamic terrorism were up against. The Sunni Arab governments in the region were all against the Iraq operation.
While none of these governments openly supported Islamic terrorism, the majority of the people in Arabia cheered the ability of ?their boys? to carry out such a daring terror attacks against the West. It?s become popular in the Moslem world to blame the West, or infidels (non Moslems) in general, for all that?s wrong with Islamic countries. Changing this attitude is a crucial battle in the war on terror.
After two years in Iraq, Moslems now admit that Islamic terrorism is evil, mainly because of the ruthless terrorist attacks on Moslems, as terrorists brought the war “home” in an attempt to get American soldiers out of the Middle East. Moreover, the enthusiastic support of democracy, and self-rule by Iraqis, made it obvious who the enemy was, and where the solutions are to be found.
Islamic terrorists do back some popular ideas, namely the poor governments found in nearly all Moslem nations. Al Qaeda preached against Moslem government before it turned its full attention to infidels. Al Qaeda found itself unable to overthrow the existing governments in Islamic countries, and noted how popular terrorist attacks against infidel (Western) targets was.
It was long a popular myth in Moslem countries that the backwardness and poor government they suffered was somehow caused by the West. Much to the dismay of Islamic terrorists, coalition operations in Iraq show how false this is. While people are reluctant to admit they have been duped, many Moslems are now admitting that the problems in Moslem countries are internal, not some infidel conspiracy to ?keep the Moslems down.?
Changing attitudes like this cuts off the flow of recruits for Islamic terrorist groups. This is a war that is not followed via troops dispositions and casualty counts, but by opinion polls and election results.
Dunnigan is arguing about who won the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Dunnigan is argueing about who one the Vietnam war.
Right wingnut hack.[/quote]
He’s a strategist not a politico.
Strategy requires thought. Perhaps too challenging?