We Won! Again!

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess.

And that’s all you want to believe - that I raq was about WMD’s.

It was part of the GWOT. Bush said so in his SOTU speech before hostilities commenced. He named Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea as the Axis of Evil.

Having selective memory doesn’t make your position right. But you guys do that all the time.
[/quote]

so, according to your logic,iran and n.korea are next??i mean, theyre part of the “axis of evil” right? why havent we attacked them?? I mean, because theyre posing such a threat to us now, why the hell arent we dropping bombs on them…oh wait, N.korea might actually be able to fight back…oh, maybe that has something to do with it…that and they have no oil:(

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
RJ, most people expected this war to be over in 2 hours, just like the movies.

You can add Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz to that movie watching crowd.

Not based on any public statements they made.

huh?

What ever happened to ‘Mission Accomplished’?

I guess that photo-op never happened?

Mission Accomplished = War is over?

A little intellectually dishonest don’t you think?

[/quote]

Certainly on the part of the President and Ashcroft.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
So let me get this straight. A constitution that was written to exclude the minority Sunni (30% of population) in favor of the majority Shiites and Kurds (70% of population) won ratification. No shit! Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? The majority got their way on a constitution that only accounts for the majority and this is a major victory? The logic makes no sense.

In addition, I remember that this constitution had specific language about Islam being the official religion of the country, women having little to no rights and the Sunni not even being acknowledged as Iraqi citizens. Congrads! We have been instrumental in creating a bigoted, sexist, Islamic theocracy! YEAH!!! American Democracy at its finest.[/quote]

Jefferson called it “the tyranny of the majority”. That is why the United States was created as a republic, not a pure democracy. Not that anyone is paying attention or anything. In a democracy, the minorities get screwed by the majority. Our founders knew that. Our current admin could give a shit. Iraq is the result.

Huzzah.

WMD

[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
so, according to your logic,iran and n.korea are next??i mean, theyre part of the “axis of evil” right? why havent we attacked them?? I mean, because theyre posing such a threat to us now, why the hell arent we dropping bombs on them…oh wait, N.korea might actually be able to fight back…oh, maybe that has something to do with it…that and they have no oil:([/quote]

Iran has plenty of oil, and we will be stealing it just like we stole all the Iraqi oil. WTF?? Maybe the reefer you’re smoking is laced with something? We are biding our time with Iran, and watching them very closely… don’t worry, we will kick their asses if need be. NK is being handled very carefully as well. Unlike Iran and Iraq, NK already possesses nuclear weaponry. We are letting China do what they can before we send the Imperial Stormtroopers and the Death Stars over there to bomb them back into the stone age.

I know you’re trying to be cute by posting the puerile silliness that you did, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class. Thank you.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
GymRat wrote:
If NJ was invaded, and fell, then PA would be next. That represents, as the phrase goes, a “clear and present danger”. Whereas Iraq posed no danger to us whatsoever at any time.

I wonder, did you feel the same about Afghanistan before 9/11?

The Afghanistan that was run by the Taliban? The one the US government did nothing about for years and years?

The Taliban that Bush invited to Texas to chat with?

That Afghanistan?[/quote]

I think you just killed your own argument. Leaving Afghanistan alone was a huge mistake.

Leaving Iraq alone could have been a big mistake too. We will never know what would have happened if we didn’t invade, but we can be sure Saddam was an enemy.

Your point about Bush and the Taliban is silly. Clinton had 8 years to deal with Afghanistan and Bush had 8 months.

He gave them one attack before he took them out. He decided not to give Saddam the same chance.

[quote]hedo wrote:
It wasn’t meant to be condesending and if you took it that way then you mistook my intention.
[/quote]

The part of your statement “rather then someone elses opinion” is what I took exception to. This part implied to me that I was taking another’s opinion as my position rather than doing my own research. However, you said that it was not meant that way, so I believe you.

The version that I read did state that Islam will be recognized as the state religion. If this isn’t the case, maybe I have an earlier copy. Unlike others on here, I can admit an error.

That is what the obvious majority chose. The part you are failing to realize is that based on the past history of the country, the minority will not be represented when it all comes to fruition for the very fear that they will seize control. You cannot overcome differences like that in only 2 years. The people will have to be very strong and disciplined to not take this approach. If the USA believed that, we would not be there now.

Excuse me? Are you sure we are talking about the same USA? I not even going to get into this discussion about the history of this country with respect to its treatment of minorities. That is a topic for another time.

I mentioned earlier that I might have read an earlier copy.

The previous party was a facist dictatorship. Never argued that point. I would love to see the Iraqi people have a constitutional democracy of their OWN choosing. My problem and my fear is that the only reason they are choosing this is to get the USA out of their country. Unlike the Revolutionary War, which many people like to compare this to, we did not have another country fight our war for us, overthrow King George, occupy our lands and guide us in developing our constitution. We were allowed the opportunity to do it ourselves and make our own mistakes. If another country got involved, it was because we asked them to. This pulling strings approach feels wrong.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess. [/quote]

Bush’s speech to the UN on 9-12-02 lays out the reasons for going to war with Iraq. #1 was & still is Iraq failure to comply with the treaty he signed at the end on Gulf War I, and the numerous UN sanctions that followed.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The problem is there are more American troops in Iraq than there are trained Iraqi troops in Iraq.

I’m not understanding why this is a problem. They had no military after the invasion. We’ve had more military than they have since 1990. Why is it a problem now?

If you take away the civil affairs units, and those that are supporting the repair of the infrastructure - i.e, non-combat troops the difference is not that big.

But even so - Iraq went from 0 trained units to a shitload of them remarkably fast. Not as fast as the MSM wanted it to be, but impressive to go from absolutley nothing to what they have now.

The thing that the Bush-haters/peaceniks really can’t stomach is the fact that we are achieving what we set out to achieve: A free and democratic Iraq.

I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess. [/quote]

There were quite a few good reasons to go to war. I would rather go to war for 10 reasons than one.

The link to Sept 11 is bullshit. The liberals have been pushing this strawman for too long.

Saddam had many links to al Queda, but there is no evidence he was in on the planning of 9/11.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
so, according to your logic,iran and n.korea are next??i mean, theyre part of the “axis of evil” right? why havent we attacked them?? I mean, because theyre posing such a threat to us now, why the hell arent we dropping bombs on them…oh wait, N.korea might actually be able to fight back…oh, maybe that has something to do with it…that and they have no oil:(

Iran has plenty of oil, and we will be stealing it just like we stole all the Iraqi oil. WTF?? Maybe the reefer you’re smoking is laced with something? We are biding our time with Iran, and watching them very closely… don’t worry, we will kick their asses if need be. NK is being handled very carefully as well. Unlike Iran and Iraq, NK already possesses nuclear weaponry. We are letting China do what they can before we send the Imperial Stormtroopers and the Death Stars over there to bomb them back into the stone age.

I know you’re trying to be cute by posting the puerile silliness that you did, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class. Thank you.[/quote]

It seemed pretty clear to me that his “they have no oil” reference was relating to N Korea, seeing as how it was attached to a comment about N Korea. You may want to read more carefully before you condescend and hurl insults

Al D

Islam is the state religion and you are correct on that point. However, freedom of religion is guaranteed and to me that is a major accomplishment for them.

I understand your argument but I just do not agree with it. Every minority, especially in the middle east, cannot be given authority. It is also not our place to grant it to them. If their consitution doesn’t suit them they can change it, by popular vote, rather then by a directive from a dictator. That to me is the great accomplishment.

I am at a loss why so many that are against the war cannot see any good coming from it such as a constitution, freedom of religion, freedom from imprisonment without charges, no more purges based on political affiliation. All of this is a guarateed right that they voted on. We didn’t make them, we just created the forum where it could happen.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
so, according to your logic,iran and n.korea are next??i mean, theyre part of the “axis of evil” right? why havent we attacked them?? I mean, because theyre posing such a threat to us now, why the hell arent we dropping bombs on them…oh wait, N.korea might actually be able to fight back…oh, maybe that has something to do with it…that and they have no oil:(

Iran has plenty of oil, and we will be stealing it just like we stole all the Iraqi oil. WTF?? Maybe the reefer you’re smoking is laced with something? We are biding our time with Iran, and watching them very closely… don’t worry, we will kick their asses if need be. NK is being handled very carefully as well. Unlike Iran and Iraq, NK already possesses nuclear weaponry. We are letting China do what they can before we send the Imperial Stormtroopers and the Death Stars over there to bomb them back into the stone age.

I know you’re trying to be cute by posting the puerile silliness that you did, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class. Thank you.[/quote]

yeah, u fucking idiot, i guess the reefer im smoking was making me be sarcastic about how fucking stupid it is to go drop bombs on a country that posed no threat to us. go figure

[quote]storey420 wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
so, according to your logic,iran and n.korea are next??i mean, theyre part of the “axis of evil” right? why havent we attacked them?? I mean, because theyre posing such a threat to us now, why the hell arent we dropping bombs on them…oh wait, N.korea might actually be able to fight back…oh, maybe that has something to do with it…that and they have no oil:(

Iran has plenty of oil, and we will be stealing it just like we stole all the Iraqi oil. WTF?? Maybe the reefer you’re smoking is laced with something? We are biding our time with Iran, and watching them very closely… don’t worry, we will kick their asses if need be. NK is being handled very carefully as well. Unlike Iran and Iraq, NK already possesses nuclear weaponry. We are letting China do what they can before we send the Imperial Stormtroopers and the Death Stars over there to bomb them back into the stone age.

I know you’re trying to be cute by posting the puerile silliness that you did, but do try and keep up with the rest of the class. Thank you.

It seemed pretty clear to me that his “they have no oil” reference was relating to N Korea, seeing as how it was attached to a comment about N Korea. You may want to read more carefully before you condescend and hurl insults[/quote]

yes, this is exactly what i was saying.thank you for clarifying it for me because in my reefer induced state i dont think i could explain it to lothario

YEAH US!

GO BUSH!

REPUBLICANS RULE!

ROTHFLMFAO!!!

If you’re a Freeper and you know it clap your hands,
If you’re a Freeper and you know it clap your hands,
If you’re a Freeper and you know it and you really want to show it,
If you’re a Freeper and you know it clap your hands.

Trying to reason with the Freepers on this board is like trying to dig through Hoober dam with a piece of rebar.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
GymRat wrote:
If NJ was invaded, and fell, then PA would be next. That represents, as the phrase goes, a “clear and present danger”. Whereas Iraq posed no danger to us whatsoever at any time.

I wonder, did you feel the same about Afghanistan before 9/11?

The Afghanistan that was run by the Taliban? The one the US government did nothing about for years and years?

The Taliban that Bush invited to Texas to chat with?

That Afghanistan?

I think you just killed your own argument. Leaving Afghanistan alone was a huge mistake.

Leaving Iraq alone could have been a big mistake too. We will never know what would have happened if we didn’t invade, but we can be sure Saddam was an enemy.

Your point about Bush and the Taliban is silly. Clinton had 8 years to deal with Afghanistan and Bush had 8 months.

He gave them one attack before he took them out. He decided not to give Saddam the same chance.
[/quote]

Zap, I understand that Clinton had 8 years to go in there. And I agree with the Afghanistan invasion, although I think we botched that by not using our own troops more.

However, if you don’t subscribe to the theory of invading soverign states because you think they may attack you, then you cannot attack Afghanistan before Sept.11. Part of me wants to wish that we had, but that is not the American thing to do, and there really would not have been a just reason for doing so. I remember when the Taliban were blowing up those massive statues and shrines to ancient gods, and I was thinking, “They are killing part of humanity by destroying these historical things. Why isn’t anyone stopping them?”. But you need a legitamate reason for invasion.

Countries that use “preemptive strikes” are countries that wish for empires. Countries like Germany, Japan, and Russia. The phrase can be easily interchangeable with “unjust invasion” to me. Especially with a power that was as weak as Iraq was (which was obvious by the fight that they did not put up). I think it is an example of bullying by a larger, more powerful country in order to kickstart our economy and benefit from the oil in Iraq. And that is not right.

Here is an article by Austin Bay describing some of the proposals being made to the Iraqi’s re: Oil Wealth.

The US does not steal any of it and apparently are making some pretty good suggestions about what the Iraqi’s should do with the money.

Wealth and Democracy in Iraq
by Austin Bay
October 18, 2005

In practice, if not in theory, wealth and democracy reinforce one another.

Iraqis have conducted two successful national elections in the midst of terrorist violence. Despite an estimated unemployment rate of 40 percent, some Iraqi “big picture” economic trends are positive. This week at the University of Central Florida’s National Global Issues Forum in Orlando, Ambassador Robin Lynn Raphel, the State Department’s coordinator for Iraq reconstruction, said that from 2004 to 2005 the Iraqi economy has expanded by 25 percent.

That’s encouraging news. When it comes to stabilizing Iraqi society, however, the microeconomics of the average Iraqi’s pocketbook may trump the macroeconomics of money in Baghdad’s coffers.

Iraq, long plundered by despots, should be a wealthy country. It has water, an agricultural base, a source of capital (oil) and people willing to work. It is the best place to begin to reform the dysfunctional political systems that shackle and rob the vast majority of Middle Easterners. Success in Iraq would create conditions to break the region’s endless cycle of robbery and violence. It would also force angry Middle Eastern Muslims to finally confront the inadequacies of their own societies, instead of blaming Europe, the United States and Israel for their centuries of fossilization and decline.

Success in Iraq means spreading wealth and curbing corruption. Iraq desperately needs to become an ownership society, for economic stakeholders are political stakeholders.

For three years, Robert Miller of the ZOR Foundation has advocated establishing an “Iraqi National Oil Trust,” which shares oil profits directly with Iraqi citizens. Miller, of Winter Springs, Fla., understands Iraq. In 1964, he graduated from Baghdad’s Al Hikma University.

At the UCF conference, Miller said the state of Alaska’s “oil trust” is a good model, but Iraq pioneered the concept. In 1950, Iraq’s parliament created an autonomous board that dedicated oil revenues to future economic development. However, Miller said, “powerful political interests at the time sought to control Iraq’s oil wealth for their own political purposes.” The government altered the program and placed control with the Ministry of Finance.

Miller would establish a new “Iraqi National Oil Trust” by national referendum – meaning the trust could only be “changed or undone by another national referendum.” Miller’s trust would dedicate 50 percent of oil profits to national reconstruction, 20 percent to education (primary through university education) and 10 percent to government administration. The other 20 percent swells the personal pocketbooks of every adult registered voter in Iraq. Based on 3 million-barrels-a-day production at $50 a barrel, that guarantees every Iraqi adult about $680 a year.

Miller argued that limiting the government’s slice of oil revenues strengthens democracy. The government must rely in part on taxes, instead of petro-dollar largesse. This means the government must seek public support for tax initiatives.

Miller pitched this idea in the summer of 2003, and the Coalition Provisional Authority expressed mild interest – then passed on the idea. This may prove to be another CPA mistake.

Lenny Glynn, formerly with BusinessWeek and Institutional Investor, has written extensively on the benefits of “oil trusts” in Iraq. Glynn believes an oil trust is a way to escape the “state-centered oil paternalism and public clientelism” that plagues petro-states. Glynn, in an article last month for the Internet’s Daily Standard, wrote, “The precise institutional form that such a system might take is less important than the principle that Iraq’s natural wealth should belong, by right, to its people.”

Glynn added: “If there is one thing that matches the universal appeal of freedom, it’s the universal appeal of money. A Freedom Trust would marry Iraqis’ hunger to breathe free, so heroically displayed by their votes last January (2005), with the income and wealth-building to enjoy their freedom.”

Well said. The Iraqi people need to put an oil trust referendum on their next national ballot.

[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
It seemed pretty clear to me that his “they have no oil” reference was relating to N Korea, seeing as how it was attached to a comment about N Korea. You may want to read more carefully before you condescend and hurl insults

yes, this is exactly what i was saying.thank you for clarifying it for me because in my reefer induced state i dont think i could explain it to lothario[/quote]

You are both really goofy. mmg made the oil comment as a reference as to why we would invade Iraq in the first place. I guess it’s disappointing to you guys that we DIDN’T steal it? I mean, then you could have been right for once.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that NK and Iran are not a threat to your way of life, boys.

PS I apologize for the reefer comment. I see now that it is CRACK that you are smoking. Put the pipe down… you should never do a drug named after a part of your own ass.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Zap, I understand that Clinton had 8 years to go in there. And I agree with the Afghanistan invasion, although I think we botched that by not using our own troops more.

… [/quote]

I don’t think Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan either, but I think he should have used more pressure to get Bin Laden out. It just was not on his radar.

While we were not perfect in Afghanistan more troops really wasn’t the answer. Most of our allies in Afghanistan would have turned on us if we would have brought in troops in quantities to do the job.

We did not want to get mired in Afghanistan like the Soviets did. The way to prevent that was to fight the war as we did, with native troops and US support.

I wish we could have used the same strategy in Iraq, but it really wasn’t feasible.

I too am uncomfortable with premptive wars. Of course we have been at a constant state of war with Iraq since 1991 although we certainly escalated it with the invasion to depose Saddam.

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
It seemed pretty clear to me that his “they have no oil” reference was relating to N Korea, seeing as how it was attached to a comment about N Korea. You may want to read more carefully before you condescend and hurl insults

yes, this is exactly what i was saying.thank you for clarifying it for me because in my reefer induced state i dont think i could explain it to lothario

You are both really goofy. mmg made the oil comment as a reference as to why we would invade Iraq in the first place. I guess it’s disappointing to you guys that we DIDN’T steal it? I mean, then you could have been right for once.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that NK and Iran are not a threat to your way of life, boys.

PS I apologize for the reefer comment. I see now that it is CRACK that you are smoking. Put the pipe down… you should never do a drug named after a part of your own ass.[/quote]

oh we didnt steal it? we just borrowed it? and dont believe everything you read…or see. So n korea and iran are threats to my way of life? hmmmmm…so your saying that iraq could have taken away my way of life? (no, they were just the ones who we could kick around) think about it, a country that can barely fight back…yet im supposed to be scared of them.so, jackass, like i asked before, if the other 2 in the “axis of evil” are such a threat, why no war with them?? because really, i wanna know why we sholdnt send more of our soldiers off to die in nations where theres these huge threats to our everyday life…Where the FUCK are the WMD in iraq…Where the fuck is osama bin laden(i mean werent we supposed to “smoke him out of his cave”? ) is he still a threat? Whats the terror alert today? yellow, green, orange? im AFRAID all the fucking time…PLEASE cnn, bush, lothario, tell me what to do…what happened to the ANTHRAX? Lothario, please tell me what am i to do? OOOOOhhh, send more kids to die…YES thats the answer, then the terror alert will go down to yellow again…FEAR fucks up your head doesnt it, whether its real or not…

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mmg_4 wrote:
It seemed pretty clear to me that his “they have no oil” reference was relating to N Korea, seeing as how it was attached to a comment about N Korea. You may want to read more carefully before you condescend and hurl insults

yes, this is exactly what i was saying.thank you for clarifying it for me because in my reefer induced state i dont think i could explain it to lothario

You are both really goofy. mmg made the oil comment as a reference as to why we would invade Iraq in the first place. I guess it’s disappointing to you guys that we DIDN’T steal it? I mean, then you could have been right for once.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that NK and Iran are not a threat to your way of life, boys.

PS I apologize for the reefer comment. I see now that it is CRACK that you are smoking. Put the pipe down… you should never do a drug named after a part of your own ass.[/quote]

PS-Keep proving how intelligent you are with the drug comments, really shows a level of intellect ive never seen before

[quote]mmg_4 wrote:
PS-Keep proving how intelligent you are with the drug comments, really shows a level of intellect ive never seen before[/quote]

LOL Okay. As long as you keep going with the long-winded whiny posts about how I’m supposedly a fear monger or whatever!

Wipe your nose and think for a second.
Getting all emotional doesn’t make any point at all except that you are easy to provoke. Using phrases like “sending kids to die” isn’t going to help you. At all.

If we stole all this oil, then where is it? All I see around here (North Florida) is an oil shortage. We have an economic interest in the ME which is obviously tied to oil supply… so when we go over there for one reason or another, that doesn’t mean that we friggin’ steal it. We haven’t stolen a damn thing.

In fact, the last time I checked, we not only did NOT subjugate Iraq and crush it under a hob-nailed boot Nazi-Germany style, we gave the country back to the Iraqianian people to determine their own destiny, and removed a bloodthirsty and ruthless dictator who used his power over the electicity and water supply systems to hold his people hostage.

Which was the point of this thread. To celebrate the fact that our actions in the region are paying off in spades, and the American lives that were lost in combat and to IED’s weren’t in vain. Please cheer up. It’s okay.