Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 78
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    Are your hearing those on Fox News?

    :-)

    [Don't take this seriously. I think people sub-conciously look for and filter the information to re-inforce their concepts of events and situations. It is very difficult to be totally unbiased. But one must try.]
    As all of you probably know, I am retired and live within miles of a major US Air Force installation, a Naval Air station and visit my nephew at his Marine Corp station on a regular basis. The majority of men and women who have been to Iraq or AG, as well as those who are returning for their 2nd, 3rd or more tour believe in what they are doing. They readily tell of the change they have seen take place. They will show pictures of families that have taken them in as adopted children while they are stationed on their soil. They will show off the prized possesion that their Iraqi friends have given them as an act of gratitude for the freedom they have now compared to when Saddam controlled their every move. Of course most people do not want to go to war, who would, but those who are there and have seen the change the actions have made on the peoples lives know it is worth it.

    I know there are a couple of active duty military members on this board, ask them what the men and women they work with think.

    EDIT to add: Think of this board, it took a munkee to start a post of us telling everyone our Treo is doing fine, otherwise all you hear are the negatives.

    Oh by the way, my friends in Iraq are not crying about being there, thought you should know.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I understand that this all looks pretty bad. But we need to view it in context, like everything else. For example, we need to view what other modern day conflicts looked like in duration, numbers of casualties, etc. If we do that then these statistics don't look so bad. We can also look at it in the perspective of our own history:

    - The War of Independence lasted 8 years.
    - 7,000 to 8,000 casualties not including the 130,000 who died from smallpox.
    - It took four years after the end of the war to agree upon a workable constitution.
    - It took another three years for all thriteen colonies to agree to sign the constitution.
    - During and after this time there were several armed rebellions.

    I'm not making any comparisons between Iraq and the US beyond this. AL I'm saying is that it's just too soon to start calling this a complete failure (not saying you are but there are some here who are).
    Let's compare goals. The war for American Independence was one begun by the land's citizen's to break free of an oppressive colonial empire.

    The Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition.

    Sad that you would put the two in the same basket. Very sad.
  3.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Good points samkim! The WWII numbers are especially relevant considering the similar public opinions and circumstances at the beginning of our involvement in the war.
    Gawd your comparison's are pathetic. Americans, as in ALL Americans sacrificed for the effort in WWII. The Iraq conflict has asked nothing of the average US citizen. Years into WWII the entire country was united in it's effort. Years into the Iraq conflict over 60% of US citizens question it's goals as opposed to at the beginning. You're not even comparin apples and oranges you're comparing apples and pugs.
  4. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Let's compare goals. The war for American Independence was one begun by the land's citizen's to break free of an oppressive colonial empire.

    The Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition.

    Sad that you would put the two in the same basket. Very sad.
    So, National Security did not have any factor at all at the time? The intel of the world did not have any factor at the time? The fact that Saddam snow blinded his own Generals to the point that they wouldn't believe Saddam didn't have WMDs even after Saddam fell didn't have a factor at the time?

    "Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition"

    Seems to me to be a shortsighted view of history at the time decisions were made simply to prove an agenda driven point.
  5.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    So, National Security did not have any factor at all at the time? The intel of the world did not have any factor at the time? The fact that Saddam snow blinded his own Generals to the point that they wouldn't believe Saddam didn't have WMDs even after Saddam fell didn't have a factor at the time?

    "Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition"

    Seems to me to be a shortsighted view of history at the time decisions were made simply to prove an agenda driven point.
    If you're still clinging to the idea that Iraq was a military threat to the US, I can't help you. The threat was from their oil and the Euro. If you justify the continued economic dominance of the world by the US as a reason for invading Iraq then I can respect that. I will disagree with you however.
  6. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    If you're still clinging to the idea that Iraq was a military threat to the US, I can't help you.
    I am not clinging to anything, but I am open minded enough to recognize that information is still coming out about their capabilities (or lack of), their planned capabilities, their intentions (or lack of), their ties to other govs and orgs (or lack of), and the reality of what the higher up superior officers truly believed to be true. If you are unable to recognize all answers are not in and that there were SEVERAL internal and external factors at the time and the ability to recognize that decisions were made with knowledge we had at the time and not with crystal ball so decisions could have been made with information we have now, then you are not open minded or so dug into a point of view to make a discussion very challenging.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The threat was from their oil and the Euro. If you justify the continued economic dominance of the world by the US as a reason for invading Iraq then I can respect that. I will disagree with you however.
    I have stated several times over I do consider Oil a National Security issue and possible threat. At the moment Oil is the number one factor that can crash our economy, food supply, military operations, etc...
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/26/2006 at 10:27 PM.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal

    I have stated several times over I do consider Oil a National Security issue and possible threat. At the moment Oil is the number one factor that can crash our economy, food supply, military operations, etc...
    I would think our debt being owned by China (60-70%) and Saudi Arabia, would be the number one threat. All they would have to is cash in their holdings and our economy would be instant crap. Sure oil is a large bearer but we have reserves and we can produce or own here, and import from other places we have not pissed off yet.
  8.    #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I would think our debt being owned by China (60-70%) and Saudi Arabia, would be the number one threat. All they would have to is cash in their holdings and our economy would be instant crap. Sure oil is a large bearer but we have reserves and we can produce or own here, and import from other places we have not pissed off yet.
    Actually the combination of both of those issues is the "perfect storm". The dealings between Europe and Iraq would feed the European Union's economy. With the rise of the Euro, Opec might chabge the per barrell monetary unit to the Euro, weakening the dollar, nudgiing China and other holders off bond to cash them in quickly. Boom. The bottom falls out of the U.S. economy.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Actually the combination of both of those issues is the "perfect storm". The dealings between Europe and Iraq would feed the European Union's economy. With the rise of the Euro, Opec might chabge the per barrell monetary unit to the Euro, weakening the dollar, nudgiing China and other holders off bond to cash them in quickly. Boom. The bottom falls out of the U.S. economy.
    I think Iran is already shifting to the euro. I thought he was speaking of us the U.S. being cutoff from our dealers. You are right about a perfect storm though.
  10. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Actually the combination of both of those issues is the "perfect storm". The dealings between Europe and Iraq would feed the European Union's economy. With the rise of the Euro, Opec might chabge the per barrell monetary unit to the Euro, weakening the dollar, nudgiing China and other holders off bond to cash them in quickly. Boom. The bottom falls out of the U.S. economy.
    I would have to agree but add in the other factors of China purposely artificially inflating their currency to weaken everyone else in international trade. No matter how stable any economy is in our current global structure, it is not all about military power anymore and it has historically been.
  11.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I would have to agree but add in the other factors of China purposely artificially inflating their currency to weaken everyone else in international trade. No matter how stable any economy is in our current global structure, it is not all about military power anymore and it has historically been.
    Actually I think Iraq is a prime example of the military is the final say. Obviously if Hussein would have done business with the U.S. OR if the U.S. could have "eliminated" the uncooperative Iraqi leadership, we would not of used our military to force our economic protection.
  12. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    we would not of used our military to force our economic protection.
    Again your argument is focused on ONE SINGLE point in exclusion to every other factor of the situation.
  13.    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Again your argument is focused on ONE SINGLE point in exclusion to every other factor of the situation.
    That was the smoke and mirrors to sell the invasion to the public. It's hard to say to the working poor, "We're going to use your children's bodies to protect this economy which benefits the richest 1% of the populace."

    It's even harder to conceptualize this without sounding like a conspiracist but it is the simple cold hard truth of the situation.
  14. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That was the smoke and mirrors to sell the invasion to the public. It's hard to say to the working poor, "We're going to use your children's bodies to protect this economy which benefits the richest 1% of the populace."

    It's even harder to conceptualize this without sounding like a conspiracist but it is the simple cold hard truth of the situation.
    Truth?? Are you a cabinet member and know this as Truth? Our economy only benefits 1% of the populace? Wow, your arguments are sinking in liberal waters............
  15.    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle
    Truth?? Are you a cabinet member and know this as Truth? Our economy only benefits 1% of the populace? Wow, your arguments are sinking in liberal waters............
    Prove them incorrect.
  16. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Prove them incorrect.
    Ya know, I was gonna stay out, but....

    Prove them incorrect. CLASSIC!!!!!!!
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  17. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Prove them incorrect.
    Textbook perfect political tactic....throw out a baseless claim to prove a political biased agenda with zero supporting sources and the say "It is your responsibility to prove my potentially fictitious conspiracy theory incorrect" and until you do that, that is my story and I am sticking to it.
  18. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Good point...it is more complicated with the surrounding countries (which cuts to the point that it makes it that much more difficult to get simply Iraq behind the idea of democracy with all the outside pressure of the surrounding countries.) They probably are against it.
    Agreed. But it doesn't mean that it can't or even shouldn't be done.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Fair enough...but doesnt that cut to the argument that Iraq isnt starting from scratch with their constitution...we have done much of the 'leg-work' with ours?
    To a point. But I was making the argument that even ours was written on the backs of other, earlier thinkers and not completely "from scratch".

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Probably true...but then we have to accept that certain things we cherish (personal autonomy) may not eventually be in the Iraqi constitution.
    Undoubtedly. But maybe its a step in the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    This seems a little contradictory. While I agree that Sadaam did have the elections, I doubt anyone was really fooled by them. If they werent fooled by them, then what concept did they express?
    The concept that democracy is so important that even Saddam wanted to give the illusion, to the Iraqis and the outside world, that Iraq was a democracy.
  19. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Let's compare goals. The war for American Independence was one begun by the land's citizen's to break free of an oppressive colonial empire.
    Ah daT, you're such a romantic. But wake up to reality for a second while I make my point. Only 45% of the people, at the most, wanted a war for independence. In fact, as I said before, 20% of the people were British loyalists. In your world, the revolutionaries had no right to bring war upon the peace-loving British sympathizers.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The Iraq invasion is an artificial "liberation" in the name of global economic competition.
    Now that's a true Leftist talking. Everything is about money. Well, okay, wasn't the American Revolution in large part about money?

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Sad that you would put the two in the same basket. Very sad.
    Spare me.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions