Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85
  1. #61  
    Perhaps if we didn't train Osama and Al Qaeda during the Afghan/USSR conflict then things may have been different.

    It's hard for me to understand how one can entrust a government that has built its war policy of the past decade and a half on false premises, lies, deception, irreverent tactics, and immorality.

    There are two reasons why the Gulf War happened: Oil and Israel. When look at the numbers, not just mere conjecture, at how much money, lobbying hours and dollars were thrown into mix preceding the Gulf War it's staggering. Sure the UN fully backed the conflict. They also understood the humanitarian and economic repercussions of the possible destruction of Kuwait. The circumstances were different then. The "spin" was different then - Big Bad Iraq is gonna lay the kaibosh on Kuwait. It was all *more* believable.

    There are two reasons why the Iraq War happened: Oil and Israel. Remember, Israel still considers Iraq a hostile nation. They haven't changed their stance. What a perfect opportunity to frame Saddam with WMD's and "relationships" with Al Qaeda and then go in and pillage the country. Hey, while we're at it we can dish out a cool 8 billion in contracts to Halliburton and the greater corporate internation community. But more for us, because we hung in there when the international community backed out.

    I see why these protesters are so passionate, viscious - if you will. It sucks when your goverment has spent the last 20 years sneaking weapons to Iran and Iraq and then **** them over, then pillage their nations. I wanted to go over and snap Osama's neck when 9/11 happened. I lost my best friend in those attacks. But you know what? I also wanted to kick Bush senior in the balls with spurs and hold accountable latter part of the Reagan administration and the Bush administration. We were living in harmony here before the Gulf War and Iran Contra. They effed everything up.

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    If we had destroyed Al Quida before 9/11 would you have been in support of that? Maybe... but I doubt it. Of course its always easier to stomach a reaction than it is to support proaction! The fact remains that if attacks to that degree were made on your soil, you'd be a fool to not do everything in your power to prevent it from happening again. I dare say that most of the countries in protest would be knocking on our door for help!
  2. #62  
    You cant live in harmony with someone who hates everything about you. We have never been in harmony with those organizations. There may have been some level of tolerance but never acceptance.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    However unfortunate for the skeptics such as yourself, the future terrorist attacks that have been prevented by the invasion will never come to light. Thanks GWB!!!
    It is generous of you to attribute this to GWB, but I think just the opposite. I think that if we took a different course than Iraq, we would be much farther along in defending our own country from terror.

    Right now, we are in a sparring match with a bunch of mostly Iranian supported insurgents, who are simply trying to exert thier local influences. This is not really accomplishing what we could to help our own national security here at home in the war on terrorist organizations which mean to do us harm. But we have no choice now but to continute to work our way out and make sure Iraq does not fall into civil war.

    Maybe you just don't understand, but a reasonable person might say, that if we spent the 150 billion and committed the personel that we committed to Iraq, and instead used it on al queda and other known terrorist organizations, and to improve our poor intelligence we might be much better off.

    Also, the Bush administration should recognize what is the source of terrorism, and how terrorists recruit people. Mubarak, the president of Egypt who is trying to be our ally, despite a 96% disapproval of the US actions by his people, is telling us that invading Iraq dramatically increased the ranks of volunteers for the terrorist causes. I agree with that statement. I feel there is little or no insight into this most important side of the problem from the Bush admin.

    So we shot ourselves in the foot on Iraq, thats what I think. I hope we can learn from our mistakes.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/17/2004 at 05:14 PM.
  4. #64  
    Precisely. Tolerance is acceptance.

    I was using harmony loosely and figuratively.

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    There may have been some level of tolerance but never acceptance.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    There are two reasons why the Iraq War happened: Oil and Israel. Remember, Israel still considers Iraq a hostile nation. They haven't changed their stance. What a perfect opportunity to frame Saddam with WMD's and "relationships" with Al Qaeda and then go in and pillage the country. Hey, while we're at it we can dish out a cool 8 billion in contracts to Halliburton and the greater corporate internation community. But more for us, because we hung in there when the international community backed out.
    This suggests that the reasons are for profit. I am trying to follow the logic but I just cant.


    Here is the senario:

    We spend tons of money attacking Iraq, then we spend tons more rebuilding Iraq. We award most of the rebuilding money to ourselves because we hung in there.... Ok I follow this so far but here's where I get lost..... Where the profit????

    Am I missing something? Were there huge deposits of money from somewhere before the war? As far as I know there havent been any since the begining of it.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    Perhaps if we didn't train Osama and Al Qaeda during the Afghan/USSR conflict then things may have been different.
    But we did train him...so get over it

    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    It's hard for me to understand how one can entrust a government that has built its war policy of the past decade and a half on false premises, lies, deception, irreverent tactics, and immorality..
    The past 15 years would take us through 2 Clinton terms and a GWb term. I guess you are finally accepting that fact that Clinton lied, was deceitful and immoral??

    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    There are two reasons why the Gulf War happened: Oil and Israel
    Why are you now bashing Israel

    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    There are two reasons why the Iraq War happened: Oil and Israel.
    There you go with Israel again

    Quote Originally Posted by illustreous
    I see why these protesters are so passionate, viscious - if you will. It sucks when your goverment has spent the last 20 years sneaking weapons to Iran and Iraq and then **** them over, then pillage their nations. I wanted to go over and snap Osama's neck when 9/11 happened. I lost my best friend in those attacks. But you know what? I also wanted to kick Bush senior in the balls with spurs and hold accountable latter part of the Reagan administration and the Bush administration. We were living in harmony here before the Gulf War and Iran Contra. They effed everything up.
    Well some how you were able to get everything included. I didnt think you were gonna be able to do it.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think we went to Iraq to liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, to ensure that the country would no longer be a hiding place for those who mean America harm, and to hand power over to the free Iraqi people.
    Wrong.

    We were told we were going to Iraq because their weapons programs were an IMMINENT threat to us and Iraq's neighbors.

    When your fratboy friends start getting drafted, perhaps you'll think differently about all this.
  8. #68  
    War is a money making industry. Did I say making? I meant *minting*. When it comes to funding the US military the our government has carte blanche. There has to be an interest, a premise, if you will, right? Let me spoon out the logic to you.

    US goes to war with country X. Gates opened for federal funding of war. (Not many reps/senators are going to vote against *initial* funding for the war. That would be a serious political faux pas.)

    Billions of $$ are spent in sending troops and fighting the war. You're probably thinking at this point - Wow, $150 billion in debt! How can that ever be turned into a profit?? Here's how:

    1.) U.S. uses war to showcase their weapons and technology. What you don't know is the amount of weapons that are being sold to other nations. This is precisely what happened during 'Nam and post WWII. Heck, we were selling weapons all over the Middle East while the Cold War was still going on.

    2.) U.S. has a vested interest in oil. Their interests in oil outweigh their interest in going to war for humanitarian relief. Just open up your Times and read about rogue governments committing genocides all over central africa. *Millions* of people are being killed here. Even BEFORE 9/11 these genocides were going on. The U.S. did barely anything. Getting back to the point, if the US can have an influence over oil output they would be seen as hereos to other oil reliant nations. (FYI - France relies quite a bit on nuclear energy. (I will back this up with the source.) Furthermore, ENERGY companies like Haliburton can snap up oil/energy contracts. That's why this defies logic - because you would think that the interests of a select few should be outweighed by a greater cost, a greater factor - the cost of war. We're getting Kaiser Soze'd by our own gov't.

    3.) Technology, building and labor contracts. This is self explanatory. US wants to get their companies and other foreign capitalists into the mix to create fresh new revenue.

    4.) Taxpayer burden. Yeah, we're gonna be paying for this war!! Woo hoo. So, profits aren't actually cut into. We're really the losers. Corporate America will still continue to make money.

    More to come...just watching the Yankee game (and waiting for my nachos! lol).

    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    This suggests that the reasons are for profit. I am trying to follow the logic but I just cant.


    Here is the senario:

    We spend tons of money attacking Iraq, then we spend tons more rebuilding Iraq. We award most of the rebuilding money to ourselves because we hung in there.... Ok I follow this so far but here's where I get lost..... Where the profit????

    Am I missing something? Were there huge deposits of money from somewhere before the war? As far as I know there havent been any since the begining of it.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Wrong.

    We were told we were going to Iraq because their weapons programs were an IMMINENT threat to us and Iraq's neighbors.

    When your fratboy friends start getting drafted, perhaps you'll think differently about all this.
    You are usually so good at supplying links to support every statemwnt...what happened.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think we went to Iraq to liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Wrong. We were told we were going to Iraq because their weapons programs were an IMMINENT threat to us and Iraq's neighbors.
    Well who is right Claire or Kitty? Why lets go back and look at:

    Mr. Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, 18 March 2003:

    The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...
    The danger is clear: using chemical, biological, or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfil their stated ambitions and kill thousands of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other...
    Under Resolutions 678 and 687, both still in effect, the United States and our allies are authorised to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction...
    Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power.
    _______________________________________

    Its pretty obvious, WMD was Bush's justification for invading Iraq. Too bad we had bad intelligence about the WMD.

    But ya know.......... poor CIA intelligence may be a problem for some folks, but I reckon other folks just might look at it as an opportunity.

    Its Friday night here and I am out of here, have a great weekend everyone!
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/17/2004 at 07:32 PM.
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    an attack on your country's leader is not an attack on you. The attitude that the two are related is one reason I have similar feelings about patriotism as you do about religion, Woof.
    I think you hit the nail on the head here Peter. Many people in middle America don't seem to be able to separate these concepts. They seem to think that it is being anti-American or something to criticize the president and/or his policies. Same sort of logic-defying belief as the idea of Papal Infallibility, except this kind of belief has extemely negative side-effects on the whole world.
  12. #72  
    Um, that's because Hiroshima and US Civil War have nothing to do with Israel. But perhaps you already knew that?

    A couple of points of clarification:

    1.) "When in doubt blame Israel" - I'm not in doubt and neither are millions of others who believe the same outside of the US. It's interesting how when US foreign policy is attacked folks here take it as a personal attack. I'm an American also, but I swallow my pride when my government f*cks up. My problem is that if you want to protect the interests of Israel then just come out and say it. I don't have a problem with protecting Israeli interests. I work at a Jewish law firm and have many Jewish friends. It's not about that. It's about our government being forthright - an oxymoron in politics. Diplomacy is a cancer to truth.

    2.) Muslim countries blaming Israel is a bit absurd. We know that direct blame and responsibility is Al Qaeda. I mean Bin Laden himself took responsibility immediately after the attacks.

    This is not about blame. This is about interests, motives and intentions. It's about money and power, something much larger than us. It's not about conspiracy; it's about simple things: hegemony, money and power.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    I have not heard this cacophony since some Muslim countries blamed Israel for 9/11 as well. Gosh, when in doubt blame Israel, why not; it works beautifully for some people and countries. While at it why not blaming Israel for Hiroshima's destruction? Or for the US civil war?
  13. #73  
    Israel wrecked my car!
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  14. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    Mission Accomplished my ***

    ask the families of the over 1000 of our troops that died there
    I'd much rather ask the families of the 3000 civilians who dies on US soil as a result of the 9/11 attacks. And yes, the Sadam regime *was* a supporter of terrorists.

    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    Perhaps next we can free mainland China.... They are an oppressed people under a totalitarian goverment with REAL weapons of mass destruction, and if nobody helps us, we can have all the rebuilding contracts there too!
    I personally don't give a rat's **** about oppressed people in other countries. I'm more concerned about the security and welfare of people in the United States. The "oppressed people" line is a red herring republicans throw out there to give liberals the "warm fuzzies" they need to feel ok with the logical choice - attack the enemy on their ground, not ours.

    China poses no immediate threat to the United States - ask former President Clinton, they paid him millions of dollars to put them back on our "favored nations" list.

    And before someone throws this out - "this is a war about oil", think about it. If the supply of oil to the United States was reduced seriously, who would profit most from it? Texas oilmen - some of the major supporters of President Bush. If it was as simple as a war for oil, we'd all be better off.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    While at it why not blaming Israel for Hiroshima's destruction? Or for the US civil war?
    I'm sorry Chicky but the Civil War was started because of Halliburton
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. #76  
    I would be taller and in better shape - if it wasn't for Isreal, Halliburton, Bush's 7-minute 9/11 delay, and Ashcroft taking away all of my rights. Oh, and the secret draft plans too.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    And yes, the Sadam regime *was* a supporter of terrorists
    It is lame that you stick to this argument.

    I think you should read the 911 commision's report and you will find that*it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It also said "contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

    contrary to your posts which just appear to be a rambling series of anecdotes, here is some real documentation, including pdf files on the 911 commisions reports which prove my point:

    http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=203

    http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/s...atement_16.pdf

    http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/s...atement_15.pdf

    And another thing to mention, while Saddam's support of Palestinian bombers was well documented

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

    this was going to help the Palestinian cause, one of those oppressed people you don't care about, it did not threaten the US at all.

    OK, no WMD, no Iraq-al queda connection, you do not give a "rats ***" about oppressed people in other countries - so why are we in Iraq?

    Tell me Mr. Logic, please tell me.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/18/2004 at 11:01 AM.
  18. #78  
    Everyone is so focused on WMD as if that is the only way for terrorist to carry out terrorism. As far as I can tell... it just takes enough cash for a plane ticket to massively destruct just about anything. Of course that arguement is apparently only justified after several thousand inocent civilians have been reduced to ruble.
  19. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    It is lame that you stick to this argument.

    I think you should read the 911 commision's report and you will find that*it found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." It also said "contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

    contrary to your posts which just appear to be a rambling series of anecdotes, here is some real documentation, including pdf files on the 911 commisions reports which prove my point:

    http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=203

    http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/s...atement_16.pdf

    http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/s...atement_15.pdf

    And another thing to mention, while Saddam's support of Palestinian bombers was well documented

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

    this was going to help the Palestinian cause, one of those oppressed people you don't care about, it did not threaten the US at all.

    OK, no WMD, no Iraq-al queda connection, you do not give a "rats ***" about oppressed people in other countries - so why are we in Iraq?

    Tell me Mr. Logic, please tell me.
    Even if Sadam's regime did not directly assist the 9/11 terrorists, his country still had training grounds, and supported terrorist groups.

    Lack of conclusive findings by the 9/11 commission, does not mean it is the absolute truth, mearly that legally it can not be proven.

    The reason to invade Iraq was that all indications, our intellegence agencies, britain, Russia, China, any country that had been following what Sadam had been up to with the UN inspectors, agreed that Iraq had WMD. That fact, coupled with the demonstrated volunerability of our borders to terrorists, made Sadam's Iraq a clear and present danger to the United States.

    It's as simple as that. Had Sadam been more open to UN inspectors, and demonstrated good will in proving he had no WMD, then you are right, I would see no point in over throwing his regime. If it isn't a threat to the United States, then keep the troops at home. That's the logic, not let's pick out some country at random and help those oppressed people. Helping oppressed people of Iraq is just a nice bonus they are geting. If it were up to me (thank god it isn't) I'd have pulled out the second the Sadam regime was destroyed and Sadam himself was captured. Let the UN deal with the mess, and maybe they'll be on board next time we say we're gonna do something with or without them.
  20. #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by Theta
    Even if Sadam's regime did not directly assist the 9/11 terrorists, his country still had training grounds, and supported terrorist groups.

    Lack of conclusive findings by the 9/11 commission, does not mean it is the absolute truth, mearly that legally it can not be proven.

    The reason to invade Iraq was that all indications, our intellegence agencies, britain, Russia, China, any country that had been following what Sadam had been up to with the UN inspectors, agreed that Iraq had WMD. That fact, coupled with the demonstrated volunerability of our borders to terrorists, made Sadam's Iraq a clear and present danger to the United States.

    It's as simple as that. Had Sadam been more open to UN inspectors, and demonstrated good will in proving he had no WMD, then you are right, I would see no point in over throwing his regime. If it isn't a threat to the United States, then keep the troops at home. That's the logic, not let's pick out some country at random and help those oppressed people. Helping oppressed people of Iraq is just a nice bonus they are geting. If it were up to me (thank god it isn't) I'd have pulled out the second the Sadam regime was destroyed and Sadam himself was captured. Let the UN deal with the mess, and maybe they'll be on board next time we say we're gonna do something with or without them.
    Theta, you make some sense and here's where I agree with you. A false threat to the US security is was what drew us in, and now we should try to get international support to help us out of this unfortunate situation.

    I'll go on to say I think our faulty CIA intelligence was not so much of a problem as it was an opportunity for the Bush Administration. They had us believing in WMD and Saddam-al queda just long enough to commit us to Iraq.

    Now we are left with the $150 billion and 1000 troops dead loss (and counting) price tag, for what? Sparring with the local thugs who are vying for a piece of the Iraq pie is not helping us in protecting our own security.

    I wish we could have used those resources more productively, like revamping our intelligence (which Bush is dragging his feet on) and stepping up our efforts to go after the real people behind 911.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/18/2004 at 02:48 PM.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions