PDA

View Full Version : OK, I've defended this war enough. F*ck the Iraqis.



Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 01:30 PM
BEIJING (AFP) — China hailed Thursday a three-billion-dollar oil agreement with Iraq as a win for both nations, as it sought to reassure the rest of the world that it should not be concerned by the deal.

Becoming the first foreign firm to enter such an agreement since the end of Saddam Hussein's regime, state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) this week won the right to develop the Al-Ahdab oil field south of Baghdad.

"The cooperation between the relevant oil companies from China and Iraq is mutually beneficial," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters after the Iraqi embassy in Beijing said the deal had been reached.

"It will be conducive to the economic development of Iraq, and will meet China's demands in the oil field as well, and is also conducted according to market rules and will not harm any interests of any third parties."

The agreement, reached during a visit to China by Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, revives a 1997 contract that granted China exploration rights to the Al-Ahdab oil field in the province of Wassit.

After China won the rights to the al-Ahdab field in a deal then valued at 700 million dollars over 23 years, activities were suspended due to UN sanctions and security issues following the US-led war in 2003 that toppled Saddam.

Planned oil production was then 90,000 barrels per day (bpd), and CNPC had been expected to win the new exploration rights.http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gwu1PN6Wmv3LYYbAMKfdfXJkmqZQ



Fuck the Iraqis!!!!! I don't give a shit if we pull out today. Honestly, if this is the thanks we get then they can defend themselves. I don't recall seeing a number on how many Chinese soldiers died to free their sorry asses. Do you? We've won, now pull out and let the bastards fend for themselves.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 01:35 PM
$79,000,000,000.00 surplus and we're still spending $1,984.13 per second in Iraq for..........help me out here, guys.

Troll
08-29-2008, 01:44 PM
I'm not sure what to make of this. As a ruthless capitalist, I have to grudgingly recognize that other nations will happily do what the US isn't doing while we're scratching our collective rear.

On the other hand, if I were an Iraqi politician, I'd be falling over myself to keep the US's oil vats full - what exactly is/was China's role in liberating Iraq? There is such a thing as a 'moral obligation'.

This of course opens the discussion to whether or not we agree with the occupation of Iraq, but I won't go down that road now. :D

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 03:21 PM
Now we're defending China's oil. The least Iraq could do is sell us oil at 75% of market value. They get the 755 and the additional 25% could go against theri debt to us. Fuck em, they can rot in hell.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 03:30 PM
Lets invade Iraq!!! Oh.... wait...


Sorry couldn't resist ;)

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 03:34 PM
Lets invade Iraq!!! Oh.... wait...


Sorry couldn't resist ;)

I still believe we did the right thing in going. I just don't appreciate the slap in the face this is.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 03:40 PM
I still believe we did the right thing in going. I just don't appreciate the slap in the face this is.

Its kind of ballsy on the iraqi's part, damn. But I agree.

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 03:42 PM
Its kind of ballsy on the iraqi's part, damn. But I agree.

It's shit like this that makes me understand why I shouldn't be in charge of this kind of shit.

4jacks
08-29-2008, 03:49 PM
Well guys, we didn't go in for Oil, like everyone accused us of.

I don't view this as that bad of a thing. Help me out if my facts are skewed. But doesn't this mean that Iraq will start producing more oil now? Who cares if it's China or the US. Capitalism in action, if China is getting all thier oil from Iraq, that gives us other places to buy from. Supply and demand, right now demand is HIGH, more supply is Good!

Of course we have to acknowledge China growing needs for oil. They have a right to buy oil the same as we do.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 04:06 PM
This is the same argument that some (including myself) have used about our own off-shore drilling expansion: What will make private corporations sell it to the United States and not the highest bidder, like China?

gator
08-29-2008, 04:16 PM
As I have said many times I don't have a clue why we invaded Iraq.

Since we did invade them I don't know why we didn't take the oil to pay for the effort.

If we are going to be interventionist as least we should have got something out of it other than a trillion dollar cost and 4,300 deaths.

It looks like we get the deaths of too many our finest men and women and the tremendous debt and the Chinese get a nice little supply of oil.

The irony here is that we are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for the debt. Not only do they get the supply of oil but they get to collect interest on the money we spent to get them oil. :confused:

These foreign entanglements are sure interesting sometimes, aren't they?

wilbur
08-29-2008, 04:18 PM
The irony here is that we are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for the debt. Not only do they get the supply of oil but they get to collect interest on the money we spent to get them oil. :confused:

These foreign entanglements are sure interesting sometimes, aren't they?

What a mess.

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 04:20 PM
Well guys, we didn't go in for Oil, like everyone accused us of.

I don't view this as that bad of a thing. Help me out if my facts are skewed. But doesn't this mean that Iraq will start producing more oil now? Who cares if it's China or the US. Capitalism in action, if China is getting all thier oil from Iraq, that gives us other places to buy from. Supply and demand, right now demand is HIGH, more supply is Good!

Of course we have to acknowledge China growing needs for oil. They have a right to buy oil the same as we do.

It's the principle of the thing. Let's say I bailed your ass out of one hell of a tight spot and cost myself ALOT of money. You had plenty of something valuable to alot of people. Wouldn't you allow me first dibs at a discount rate if it still put you in a lot better situation than you were in before I came along?

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 04:23 PM
As I have said many times I don't have a clue why we invaded Iraq.

These foreign entanglements are sure interesting sometimes, aren't they?

Something about chickens coming home to roost? ;)

linda22003
08-29-2008, 04:24 PM
I still believe we did the right thing in going. I just don't appreciate the slap in the face this is.

Welcome to reality. Will you be staying with us long? ;)

JB
08-29-2008, 04:25 PM
I don't think this is new news actually.

If I remember correctly, all pre-existing oil deals will remain now and after we're gone. Watch for more of this.

gator
08-29-2008, 04:27 PM
Something about chickens coming home to roost? ;)

When you fight for other people instead of your own security you get the pain and they get the gain.

It looks like all those blue fingers we saw in Iraq will be getting pretty rich.

The only people in the US that will benefit are the ones that make tombstones for Arlington National Cemetery.

4jacks
08-29-2008, 04:27 PM
It's the principle of the thing. Let's say I bailed your ass out of one hell of a tight spot and cost myself ALOT of money. You had plenty of something valuable to alot of people. Wouldn't you allow me first dibs at a discount rate if it still put you in a lot better situation than you were in before I came along?

I think the major principle was that we were giving these people Freedom! And no form of freedom is greater than capitalism. I really think they should sell to the highest bidder. It will only do good things for thier economy and thier stabilization, and that is what we wanted.

What we get out of the deal is the ability to sleep at night without worry that some crazy jihadist is driving a nuke to one of our cities. We got want we went in for, and we gave them what we promised. Mission Accomplished in my opinion.

Besides, the principle of economics still hold true.. More Supply = Lower Cost to us. Who buys from where is not relevant.

Say the US did get that deal, and we got cheaper oil from Iraq. That's good, but the Chinese would still buy more oil from the other nations we recieve oil from, raising our prices there. It all boils down to supply and demand.

MrsSmith
08-29-2008, 04:27 PM
This is the same argument that some (including myself) have used about our own off-shore drilling expansion: What will make private corporations sell it to the United States and not the highest bidder, like China?

Regardless, as more oil comes into the market, the price drops for everyone. (The taxes don't, but the free market can't fix that.)

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 04:30 PM
Welcome to reality. Will you be staying with us long? ;)

That's what happens when you hang on to hope.:o

gator
08-29-2008, 04:31 PM
wanted.

What we get out of the deal is the ability to sleep at night without worry that some crazy jihadist is driving a nuke to one of our cities. We got want we went in for, and we gave them what we promised. Mission Accomplished in my opinion.



Sopken like a true NeoCon.

There were no jihadist in Iraq when we invaded in 2003.

There was never a mission critical to the security of the United States to start with.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Regardless, as more oil comes into the market, the price drops for everyone.

I believe China’s present crude consumption will double in the next five years and they’ll be selling us their windmills. I also think they’ll (along with the Saudis) be selling us finished product (gas, oil and lubricants) within ten years. Pennsoil will soon have a ‘Made in China’ label on it, Wal-Mart will carry it and we’ll buy it.

Rebel Yell
08-29-2008, 04:40 PM
I believe China’s present crude consumption will double in the next five years and they’ll be selling us their windmills. I also think they’ll (along with the Saudis) be selling us finished product (gas, oil and lubricants) within ten years. Pennsoil will soon have a ‘Made in China’ label on it, Wal-Mart will carry it and we’ll buy it.

As the supply increases, so will China's demand. I may be wrong, but that is their plan. If they can control the oil, they ccan control the world.

MrsSmith
08-29-2008, 04:45 PM
I believe China’s present crude consumption will double in the next five years and they’ll be selling us their windmills. I also think they’ll (along with the Saudis) be selling us finished product (gas, oil and lubricants) within ten years. Pennsoil will soon have a ‘Made in China’ label on it, Wal-Mart will carry it and we’ll buy it.

If their demand climbs this high, then it's even more important to get more oil on the market. All the alternative energy schemes currently take huge amounts of fossil fuels. The current Democrat scheme of "starving" everyone into using different energy sources is a thinly disguised tax on the poorest of the poor.

4jacks
08-29-2008, 04:50 PM
Sopken like a true NeoCon.

I am not a NeoConservative. I am an old school conservative. Neo-con implies people who moved to the right from the left. I am much further to the right.


There were no jihadist in Iraq when we invaded in 2003.

There was never a mission critical to the security of the United States to start with.

I believe those statements to be so completely and blantantly false.

JB
08-29-2008, 04:55 PM
There were no jihadist in Iraq when we invaded in 2003.Why, because they high-tailed it to Syria or something?

Are you insane? Are you going to go on record that there were no terrorist or Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq prior to 9/11? When the evidence overwhelming points to the contrary.

MrsSmith
08-29-2008, 04:56 PM
Sopken like a true NeoCon.

There were no jihadist in Iraq when we invaded in 2003.

There was never a mission critical to the security of the United States to start with.


Marines find extensive terrorist training camp on outskirts of Baghdad

By Associated Press, (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/terrorist_camp.htm) 4/16/03

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- U.S. forces came upon a recently abandoned terrorist training camp on the outskirts of Baghdad where recruits were apparently taught how to make bombs and what to do if they got captured, the Marines said Wednesday...


no jihadists?

Who was the terrorist that had sheltered in Bagdad all that time? And what were his crimes?

Troll
08-29-2008, 05:06 PM
What we get out of the deal is the ability to sleep at night without worry that some crazy jihadist is driving a nuke to one of our cities. We got want we went in for, and we gave them what we promised. Mission Accomplished in my opinion.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but your choice of words here is interesting.

You said that a jihadist could get a nuke to one of our major cities by driving. Don't you think that terrorists would have an easier time driving into this country through the southern border instead of all the way from Iraq? Do you feel that killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to protecting our nation's borders?

4jacks
08-29-2008, 05:23 PM
I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but your choice of words here is interesting.

You said that a jihadist could get a nuke to one of our major cities by driving. Don't you think that terrorists would have an easier time driving into this country through the southern border instead of all the way from Iraq?

I don't believe terrorist could drive here from Iraq, I'm not sure if that was an quick insult or a typo. But yes it most certainly would be easier for a terriorist to launch a nuclear attack by smuggling the device in the borders, rather than launch a missle.

Even from as close as Cuba (Politics aside) Our missle defense systems have a pretty high chance of minimizing the attack.

But our border are pretty weak, there are thousands of way to smuggle in anything. Could come from Canada or Mexico, or even our coast lines.



Do you feel that killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to protecting our nation's borders?

I believe in STOPPING terrorists, not killing them. I do believe in capital punishment if thier offense is high enough.

Of course it would be highly perfered if we could perfect our Offense and Defense, by both tracking them down, destroying thier resources, etc and at the same time Securing our borders. But we only have limited resource to devote to each. Whether an equal 50/50 spilt or something like a 80/20 split would be optimal. I don't know. I do think we should concentrate on our border more than we currently do though.

gator
08-29-2008, 05:26 PM
no jihadists?

Who was the terrorist that had sheltered in Bagdad all that time? And what were his crimes?

I use to make links to "terrorists training camps" back when I was a NeoCon. I was trying to justify something that had no substance.

There is some minor antidotal evidence but it doesn’t amount to the evidence to invade a country. I suspect there are “terrorists training camps” in most of the countries in the Middle East. For instance, we know they were in Syria and Iran but we didn’t invade either of those countries. Israel has been declared a terrorists state by most of the world and they have weapons of mass destruction but we didn’t invade them.

The fact of the matter is that the people that were responsible for attacking America on 911 were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses were in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. In 2003 we had Iraq pretty well isolated and it was not a threat to America.

There were not even the weapons of mass destruction that Bush used as the reason. Even if they were there then it was only a threat to Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia but not to the US.

There was no reason for us to invade Iraq. It took me awhile to figure it out. I have great admiration and awe for all the brave men and women of our armed forces that have done such a brilliant job but the political decision to send them to Iraq cannot be defended upon any level of reasonable scrutiny.

That is too bad because I like a good war now and then. I would just like for the wars we fight to be for a good reason. For the life of me I don’t understand the reason why we invaded Iraq. I tried to understand it for several years but it just didn’t make sense when I was honest about it. Honesty can be very unsettling when it busts a bubble. In my case it busts my NeoCon bubble.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 05:29 PM
Do you feel that killing terrorists in Iraq is preferable to protecting our nation's borders?

I don’t. If the border state’s National Guard were here, allowed to do their jobs and properly outfitted, while being paid a man’s wage - I’d rather have seen Saddam being contained until he died of natural causes.

Afghanistan was blown as far as pursuing OBL and we’ll be faced with that until we invade Pakistan. My gut tells me that GWB regrets these ‘in the heat of the moment’ decisions, every single day.

Regarding who the Iraqis sell their oil to - loyalty in a tribal society is a very fluid (in this case, crude) thing.

gator
08-29-2008, 05:34 PM
Why, because they high-tailed it to Syria or something?

Are you insane? Are you going to go on record that there were no terrorist or Al-Qaeda camps in Iraq prior to 9/11? When the evidence overwhelming points to the contrary.


So we have done away with terrorist training camps in the Middle East?

If not who are we going to invade next? Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Somalia? Libya? Sudan? Germany. You do know the terrorist do a lot of training in Europe, don’t you? How about all the “Stains” from the old Soviet Union?

By the way, when GW Bush invaded Iraq that was not the reason he used. That is the spin that was offered up when the weapons of mass destruction did not materialized.

The fact of the matter is that the people that attacked America on 9/11 were mostly Saudi Arabians whose base of operation was in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

I have no idea why we sent an invasion force of over 200,000 men and women to overthrow Iraq in 2003.

MrsSmith
08-29-2008, 05:41 PM
I use to make links to "terrorists training camps" back when I was a NeoCon. I was trying to justify something that had no substance.

There is some minor antidotal evidence but it doesn’t amount to the evidence to invade a country. I suspect there are “terrorists training camps” in most of the countries in the Middle East. For instance, we know they were in Syria and Iran but we didn’t invade either of those countries. Israel has been declared a terrorists state by most of the world and they have weapons of mass destruction but we didn’t invade them.

The fact of the matter is that the people that were responsible for attacking America on 911 were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses were in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911. In 2003 we had Iraq pretty well isolated and it was not a threat to America.

There were not even the weapons of mass destruction that Bush used as the reason. Even if they were there then it was only a threat to Israel and maybe Saudi Arabia but not to the US.

There was no reason for us to invade Iraq. It took me awhile to figure it out. I have great admiration and awe for all the brave men and women of our armed forces that have done such a brilliant job but the political decision to send them to Iraq cannot be defended upon any level of reasonable scrutiny.

That is too bad because I like a good war now and then. I would just like for the wars we fight to be for a good reason. For the life of me I don’t understand the reason why we invaded Iraq. I tried to understand it for several years but it just didn’t make sense when I was honest about it. Honesty can be very unsettling when it busts a bubble. In my case it busts my NeoCon bubble.

The problem is that it made sense before the invasion, given what was "known" at that time. Also, while we all like to second guess all decisions, including many of our own, do we really know everything Pres. Bush AND Congress knew? How much is still classified? Are we making judgement calls on 1/2 the info, as was done back when McCarthy tried to clean up our govenment? He was crucified for what he did, but now that the classified material has been released, it turns out he was right all along. I actually don't like war, but I prefer our position in the world NOW more than our position when everyone thought we were too rich and lazy to be a real threat. The Dims can carp about other countries not liking us...but I prefer respect over affection. No other world leader of any size country now looks at us as though we were "a paper tiger."

JB
08-29-2008, 05:58 PM
So we have...<snipped>This is all irrelevant to your orignal statement. You said "there were no terrorists in Iraq when we invaded in 2003."

It's false and misleading.

You sound like every liberal scumbag or DUmmie I've ever come across. They too give the impression that there are only terrorists in Iraq now because of the U.S. I hope that's not what you're saying. Sounds like it though.

gator
08-29-2008, 06:29 PM
This is all irrelevant to your orignal statement. You said "there were no terrorists in Iraq when we invaded in 2003."

It's false and misleading.

You sound like every liberal scumbag or DUmmie I've ever come across. They too give the impression that there are only terrorists in Iraq now because of the U.S. I hope that's not what you're saying. Sounds like it though.

And you sound like every scumbag NeoCon. (BTW, I use to sound the same way until I got my head out of my ass)

Being against foreign entanglements and war that has nothing to do with our security is basic Conservatism. George Washington even warned us about it.

In 2003 Saddam was not a threat to the US and the people that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses were in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

It is OK for you and I to debate this but the price of the war for no reason was paid for by 4,300 brave young men and women who aren’t with us now.

Molon Labe
08-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Germany. You do know the terrorist do a lot of training in Europe, don’t you? How about all the “Stains” from the old Soviet Union?

Yes...many of the videos they record of the IED's, VBEDS etc. that kill american troops are usually used to recruit from Europe.

Troll
08-29-2008, 08:25 PM
I don’t. If the border state’s National Guard were here, allowed to do their jobs and properly outfitted, while being paid a man’s wage - I’d rather have seen Saddam being contained until he died of natural causes.

That's pretty much where I am with the "War on Terror."

Are there terrorists in the world that would like to do us harm? Of course. However, if we were enforcing our borders, and cracking down on illegals already in the country, we would have little to fear from them. If there was no good way to get into this country illegally, then groups like Hezbollah and the Taliban would just have to stick with what they're good at, which is bullying women and blowing children up, and the United States would save a few trillion dollars to boot.

We've got a National Guard, a Border Patrol, ICE, and 675,000 cops in this country. Fence the border, fill the Rio Grande with alligators, deport all the illegals in prison, slap businesses that hire illegals with fines, and plug up any possible sources of government benefits for illegals. God forbid we're ever attacked again, but if we are, and it turns out that the terrorists entered this country illegally after 9/11...

OwlMBA
08-29-2008, 08:57 PM
I have been for pulling out of Iraq since 2004 when we turned this "war" into a Politically Correct nightmare. We should have assassinated Saddam and all of his cronies and put someone friendly into power. This "you do nothing and we will take care of everything" nonsense is absurd. Screw those sand-eating, camel jockies. They have been living in the desert and killing each other since the dawn of time and we aren't going to fix it.

Molon Labe
08-29-2008, 09:05 PM
They have been living in the desert and killing each other since the dawn of time and we aren't going to fix it.

That goes along with the fact that they have no history of liberal democratic institutions. So why do we think we can just will them into it.

OwlMBA
08-29-2008, 09:13 PM
That goes along with the fact that they have no history of liberal democratic institutions. So why do we think we can just will them into it.

"Hey everyone, Democracy just kicked in!"

Troll
08-29-2008, 09:14 PM
I have been for pulling out of Iraq since 2004 when we turned this "war" into a Politically Correct nightmare. We should have assassinated Saddam and all of his cronies and put someone friendly into power. This "you do nothing and we will take care of everything" nonsense is absurd. Screw those sand-eating, camel jockies. They have been living in the desert and killing each other since the dawn of time and we aren't going to fix it.


That goes along with the fact that they have no history of liberal democratic institutions. So why do we think we can just will them into it.

That quote about people getting the government they deserve just sprang to mind.

OwlMBA
08-29-2008, 09:15 PM
That quote about people getting the government they deserve just sprang to mind.

The government they deserve was overthrown 5 years ago.

JB
08-29-2008, 09:36 PM
And you sound like every scumbag NeoCon. (BTW, I use to sound the same way until I got my head out of my ass)

Being against foreign entanglements and war that has nothing to do with our security is basic Conservatism. George Washington even warned us about it.

In 2003 Saddam was not a threat to the US and the people that attacked us were mostly Saudi Arabians whose bosses were in Afghanistan. Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

It is OK for you and I to debate this but the price of the war for no reason was paid for by 4,300 brave young men and women who aren’t with us now.Your meme's are getting old.

I didn't make one comment about whether or not I supported the war or thought it was a good idea to begin with; I said nothing about Saddam or 9/11 yet you bring out your neocon bullshit.

All I said was that there were terrorists in Iraq long before we attacked in 2003. You said there weren't. You are mistaken about that. Enough with the deflection.

OwlMBA
08-29-2008, 09:40 PM
Your meme's are getting old.

I didn't make one comment about whether or not I supported the war or thought it was a good idea to begin with; I said nothing about Saddam or 9/11 yet you bring out your neocon bullshit.

All I said was that there were terrorists in Iraq long before we attacked in 2003. You said there weren't. You are mistaken about that. Enough with the deflection.

Nevermind Gator, he is just old and bitter.

Shannon
08-29-2008, 09:53 PM
Nevermind Gator, he is just old and bitter.

You were referring to Gator being old and bitter, right?

Molon Labe
08-29-2008, 09:56 PM
That quote about people getting the government they deserve just sprang to mind.

Here it is in a nutshell for me. We've had centuries of liberal institutions to build on and the founders didn't just invent the idea of liberty one day in the 1700s.



The road to the U.S. constitution began, to choose a plausible date, with Magna Charta in 1215. From then, Anglo-American political and constitutional thought meandered through five-plus centuries of evolution – guided by Christian scripture and punctuated by theoretical debate, civil and religious wars, regicide, electoral politics, and world wars – until 1789 and what Catherine Drinker Bowen aptly described as "Miracle in Philadelphia." Questions: How many Americans know, let alone can discuss, that fact? How many Americans can identify a similar post-1215 process in the Islamic world from which the Iraqi Founders can seek guidance? - Scheuer

full article. http://originaldissent.com/forums/archive/index.php/index.php?t-1041.html

Anyway....there are way too many people who think their 20th century wisdom can translate into transformations of entire 8th century societies.

gator
08-29-2008, 10:00 PM
Your meme's are getting old.

I didn't make one comment about whether or not I supported the war or thought it was a good idea to begin with; I said nothing about Saddam or 9/11 yet you bring out your neocon bullshit.

All I said was that there were terrorists in Iraq long before we attacked in 2003. You said there weren't. You are mistaken about that. Enough with the deflection.

So we invaded Iraq in 2003 to protect us from the Iraqi terrorist????

OwlMBA
08-29-2008, 10:13 PM
You were referring to Gator being old and bitter, right?

Correct. Gator is confused.

JB
08-30-2008, 02:27 AM
So we invaded Iraq in 2003 to protect us from the Iraqi terrorist????The terrorists in Iraq prior to 2003 were probably Iraqi along with a whole host of other nationalities. Iraqis, Iranians, Afghans, Syrians, Egyptians, etc...etc...

Look, I'm not going down this other road with you. The reasons why we invaded Iraq have been discussed ad nauseum on this site. There were numerous stickied threads about it. You either agree with them or you don't.

I merely posted to correct your incorrect statement that there were no terrorists (of any kind) in Iraq prior to 2003. It's simply not true. Whether invading Iraq to get them (among other reasons) was the right thing to do is a different discussion.

marinejcksn
08-30-2008, 03:30 AM
I know how you feel. I'm out here in Iraq right now for the 2nd time, the Marine infantry unit who accompanied us lost a LtCol and their SgtMaj was seriously injured due to a suicide bomber. Most guys I know are sick of this war, this sh&tbag country and want this over. I've seen examples of Iraqis that make you so happy to be here helping them, and I've also seen Iraqis that make you want to firebomb this sandbox til it turns to glass.

Overall, I think our leaders are pussies for not demanding Iraq pay us back for the billions we've spent by giving us their oil. Not all their oil, but I feel we should get at least 50% of all future oil from Iraq until we're paid in full. It's not a tradeoff for the friends I lost, but I hate knowing I lost friends to these dirty-nightshirt cowards so CHINA can crap all over us again. F%&* Maliki. :mad:

AmPat
08-30-2008, 06:22 AM
We play too nice in a vain hope of salvaging a reputation we don't have or repairing one we didn't deserve.

Lanie
08-30-2008, 08:48 PM
Fuck the Iraqis!!!!! I don't give a shit if we pull out today. Honestly, if this is the thanks we get then they can defend themselves. I don't recall seeing a number on how many Chinese soldiers died to free their sorry asses. Do you? We've won, now pull out and let the bastards fend for themselves.

Sheesh Rebel, you would think this is all about oil. I also thought we were trying to drill our own oil. My bad.

And since some of the leaders are asking us to leave anyway, I agree with you. I'm like for Iraqi sovereignty and stuff.

Molon Labe
08-30-2008, 09:48 PM
I know how you feel. I'm out here in Iraq right now for the 2nd time, the Marine infantry unit who accompanied us lost a LtCol and their SgtMaj was seriously injured due to a suicide bomber. Most guys I know are sick of this war, this sh&tbag country and want this over. I've seen examples of Iraqis that make you so happy to be here helping them, and I've also seen Iraqis that make you want to firebomb this sandbox til it turns to glass.

I'll add to that anecdote. An E7 in my battalion just got back from Iraq in June. He doesn't pay one lick of attention to politics or current events. I asked him how it was over there now as oppossed to 4 years earlier. He said "Hell, If KBR wasn't there, we wouldn't need to be there" Uh Huh....The average soldier gets it.... Follow the f'in money.

marinejcksn
08-31-2008, 12:57 AM
I'll add to that anecdote. An E7 in my battalion just got back from Iraq in June. He doesn't pay one lick of attention to politics or current events. I asked him how it was over there now as oppossed to 4 years earlier. He said "Hell, If KBR wasn't there, we wouldn't need to be there" Uh Huh....The average soldier gets it.... Follow the f'in money.

Hell yes, you said it exactly. This war is over, it's been over for a while now and everyone serving in it knows it. Last time I was here, our Helos were doing rapid inserts, raids, transporting infantry to go blow sh*t up...this time we're transporting V.I.P.s, cargo and other stuff. The main combat role has been completed long ago, now we're here supporting the Almighty Dollar.

KBR is one of the most corrupt, incompetant, piece of Sh*t companies I've ever seen in operation. It really grinds my gears to see GED equivalents making 10 grand a month out here while I make 4. Honestly, if you took every Nation Building position that belongs to KBR and turned it over to the Army Corps of Engineers, Marine Corps Combat Engineers and the Navy SeaBees this dirthole would be built up like Dubai in less then a year.

Meanwhile, KBR can't even wire shower units up properly and 12 guys died due to electrocution...WHILE THEY WERE TAKING A SHOWER.:eek:

Seriously, anyone here who knows me knows I'm a die hard Conservative, even Libertarian on some issues. I'm not anti-war, but it's time for us to end this thing. We accomplished our mission, our troops kicked SERIOUS ass, lets honor what they did by bringing them home soon.

AmPat
08-31-2008, 01:02 AM
Meanwhile, KBR can't even wire shower units up properly and 12 guys died due to electrocution...WHILE THEY WERE TAKING A SHOWER.:eek:
.

I never heard that. OMG! That is horrible.:(

marinejcksn
08-31-2008, 01:12 AM
I never heard that. OMG! That is horrible.:(

There's a good amount of coverage on the net about it. KBR's tied up in civil suits over it from the families. Apparently the electrocutions came from improperly grounded water heaters. Electricity traveled from the improperly ground site through the plumbing and shocked guys to death when they turned on the water.

OwlMBA
08-31-2008, 01:25 AM
There's a good amount of coverage on the net about it. KBR's tied up in civil suits over it from the families. Apparently the electrocutions came from improperly grounded water heaters. Electricity traveled from the improperly ground site through the plumbing and shocked guys to death when they turned on the water.

Thats what they get for using something Made In America!

But seriously, I have read about that and it is absurd and embarrassing.

gator
08-31-2008, 07:30 AM
Seriously, anyone here who knows me knows I'm a die hard Conservative, even Libertarian on some issues. I'm not anti-war, but it's time for us to end this thing. We accomplished our mission, our troops kicked SERIOUS ass, lets honor what they did by bringing them home soon.

If McCain wins we only have 95 more years to go.

jay howard
08-31-2008, 05:52 PM
$79,000,000,000.00 surplus and we're still spending $1,984.13 per second in Iraq for..........help me out here, guys.

Uh, yea, it's called no-bid contracts. You've heard of them. That's what this whole fucking war was about. It's what the people you hate were telling you was going to happen back in 2002-2003.

You and your short fucking memory can't come to terms with the fact that you helped perpetrate the largest theft of the US treasury in history--and now we (and our children) have to pay the bill.

This is EXACTLY what people were saying would happen, and you fucking dolts act like it's a big surprise. Unbelievable. Yet totally believable.

Let's break it down again for those whose bloodlust outweighs their cognitive acuity: Planes hit the buildings, they collapse, 3000 innocent Americans die. US invades Afghanistan 1 1/2 months later. The world still has our backs and our sympathies at this point.

Then the push to invade Iraq begins. News outlets have "military analysts" who, the Pentagon referred to as "message-force multipliers", (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) were given talking points to disseminate for deal-maker access, pushed hard for the war.

Our fearless leaders went down the list of all the reasons we should invade:
They have WMD's--and sure enough, they had a cache of binary sarin. Ooh. I'll bet that kept you up at night.

They are in cahoots with terrorists--yea, the feared Palestinians who couldn't give a damn about invading the US--as if Israel couldn't defend itself.

They had a hand in 9/11: (my personal favorite) which, no matter how hard they looked, all they could come up with was an alleged meeting in Prague between a couple of heavies who didn't appear to have anything in common and from which nothing came.

The Iraqi people needed to be "liberated". This is where I remember saying quite distinctly, "I DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE IRAQIS" yet I was branded the liberal here. Now Rebel Yell and others are finally joining that refrain as if it was the first time they heard it.

Fucking unbelievable. Yet totally believable.

You morons are 100% complicit in allowing the leadership of this country to turd-roll the entire middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest 1% of the population. Now, if you are part of that 1%, then more power to you. But don't pretend you had no idea this was going to turn out like it did: over 4000 US troops killed and TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops permanently injured--including my brother. And for what?

We "liberated" the Iraqis. Great. I couldn't give a fuck then or now. You just now get it. If you had a longer memory or any imagination at all, you could've seen this coming. You are lucky to be able to forget as easily as you do. You probably lose no sleep. Good for you. I will not forget.


.

gator
08-31-2008, 06:27 PM
Uh, yea, it's called no-bid contracts. You've heard of them. That's what this whole fucking war was about. It's what the people you hate were telling you was going to happen back in 2002-2003.

You and your short fucking memory can't come to terms with the fact that you helped perpetrate the largest theft of the US treasury in history--and now we (and our children) have to pay the bill.

This is EXACTLY what people were saying would happen, and you fucking dolts act like it's a big surprise. Unbelievable. Yet totally believable.

Let's break it down again for those whose bloodlust outweighs their cognitive acuity: Planes hit the buildings, they collapse, 3000 innocent Americans die. US invades Afghanistan 1 1/2 months later. The world still has our backs and our sympathies at this point.

Then the push to invade Iraq begins. News outlets have "military analysts" who, the Pentagon referred to as "message-force multipliers", (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) were given talking points to disseminate for deal-maker access, pushed hard for the war.

Our fearless leaders went down the list of all the reasons we should invade:
They have WMD's--and sure enough, they had a cache of binary sarin. Ooh. I'll bet that kept you up at night.

They are in cahoots with terrorists--yea, the feared Palestinians who couldn't give a damn about invading the US--as if Israel couldn't defend itself.

They had a hand in 9/11: (my personal favorite) which, no matter how hard they looked, all they could come up with was an alleged meeting in Prague between a couple of heavies who didn't appear to have anything in common and from which nothing came.

The Iraqi people needed to be "liberated". This is where I remember saying quite distinctly, "I DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE IRAQIS" yet I was branded the liberal here. Now Rebel Yell and others are finally joining that refrain as if it was the first time they heard it.

Fucking unbelievable. Yet totally believable.

You morons are 100% complicit in allowing the leadership of this country to turd-roll the entire middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest 1% of the population. Now, if you are part of that 1%, then more power to you. But don't pretend you had no idea this was going to turn out like it did: over 4000 US troops killed and TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops permanently injured--including my brother. And for what?

We "liberated" the Iraqis. Great. I couldn't give a fuck then or now. You just now get it. If you had a longer memory or any imagination at all, you could've seen this coming. You are lucky to be able to forget as easily as you do. You probably lose no sleep. Good for you. I will not forget.


.

NeoCons acting like morons – “inconceivable”. :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
08-31-2008, 07:40 PM
Fucking unbelievable. Yet totally believable.

You morons are 100% complicit in allowing the leadership of this country to turd-roll the entire middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest 1% of the population. Now, if you are part of that 1%, then more power to you. But don't pretend you had no idea this was going to turn out like it did: over 4000 US troops killed and TENS OF THOUSANDS of troops permanently injured--including my brother. And for what?

Look at you rolling in here laying down the blanket statements.......
as if EVERY conservative was on board with the war and EVERY liberal was against it....

And liberals call us black and white thinkers? :rolleyes:

Look Skippy....Why don't you take a look at the roll call vote for the authorization to use force and see how many on your fucktard Neocon DUmmies are on it..........K?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Oh and as another side.....Might want to go ask that Democratic congressional majority what they've done to fix the problem. They've only had two flippin' years, and the mandate of the people that elected them.

JB
08-31-2008, 07:41 PM
They had a hand in 9/11: (my personal favorite)Who said that? Who ever gave that as a reason? When did President Bush ever say that? When did anyone on CU ever say that?

Goldwater
08-31-2008, 07:44 PM
The Iraq War was bi-partisan. It brings people together. ;)

marinejcksn
09-01-2008, 12:07 AM
Look at you rolling in here laying down the blanket statements.......
as if EVERY conservative was on board with the war and EVERY liberal was against it....

And liberals call us black and white thinkers? :rolleyes:

Look Skippy....Why don't you take a look at the roll call vote for the authorization to use force and see how many on your fucktard Neocon DUmmies are on it..........K?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Oh and as another side.....Might want to go ask that Democratic congressional majority what they've done to fix the problem. They've only had two flippin' years, and the mandate of the people that elected them.

Exactly. I seem to remember Pelousy and Company running on a platform that the Democrats were the solution for our future, they promised to end the war and the bitch said she had a "plan" for the energy crisis.

2 years later, I'm still deploying to this sh*thole country and gas is 60% higher then it was when they took over. Great job idiots. F*&k congress...my 4 year old nephew and 2 year old niece could make better decisions then Nancy and Harry.

jay howard
09-02-2008, 12:15 AM
Look at you rolling in here laying down the blanket statements.......
as if EVERY conservative was on board with the war and EVERY liberal was against it....

And liberals call us black and white thinkers? rolleyes

Look Skippy....Why don't you take a look at the roll call vote for the authorization to use force and see how many on your fucktard Neocon DUmmies are on it..........K?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2002-455

Oh and as another side.....Might want to go ask that Democratic congressional majority what they've done to fix the problem. They've only had two flippin' years, and the mandate of the people that elected them.

I remember quite distinctly being called every name in the book including "troop hater" for opposing this war. Like that made any sense at all. And now you want to act like the dem base was just as active pushing for it? That must be very convenient having a reprogrammable memory like that.

Don't forget about Terrorism czar Richard Clarke--a loyal republican--being very clear about his opposition to the Iraqi war effort. Everyone here claimed he was just trying to sell books. You remember that?

You can take your bipartisan bs and put it right in your colon. I have no problem criticizing the entire congress--they are all weak, career politicians who will do whatever they can to get reelected. It's not them I was trying to have this conversation with 5 years ago. They are useless without their constituencies. It's you morons who pushed and pushed for this war and got EXACTLY what you asked for: American blood for the right to "kick the shit" outta someone--anyone, as long as they kinda looked like the 9/11 hijackers.

Don't be coy now. This is exactly what many people warned against. Anyone who broke from the lockstep of war-mongering was labeled "anti-American" and was ridiculed for being "an appeaser".

Take some ownership: this is the ownership society after all. You don't have anyone else to blame but yourself for this war and the needless lives lost. Thanks, asshole.



.

jay howard
09-02-2008, 12:21 AM
Who said that? Who ever gave that as a reason? When did President Bush ever say that? When did anyone on CU ever say that?

You remember Dick Cheney?


MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

The administration was horny to make a connection between Iraq and 9/11. All this turned out to be baseless. Did you forget this too?


.

jay howard
09-02-2008, 12:28 AM
Exactly. I seem to remember Pelousy and Company running on a platform that the Democrats were the solution for our future, they promised to end the war and the bitch said she had a "plan" for the energy crisis.

2 years later, I'm still deploying to this sh*thole country and gas is 60% higher then it was when they took over. Great job idiots. F*&k congress...my 4 year old nephew and 2 year old niece could make better decisions then Nancy and Harry.

Who is the president? Who has been the president for the last 7 1/2 years? Is he a republican? Is he the most powerful leader in the world? Did his administration make the decision to send American soldiers to Iraq?

This is exactly the kind of messy thinking that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Take your blinders off.


.

JB
09-02-2008, 12:33 AM
The administration was horny to make a connection between Iraq and 9/11. All this turned out to be baseless. Did you forget this too?WTF. Bush specifically said that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission, however, did say that "there were long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq".

jay howard
09-02-2008, 12:36 AM
WTF. Bush specifically said that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11.

The 9/11 Commission, however, did say that "there were long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq".

Did you not read the quote I posted?


.

JB
09-02-2008, 12:39 AM
Did you not read the quote I posted?Did you read mine? The 9/11 Commission established a connection.

marinejcksn
09-02-2008, 02:54 AM
Who is the president? Who has been the president for the last 7 1/2 years? Is he a republican? Is he the most powerful leader in the world? Did his administration make the decision to send American soldiers to Iraq?

This is exactly the kind of messy thinking that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Take your blinders off.

.

Who authorized the use of Military force? Who sent me and my brothers to this country in the first place? Congress, with an overwhelming majority. A lot of us didn't agree with the mission, but we follow orders. We can argue this all day, however you seem to me to just be another typical "lets blame EVERYTHING on George Bush" type person and that disgusts me. He's made some good decisions, he's made a lot of bad ones. We get it. He's not "TEH WORSTEST PREZIDENT OF ALL TIMES!", no matter how many useful idiots hop onto that bandwagon. Anyone who makes the arguement that George Bush is the absolute worst president we've ever had only reveals their own level of ignorance, stupidity and lack of knowledge of this country's history.

You take YOUR blinders off.:rolleyes:

jay howard
09-02-2008, 01:40 PM
Wow. Just wow.

So now it's congress' fault for granting authorization for military action. Is congress the Commander in Chief? Did I totally miss a major restructuring of our government?

Let me be clear here: I am criticizing you, but not your military service. As I've mentioned, my brother served and was injured. That being said, your redirection is so blatantly transparent, there is no other way to describe it than by calling it childish--like a child hiding a cookie behind his back as if his brilliant strategy would derail the cookie investigation.

Yea, that's one of the weakest excuses I've ever seen: it's congress' fault.

Try and imagine if Bill Clinton had gotten us embroiled in Iraq with BILLIONS of dollars pouring out of the national treasury each week and thousands of American casualties. Would that be congress' fault too?

Look, I'm no fan of politicians because they have a (D) or an (R) by their names. I think just about all politicians are p.o.s. But seriously, there is just no way you or anyone else can justifiably blame anyone else but the Bush administration for the Iraq war. And now the economy is squeezed, American lives lost, dollars pouring out into contractors pockets--where they should be going to support the vets and their families--and there is no one else to blame.

I was distinctly alone here in my criticism of the Iraqi invasion and all the reasons for it. I remember clearly saying "I don't give a fuck who Saddam oppresses or not" and all anyone here could do was accuse me of being an appeaser.

I sincerely hope you and all of our soldiers get home safely and quickly so you can all get on with the business of living and working and raising families, but the truth is if this group didn't have the blind bloodlust that it does--to not even question ONE IOTA of data from the administration BACK WHEN IT MATTERED--we could have avoided this clusterfuck. But here we are. And here you are.

But somehow your reasoning process suggests to you that it was congress' fault for authorizing the use of military force. You are a testament to the public relations industry.



.

Molon Labe
09-02-2008, 09:26 PM
Don't be coy now. This is exactly what many people warned against. Anyone who broke from the lockstep of war-mongering was labeled "anti-American" and was ridiculed for being "an appeaser". .

Look Jay...some of us have been screaming about the same thing for years now....on this side of the ballgame. That being against intervention in Iraq is akin to anti American. So just take note that you're preaching to the choir.

Molon Labe
09-02-2008, 09:33 PM
Wow. Just wow.

So now it's congress' fault for granting authorization for military action. Is congress the Commander in Chief? Did I totally miss a major restructuring of our government?

Did it ever occur to you to actually read how war making power was intended? We've slowly, over the past 70 years, ceded the Congress authority to the Executive branch..illegaly. (if you still believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that is). The Congress could tell the President to go to hell when he wants to send troops to war, but they choose not to. It's like a Cop at a red light intersection letting every motorist speed on through without any intervention. Congress just puts it's head in it's ass when an executive has a vision of where and how to use the military.
The constitution is very clear. Congress sends the troops to war. The president is supposed to run it. Now it's his responsiblility to do both by Congressional inaction.....but I haven't seen an amendment saying so. What the hell does law mean if no one follows is?

jay howard
09-03-2008, 05:21 PM
Did it ever occur to you to actually read how war making power was intended? We've slowly, over the past 70 years, ceded the Congress authority to the Executive branch..illegaly.

I'm well aware of what the constitution says regarding the authority of the president to wage it: not without congress's approval. What happened was the executive saw an opportunity to make the democratic minority of congress at the time look like "terrorist appeasers" if they opposed the war authorization bill. The outcome was pretty predictable: the republican majority was in lockstep the the Bush admin and their was hardly a peep of dissent in either body of congress.

It was an orchestrated move the administration saw as an opportunity to grab more power and to hell with the constitution.

Sure, congress is filled with a bunch of pussies whose primary concern is re-election. But to put the onus of responsibility for the consolidation executive power--in direct contradiction to the constitution--on them, NOT the Bush administration, is just a big excuse to avoid criticism of the Bush admin.

The president's administration did it--no one else. The congress was republican at the time anyway. They're not in the business of bucking their own party--especially not in the relative aftermath of 9/11.


It's like a Cop at a red light intersection letting every motorist speed on through without any intervention. Congress just puts it's head in it's ass when an executive has a vision of where and how to use the military.?

No, it's not like a cop letting people run a red light. It's more like a president scaring the shit out of people about a domestically harmless dictator and branding anyone who disagrees with him a "terrorist sympathizer". You remember: "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"?

It's just amazing how anyone can possibly even try to frame the shitfest that is the Iraq war as anyone else's fault except the current administration's. Whenever such a transparent attempt to rewrite history comes up, I always try to imagine what the reaction would have been if Bill Clinton had made the same decisions. Would you still be trying to make some weak attempt to blame congress in order to avoid recognizing the source of the decisions?

I seriously doubt it. Take some responsibility for Christ's sake. You wanted this war and you supported the Bush administration on just about every decision they made regarding the invasion. Don't pretend you were some big dissenter. That's pure bs. I was here. Dissenters were not tolerated lightly--not that I got banned, but certainly people tried. No self-respecting conservative on this site argued at ALL why we SHOULDN'T go into Iraq.



.

Molon Labe
09-03-2008, 09:13 PM
Sure, congress is filled with a bunch of pussies whose primary concern is re-election. But to put the onus of responsibility for the consolidation executive power--in direct contradiction to the constitution--on them, NOT the Bush administration, is just a big excuse to avoid criticism of the Bush admin.

It's just amazing how anyone can possibly even try to frame the shitfest that is the Iraq war as anyone else's fault except the current administration's.

I'm not trying to frame it as an either or....In my opinion it is the sick health of the federal government. Of Course Bushy has the main responsibility....but a weak do nothing congress that has ceded this power from Korea to Vietnam doesn't get a free ride in my book.

marinejcksn
09-04-2008, 02:24 AM
I'm not trying to frame it as an either or....In my opinion it is the sick health of the federal government. Of Course Bushy has the main responsibility....but a weak do nothing congress that has ceded this power from Korea to Vietnam doesn't get a free ride in my book.

Here here. What Howard has to understand is that I know the Bush Administration has made some bad choices. I KNOW that coming to Iraq was one of this country's biggest policy blunders. I'm here, I've seen it and nobody wants to acknowledge that for all the bad, a lot of good was accomplished. I'm so sick and tired of the relentless Bush bashing by the uber Left. You hate Bush, we get it. Do you have any other tracks on this broken record or are you going to play Side A from here to eternity?

The main responsibility falls on Bush, ok I understand that. But Congress had the power to stop him and did nothing. That makes the death of over 4,000 of my brothers on their hands just as much.

And put the entire thing into context. Yes, over 4000 great young men and women dying is never ok. But in terms of US lives or the sacrifices this country has made for the war, this war has been one of the least costly in our nation's history.

Finally, I'm just so tired of people on the Left relentlessly beating Bush while acting like their side is infallable. The Progressives in America have produced some of the worst Presidents to ever occupy the Oval Office, from the fascistic Woodrow Wilson, to one of this country's biggest stiflers of Liberty in FDR, to abominations like LBJ and Carter. If Conservatives are to constantly attone for our sins (and GWB is NOT a real Conservative), the least we can ask for is Progressives to do the same.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-04-2008, 08:35 AM
This is the same argument that some (including myself) have used about our own off-shore drilling expansion: What will make private corporations sell it to the United States and not the highest bidder, like China?


Nothing, but it WILL add to world wide supply. China will buy what it needs from somewhere, the oil they would have otherwised purchased is now available to someone else.

2 million barrels per day world wide is all we need to return to prices we had in 2000.

jay howard
09-04-2008, 05:20 PM
I'm not trying to frame it as an either or....In my opinion it is the sick health of the federal government. Of Course Bushy has the main responsibility....but a weak do nothing congress that has ceded this power from Korea to Vietnam doesn't get a free ride in my book.

Molon, why would congress have opposed the Bush admin in 2002--shortly after 9/11, AND still a republican majority in both houses?

It was Senator Byrd's lone voice of dissent during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. He was incredulous that no one else thought it necessary to argue the pros and cons of military action against a country who--although not an ally--certainly did not appear to pose a direct threat to America. And yet I cannot recall much dissent at that time.

So, it's no surprise that a republican congress backed a republican administration. The will to oppose the invasion HAD to come from the American people. Government is powerless without our consent--at least in going to war overseas. Rebel Yell's frustration that he's "sick of supporting this war, fuck the iraqis" is a bit late.

We could have saved over 4000 military deaths and tens of thousands of life-altering injuries if there was just some bit of forethought about the very obvious consequences of invading a country: i.e., a shit ton of money, lives, resources, general psychological welfare of our soldiers, destabilization of Iraq from the power vacuum, etc.

My frustration is that none of these considerations were so unpredictable that we just couldn't foresee them before the invasion. Anyone that claims so, well, they had to be willfully ignorant--not only to the data available, but to the history of war in general. I remember some general giving congressional testimony around 2002 who said the average invasion of the sort proposed lasts about 9 years--in the 20th century. I remember Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's top economic advisor, saying the war would realistically cost around $200 billion--then he was summarily dismissed for proposing such a ludicrously high cost.

But there were no shortage of cheerleaders here or elsewhere--people who call themselves "conservatives"--who cheered Bush for promising "no nation building" during his campaign. But somehow, the combination of loyalty and bloodlust prevented the use of critical thinking skills.

Next time your government asks you to support the invasion of a country because our leaders say they are a threat to freedom, it would be in everyone's interest if you question the wisdom of our betters--even at the risk of being labeled "anti-American".



.

jay howard
09-04-2008, 05:32 PM
Here here. What Howard has to understand is that I know the Bush Administration has made some bad choices. I KNOW that coming to Iraq was one of this country's biggest policy blunders. I'm here, I've seen it and nobody wants to acknowledge that for all the bad, a lot of good was accomplished. I'm so sick and tired of the relentless Bush bashing by the uber Left. You hate Bush, we get it. Do you have any other tracks on this broken record or are you going to play Side A from here to eternity?

The main responsibility falls on Bush, ok I understand that. But Congress had the power to stop him and did nothing. That makes the death of over 4,000 of my brothers on their hands just as much.

And put the entire thing into context. Yes, over 4000 great young men and women dying is never ok. But in terms of US lives or the sacrifices this country has made for the war, this war has been one of the least costly in our nation's history.

Finally, I'm just so tired of people on the Left relentlessly beating Bush while acting like their side is infallable. The Progressives in America have produced some of the worst Presidents to ever occupy the Oval Office, from the fascistic Woodrow Wilson, to one of this country's biggest stiflers of Liberty in FDR, to abominations like LBJ and Carter. If Conservatives are to constantly attone for our sins (and GWB is NOT a real Conservative), the least we can ask for is Progressives to do the same.



For the record, I supported Ron Paul for president. Everyone else on the ballot is either an idiot, a tool or just a good salesman.

So, the war is both good and bad? And it's both the Bush admin's fault and congress's fault?

I would argue that if you put all the good that has come about from the Iraq war in one hand, (removal of Hussein, some public works projects, a fledgling democracy), and all the bad in the other (4300 US soldiers dead and counting, nearly $1 trillion pricetag, fledgling al Qaida training camps, introduction of suicide bombers in Iraq), it's not hard to conclude that it was not worth it.

Now, the kneejerk reaction to this sentiment is that anyone who would utter such a thought is disparaging the dead. Make no mistake--I argued vehemently against EVER going to that Godforsaken shithole FROM THE START. So any attempt to accuse me of "insulting the sacrifice made" must ignore the fact that I NEVER thought the war was worth a single American soldier's life to begin with.

Fuck the congress. Fuck the administration.

It's the American people--especially the conservative base--that were the loudest war drum beaters--who made absolutely NO EFFORT to look into the administration's claims for war. My frustration is that now everything that "the radical left" warned you about is coming true and the people here act like it's a big surprise. You wanted blood, you got it. But it cost everyone, and I do NOT think the benefits outweigh the costs.


.

Molon Labe
09-04-2008, 07:06 PM
It was Senator Byrd's lone voice of dissent during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. He was incredulous that no one else thought it necessary to argue the pros and cons of military action against a country who--although not an ally--certainly did not appear to pose a direct threat to America. And yet I cannot recall much dissent at that time.

Of course a Republican congress would support the President....but let's not act like this feature is something unique to the Republican party when they have home field advantage. You are correct though that the nays were pretty partisan in favor of the Democrats.
There were plenty of very strong dissenters other than Bird....Kucinich, Paul. Paul was probably the strongest dissenter on the Republican side...and a much stronger dissenter than Bird. He went so far as to actually draw up a bill declaing war on Iraq...knowing fully well not one person would allow it to come to a vote.

marinejcksn
09-05-2008, 01:47 AM
True Conservatives who root themselves in Libertarianism opposed the war. Neocons who THINK they're real Conservatives beat the war drum. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" has damaged the conservative base tremendously.

I've read Dr. Paul's "the revolution" last week Jay, he should've been our candidate.

I just hope the government doesn't use the Al Qaeda moniker to invade whatever country they want again. Our combat knowledge of AQ and it's operatives has increased tremendously over the past 6 years we've been fighting them. Preventing terrorism by increasing REAL security measures instead of merely the ILLUSION of security (Much like what the Transportation Screw-up Administration provides) is what needs to be focused on, because unless resorting to guerilla tactics and terrorist acts AQ is a pathetic enemy. We've kicked their ass all over Iraq and Afghanistan. We just need to finish what we started, honor the troops and get our Military the hell out of the Middle East forever. Realistically guys like Bin Laden have historically never been able to rally men to their cause when simply envoking Islam and the possibility of being a Martyr, they've rallied muslims who're sick of seeing Americans stationed in the Middle East.

gator
09-05-2008, 07:10 AM
True Conservatives who root themselves in Libertarianism opposed the war. Neocons who THINK they're real Conservatives beat the war drum. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" has damaged the conservative base tremendously.

I've read Dr. Paul's "the revolution" last week Jay, he should've been our candidate.

I just hope the government doesn't use the Al Qaeda moniker to invade whatever country they want again. Our combat knowledge of AQ and it's operatives has increased tremendously over the past 6 years we've been fighting them. Preventing terrorism by increasing REAL security measures instead of merely the ILLUSION of security (Much like what the Transportation Screw-up Administration provides) is what needs to be focused on, because unless resorting to guerilla tactics and terrorist acts AQ is a pathetic enemy. We've kicked their ass all over Iraq and Afghanistan. We just need to finish what we started, honor the troops and get our Military the hell out of the Middle East forever. Realistically guys like Bin Laden have historically never been able to rally men to their cause when simply envoking Islam and the possibility of being a Martyr, they've rallied muslims who're sick of seeing Americans stationed in the Middle East.

You are correct.

We have no business being involved in Middle East politics. We were stupid to get ourselves involved in the mess we are in now. We should just finish the job and then extract ourselves from entanglements that have nothing to do with our own security. If the terrorists decided to follow us home then they will get another ass whipping.

jay howard
09-05-2008, 09:56 AM
True Conservatives who root themselves in Libertarianism opposed the war. Neocons who THINK they're real Conservatives beat the war drum. Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" has damaged the conservative base tremendously.

I've read Dr. Paul's "the revolution" last week Jay, he should've been our candidate.

Amen.


I just hope the government doesn't use the Al Qaeda moniker to invade whatever country they want again. Our combat knowledge of AQ and it's operatives has increased tremendously over the past 6 years we've been fighting them. Preventing terrorism by increasing REAL security measures instead of merely the ILLUSION of security (Much like what the Transportation Screw-up Administration provides) is what needs to be focused on, because unless resorting to guerilla tactics and terrorist acts AQ is a pathetic enemy. We've kicked their ass all over Iraq and Afghanistan. We just need to finish what we started, honor the troops and get our Military the hell out of the Middle East forever. Realistically guys like Bin Laden have historically never been able to rally men to their cause when simply envoking Islam and the possibility of being a Martyr, they've rallied muslims who're sick of seeing Americans stationed in the Middle East.


Our intervention in Iraq was Bin Laden's and AQ's greatest recruiting tool. They probably cheered the fucking invasion.

LogansPapa
09-05-2008, 10:26 AM
We have no business being involved in Middle East politics. We were stupid to get ourselves involved in the mess we are in now.

Our Bibles give us all the moral license we need to "correct" things in that part of the world.;)

wineslob
09-05-2008, 11:40 AM
Gee, a Libtard circlejerk. Get out your raincoats..............

jay howard
09-05-2008, 02:05 PM
Gee, a Libtard circlejerk. Get out your raincoats..............

So I take it you prefer to send American soldiers in harms way in Iraq?

Has our involvement in that war benefitted you in any real way or do you just like the idea of "America kickin' ass, 'cause freedom ain't free"? Do you like to beat off to dead American soldiers? That get you off?

You cover your keyboard with saran wrap (TM) whenever there's a kickass military update?

Did the threat of an Iraqi invasion of America keep you up at night, shivering in your bed with fear of the Saddam Hussein and his evil Republican Guard?

If you bought that bullshit, you are complicit in the deaths of our military men and women. Thanks, you piece of shit.


.

AmPat
09-05-2008, 10:03 PM
Amen.




Our intervention in Iraq was Bin Laden's and AQ's greatest recruiting tool. They probably cheered the fucking invasion.

Most of those who joined were looking for a cause, I agree. We gave them an excuse. Of course to those, any excuse would have worked.

The unexpected dividend is that most of the Cheerleaders are stinking and rotting in their graves now. Bad choices=bad consquences.

jay howard
09-06-2008, 07:39 PM
Most of those who joined were looking for a cause, I agree. We gave them an excuse. Of course to those, any excuse would have worked.

The unexpected dividend is that most of the Cheerleaders are stinking and rotting in their graves now. Bad choices=bad consquences.

That's reassuring. Good thing we killed all the bad guys.

Do you honestly believe we've killed all the AQ recruits?


.

marinejcksn
09-07-2008, 02:19 AM
That's reassuring. Good thing we killed all the bad guys.

Do you honestly believe we've killed all the AQ recruits?

.

Not all the recruits, but I know for a fact they're having a harder time then ever getting people to volunteer. They've been decimated in Iraq and Afghanistan and resort to using the mentally handicapped to carry out homicide bombings that they remote detonate. When it comes to that, I'm pretty sure they aren't having hundreds of people sign up to become "martyrs".

If we finish what we started and pull out of the region after victory they'll have limited resources to rally idiots to their cause.

lacarnut
09-07-2008, 03:50 PM
One thing that politicians and military brass should have embellished on their foreheads is that Americans get weary of war after 3 or 4 years. We want it over by that time line. Either use massive force to get it over quickly or stay the hell out.

The Saudis and Kuwait's should be giving us free oil as compensation for protecting them from a takeover by S.H. They should also provide large sums to our fallen soldiers. It is time to get out of this shit-hole.

Molon Labe
09-07-2008, 03:58 PM
Our intervention in Iraq was Bin Laden's and AQ's greatest recruiting tool. They probably cheered the fucking invasion.

But here is also why it's not simply a Bush or a Republican thing when it comes to radicalising Islamic extremism recruiting.

Bill Clinton and other's in Western Europe were also complicit in the 90's with assuring that their Balkan venture helped perpetuate Muslim hatred. Instead of leaving the situation to be decided by the opposing actors in the former Yugoslavia, he assured that it was okie dokie for radical extremists to come help other Muslims, when we just should have stayed out of the way.
The only difference between Bushy and Clinton is that Bushy put 10 times as many troops on the ground and thinks Nation building is even more cool when you do it an preemptive war.
Clinton sent the U.S. troops overseas 44 times during his tenure.

AmPat
09-08-2008, 02:25 AM
That's reassuring. Good thing we killed all the bad guys.

Do you honestly believe we've killed all the AQ recruits?


.

***Yawn***
Strange, I didn't think you were this stupid. Apparently you believe I am.