Japedo Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It's nice to know who exactly are accountable... especially when it is about an attack to kill, especially innocent people. "If we aren't going to hold them accountable, who will?" Amanda, You can not strike first because you believe that someone may strike you first. It is an act of aggression. This makes the US the aggressors. Waging war on a country that had no means or way to do harm to us in the first place is a joke. Anything coming from the ME from this point on is an answer to that act of aggression, they have the right to defend themselves. their country and their lives. Regardless of how you "feel". You can not be the first to attack and then claim you were only defending yourself. Would you accept this excuse from your children? If you saw your oldest son punch your smallest son in the face and bloodied his nose would you defend the aggressor? would you accept the excuse that the smaller child was going to hit him first so he defended himself? Putting it in simple terms you are in a sense defending the aggressor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Amanda, You can not strike first because you believe that someone may strike you first. You certainly can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 You certainly can. well you can but that would make you the aggressor and not the defender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 You certainly can. well you can but that would make you the aggressor and not the defender. I just don't know about that Japedo. I wonder what Sun Tzu would say about it. We all anticipate things. Sometimes our anticipations are inacurate. If someone knew beyond a resonable doubt that someone else was going to attack them and they couldn't run away then why would striking first not be defensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 You certainly can. well you can but that would make you the aggressor and not the defender. I just don't know about that Japedo. I wonder what Sun Tzu would say about it. We all anticipate things. Sometimes our anticipations are inacurate. If someone knew beyond a resonable doubt that someone else was going to attack them and they couldn't run away then why would not striking first be defensive? Well, Backed into a corner type of situation ya mean? The person doing the cornering is setting up an act of aggression from that standpoint and one is allowed to leave the corner (if you will) by any means necessary. That would be considered a defensive move I agree. I do not see that the US was in this type of situation however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Well, Backed into a corner type of situation ya mean? Yeah, I suppose that's what I mean. The person doing the cornering is setting up an act of aggression from that standpoint and one is allowed to leave the corner (if you will) by any means necessary. That would be considered a defensive move I agree. I do not see that the US was in this type of situation however. Okay, that's cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Oh my, Japedo, I apologize, I was using your post merely as an example, not to mean anything personal towards you and I failed to explain that....Sorry. I understand if you do not want to use the kinds of measures me and my cohorts. I would never suggest that of anyone who would have a problem with them should such measures. If you go after someone, you had better be ready for the political version of blood and guts and you need the stomach to do that, otherwise you will simply torture yourself. I simply put this information out there for anyone wanting to do something and who does not know what to do. It's okay BO! It's all good, I know you and I differ (we already publicly danced that dance LOL) which is why I was taken back a little by the post.. but It's all good, Thanks for clarifying! I understand on something's the best answer is we'll agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 It's nice to know who exactly are accountable... especially when it is about an attack to kill, especially innocent people. "If we aren't going to hold them accountable, who will?" Amanda, You can not strike first because you believe that someone may strike you first. It is an act of aggression. This makes the US the aggressors. Waging war on a country that had no means or way to do harm to us in the first place is a joke. Bin Laden and Iraq - - - - - The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999. Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor. THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ... Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying. "We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes." The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ... - - - - - U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999. Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks. ... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism." .... - - - - - The Observer. December 19, 1999. Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour of fundamentalists. By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad ... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq. Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ... - - - - - United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle. WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ... - - - - - Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION. BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE By: From Beacon Journal wire services DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN: ... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq. A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial.... - - - - - The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday. International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries By Rich Hood ... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States.... - - - - - Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition. SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk. HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow.... - - - - - National Public Radio (NPR) MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET) February 18, 1999. THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER ... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq. Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place. SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony.... - - - - - Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999. Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries." ... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week..... - - - - - Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq DATELINE: Kuwait City An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours. The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan. Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania. The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq .... - - - - - Associated Press Worldstream. February 14, 1999. Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown ... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited. Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history .... - - - - - San Jose Mercury News (California). February 14, 1999 Sunday MORNING FINAL EDITION U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ... Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq. ... (in) late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world. Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ... More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ... "The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official.... - - - - - Associated Press Worldstream. February 13, 1999; Saturday 14:32 Eastern Time Bin Laden said to have left Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown ... It is very unlikely bin Laden could remain in Afghanistan without Taliban officials knowing his whereabouts. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq. U.S. officials believe bin Laden masterminded the Aug. 7 bombings of its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania ... Bin Laden urged devout Muslims to attack U.S. and British interests in retaliation for their joint assault on Iraq. U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban hand over bin Laden, who has been indicted in a U.S. court on murder charges in connection with the bombings. But the Taliban had refused. - - - - - The Bulletin's Frontrunner. January 4, 1999, Monday. Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S. ... Time also reported, "For now, the White House will respond to each provocation by counterattacking the offending battery." Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden. Newsweek (1/11, Contreras) reported, "U.S. sources say (Saddam) is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden." ... (Osama bin Laden was) calling for all-out war on Americans, using as his main pretext Washington's role in bombing and boycotting Iraq." In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.... - - - - - The White House Bulletin. Copyright 1999. Bulletin Broadfaxing Network, Inc. In a Newsweek interview, bin Laden said that "'any American who pays taxes to his government," is a legitimate target." Newsweek reported, "The idea of an alliance between Iraq and bin Laden is alarming to the West," although "Saddam may think he's too good for such an association." However, "Now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective, he.... - - - - - United Press International. January 3, 1999, Sunday, BC cycle. UPI Focus: Bin Laden 'instigated' embassy bombings ... (The Taliban) government in Afghanistan says the Saudi does not have the money to finance projects in the country. Newsweek also reported that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been making new overtures to bin Laden in an attempt to rebuild his intelligence network and to create his own terror network.... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887 As I recall, they were the ones to strike at us first... as this all came about after the 9/11 attack on us. Remember? News articles from around the world seem to indicate that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did almost everything but propose marriage to each other. Further, that Saddam Hussein courted any terrorist faction that was against us or our allies. Now, what were we suppose to wait for in regards to defending our country? Japedo, are you suggesting we should have waited to be hit AGAIN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 I'm impressed Amanda. I think you make a fine case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Funny you post all that Amanada but Iraq's WMDs an imminant threat to the USA was the reason the American public was given for the invasion. OBL was not the focus of our Iraqi invasion, who in any case was a Saudi as were the hijakers. A Suadi who has ties to the Bush family. When there was no WMD the battle cry changed to toppling Saddam to bring Iraq freedom. Then it became "stay the course" to prop up a weak and failing government in the midst of a civil war. OBL didn't instigate this civil war. Now it's "Surge to finally crush the terrorists" and to "keep the faith with the troops" and to "avoid defeatism". When this fails, and it will almost certainly fail (though I would love for our guys to actually pull it off), what will be the next battle cry and reason for continuing Bush's war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Now it's "Surge to finally crush the terrorists" and to "keep the faith with the troops" and to "avoid defeatism". When this fails, and it will almost certainly fail (though I would love for our guys to actually pull it off), what will be the next battle cry and reason for continuing Bush's war? Why would you love for our guys to pull it off Vixen? Wouldn't you rather see them come home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Funny you post all that Amanada but Iraq's WMDs an imminant threat to the USA was the reason the American public was given for the invasion. OBL was not the focus of our Iraqi invasion, who in any case was a Saudi as were the hijakers. As I previously sited in this thread, those articles around the world claimed: "We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes." ... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States.... But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony.... "The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official.... Defiant Saddam Looks To Provoke U.S. Saddam Reaching Out To bin Laden. We don't go after someone just because they have WMD. Many countries have that. They also have to be an eminent threat to the US, deemed so by the congress and the UN. Reports were coming from all around the world Saddam was doing whatever he could to be an eminent threat. So, now knowing Al Qaeda's firm desire to further their ventures through Iraq... do we now wait till we can actually find them with WMD? How would we find out? Once they attack us AGAIN? A Suadi who has ties to the Bush family. When there was no WMD the battle cry changed to toppling Saddam to bring Iraq freedom. Then it became "stay the course" to prop up a weak and failing government in the midst of a civil war. OBL didn't instigate this civil war. Now it's "Surge to finally crush the terrorists" and to "keep the faith with the troops" and to "avoid defeatism". When this fails, and it will almost certainly fail (though I would love for our guys to actually pull it off), what will be the next battle cry and reason for continuing Bush's war? What's wrong with a Saudi having ties to the Bush family. Don't we like Arabs? I think it was to bring stability to Iraq, so that terrorists can't hide amongst innocent people. Hussein and his ilk seemed to have no problem hiding in schools, hospitals, mosques, etc. A civil war aided the cause of terrorists. Holding terrorists accountable for their actions against us is a bad thing? Asking the American people to keep the faith that we can hold those who attack us accountable is a bad thing? Avoid being defeated by the terrorists is also a bad thing? Are you saying the time has come to question some of Bush's present strategies? If so, I'd agree. Even this new general says we must implement other strategies besides this war. Now... who has a good idea in these regards? BTW, no one that is in a significant US political position just says to put up the white flag and go home, that I know. Obama, who was always against the war but avoids criticism, has some interesting ideas. IMO, we need a new approach while still asserting our right to exist and respect of our boundaries. I like what little I've heard from Obama so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Now it's "Surge to finally crush the terrorists" and to "keep the faith with the troops" and to "avoid defeatism". When this fails, and it will almost certainly fail (though I would love for our guys to actually pull it off), what will be the next battle cry and reason for continuing Bush's war? Why would you love for our guys to pull it off Vixen? Wouldn't you rather see them come home? I'd rather see them come home with there being stability in Iraq since they are stuck there now for a while anyway. They are not coming home any time soon even if all funding was cut. It would take months to pull everything out. So, yes, I would be happy if they could pull off some sort of 'miracle" and get things in order there with the time they have alloted. Would you rather they failed while waiting for the politicicans to get them home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Conspicio Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Used to think that the war in Iraq was a noble goal. Then we found out about no WMDs. Then one of my high school buddies got shot and killed over there. What on earth did he die for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 SUVs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightbearer Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 SUVs Congratulations, you win the Most Original and Enlightend Award! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 SUVs Congratulations, you win the Most Original and Enlightend Award! Thanks... I thought it pithy... and the word is enlightened... sarcasm works so much better when it's spelled correctly... So, why do you think you're fighting in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 So, why do you think you're fighting in Iraq? Hey Grandpa Harley, why do you think you guys are there? BTW, I suspect that the UK, like the US, gets the majority of their oil from Canada and Mexico too. Saudi Arabia is about 7th. Iraq is probably not on the list, or at least farther down. They are not that important for us in that area. Only in that the monetary resources gained from it would have been to attack more specifically the UK and us. And, I'd like to know... this proposed war over oil... are we stealing it? Are we making anyone give it to us? Or are they selling something to anyone who will purchase it, and we happen to be a customer? Also, what do you think will happen to all the oil suppliers if we were to switch to helium 3? Their lifestyles may drastically be altered. Please feel free to correct my grammar and spelling. Gosh... you're good at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 So, why do you think you're fighting in Iraq? Hey Grandpa Harley, why do you think you guys are there? BTW, I suspect that the UK, like the US, gets the majority of their oil from Canada and Mexico too. Saudi Arabia is about 7th. Iraq is probably not on the list, or at least farther down. They are not that important for us in that area. Only in that the monetary resources gained from it would have been to attack more specifically the UK and us. And, I'd like to know... this proposed war over oil... are we stealing it? Are we making anyone give it to us? Or are they selling something to anyone who will purchase it, and we happen to be a customer? Also, what do you think will happen to all the oil suppliers if we were to switch to helium 3? Their lifestyles may drastically be altered. Please feel free to correct my grammar and spelling. Gosh... you're good at that. Rather like you can't have too much money, you can't have too much oil. Economics is the only thing left, since Saddam had no love of the west, but also no love of Islamic terrorist groups, his lifestyle being equally threatened by them. The WMDs were never there, despite the fact a lot of the current administration were either selling them the raw materials, or had family who were doing so. As to why the UK is there... I personally think it's the fact that UKGOV can't deal with the idea that it is, globally, a spent force. We don't run a third of the planet any more... also Oil and money. and you want a fusion reactor in your car? He-3 won't make plastics or the usual fun things we use petro-chem for... Why do you think we're there? For the ruins of Babylon? Addendum - on grammar, I'd suggest answering a question with a question simply implies you don't have an answer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightbearer Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 SUVs Congratulations, you win the Most Original and Enlightend Award! Thanks... I thought it pithy... and the word is enlightened... sarcasm works so much better when it's spelled correctly... So, why do you think you're fighting in Iraq? Minor typo, minor typo. "Grammatic Nazism" doesn't enforce your point either, it just says you don't have a stronger refutation. I realize that was a little pithy and I was going to apologize. But the original point still stands valid -- SUVs=Iraq War thing is just so overused. Repeating it doesn't add any more truth to it. We are in Iraq because the people who made the decision to go in thought it there was a threat and a reason. They also thought spreading democracy in a noble crusader type fashion would help the people and maybe, help us, but more importantly help them. Even if it wastes lives and drains wallets. The validity of that is what should be in question. Until you provide the minutes of the meeting where it was decided that Saddam needed to go because of the oil in his country, i'm not buying into it and no one else should either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Addendum - on grammar, I'd suggest answering a question with a question simply implies you don't have an answer... Grandpa Harley... why am I NOT surprised at this remark from you? Considering my long posts on this thread addressing that very subject... this statement merely shows your jab and dodge techniques. It's easy to do on an internet forum, however, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't hide amongst the weak, vulnerable, or hospitalized... but one never knows. My vote goes to you sticking to grammar instead of logic/deduction... as your post reflects you just don't seem to pay long term attention enough to do the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 The validity of that is what should be in question. Until you provide the minutes of the meeting where it was decided that Saddam needed to go because of the oil in his country, i'm not buying into it and no one else should either. Some people get confused by the facts, so they avoid them. Glad to see there are those like you, that still want to see proof. BTW, I found the article you sited on this thread, of terrorists attacking the totally innocent, very enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 I'm impressed Amanda. I think you make a fine case. Really? By posting a bunch of debunked claims, which were likely a mix of misinformation and overzealous reporting? But even if all this were true, did we in fact invade Iraq because we thought that at one point their president may or may not have aided Bin Laden? If so, why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia? You guys are starting from the idea that your government does no wrong and can't see past the fact that this whole war was built on lies. It's like debating creationism with a christian who assumes from the get go the concept of creation. As far as troops just pulling up and coming home now, I doubt that this is a viable alternative at this point. We created a power vacuum where none existed, now we have to live with it. As I stated at the begining of this thread, those who instigated this war probably saw this scenario unfolding from the start. They just didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 We are in Iraq because the people who made the decision to go in thought it there was a threat and a reason. They also thought spreading democracy in a noble crusader type fashion would help the people and maybe, help us, but more importantly help them. Spoken like a true victim of the American propaganda campaign. It's great you show such a propensity toward thinking on your own LB. As for your grammar errors, your posts are in general riddled with them. Not to mention the fact that they betray a mix of muddled thinking and parroting of your Objectivist ideology. You asked me to take you seriously as a scholar. This is why I cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 Talked via satphone to a contractor bud in Iraq today. He can't say specifically where, but he and Team are knees deep in warm body parts and blood as they provide Combat Medical Services to various contractees. Yeah, he and Teams are armed, well armed. (I'd be there if these fuckin' kidneys hadn't failed, moeny offered after a year and a half, three tours, would have paid off ALL my consumer debts..) Anyway, the mess the Allies have left has done little to do shit to help anyone up to a few moments ago to do anything for anyones living standards. Injured and dying of every side still continue to swamp their little three Doctor, five Nurse, 20-odd Paramed, 50 or so EMT grade medic sandbag and tin roof clinics. Think "MASH" but with weapons and rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves with vigor.. Cut short of supplies, not allowed to practice medicine in brick and mortar Hospitals and clinics, and not recognised by any of the various sides, governments or factions. Crazy fuckers are out there doing what they can with as little concealment as posible. Seems that the *natives* have not shot them up or bombed the 'infidels' due in part to the almost total drain of local medical professionals. Either murdered in ethnic shit, or just left to a place where shit isn't so *boomable*. My bud, his M-16 and assorted other men and a few women are the last hope of hundreds if not thousands of people who have no place to flee, or ability to do so. All this shit done on donations and provenence of little town fuckers like the 5th St BBQ Cooking Society and Milita sending gift boxes of what we can score here in Land of Big PX. Multiply that by the various places and persons paying for this shit out of pocket, and not from UnkaSham, in a few hundreds, this is what "Free Enterprise" is doing. uS and UK residents, it is PAST FUCKING TIME to be demanding of your elected public servants "WHERE IS THE FUCKING MONEY GOING?" It, the coin we're bleeding, sure isn't going to repairing the hurts and injuries of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan after shit gets blown to phukk 'n back.. Nothing good is going to come from Iraq folks. We're in the hole, where our callous and calculating Admin put us, for a long haul now. Trickle down economics doesn't exist in Iraq, there seems to be no money for *the little people* we allegedly went in to 'help'. Do the fuckin' math, and follow the money trails. See who is benefitting from this Occidental clusterfuck. Do the homework, and find that this once rabid right wing, "Regan can do no wrong" Republican woke up... k, wishing this church hadn't opened, FL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts