Our Losses in Iraq...

Status
Not open for further replies.
W lied to the whole of America too. About Saddam being a threat to our security.
Click to expand...
You know, I'm getting more than a little tired of this "Bush lied" thing.

WE_ARE_AT_WAR!

Telling all in a public venue is a really stupid way to run a war.

We as a nation need to realize how LUCKY we got on 9/11! 2 or 3 hours later and we would have lost maybe 100,000 people in the towers and who knows what with the 4th plane
Click to expand...
Stuff and nonsense. Luck had nothing to do with it. It was planned that way from the beginning.

*Luck* wasn't one the 4th plane either. Plain old guts stopped that plane, not luck.
 
You know, I'm getting more than a little tired of this "Bush lied" thing.

WE_ARE_AT_WAR!

Telling all in a public venue is a really stupid way to run a war.
Click to expand...

Do you have a copy of the declaration of war issued by congress? I could be wrong, but I don't believe congress does either.
 
But just who are we at war with
Click to expand...
<sarcasm>
Well,,, considering all the stuff uncovered in Iraq,,,, with all the French and German writing on it,,,, if it were up to me,,, I'd start with those two.

Oh - wait - we can't. They're our friends...
</sarcasm>
 
It is Osama bin laden trying to make this a religious war. By stating that Bush is a crusader he is trying to unite the Muslim world against the West. Osama was ticked off whenever the US had troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and set foot on Islamic holy ground. This desecration was the justification for his attacking the Great Satan.

Saying Clinton had nothing to do with 9/11 is a rather uninformed statement. He had several chances to get Osama bin laden and failed to do so each time. Every attempt to combat terrorism was left unfinished after the press conference or speech. I am still waiting for him to do something about the USS Cole bombing. Maybe he joined forces with OJ Simpson in finding the killers. The war in Serbia was a joke. He almost exhausted our cruise missile supply in a desparate attempt to avoid US casualties. He was more concerned about avoiding any casualty for political reasons than he was in carrying out the war. He also went in without a UN Mandate and spent almost as much on that as was spent in Iraq and we are still there.

People need to read the book The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis about the Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Building and the Iraqi connection. Check out www.jaynadavis.com For those thinking this is some kook conspiracy read the book. Lest we all forget Iraq did sponsor terrorism in the 1990s just as Libya did during the 1980s. Did people forget about 9/11? This necessitated our elevated response to terrorism.

Even if you did not agree with the war, the troops are present and if we should have learned anything over the last fifty years it is that we need to properly finish a war lest we have another North and South Korea, another Vietnam, another first Gulf War, and another Somalia.
 
no one died when Clinton lied
Click to expand...
If he had been minding the country instead of his dick, there's a good chance 9/11 might never have happened.

Happens all the time everywhere. One incompetent person's messes are cleaned up by others--and inevitably the problems associated with the mess are blamed on the CLEANER not the MESSER.

Oh, sorry, that was logic, wasn't it? I hope I didn't alarm you. I meant to say--"That must be right--because it rhymes. And what a touching picture--I know what's right and wrong when I look at it because of the emotions it evokes." :rolleyes:
 
Even if you did not agree with the war, the troops are present and if we should have learned anything over the last fifty years it is that we need to properly finish a war lest we have another North and South Korea, another Vietnam, another first Gulf War, and another Somalia.
Click to expand...

Right on my friend. :D

Just as an aside do you think that if we HAD killed Osama that it would have prevented 9/11. My thinking is NO. Maybe if we got the whole "Head Shed" of his org. it would have delayed things, but sooner or later someone would have used his plan.
 
If oh yes If

If anything has been learned from our past wars it's just maybe we should stay out of things that don't involve us. ;)
 
So, let me hear from one of you, drawing, of course, on your extensive experience in large scale leadership, international relations and country building, what you recommend to "properly finish a war."

Better yet, maybe you should email it directly to D.C. I'm sure those folks up there would love to hear from someone who can clear up this problem for them. I mean, it's not like they have specialists in that sort of thing working on the problem... :rolleyes:

Happygunner,

We tried to stay out of WWII because it didn't involve us--look what that bought us.

We tried to ignore the terrorist threat because it didn't involve us--look what that bought us.

Did you ever consider that our residence on this planet means we're involved in the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD? Sorry, that logic thing keeps popping up...
 
Last edited:
You mean they didn't intend to kill as many Americans as possible?
Click to expand...
Nope. They sure didn't. They wanted to destroy the symbol of Western civilization and the "great satan". (Twin Towers)

The people killed along the way were never the intended targets at all. If it was simply a matter of killing large numbers, then any one of several football stadiums on any given Saturday or Sunday afternoon would have been a much better target.
 
Good point but a bit simplistic--there was certainly more than symbolism in the attack.

Their targets were the WTC, the Pentagon, and an unknown target in DC. They were trying to paralyze the country and did a good job. If they'd connected with the fourth jet it could have REALLY gotten nasty.

Sure, symbolism is important to them--sure, they could have killed more if they had picked other targets--what they really want to do is to destroy everything the U.S. stands for. That includes killing as many of us as it takes to make that happen.

But George is a fundamentalist christian, and he thinks islam is a sin. So our boys and girls go off and die in a country that doesn't want or need our help, all in the name of god. Here I thought religion was supposed to teach respect and peace towards your fellow men. Don't blame me, I voted for Baidnarek.
Click to expand...
You're not exactly racking up bonus points for research ability, nor are you getting a reputation as a person who absorbs and retains useful information by admitting that you endorsed and voted for a candidate whose name you can't spell. The rest of the quoted paragraph is commensurate with the obvious lack research demonstrated by your lack of basic knowledge of the person you wanted to be president.
 
Last edited:
9/11~~~Afghanistan~~~Iraq???

I guess I must have missed something. We went from 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq. :rolleyes: Iraq? what did Iraq have to do with 9/11? :rolleyes: Oh well I just watch the evening news and CNN also Fox. And like others wonder where it's all heading. :rolleyes:
 
I guess I must have missed something. We went from 9/11 to Afghanistan to Iraq.
Click to expand...
Yep, you did--you missed more than "something" you missed a lot. You can fix that problem if you actually keep abreast of international events instead of just accepting and repeating what is spoonfed to you... Just keep watching the evening news, like you say, and I can pretty much guarantee you'll keep "wondering where it's all heading."
 
Well give me a hint?

Just what have I missed? :rolleyes: And what do you watch that gives you such good information? :rolleyes: Maybe your one of W Bushs advisers? :)
 
You can find it the same way I did--virtually all of the pertinent information is readily available--I'm not here to educate you, and obviously, you have no interest in being educated on the topic or you would already be that way.

I'll give you a tip to get you started. Research is not research if you throw out everything that doesn't support your view.
 
So, let me hear from one of you geniuses, drawing, of course, on your extensive experience in large scale leadership, international relations and country building, what you recommend to "properly finish a war."
Click to expand...

You don't pull out the troops to avoid political damage (Somalia and Vietnam). A new government has to be established and the US military must be the force to maintain its stability for at least a few years but realistically more like ten years at a minimum. The country must be in better shape after US occupation than it was pre war. Post war Japan is probably the best example. It has been fifty years and we still have troops on the Korean Peninsula, thirty plus years and Vietnam is still a mess, and Somalia was just abandoned. I am not an advocate of using force unless you have to but when you use it, use it. Similar to using a weapon for personal defense but you had better be prepared for the consequences.
 
Anyone with their eyes open could see that Saddam of all people was not a threat to us. He was far too busy repressing the people who were a threat to him, the Iraqi people. Watch "Three Kings" with Geo. Clooney, you'll get some idea.
Click to expand...

Well that's it! Case closed. How can anyone argue against sources such as that! :rolleyes:

President Bush's opponents are now reduced to citing 60 Minutes and a bad Hollywood movie to back up their opposition? Looks like the Republicans will pick up 4 of 5 more Senate seats in 2006!

Especially if you were from say, Palestine?
Click to expand...

Could you show us all on a map the borders of Palestine?
 
stever,

I agree with your post, and I believe that the specialists in D.C. do as well or we would have been out of there the minute the Saddam was captured.
 
Rolling Thunder:

Again, no one wishes to acknowledge the PNAC, and all the ties between the PNAC and Bush II's cabinet, with all the neocons that are pulling the strings.

I stumbled upon the PNAC in about August of this year. I was amazed at what I was reading. There it all was in its blatant glory. The plans, the motivation, the highly connected individuals endorsing the letter to Clinton in 1998, and all the other position papers.

I just watched the election season unfold in shock and disbelief. No one in the mass media cared to make this a story. This should have been THE story of the election.

And, when you confront any of Bush's supporters about the PNAC, and the neocon philosophy, either they know nothing about it, or they simply don't want to think about it. Iraq has everything to do with terrorist attacks to the U.S., and that is good enough for them. The disinformation campaign that was used to justify the war, and the rush to war with the media's endorsement, as transparent and flimsy as it all was, was enough for these people to buy in. I don't understand it. Traditional conservatives, with modest foreign policies on their mind, ... fiscal conservatives, with isolationist values, were now endorsing these radical proposals and abdicating their traditional conservative values. All rational skepticism that our society relies on to keep our government in check went by the wayside.

People like William F. Buckly, the father of modern conservatism, didn't go along for the ride, but you don't hear that story being told.

I just don't understand how the neocons and the PNAC have been able to enjoy this largely under the radar existence that the masses don't seem to know about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top