Our Losses in Iraq...

Status
Not open for further replies.
It did not get that way by accident; and there is no reason why it can not be reversed.
Click to expand...
Um, when did the United States, or even the British American Colonies, get by without foreign trade? Does cotton, tobacco, and sugar ring any bells?

Your idea is an immature fantasy.
Sure was, keep in mind Bush knew it would be good PR for his re-election campaign.
Click to expand...
Really? Then why wasn't it mentioned during the campaign?
 
Anybody care to weigh in on the PNAC, and how their philosophy and agenda affect your perspective?

This is important, and nobody wants to acknowledge the role this "think tank" has played in our foreign policy. Members include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, William Kristol, and other big players both inside and out of the administration inner circle.
 
The price is to high

The price our servicemen and women are being asked to pay is to high. This whole thing was cooked up for one reason. MONEY make lots of money for the correct people. Meaning the people with BIG companies who are making a killing off this so called war on terror. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
This whole thing was cooked up for one reason. MONEY make lots of money for the correct people. Meaning the people with BIG companies who are making a killing off this so called war on terror.
Click to expand...

How fortuitous of Usama bin Ladin to destroy the WTC so that the administration could put their diabolical plan for world domination into action! :rolleyes:
 
How fortuitous of Usama bin Ladin to destroy the WTC so that the administration could put their diabolical plan for world domination into action!
Click to expand...

That's not the point. The real problem is that the administration would USE the event of 9/11 to put the diabolical plan into action. The first impulse, whomever the attacker, was to find a way to justify going after Saddam. Rummy and the administration didn't want to hassle with Afghanistan, initially. They didn't want to hear "it was Al Qaeda" from the pentagon or Richard Clarke, or the CIA.
 
First it's because Bush is a Christian and hates Islam. (Oops that didn't fly--let's pretend we didn't even say that... :rolleyes: )

Now he only did it because he's making money off the war. No one else but MEE will be able to figure that out. RIIIIIIGHT.

Ludicrous.

If you don't like the war, just say so. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. You think the cost of taking the war to the enemy is too expensive--just say so. Just don't make up stupid reasons (or repeat other people's stupid made up reasons) to attempt to validate your opinion.

(Notice I'm doing my best to ignore the "diabolical plan" argument. I'd address it but just thinking about it makes the theme song from Get Smart begin to play in my head.) Oops--did I say that outside the CONE OF SILENCE? :eek:
 
Anybody care to weigh in on the PNAC, and how their philosophy and agenda affect your perspective?
Click to expand...
You mean the PNAC where influential members of the only remaining superpower on Earth outline a plan to have western culture/society take the lead in running the world?

If so, I'll gladly chime in. I like I-Pods & Big Macs better than a gourd of cold goat scrotum soup & a half-eaten dung beetle sandwich, so I'll take the PNAC over anything 7th century barbarians are selling. I'll take it any day of the week. :rolleyes:
 
Destructo6
Um, when did the United States, or even the British American Colonies, get by without foreign trade? Does cotton, tobacco, and sugar ring any bells?
Click to expand...
,

Immature assumption; I said nothing about ceasing all foreign trade. But there is nothing that we absolutely must have from any foreign country that we can not make ourselves. And we do not need to be engaged in trade as a part of an ideology that is hostile to our own like that of global socialism.

The fantasy is that we can not cut off the U.N., cease trade with barbaric regimes like that of China for example, or produce our own oil - etc. We can certainly trade; but not at the expense of relying on essentials so that we are beholden to political agendas, pricing cartels, destroying job markets here at home, etc.
 
.................by fred

Hmmm... I guess the troops forgot to act like their moral wasn't improved by his visit.
Click to expand...

No they didn't. The few hundred soldiers that actually got to see him got a boost in moral for it. Of course. But THAT was not the reason Bush went there, it is simply an election time visit. As I said, if he goes over there this thanksgiving then I will give him credit for doing his job in that regard. How much do you want to bet that this turkey day (and probably the rest of them during his term) will be spent in his comfortable litle ranch in Texas. Of course I'm sure he means to "lift the moral" in his heart and mind, maybe he will send them a DVD of his last visit. I'm sure it would be a hit with the one hundred thousand-plus soldiers who didn't get to break bread with Bush.

again...fred....

You mean the PNAC where influential members of the only remaining superpower on Earth outline a plan to have western culture/society take the lead in running the world?
Click to expand...

again...fred

If so, I'll gladly chime in. I like I-Pods & Big Macs better than a gourd of cold goat scrotum soup & a half-eaten dung beetle sandwich, so I'll take the PNAC over anything 7th century barbarians are selling. I'll take it any day of the week.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous response. It shows that either you haven't bothered to read the document or that you believe that bombing an entire country into ruins is somehow less barbaric than anything the 7th century has to offer up.

Your response is very typical of someone who is going to follow the party line without making the effort to find out why we are there. There wasn't anything in your post that rationalizies why we are there. Your only response of I-Pods and goat scrotums shows a zombie-like thinking that so many have. You didn't read the document, if so then answer my question directly.

Is the invasion of Iraq following nearly to the letter the Plan for a New Amercian Century? If so, then do you believe the best way to accomplish those lofty goals is to bomb a country to pieces, rather than restraining our military might to be used against only those who actually committed the atrocities on 9/11? Thereby setting the example for the world to show that we only attack those who directly attack us, as opposed to removing a dictator and tearing a countries infrastructure to oblivian, (not to mention killing thousands of innocent citizens). As I said, I'm all for the goals the PNAC documents hope to attain, but not by attacking a country that pushes that plan forword at the cost of thousands of lives. You can bomb a people to pieces, but you can't bomb a people to peace. A clinched fist can shake the entire world, but it cannot shake a single hand. If I really thought you actually read the entire document I would have just a smidge of respect for your thinking we should accomplish those goals by killing citizens. However, your response hints that you "might" have skimmed over the opening paragraphs, but certainly you did not read it. Had you, you could have came back with a much more credible response than comparing big macs to goat scrotums.
 
Last edited:
You can bomb a people to pieces, but you can't bomb a people to peace.
Click to expand...
Bwaaahaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaa!

Tell that to the Japanese sometime.


The fact is that Space/Computer Age people cannot co-exist with people who barely made it into the Iron Age if the latter absolutely refuse to assimilate into said Space/Computer Age.

This little house cleaning of what KSFreeman so rightly calls "God's monkey house" has been a long time coming. Finally we have people who will do something about the non-stop mayhem that certain factions (be they socialist or Islamofacist) of the Muslim world visit upon the rest of us.

All of your handwringing, and all of your envy of President Bush and his friends and his ranch, aren't going to change it. The middle-east is going to find out what it means to screw with people that have eclipsed their pathetically bankrupt culture a thousand or more fold. Get used to it.
 
"All of your handwringing, and all of your envy of President Bush and his friends and his ranch, aren't going to change it. The middle-east is going to find out what it means to screw with people that have eclipsed their pathetically bankrupt culture a thousand or more fold. Get used to it."

Sad. Jealous of Bush? His rich corrupt friends? His little ranch? Now why would I envy anyone that I disagree with so much? So you are saying that those 7th century barabrians (who did not attack us or who was not a threat to us) are gonna find out what it means to screw with us, (which Iraq has not, WE screwed (with) them) by using weapontry against them that we said they had? You call them barbarians while we kill thousands of their citizens for economic gain? We look more like barbarians at the moment. When they hit here again (not Iraq but Osama's bunch) do you plan to "get used to it"?

You probably never even heard the term "PNAC" before I brought it up, yet you now find THAT as a justification for war? May as well, since the laundry lists of reasons Bushy gave us did not pan out.
 
You probably never even heard the term "PNAC" before I brought it up, yet you now find THAT as a justification for war?
Click to expand...
I hear about it far too often. Those who are jealous of wealthy and influential people bring it up all the time. Those who believe that America could simply exist in its own little bubble without regard for the enemies within and without bring it up all the time. Quite frankly I'm bored to death of the subject. I'm bored to death of the whining about it that takes place .

Some people understand that one either leads, or one is lead; one either fights, or one is eventually the victim, and some don't. If you find it strange, or odd, or suspicious that influential and powerful people would have formulated a pro-active plan for a problem that has been left boiling over on the stove of life for the last 4-5 decades, then I would place you in the latter category.

No big deal. No skin off of my nose. What you do or think is of no consequence to me really.
 
Sad. Jealous of Bush? His rich corrupt friends? His little ranch? Now why would I envy anyone that I disagree with so much? So you are saying that those 7th century barabrians (who did not attack us or who was not a threat to us) are gonna find out what it means to screw with us, (which Iraq has not, WE screwed (with) them) by using weapontry against them that we said they had? You call them barbarians while we kill thousands of their citizens for economic gain? We look more like barbarians at the moment. When they hit here again (not Iraq but Osama's bunch) do you plan to "get used to it"?
Click to expand...
Try backing up your assertion before continuing on with more absurdities.
I'm sure it would be a hit with the one hundred thousand-plus soldiers who didn't get to break bread with Bush.
Click to expand...
The face to face with the troops was just icing on the cake. The gesture to fly half way around the world on Thanksgiving, to spend time on the ground with any number of the troops, was the booster. You can claim it was an election-year trick (a trick that was not mentioned during the campaign, no less), but it's more than most Presidents have done.
 
After reading all this stuff- I want to say that certainly the level of education shows on the conspiracy theorists' side. Here's a primer for not looking totally ignorant:

1. Your = the thing you possess.
2. You're = "you are" conjunction.

3. There = refers to a place a bit further from here.
4. Their = ownership of something by those people over there.

I don't care why we invaded Iraq. The place needed invading. Our mistakes are how we've conducted ourselves while there.

1. Why haven't we executed "civilian combatants" ie: Terrorists for shooting at us from mosques and other prohibited places? The good Iraqis require that we're willing to do justice to those who have screwed up their country. How can they trust us when we don't even do what we did to the Germans and Japanese who did similar or lesser things?

2. You don't destroy a ruler, you completely conquer the whole country- people included. The Japs were far more fanatic than your average Iraqi, however, when they knew they were conquered, they listened.

3. Why are reporters running around- free to report what they like? When I was there, my letters to my wife had to be read by our XO (censored). So a GI cannot write home freely, but a reporter can send home reports of Marines doing their jobs- and spin it to boot?

My $.02
 
Macavado,

We have oil and natural gas and plenty of it.

CobrayCommando,

The interdependence of nations like ours has been very high on the agenda of people with an ideology that is hostile to our own, our culture and Constitution. You want your town to be just another village on the global plantation? Be a slave.

I oppose it.
 
RollingThunder,
can we buy into the PNAC? The idea being a conspiracy of sorts to spread American power throughout the world. Sure, okay. Then can we also acknowledge the attempt by Radical Islamic Fundamentalists to spread radical Islam worldwide? We need only to look to "beloved" France and the Netherlands to see how successful it is going on their front.
A lot of talk about whether we could isolate ourselves--ecomically or otherwise from the world. Even if we could somehow become self-reliant, in the end, we would wake up one day and find Europe and the rest of the world under the thumb of Islam Radicalism.
A lot of talk, too, about Bush's religious agenda. Does he have the support of evangelical Christians? Yes. Does that mean he has his mind set on spreading Christianity by the sword to all the rest of the world? I don't see it. That is what is so beautiful about America. Of course we have our zealots, but by and large, most Americans, Christians included, do NOT have their hearts set on crusading to force the rest of the world to join their religion or die. Despite the occasional zealot, most Americans know this war is not about spreading Christianity, it is about stopping terrorism. Is there a religious component to it? Yes! On their side!
In my opinion, 9/11 was a wake up call. This is not simply about Osama, or Afghanistan or Irag or weapons of mass destruction. All of that falls under the umbrella of RADICAL ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM and its continuing spread worldwide. I hope there is a PNAC, because it is quite evident that there is such a plan on their side, and has been for some time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top