Our Losses in Iraq...
- Thread starter gundog98k
- Start date
- Status
John,
Considering the source of the Condi/Chevron pic - I doubt if any documentation he would produce would be unbiased.
ht <space addded> tp://aztlan.net/oiltank.jpg
Very brief about Aztlan - Raza - MEChA
"The acronym MEChA stands for "Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan." or "Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan."
MEChA is an Hispanic separatist organization that encourages anti-American activities and civil disobedience. The radical members of MEChA who refer to themselves as "Mechistas," romanticize Mexican claims to the "lost Territories" of the Southwestern United States -- a Chicano country called Aztlan"
- http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
<Edited to add that I'm not Hal Netkin>
John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Boxer, Feinstein, Byrd, Dean......they also declared Saddam to be a threat to our security.
Did they lie too? Or did they base their position on the same faulty intelligence that Bush had to work with? With the given intelligence, would you also have been the first to complain had Bush done nothing and Los Angeles hypothetically were attacked with a dirty bomb by Iraqi-supported operatives?
Monday-morning quarterbacking, with no pressure and nothing to lose, is pretty easy. It's also cowardly.
Rice was on the board of Chevron and they named a ship after her- so what?
Ed Fitzgerald was on the board of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company when they named the Edmund Fitzgerald after him...
The Arthur M. Anderson, was named after Arthur Anderson of US Steel...
Have a look through here:
http://www.marmus.ca/marmus/research.html
No doubt you can find a lot of ships named after Company Executives.
The tanker carried oil from Angola - it was an oil tanker,,what should it carry? Here's a list of Angola's exports:
crude oil, diamonds, refined petroleum products, gas, coffee, sisal, fish and fish products, timber, cotton
Ed Fitzgerald was on the board of Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company when they named the Edmund Fitzgerald after him...
The Arthur M. Anderson, was named after Arthur Anderson of US Steel...
Have a look through here:
http://www.marmus.ca/marmus/research.html
No doubt you can find a lot of ships named after Company Executives.
The tanker carried oil from Angola - it was an oil tanker,,what should it carry? Here's a list of Angola's exports:
crude oil, diamonds, refined petroleum products, gas, coffee, sisal, fish and fish products, timber, cotton
Is there an echo in here?
Yes - Dr. Rice was on the board of Chevron and Chevron named a ship after her to honor her for her achievements.
Maybe you don't think it's much of an achievement for a Black woman to sit on the board of one of the largest companies in the world?
Again so what?
Make a point or let it go.
"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!"
Is this good enough of a source? Plenty of info.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Note some of names attached to this letter: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz. This letter was written in 1997, now look at where these people are now (With the exception of Jeb Bush) in the Bush administration.
Invading Iraq didn't have anything to do with Bin Laden or terrorism, but with following PNAC's plan.
Is this good enough of a source? Plenty of info.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Note some of names attached to this letter: Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz. This letter was written in 1997, now look at where these people are now (With the exception of Jeb Bush) in the Bush administration.
Invading Iraq didn't have anything to do with Bin Laden or terrorism, but with following PNAC's plan.
Exactly. Here's their letter to Clinton.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
No mention of liberating the people of Iraq, or spreading democracy, blah, blah, blah. That was all window dressing to sell it to the American people.
They didn't have a plan for after Saddam's removal. The objective was the removal, and not the aftermath. No idea of the troop requirement ... what it would take to control the country once the government was toppled.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
No mention of liberating the people of Iraq, or spreading democracy, blah, blah, blah. That was all window dressing to sell it to the American people.
They didn't have a plan for after Saddam's removal. The objective was the removal, and not the aftermath. No idea of the troop requirement ... what it would take to control the country once the government was toppled.
That's not even the point. It's about the true motivations behind the actions taken by this administration. It's about the constant lying that they're doing. The phoney concern for the mass graves in Iraq that took place over 15 years ago when we turned a blind eye to it. This idea that they're going to elect a democratic government, and all of a sudden everything will be just fine in Iraq.
They're lying to us every day, and the darned mainstream media is letting them do it unchallenged.
rolling thunder
New member
Unfortunetly it isn't even about the oil. I can't name a president who really did anything to strengthen our eduaction system. Teachers are paid less than the janitors at many schools. My wife has been a teacher for 14 years and makes less than $30,000 a year. When I worked as a drywaller, (both hanging and finishing) I made close to $40,000 per year and that was with hardly working at all from the end of November to (usually) the end of march. Heck I wouldn't even accept jobs that would not allw my dog on the jobsite.
Meanwhile my wife teaches four classes of k-2nd grade with over 40 students in those classes, with no help whatsoever. The numbers become more manageable by 7th grade, but even there the class sizes are too large to educate about fitness, just put them through the moves and hope most of them will realize how important it is to stay fit. (My being very fit is what saved my life).
If we would not have invaded Iraq that money still would have been used to pushing our agenda in the mid-east. Saddam was simply a paper tiger we set up for the fall, he was, to coin a movie title, a "The Mouse That Roared." Of course the warring factions we are dealing with now, in desperation to have a society of their choosing, are more tiger-like than Saddam ever was.
MeekAndMild
New member
That's because for the last 40 years the education establishment has been filling the ranks of the teaching profession with affirmative action students while they have been deleting high school vocational education programs. So there are lots and lots of young 'teachers' (some are real teachers and some just have the diploma) but nobody with the skillset needed to run buffers, unstop plumbing and glaze windows.
If people were still capable of doing math someone would have figured out that our combat losses on a given week in Iraq are generally less than our losses that same week in one or two of our inner cities. We can't blame Detroit's deaths on Mr. Bush, now can we?
What happened russel77? Did you have to invent another persona (duker63) to give yourself support?
If President Bush is just a puppet of PNAC, why haven't we attacked Sudan, Iraq and N. Korea? And where exactly did Afghanistan fit into their "master plan" for world domination?
If their whole purpose was to simply depose Saddam without resolving the ensuing confusion, why are we still there trying to institute free elections?
If President Bush is just a puppet of PNAC, why haven't we attacked Sudan, Iraq and N. Korea? And where exactly did Afghanistan fit into their "master plan" for world domination?
If their whole purpose was to simply depose Saddam without resolving the ensuing confusion, why are we still there trying to institute free elections?
Afghanistan was a diversion from their Master Plan. If they had any sense, they would have used the prospect of democracy in that country to accomplish the objective they conjured up regarding a free and democratic Iraq. The story is that they want to convert the Muslim world by bringing them Democracy and freedom. Not true, but that's what they're saying so that they can seem like they have a noble agenda.
Because they didn't have any idea what a destabilizing force WE would be by unseating Saddam. Saddam brought balance to the region. He was the ying to Iran's yang. They thought everything would take care of itself once Saddam was out. They didn't have an understanding of how the various factions within Iraq would handle the situation once Saddam was out. At this point, we're trying to avoid Civil War, Anarchy, and a boiling pot of a county rife with new terrorists where they'll be able to operate unchallenged. Under Saddam, the terrorists from the likes of Al Qaeda didn't have free reign in Iraq. Saddam needed to keep his country under his control, and having alliances with international terrorists would only have served to bring more heat on himself. He was more concerned with living high on the hog off his country's resources.
Really? Perhaps you can provide some evidence of that?
Here is a quote that shows that President Bush intended to do, before the conflict started, EXACTLY what we are now doing.
"In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible. We'll bring food and medicine to the Iraqi people. We'll help that nation to build a just government, after decades of brutal dictatorship." President Bush; 3-6-2003 Press conference.
There is NO way that the Administration planned to simply depose Saddam and leave.
NO alliances with terrorists?
Then why was Iraq on the State Departments list of state sponsors of terrorism since the Carter Administration? What do you call giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? Why was he providing shelter for Abu Nidal? Why the terrorist training camp at Salmon Pak? Why did both the Duelfer Report and the 911 Commission Report say that Saddam had ties to terrorists?No alliances with terrorists. Only the most extreme Bush haters, such as Michael Moore and the wackos at DemocraticUnderground, believe that line of bull!
Then why did the Republican administrations since Carter have such a closer relationship with Saddam?
This is leading up to the invasion. It is part of the propaganda campaign that the administration was using to try to convince the American people of the necessity of this war.
They truly didn't expect much resistance FROM SADDAM'S ARMY. They expected the way the just rolled over and provided little resistance on the march to Bagdad. Rummy and Wolfy believed that it would be an easy campaign. Military leadership in the pentagon expected to need more than 300,000 troops to occupy the country and keep it under control AFTER the government was toppled. Rummy wore down pentagon officials in order to get them to see it his way and ask for less troops. This stuff has been reported and documented. Senior military leadership have resigned over this issue. If you are unaware of it, I'm sorry if you are under informed.
Rummy thought they would be greeted will flowers and candy as liberators by the Iraqi people. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CLUE.
Why don't you show ME where President Bush ever said that there was a close link between al Qaeda and Saddam! Who lied?
I gave you MY sources. If you don't believe them, then look them up yourself.
Hate to break the news to you, but al Qaeda aren't the only islamic terrorists in the world!
You made the claim that Saddam had NO alliances with terrorism, yet YOU fail to provide any credible source. That's because you know you can't! All you have is Michael Moore and the fringe Bush haters for "sources".
President George HW Bush had such a "close" relationship with Saddam that he bombed the crap out of him. Hate to think what he would have done if they weren't such "buds"!
The only support Saddam was given was during the Iran-Iraq war. Gee, big surprise! That's like saying the U.S. "supported" communism because we allied with the Soviets during WW2. Sometimes you sleep with the wolves because there are greater dangers outside.
Your right, it was prior to the invasion. YOU are the one that said the Administration was in only until Saddam was deposed. I show you otherwise, but that doesn't fit with your prejudices.
So, he really didn't mean it because YOU say so?
Prove it!It would have been much more politically expedient to do exactly as YOU falsely accuse the Administration of doing (saying they were getting right out after we depose Saddam). But no! This Administration told the American people exactly what they were going to do: disarm Iraq, aid the civilians and make sure that a stable government was instituted.
Uh, that's exactly what DID happen.
We took Bagdad in a couple of weeks. It is only in the aftermath that we are getting resistance. Resistance being led by the very terrorists YOU say had no alliance with Saddam. duker63
russel77 was the guy who posted in all lowercase and without the use of punctuation (except when posting quotes). He also had a tendency to post several times in a row without waiting for someone to answer.
He was the guy with a name all in lowercase followed by a two digit number.
He was the guy that you claim got booted immediately before your join date shows that you registered on this board.
Why, does he sound familiar to you?
russel77 was the guy who posted in all lowercase and without the use of punctuation (except when posting quotes). He also had a tendency to post several times in a row without waiting for someone to answer.
He was the guy with a name all in lowercase followed by a two digit number.
He was the guy that you claim got booted immediately before your join date shows that you registered on this board.
Why, does he sound familiar to you?
- Status