It's also interesting to note in 1998 it was reported by the AP that Osama bin Laden sent a trusted aid to Iraq to negotiate with Saddam about possible refuge there. (This is shortly after Bill Clinton's half-assed missile strikes inside Afghanistan.) Saddam turned him down and Osama then reportedly began to refer to Saddam as an infidel...
Saddam Hussein did not harbor terrorists. Sending money to the families of dead Palestanian suicide bombers is one thing... but harboring terrorists is another; he didn't because he knew better than to give us a reason- and he was a power mongering control freak who knew groups like this could be a threat to his strangle hold on Iraq.
This is exactly why our pretense for invading Afghanistan was mainly their harboring of Al Qaeda... and exactly why our pretense for invading Iraq was NOT. It was trumped up WMD claims based on information from decades ago- and then presently substaniated by evidence that has largely been proven to be false or exaggerated.
We gave Osama what he wanted- another power vaccuum in the middle east to breed and train. His dream is one middle eastern united nation across that entire region ruled by islamic sharia law. Each time we go and topple a sovereign government in that area and leave a hole- we are bringing Osama one step closer to his goal- a goal that will outlive him and al qaeda. We're also seeing the beginnings of a power struggle in Pakistan threatening to overthrow the western friendly government there, assassinations on key figures in Lebanon as "opening moves," and the rise of Iran.
This war has only made things better for global terrorism of the middle eastern flavor. If we continue on this path a middle eastern super power, one nation, will rise from the ashes and wage full fledged war to beat us and our allies out their neighborhood for good... continuing on into god knows where... The big one. WW3.
It's not too late to turn back, but it is considerably more difficult to turn back than to continue along the inertia of our present path. Oh well. I'll just cover my own ass.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
So you would leave the country as is and let any terrorist organization move in and keep on truckin with the same ol crap, thats a fantastic idea give them a whole country to play with. You people just don't get it it doesn't matter if we are there or here or somewhere else we are infidels and the fastest way to mecca is killing infidels.Actually, the fasted way for the locals is probably by train. While the train may not be the cheapest way, muslims only have to make the pilgrimage once in their lifetime. Not the you would know any of this, of course.
By not supporting our troops, finger pointing at the president and blaming him for everything, while obviously not understanding a checks and balances political system that we happen to have in place that doesn't allow the president to move anyone but the Marines without approval from congress, and generally talking out your B-sides about things that you have no idea about you undermine what is trying to be accomplished...the freedom of oppressed people. This is not our problem. It is now of course, but before we went over there it wasn't. The only people that would be responsible are those that are oppressed. If they lack the initiative to rebel then we must assume that this is what they want. If there had been a strong rebellion in place at the time, it might have been arguable that we support said rebellion with money, advisers, and possibly arms if we could do so discreetly. But direct military support? Not on your life.
How many of you have been there and handed out humanitarian rations, flew the poor bastards that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to field hospitals so we could care for them. How many of you whiners have served your country in any way? Served a couple of years in Columbia. Came to the conclusion that the war on drugs was a waste of resources. The minute I heard the phrase "War on Terror," I rolled my eyes at the thought of another useless struggle against a noun. If you think that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq you have your head in your B-side. By doing everything that you can to undermine the unity of this nation all you do is strengthen the resolve of the enemy (They hate our democracy, so stop being democratic!!!) because they know that the louder you people while the shorter time they have to wait for us to pull out of there completely and leave the innocents to be slaughtered once again. sincerely CPL Gerard USMC
BTW, this war is not meant to be won, only sustained. As long as bankers are making money off of both sides the politicians will keep it going for as long as they can sneak it past the public. The historical reality is that:
Found this somewhere else but was funny and slightly on topic ...
" Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
During the past year, I have spent countless hours trying to have rational debates about the various issues surrounding Iraq with Liberals on various message boards all over the Web. I've wondered over and over why they all seem to follow certain patterns. I've been trying to codify the rules that they seem to use, to increase my ability to identify the tactics they're using. When I identify which rule they're following, they invariably reply with strings of invective, proving that they know exactly what they're doing. Following are the top five Liberal "Rules" for Arguing that I've so far identified, having been repeatedly subjected to all these and more. #1: Attack Your Opponent
If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him. #2: Switch Your Arguments
If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory! #3: Raise The Bar
When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable". #4: Attack The Source
When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point. #5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency
It's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in Platoon. This is how I've watched Liberals argue every day for the last year. The only thing that matters to them is winning, by any means or tactics necessary. Finding out the truth of the matter doesn't seem to matter at all, does it? "
as for the colors i am bored lol and needed something else to do as i sit here listening to others play singstar waiting for my turn...
How much money does Bush think a US soldier’s life is worth? How much money does Bush think the lives of our allies’ soldiers or innocent Iraqis are worth? As we’re finding out, not very much. On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,” yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy. Just last week we learned from former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan that the real reason behind the war in Iraq was oil , and now we are finding out that the entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Everysingledeath, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?
How could Bush have had 'Saddam's oil' by Saddam taking some loot and going into exile?
It was necessary to invade Iraq so that the US could steal millions of barrels of oil from the Iraqi people...it could not have been done any other way. Plus it was, and is, necessary for the US to build some very large and permanent military bases in Iraq to facilitate the invasion of Iran, at least the parts that have oil under them, in the near future and Saudi Arabia, if it becomes necessary, some time down the road.
The real target of all of this activity in the oil-rich Middle-east is China...the goal being to prevent China from rising up to challenge US hegemony in the future.
Originally posted by Gorair Found this somewhere else but was funny and slightly on topic ...
" Liberal "Rules" for Arguing
During the past year, I have spent countless hours trying to have rational debates about the various issues surrounding Iraq with Liberals on various message boards all over the Web. I've wondered over and over why they all seem to follow certain patterns. I've been trying to codify the rules that they seem to use, to increase my ability to identify the tactics they're using. When I identify which rule they're following, they invariably reply with strings of invective, proving that they know exactly what they're doing. Following are the top five Liberal "Rules" for Arguing that I've so far identified, having been repeatedly subjected to all these and more. #1: Attack Your Opponent If you feel that your opponent is trying to use facts to your disadvantage, attack him or her personally. Call your opponent names, insult his ancestry, imply that he performs improbable sex acts with animals or his own mother -- or both. If you can arouse his anger, you will have him on familiar ground where he can be beat. Your aim is to make your opponent stop using those pesky facts and figures to win the argument -- everyone knows arguments are supposed to be emotional, not cold and rational, so he's doing it wrong to start with. Names guaranteed to upset an opponent with a conservative bent are Nazi, Dittohead (meaning he's a fan of Rush Limbaugh), and Sheep. Spell "Republican" and "America" with a K in them, to suggest that your opponent is a member of the KKK -- but if they mention that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansman, accuse your opponent of making an ad hominem attack! Make sure to claim that your opponent is either a dupe, is brainwashed, or is perhaps working for the government. If at all possible, make personal attacks on President Bush at the same time; that usually forces people to try and defend him. #2: Switch Your Arguments If you feel that your are beginning to lose an argument, change it. Switch sides altogether if you have to. For instance, if you are arguing that there are no biological or chemical weapons in Iraq, and your opponent quotes one of the many UN reports that state there definitely were banned weapons there, suddenly change your argument to "of course, there were, the US gave them to Saddam". Never mind the fact that you were just saying they didn't exist -- the purpose is to confuse your opponent and keep him from winning the argument. And in the above instance, if your opponent shows records from the CDC proving that Iraq requested medical samples through the World Health Organisation to combat anthrax and botulism, switch your argument BACK AGAIN and claim that Saddam destroyed the WMD he made form the samples after kicking out the inspectors in 1998, ignoring your earlier arguments that there never was any, and then that the US provided it. Logic is for losers! Consistency is for conservatives! If your opponent gives up the argument, loudly proclaim a victory! #3: Raise The Bar When your opponent presents you with proof of anything -- UN records of WMD stockpiles, Amnesty International records of humanitarian crimes, eyewitness accounts of rape, torture, murder, etc -- state that it's not enough to convince you. Tell your opponent that his so- called "proof" doesn't mean anything at all. Insist that anything from only one source doesn't count. Force him or her to go back and search for more proof... and more, and still more. Eventually, your opponent will grow tired of trying to convince you with mere facts and figures, and either give up or get angry -- and then you know you've got him! You can tell everyone that your opponent lost because his or her proof was "laughable". #4: Attack The Source When your opponent presents you with those pesky facts, there's only one way to beat him -- attack the source. Refuse to give credence to anything reported by the Weekly Standard, or NewsMax, even if your opponent's facts come from another source as well. Any news outlet even slightly to the right of the New York Times, the LA Times, CBS, ABC, NPR and Time is immediately suspect. Put down FOX news channel and anyone that refers to it -- ignore the fact that they have reported the same stories as every other network. The fact that your opponent uses any of those obviously biased sources automatically proves him wrong, a brainwashed tool, a sheep, etc (see rule #1). If he gives you information from a web site, attack that site as being biased, or right-wing. If he attacks your sources as being left-wing, scoff at that argument -- you know that "left wing" and "correct" are the same thing. Quotes from any liberal source (even a non-journalist's web page or blog) are automatically correct, while any conservative source is OBVIOUSLY distorting the facts to make an ideological point. #5: Blame America First/Moral Equivalency It's very important, at all times, to remember that America is the REAL bad guy here, everywhere, and for all time. If your opponent shows facts about Saddam's humanitarian offenses, match them with claims of America's own "atrocities". Although your opponent will claim there is no comparison between the two, continue to claim, for instance, that Saddam's 30- year record of using rape, murder, torture and mutilation on prisoners merely accused of crimes is the EXACT SAME THING as Texas administering the death penalty after due process of law. Argue that because America has not always been absolutely perfect, Americans have no right to judge any other country, no matter what it does, even though the Geneva Convention did not exist until after WWII. Stay focussed on your vision of an evil America ruled by corporate greed, evil America slobbering to kill the innocents in other countries, evil America ruthlessly building an empire, and evil America only pretending to be benevolent and generous to other countries. Never give credence to your opponent's arguments that America rebuilt countries like France, Germany, Japan, Nicaragua, Grenada, etc... it was obviously a ruse of some kind! Always seek to put the worst possible interpretation on everything America does or ever has done, or any statement by any member of the Administration. Remember that America exists only to dominate the entire world, like a James Bond supervillain. For reference, watch as many Oliver Stone movies as possible. Remember that American soldiers always act exactly like the soldiers in Platoon. This is how I've watched Liberals argue every day for the last year. The only thing that matters to them is winning, by any means or tactics necessary. Finding out the truth of the matter doesn't seem to matter at all, does it? "
as for the colors i am bored lol and needed something else to do as i sit here listening to others play singstar waiting for my turn...
Ann Coulter.
I do find it funny that Conservative types post pablum scrabbled off of Hannity's forums, or wherever they find it, and then repost it, thinking themselves witty. Especially when, if you were to replace Liberal with Conservative and so forth, it would still ring equally true.
Maybe people are just dumbasses that like to argue, regardless of political stripe.
Also, by posting what could be construed as an "attack" on Liberals as a whole(way to stereotype, by the way ) you're equally guilty of at least number 1.
Almost every word out of Saddam's mouth has been a lie. Oh but I guess we should believe him now because of some supposed conversation. Please, if this was something that would make Bush look good it would automatically be shot down as a lie, made up, or simply false. Amazing how some people just believe anything. Now I'm not disputing the story is true, just that people would believe Saddam would just step and down. Nazi's were put to death at Nuremburg for less then Saddam did. Wake up people.
I would gamble one billion and see if Saddam would leave. It would be worth it.
It might have been worth it, hell our govt probably wastes that much money a day in pork barrel spending. If good ole Kennedy would have a few less drinks he could have paid for it himself hahaha
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
Almost every word out of Saddam's mouth has been a lie. Oh but I guess we should believe him now because of some supposed conversation. Please, if this was something that would make Bush look good it would automatically be shot down as a lie, made up, or simply false. Amazing how some people just believe anything. Now I'm not disputing the story is true, just that people would believe Saddam would just step and down. Nazi's were put to death at Nuremburg for less then Saddam did. Wake up people.
I would gamble one billion and see if Saddam would leave. It would be worth it.
It might have been worth it, hell our govt probably wastes that much money a day in pork barrel spending. If good ole Kennedy would have a few less drinks he could have paid for it himself hahaha
See how easy it was? You just broke rule #1 by avoiding the argument and attacking Senator Kennedy personally. *yawn*
So you would leave the country as is and let any terrorist organization move in and keep on truckin with the same ol crap, thats a fantastic idea give them a whole country to play with. You people just don't get it it doesn't matter if we are there or here or somewhere else we are infidels and the fastest way to mecca is killing infidels. By not supporting our troops, finger pointing at the president and blaming him for everything, while obviously not understanding a checks and balances political system that we happen to have in place that doesn't allow the president to move anyone but the Marines without approval from congress, and generally talking out your B-sides about things that you have no idea about you undermine what is trying to be accomplished...the freedom of oppressed people.
How many of you have been there and handed out humanitarian rations, flew the poor bastards that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to field hospitals so we could care for them. How many of you whiners have served your country in any way? If you think that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq you have your head in your B-side. By doing everything that you can to undermine the unity of this nation all you do is strengthen the resolve of the enemy because they know that the louder you people while the shorter time they have to wait for us to pull out of there completely and leave the innocents to be slaughtered once again. sincerely CPL Gerard USMC
What's trying to be accomplished is absolutely noble, no doubts there. But in the process, 1.2 million innocent Iraqis have died, and several million more have been internally and externally displaced. We have mercenaries like Blackwater running around, slaughtering innocent civilians on whim. Contractors with cost-plus payment options steal billions of taxpayer dollars, even as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported that their buildings were so poorly constructed that the walls were stained with urine and feces.
It's true - there will still be terrorists in Iraq if we stay there. We could still win in Iraq. I think it would take a national draft, two million soldiers and 4 trillion dollars to do it.
I agree with your point about a checks and balances system. Congress has failed us by not having the balls to think independently at the time of the invasion and subsequently for funding bills. But: the Constitution also states that war funding is to be reappropriated every 2 years, and now, I hope Congress defunds this war and pulls the troops out.
Your argument that our "national resolve" has anything to do with the terrorists is not true. It might apply in a formal war against another nation. But terrorists are kidding themselves if they think people who oppose the war give a crap about how they feel about it. We don't. If Osama bin Laden told us that all Americans should go to college, is my duty to drop out? I don't think so. I don't give a crap about how terrorists feel about my national policy.
You missed the point of "national resolve" I said that undermining the unity of this nation has adverse effects on not only troops but policy applied to troops. For example I was there from the beginning my unit ran casualty evacuation so we were constantly at thye front line in and out of places where we took a lot of enemy fire, now in the beginning it was weapons free i could shoot back at people that were shooting at me, but at time went on and more people protested and whined and cried and generally threw a fit how and when i could shoot back under the same circumstances became more and more restrictive, to the point that i could not fire back unless they actually hit my aircraft. I am damn lucky that they missed a lot because having to sit and look at some bastard shooting at you while you are flying people already injured to a field hospital, knowing that one round in the wrong spot and we are all F'd...why for what because it wasn't popular? because america is the only country on the planet that will sacrifice troops for how you look on capital hill or your popularity with the public. This on one of the huge reasons i got out of the military, don't give me a gun and tell me not to use it to defend myself. And the only thing Osama Bin Laden needs is a 50cal round in the brain.
You missed the point of "national resolve" I said that undermining the unity of this nation has adverse effects on not only troops but policy applied to troops. For example I was there from the beginning my unit ran casualty evacuation so we were constantly at thye front line in and out of places where we took a lot of enemy fire, now in the beginning it was weapons free i could shoot back at people that were shooting at me, but at time went on and more people protested and whined and cried and generally threw a fit how and when i could shoot back under the same circumstances became more and more restrictive, to the point that i could not fire back unless they actually hit my aircraft. I am damn lucky that they missed a lot because having to sit and look at some bastard shooting at you while you are flying people already injured to a field hospital, knowing that one round in the wrong spot and we are all F'd...why for what because it wasn't popular? because america is the only country on the planet that will sacrifice troops for how you look on capital hill or your popularity with the public. This on one of the huge reasons i got out of the military, don't give me a gun and tell me not to use it to defend myself. And the only thing Osama Bin Laden needs is a 50cal round in the brain.
You're blaming anti-war people for the retarded rules of engagement?
And your first statement is equivalent to saying, "In a time of war, do not disagree with it." Thats unfortunate.
Ruthless dictator or not, I have no problem with someone getting $1 billion to go into exile from his own country he ruled. I don't believe any life is worth more then, hmm what is it, 3,000? Even if he put my family through unbearable torture, the fact that the entire rest of the country would get to live free is worth more then revenge.
It really doesn't matter whether Saddam went peacefully into exile or if America invaded, captured and killed him. The shit that is happening right now in Iraq would have happened either way because of the power vacuum Saddam leaves. The USA had no right and no just cause to remove him.
America is not sending troops to Myanmar to liberate those people who are being slaughtered by their government. Why? No oil. America needs to secure it's hegemony and acquire any resources it can get it's hands on now because China is on the rise, and extremely fast...
Comments
It's also interesting to note in 1998 it was reported by the AP that Osama bin Laden sent a trusted aid to Iraq to negotiate with Saddam about possible refuge there. (This is shortly after Bill Clinton's half-assed missile strikes inside Afghanistan.) Saddam turned him down and Osama then reportedly began to refer to Saddam as an infidel...
Saddam Hussein did not harbor terrorists. Sending money to the families of dead Palestanian suicide bombers is one thing... but harboring terrorists is another; he didn't because he knew better than to give us a reason- and he was a power mongering control freak who knew groups like this could be a threat to his strangle hold on Iraq.
This is exactly why our pretense for invading Afghanistan was mainly their harboring of Al Qaeda... and exactly why our pretense for invading Iraq was NOT. It was trumped up WMD claims based on information from decades ago- and then presently substaniated by evidence that has largely been proven to be false or exaggerated.
We gave Osama what he wanted- another power vaccuum in the middle east to breed and train. His dream is one middle eastern united nation across that entire region ruled by islamic sharia law. Each time we go and topple a sovereign government in that area and leave a hole- we are bringing Osama one step closer to his goal- a goal that will outlive him and al qaeda. We're also seeing the beginnings of a power struggle in Pakistan threatening to overthrow the western friendly government there, assassinations on key figures in Lebanon as "opening moves," and the rise of Iran.
This war has only made things better for global terrorism of the middle eastern flavor. If we continue on this path a middle eastern super power, one nation, will rise from the ashes and wage full fledged war to beat us and our allies out their neighborhood for good... continuing on into god knows where... The big one. WW3.
It's not too late to turn back, but it is considerably more difficult to turn back than to continue along the inertia of our present path. Oh well. I'll just cover my own ass.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
BTW, this war is not meant to be won, only sustained. As long as bankers are making money off of both sides the politicians will keep it going for as long as they can sneak it past the public. The historical reality is that:
WAR IS A RACKET
Now that is a great post.
It was necessary to invade Iraq so that the US could steal millions of barrels of oil from the Iraqi people...it could not have been done any other way. Plus it was, and is, necessary for the US to build some very large and permanent military bases in Iraq to facilitate the invasion of Iran, at least the parts that have oil under them, in the near future and Saudi Arabia, if it becomes necessary, some time down the road.
The real target of all of this activity in the oil-rich Middle-east is China...the goal being to prevent China from rising up to challenge US hegemony in the future.
Ann Coulter.
I do find it funny that Conservative types post pablum scrabbled off of Hannity's forums, or wherever they find it, and then repost it, thinking themselves witty. Especially when, if you were to replace Liberal with Conservative and so forth, it would still ring equally true.
Maybe people are just dumbasses that like to argue, regardless of political stripe.
Also, by posting what could be construed as an "attack" on Liberals as a whole(way to stereotype, by the way
I would gamble one billion and see if Saddam would leave. It would be worth it.
It might have been worth it, hell our govt probably wastes that much money a day in pork barrel spending. If good ole Kennedy would have a few less drinks he could have paid for it himself hahaha
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
I would gamble one billion and see if Saddam would leave. It would be worth it.
It might have been worth it, hell our govt probably wastes that much money a day in pork barrel spending. If good ole Kennedy would have a few less drinks he could have paid for it himself hahaha
See how easy it was? You just broke rule #1 by avoiding the argument and attacking Senator Kennedy personally. *yawn*- Mal
It's true - there will still be terrorists in Iraq if we stay there. We could still win in Iraq. I think it would take a national draft, two million soldiers and 4 trillion dollars to do it.
I agree with your point about a checks and balances system. Congress has failed us by not having the balls to think independently at the time of the invasion and subsequently for funding bills. But: the Constitution also states that war funding is to be reappropriated every 2 years, and now, I hope Congress defunds this war and pulls the troops out.
Your argument that our "national resolve" has anything to do with the terrorists is not true. It might apply in a formal war against another nation. But terrorists are kidding themselves if they think people who oppose the war give a crap about how they feel about it. We don't. If Osama bin Laden told us that all Americans should go to college, is my duty to drop out? I don't think so. I don't give a crap about how terrorists feel about my national policy.
You missed the point of "national resolve" I said that undermining the unity of this nation has adverse effects on not only troops but policy applied to troops. For example I was there from the beginning my unit ran casualty evacuation so we were constantly at thye front line in and out of places where we took a lot of enemy fire, now in the beginning it was weapons free i could shoot back at people that were shooting at me, but at time went on and more people protested and whined and cried and generally threw a fit how and when i could shoot back under the same circumstances became more and more restrictive, to the point that i could not fire back unless they actually hit my aircraft. I am damn lucky that they missed a lot because having to sit and look at some bastard shooting at you while you are flying people already injured to a field hospital, knowing that one round in the wrong spot and we are all F'd...why for what because it wasn't popular? because america is the only country on the planet that will sacrifice troops for how you look on capital hill or your popularity with the public. This on one of the huge reasons i got out of the military, don't give me a gun and tell me not to use it to defend myself. And the only thing Osama Bin Laden needs is a 50cal round in the brain.
And your first statement is equivalent to saying, "In a time of war, do not disagree with it." Thats unfortunate.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Ruthless dictator or not, I have no problem with someone getting $1 billion to go into exile from his own country he ruled. I don't believe any life is worth more then, hmm what is it, 3,000? Even if he put my family through unbearable torture, the fact that the entire rest of the country would get to live free is worth more then revenge.
It really doesn't matter whether Saddam went peacefully into exile or if America invaded, captured and killed him. The shit that is happening right now in Iraq would have happened either way because of the power vacuum Saddam leaves. The USA had no right and no just cause to remove him.
America is not sending troops to Myanmar to liberate those people who are being slaughtered by their government. Why? No oil. America needs to secure it's hegemony and acquire any resources it can get it's hands on now because China is on the rise, and extremely fast...
USA #1!!! ?
Not if China can help it.
Hope you got your things together. Hope you are quite prepared to die. Looks like we're in for nasty weather. ... There's a bad moon on the rise.
lol, i'll never understand left wing liberals
keeperofkeb
You're missing out.... it's a lot more fun being a liberal... don't have to be so angry all the time.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08