Mike Ramirez nails it

[Jasonew6]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon060408.gif

[kevin28_1962]

rep:thumbsup:

[xxlt]

Mrs. Clinton "fought" for the opportunity to be our next President and take the country in a different direction.

Kindly tell me what the troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for. Most of them seem not to know (busamboy - care to back me up on that assertion?) and I don't know either.

[VCU Rams]

Mrs. Clinton "fought" for the opportunity to be our next President and take the country in a different direction.

Kindly tell me what the troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for. Most of them seem not to know (busamboy - care to back me up on that assertion?) and I don't know either.

Well that answer is obvious, to spread America's "family values"



:sarcasm:

[GoldenArm9]

http://www.investors.com/editorial/cartoons/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon060408.gif

Is this being taught to college students ?I would say yes ...
“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -John Daly, Warren County Community College professor

[VCU Rams]

Is this being taught to college students ?I would say yes ...
“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -John Daly, Warren County Community College professor

I didn't know he was also a prof...

http://blogs.trb.com/news/local/morningnews/blog/john-daly-golfer.jpg http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_01/John090607_468x605.jpg

:sarcasm:

[Beaker]

Kindly tell me what the troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for.

To remove a dictatorship and allow the people of that country to install a government that wont torture, gas, and mutilate them at its whim.

[jamiethelanky]

Is this being taught to college students ?I would say yes ...
“Real freedom will come when [U.S.] soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." -John Daly, Warren County Community College professor
One professor, and you tar the hundreds of institutions in the US with the same brush?

You're ludicrous.

[VCU Rams]

To remove a dictatorship and allow the people of that country to install a government that wont torture, gas, and mutilate them at its whim.

Hmmmmm, that wasn't what congress was told when they voted on the war.....

WMD's anyone, hello, WMD's Bueller?

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

[jamiethelanky]

Hmmmmm, that wasn't what congress was told when they voted on the war.....

WMD's anyone, hello, WMD's Bueller?

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm
It would be nice if they told the truth. I support the regime change but the American government lost a lot of respect from me when they ignored the international community and lied about their intentions*.

*Or used fake material, technically this was Alastair Campbell fabricating evidence of WMDs. See Government vs. BBC in the Hutton report.

[VCU Rams]

It would be nice if they told the truth. I support the regime change but the American government lost a lot of respect from me when they ignored the international community and lied about their intentions*.

*Or used fake material, technically this was Alastair Campbell fabricating evidence of WMDs. See Government vs. BBC in the Hutton report.

Trust me, the American people don't like being lied to by its own gov't either. See Bush's approval rating, although a number of other things "helped" lead to that....

-Lies lies lies
-National debt
-Housing Crisis
-Cannibalism (alright that may be a stretch, but if we had another 8 years of Bush, who knows where America would be headed) :ninja:

[Rayne]

Mrs. Clinton "fought" for the opportunity to be our next President and take the country in a different direction.

Kindly tell me what the troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for. Most of them seem not to know (busamboy - care to back me up on that assertion?) and I don't know either.

Freedom.

I didn't know that was a classified secret.

[VCU Rams]

Freedom.

I didn't know that was a classified secret.

Again, that is not what we were told as being the reason for war.....

[xxlt]

Again, that is not what we were told as being the reason for war.....

I guess we need to join the psychic friends network. Interesting though, that those in the network are receiving different messages.

[Rayne]

Again, that is not what we were told as being the reason for war.....

And again....as it's been said in countless threads prior to this one....all the CIC has to go on is his Intel. In this case that intel, and the intel of other nations said Saddam had WMD.

He was certainly acting as if he had WMD by playing the shell game with the UN weapons inspectors during the 90's.

Oh, and don't forget the UN. Koffi Annon said himself that Iraq had WMD for which they could not give account.

With all that on the table as president, invading Iraq made sense.

[Whatever]

Again, that is not what we were told as being the reason for war.....

Does it really matter? That's the only good thing that's going to come out of this war. And the reasons for this war seem to change for year to year from both those who support it and those who oppose it.

[jamiethelanky]

Does it really matter? That's the only good thing that's going to come out of this war. And the reasons for this war seem to change for year to year from both those who support it and those who oppose it.
But they have most importantly changed from the leaders. They lied. You can't jump around that. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Just say regime change and get the UN on side and you'd have been fine but no, Bush and Blair know best...

[Whatever]

And again....as it's been said in countless threads prior to this one....all the CIC has to go on is his Intel. In this case that intel, and the intel of other nations said Saddam had WMD.

He was certainly acting as if he had WMD by playing the shell game with the UN weapons inspectors during the 90's.

Oh, and don't forget the UN. Koffi Annon said himself that Iraq had WMD for which they could not give account.

With all that on the table as president, invading Iraq made sense.

This whole war was brought on,in reality,by the Dems slashing funding to the US intelligence community. Think about it. If they weren't so far behind because of those cuts in the '90's,then 9/11 probably never happens,and then W. wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq to begin with. Throw on top of it having to go off other's intel on the WMD issue,and it's really clear where this snowball got rolling. That's what drives me nuts about the Democratic leaders. They're out there playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess.

[jamiethelanky]

This whole war was brought on,in reality,by the Dems slashing funding to the US intelligence community. Think about it. If they weren't so far behind because of those cuts in the '90's,then 9/11 probably never happens,and then W. wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq to begin with. Throw on top of it having to go off other's intel on the WMD issue,and it's really clear where this snowball got rolling. That's what drives me nuts about the Democratic leaders. They're out there playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess.
That's very stretched... so, no blame for the Republicans?

Give me a break.

[Whatever]

But they have most importantly changed from the leaders. They lied. You can't jump around that. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Just say regime change and get the UN on side and you'd have been fine but no, Bush and Blair know best...

Hard to say what the US knew or didn't. We're never going to know if W. thought they had WMD's,or if he was just itching for an excuse to finish what his dad started. We can be reasonably assured that he made the wrong call,however,and the whole situation drives me nuts. Stupid decisions abounded in all of this,and while we like to blame everybody else,we only have ourselves to blame,because we elected these chumps. We put Clinton in office,and he cut our intelligence funding to open the door. The Republicans let nepotism win out and gave W. the nod over a much better candidate in McCain. Then we as a nation elect W.,and W's too stinkin' dumb to deal with what was thrown in his lap. I sometimes wonder if we're all just too stupid,gullible,and easily deceived to make democracy truly work.

We'll never know what was going through Bush's head when he made the call. We feel betrayed by it,but we'll never know if he had our best interest in mind or some other agenda when he made it. It certainly isn't like his dad,with the "Read my lips,no new taxes." Sr. made a promise,then realized it was a mistake and he was wrong,and bit the bullet,committing career suicide in the process,and did what was right for the country. I wish our leaders since could've done the same.

[Whatever]

That's very stretched... so, no blame for the Republicans?

Give me a break.

The Republicans have their fare share of the blame,as well. The way I see it,the Dems helped create the problem,and the Reps bungled the handling of it. That's the simplest way to put it,in my view.

[VCU Rams]

This whole war was brought on,in reality,by the Dems slashing funding to the US intelligence community. Think about it. If they weren't so far behind because of those cuts in the '90's,then 9/11 probably never happens,and then W. wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq to begin with. Throw on top of it having to go off other's intel on the WMD issue,and it's really clear where this snowball got rolling. That's what drives me nuts about the Democratic leaders. They're out there playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess.

But even if you do blame Clinton for 9/11 which is laughable IMO....and you also blame his cuts for us using others intelligence, which may or may not be true of that I am not sure. But the entire world had the same "intelligence" and you didn't see France, Germany, or heck pretty much the rest of the world lining up to go to war. Look at the military deaths absorbed in this war by the "Coalition":

US: 4092
UK: 176
Other: 137

That doesn't exactly seem like the rest of the world who were in much greater threat to Saddams regime lined up to go to war. Whoever you blame for the lack of intelligence (pardon the pun) is moot, because it was Dubya who made the decision off of that "intelligence" to go to war.

Would Saddam still being in power be a bad thing for the world absolutely, but was he a direct threat on the American people, I say no.

[xxlt]

But even if you do blame Clinton for 9/11 which is laughable IMO....and you also blame his cuts for us using others intelligence, which may or may not be true of that I am not sure. But the entire world had the same "intelligence" and you didn't see France, Germany, or heck pretty much the rest of the world lining up to go to war. Look at the military deaths absorbed in this war by the "Coalition":

US: 4092
UK: 176
Other: 137

That doesn't exactly seem like the rest of the world who were in much greater threat to Saddams regime lined up to go to war. Whoever you blame for the lack of intelligence (pardon the pun) is moot, because it was Dubya who made the decision off of that "intelligence" to go to war.

Would Saddam still being in power be a bad thing for the world absolutely, but was he a direct threat on the American people, I say no.

You and your precious logic!

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!

[Rayne]

But they have most importantly changed from the leaders. They lied. You can't jump around that. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Just say regime change and get the UN on side and you'd have been fine but no, Bush and Blair know best...

Right...and the fact that the US intel, British Intel, the UN and the intel of several other nations all said he had them.....what...Bush made all that up?

Sorry, he's a powerful man but he doesn't tell England what her intel is suppose to say.

And don't forget the UN..even THEY said Saddam had WMD for which they could not account.

[jamiethelanky]

Right...and the fact that the US intel, British Intel, the UN and the intel of several other nations all said he had them.....what...Bush made all that up?

Sorry, he's a powerful man but he doesn't tell England what her intel is suppose to say.

And don't forget the UN..even THEY said Saddam had WMD for which they could not account.
And guess why the UN didn't go in? Because there was no proof. The British and American govts ignored that and now have bred a new kind of hell-fire.

[Whatever]

But even if you do blame Clinton for 9/11 which is laughable IMO....and you also blame his cuts for us using others intelligence, which may or may not be true of that I am not sure. But the entire world had the same "intelligence" and you didn't see France, Germany, or heck pretty much the rest of the world lining up to go to war. Look at the military deaths absorbed in this war by the "Coalition":

US: 4092
UK: 176
Other: 137

That doesn't exactly seem like the rest of the world who were in much greater threat to Saddams regime lined up to go to war. Whoever you blame for the lack of intelligence (pardon the pun) is moot, because it was Dubya who made the decision off of that "intelligence" to go to war.

Would Saddam still being in power be a bad thing for the world absolutely, but was he a direct threat on the American people, I say no.

Pretty simply,we didn't have the intel because Clinton was an idiot and slashed those budgets as part of his "Balanced Budget" agenda,which is pretty indisputable. We are at war with Iraq because Bush Jr. is an idiot that couldn't deal with the issue presented in front of him...which is also pretty indisputable. Hope that clears up my position.

[busamboy]

Mrs. Clinton "fought" for the opportunity to be our next President and take the country in a different direction.

Kindly tell me what the troops in Iraq are fighting and dying for. Most of them seem not to know (busamboy - care to back me up on that assertion?) and I don't know either.

You don't have to be a soldier over there to know what the war is about. It is and always was about the oil. I hate to bring conspiracies into this, but I would imagine that the Taliban would have attacked the Pentagon with a lot more force than it did. I also saw where the new wall was built, and if a plane could take down the trade center, a plane would have done a hell of a lot more damage to the Pentagon than what it did.

Now what does that mean, the military would have never been able to go to war against the Taliban unless their was somehow an attack on a military installation. We would not have been able to do go into Afghanistan without the attack on that building.

Even the Taliban is smart enough to know that! But I will keep quite about this and just say that this was all about oil and our control over the middle east.

When you think about it, in this war, the American Soldier is cheap labor. If one of us dies, or 3000 of us dies, that is nothing on the greater scale of things. The American companies that are going to make the money off this war is going to be vast. Even though I think some companies have made too much money already. Colonialism is a powerful thing.

We will also continue to have bases in Afghanistan and Iraq until all the oil is gone from those areas, which will be most of the rest of my life.

When you tell people that what I just said right there, they can't believe it and some will refuse to believe that our great country would exploit these areas for their resources. But I am telling you that America can and will use anything that will make this county greater. That includes signing the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Some of you may hate my politics, but remember how this country was founded. Remember the wars that we have had to fight. Like the civil war over having slaves. The fact that we had companies that sponsored Hitler. Just because the history books that you read paint the picture as glorious and leave out some facts that make us look somehow not so great, doesn't mean that it didn't happen and that our country would not exploit other countries.

I'm probably going to get a mouthful from some of you for that rant right there, but that is ok. I listen to everyone, even if I don't agree with you. My politics comes from my travels and from the people that I have met on a global scale. It also comes from the bullcrap news reports that I see everyday. If you do not believe that this country controls the news reports you are wrong.

[busamboy]

To remove a dictatorship and allow the people of that country to install a government that wont torture, gas, and mutilate them at its whim.

Ok, if we really gave a crap about that, don't you think it would have happened a lot sooner. We could have gone in there at any time. Since we gave them those chemical weapons, that could have been the excuse the entire time!

[CloeHokie]

Ok, if we really gave a crap about that, don't you think it would have happened a lot sooner. We could have gone in there at any time. Since we gave them those chemical weapons, that could have been the excuse the entire time!

Thats the newest spin on why we went. We removed thier leader in a matter of weeks. It should not take 7 years to set up a Gov that can defend itself. After all how long have the majority of our troops over there been trained? I bet its not 7 years. How long do you have to train before being sent to Iraq busamboy?

[busamboy]

Freedom.

I didn't know that was a classified secret.

So then, how come we are not at war with North Korea right now, or the other countries that don't have a democracy. That is almost an idiotic reason to go to war with someone.

P.S. I know you are most probably just joking, I am only saying that for the people who use that as an excuse to help their selves sleep better at night.

[busamboy]

Again, that is not what we were told as being the reason for war.....


But it was what the media turned to once it was obvious that there was not any WMD's though. It sure became the scapegoat very quickly

[busamboy]

And again....as it's been said in countless threads prior to this one....all the CIC has to go on is his Intel. In this case that intel, and the intel of other nations said Saddam had WMD.

He was certainly acting as if he had WMD by playing the shell game with the UN weapons inspectors during the 90's.

Oh, and don't forget the UN. Koffi Annon said himself that Iraq had WMD for which they could not give account.

With all that on the table as president, invading Iraq made sense.


Why did that matter at all! Iraq was none of our business, we just wanted to control their oil flow. Nothing more. Since when did Iraq ever become a threat to the United States. Oh, thats right, not until we went in there!

[busamboy]

This whole war was brought on,in reality,by the Dems slashing funding to the US intelligence community. Think about it. If they weren't so far behind because of those cuts in the '90's,then 9/11 probably never happens,and then W. wouldn't have had an excuse to invade Iraq to begin with. Throw on top of it having to go off other's intel on the WMD issue,and it's really clear where this snowball got rolling. That's what drives me nuts about the Democratic leaders. They're out there playing checkers while everybody else is playing chess.

You are probably right on this one. However, I will say this. If America didn't fund the Taliban and give them all those weapons and the CIA train them how to fight. We wouldn't have had 9/11 either.

[busamboy]

You and your precious logic!

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?!

I don't hate america and I agree with pretty much everything he just said

[CloeHokie]

I don't hate america and I agree with pretty much everything he just said

I think he was joking there. :rotf:

[busamboy]

Thats the newest spin on why we went. We removed thier leader in a matter of weeks. It should not take 7 years to set up a Gov that can defend itself. After all how long have the majority of our troops over there been trained? I bet its not 7 years. How long do you have to train before being sent to Iraq busamboy?


Well, I went outside of my job when I went to Iraq. I was working on satellite communication and giving the troops the ability to use it and I trained for about 5 to 6 months before I went to Iraq to train others how to use it. (thats really all I can say about that)

[GoldenArm9]

One professor, and you tar the hundreds of institutions in the US with the same brush?

You're ludicrous.

Again you have no clue as to what goes on here in the U.S. or who watches what goes on at American College Campuses ...

[GoldenArm9]

Why did that matter at all! Iraq was none of our business, we just wanted to control their oil flow. Nothing more. Since when did Iraq ever become a threat to the United States. Oh, thats right, not until we went in there!
:rotf:...man controlling the oil flow has really brought prices down in my town ..i'm down to 4.10 /Gal for gas ..anybody else at 4.10/gal?

[busamboy]

:rotf:...man controlling the oil flow has really brought prices down in my town ..i'm down to 4.10 /Gal for gas ..anybody else at 4.10/gal?

Have you asked why the price has gone up? It is actually because the strength of our dollar has gone down! Just ask Nintendo on why they are selling all their Wii's in Europe before bringing them here!

[CloeHokie]

Well, I went outside of my job when I went to Iraq. I was working on satellite communication and giving the troops the ability to use it and I trained for about 5 to 6 months before I went to Iraq to train others how to use it. (thats really all I can say about that)

5 to 6 months is not that long. Why are we just not training thier Men and Women to defend themselves so we can leave?

[jamiethelanky]

Again you have no clue as to what goes on here in the U.S. or who watches what goes on at American College Campuses ...
You've made a blanket statement that is ludicrously hard to believe. I believe some Americans will back me up on this...

[CloeHokie]

You've made a blanket statement that is ludicrously hard to believe. I believe some Americans will back me up on this...

I already have in like 45 other threads but yes again. He continues to post the same thing.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

I already have in like 45 other threads but yes again. He continues to post the same thing.

As we all have....or at least the majority.

[xxlt]

Pretty simply,we didn't have the intel because Clinton was an idiot and slashed those budgets as part of his "Balanced Budget" agenda,which is pretty indisputable. We are at war with Iraq because Bush Jr. is an idiot that couldn't deal with the issue presented in front of him...which is also pretty indisputable. Hope that clears up my position.

Of all the critiques I have heard of Clinton, this is the strangest, and I've never heard it before. Care to offer any supporting evidence of massive cuts during Clinton's two terms to any of the intelligence gathering agencies? I just find it curious that this is "indisputable" but no one else has ever mentioned it here - where Clinton bashing is still a past time for some - or anywhere else that I have seen.

[xxlt]

You don't have to be a soldier over there to know what the war is about. It is and always was about the oil. I hate to bring conspiracies into this, but I would imagine that the Taliban would have attacked the Pentagon with a lot more force than it did. I also saw where the new wall was built, and if a plane could take down the trade center, a plane would have done a hell of a lot more damage to the Pentagon than what it did.

Now what does that mean, the military would have never been able to go to war against the Taliban unless their was somehow an attack on a military installation. We would not have been able to do go into Afghanistan without the attack on that building.

Even the Taliban is smart enough to know that! But I will keep quite about this and just say that this was all about oil and our control over the middle east.

When you think about it, in this war, the American Soldier is cheap labor. If one of us dies, or 3000 of us dies, that is nothing on the greater scale of things. The American companies that are going to make the money off this war is going to be vast. Even though I think some companies have made too much money already. Colonialism is a powerful thing.

We will also continue to have bases in Afghanistan and Iraq until all the oil is gone from those areas, which will be most of the rest of my life.

When you tell people that what I just said right there, they can't believe it and some will refuse to believe that our great country would exploit these areas for their resources. But I am telling you that America can and will use anything that will make this county greater. That includes signing the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Some of you may hate my politics, but remember how this country was founded. Remember the wars that we have had to fight. Like the civil war over having slaves. The fact that we had companies that sponsored Hitler. Just because the history books that you read paint the picture as glorious and leave out some facts that make us look somehow not so great, doesn't mean that it didn't happen and that our country would not exploit other countries.

I'm probably going to get a mouthful from some of you for that rant right there, but that is ok. I listen to everyone, even if I don't agree with you. My politics comes from my travels and from the people that I have met on a global scale. It also comes from the bullcrap news reports that I see everyday. If you do not believe that this country controls the news reports you are wrong.
:Clap:

[xxlt]

Ok, if we really gave a crap about that, don't you think it would have happened a lot sooner. We could have gone in there at any time. Since we gave them those chemical weapons, that could have been the excuse the entire time!

Busamboy est en fuego!

[xxlt]

I think he was joking there. :rotf:

Yeah, my man got crossed up there. He thought Ghost was joking - and I don't think he was. He thought I was serious and thank goodness you knew better than that (and I am sure VCU did as well.):lol:

[busamboy]

:Clap:


Thanks man, I like your feedback. So far, nobody has wanted to hang me yet.

[Beaker]

Hmmmmm, that wasn't what congress was told when they voted on the war.....

WMD's anyone, hello, WMD's Bueller?

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3718150.stm

I dont care what congress was told, the self evident truth is that is exactly what is being fought for.

[The Noob Avenger]

I guess we need to join the psychic friends network. Interesting though, that those in the network are receiving different messages.

The troops are following orders. Their leader is telling them to fight, so they fight. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

[kevin28_1962]

You don't have to be a soldier over there to know what the war is about. It is and always was about the oil. I hate to bring conspiracies into this, but I would imagine that the Taliban would have attacked the Pentagon with a lot more force than it did. I also saw where the new wall was built, and if a plane could take down the trade center, a plane would have done a hell of a lot more damage to the Pentagon than what it did.

I personally dont see a conspiracy there. The WTC's were basically steel, glass and some concrete and while both towers withheld the impact at first, the heat from the jet fuel burning weakened the structure and brought about the collapse. You take into account the the aircraft that impacted the towers did not have to slow down much to hit them. On the other hand with attacking the Pentagon they did have to slow down. Basically they have to slow to a landing speed (around 145 knots) to come and pinpoint a smaller lower target. You also have to remember that the Pentagon is built with reinforced concrete and very little steel. The damage was 30 yards wide by 10 yards deep. I would think that is consistant with an aircraft flying at slower speeds hitting the building. I'm not a structural engineer though so take my assessment for what it's worth.

Even the Taliban is smart enough to know that! But I will keep quite about this and just say that this was all about oil and our control over the middle east.

I dont think too many people dont believe that it isn't about oil. The Wolfowitz Doctrine which you already brought up clearly states "overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." Not that I interpret that to say we are going to be the predominant power so it will force them to keep sending us oil, rather that we can be a force in the region to deter any entity from taking control over those governments who want to keep exporting oil to the west.

When you think about it, in this war, the American Soldier is cheap labor. If one of us dies, or 3000 of us dies, that is nothing on the greater scale of things.

Every war has been this way, not just this one... and not just with America's forces. Every nation, every leader, every time frame...The soldiers who have been the pawns of "the game" have always came from the lower classes and have been viewed as expendable. I fully knew that while I was in.

When you tell people that what I just said right there, they can't believe it and some will refuse to believe that our great country would exploit these areas for their resources. But I am telling you that America can and will use anything that will make this county greater. That includes signing the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

I know that we would exploit with the intent to keep our country safe and keep it's ecomony thriving. I personally dont find anything wrong with the Wolfowitz Doctrine (not that I read it in whole but saw the general concept). It was a Defense planning guidance.

Some of you may hate my politics, but remember how this country was founded. Remember the wars that we have had to fight. Like the civil war over having slaves. The fact that we had companies that sponsored Hitler.

You have every right to to have your political views as the rest of us. Heck in my thought logic you have more of a right to publically express you views just for the fact of being one of the defenders of our constitution. Again, bravo for your service!

[kevin28_1962]

So then, how come we are not at war with North Korea right now, or the other countries that don't have a democracy.

We are in a cease fire with North Korea. The Korean war never officially ended. I dont know if you ever had the "pleasure" of going over to the RoK but there are still quite a few US troops stationed over there. I did my one remote tour at Kunsan AB.

I do see the logic in your point. I just wanted to clarify that "technically" the Korean War never ended. No peace treaty has ever been signed.

[xxlt]

The troops are following orders. Their leader is telling them to fight, so they fight. It doesn't take a genius to see that.

And when the leader has contempt for the global community, the electorate at whose pleasure he serves, and the soldiers he commands it doesn't take a genius to see that either.

Many if not most of the soldiers still following orders are doing so because they were "stop lossed." If they believed in the mission the "stop loss" technique would not have to be utilized. I realize that the military works really hard to brainwash soldiers to follow orders, but this is how military coups start. Have you looked at the attrition rates of the "brass" lately? These men who lived their lives with the willingness if not the hope to be able to fight and/or lead troops for America are leaving in droves. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to see some who have remained say, "Enough is enough" and move against Bush.

[xxlt]

We are in a cease fire with North Korea. The Korean war never officially ended. I dont know if you ever had the "pleasure" of going over to the RoK but there are still quite a few US troops stationed over there. I did my one remote tour at Kunsan AB.

I do see the logic in your point. I just wanted to clarify that "technically" the Korean War never ended. No peace treaty has ever been signed.

Hard to believe the neocons aren't working that point harder...

Kevin, your previous post really surprises me. You seem to see things in much the same way busamboy does yet not come to the same conclusions about our government. I want to tread delicately here out of respect for your person, you opinions, and your military service. But, it just seems like you can almost admit some painful truths about our nation's shortcomings and then a denial mechanism kicks in. I hope that doesn't come across as an attack, because I don't mean it that way at all. It is just feedback that I hope is beneficial. If it isn't, feel free to disregard it. Thanks for your contributions to this thread.

[busamboy]

We are in a cease fire with North Korea. The Korean war never officially ended. I dont know if you ever had the "pleasure" of going over to the RoK but there are still quite a few US troops stationed over there. I did my one remote tour at Kunsan AB.

I do see the logic in your point. I just wanted to clarify that "technically" the Korean War never ended. No peace treaty has ever been signed.

I have been to South Korea, and there is a lot of prudes over there towards Americans. That was just the first one that popped into my mind because of that Team America movie which is hilarious!

I'm pretty sure that the wolfowitz doctrain would allow us to break that treaty in light of them trying to go nuclear.

[busamboy]

Hard to believe the neocons aren't working that point harder...

Kevin, your previous post really surprises me. You seem to see things in much the same way busamboy does yet not come to the same conclusions about our government. I want to tread delicately here out of respect for your person, you opinions, and your military service. But, it just seems like you can almost admit some painful truths about our nation's shortcomings and then a denial mechanism kicks in. I hope that doesn't come across as an attack, because I don't mean it that way at all. It is just feedback that I hope is beneficial. If it isn't, feel free to disregard it. Thanks for your contributions to this thread.


I think that was pretty tactful!

[barryllium]

Trust me, the American people don't like being lied to by its own gov't either. See Bush's approval rating, although a number of other things "helped" lead to that....

-Lies lies lies
-National debt
-Housing Crisis
-Cannibalism (alright that may be a stretch, but if we had another 8 years of Bush, who knows where America would be headed) :ninja:

*Put's down neighbors leg*

What, oh - we aren't there yet? Sorry...

Boy, have I got a lot to explain to this guy's parents...

[barryllium]

Again you have no clue as to what goes on here in the U.S. or who watches what goes on at American College Campuses ...

And, neither do you.

[busamboy]

And, neither do you.


I'm sorry, but I couldn't contain myself

:rotf::rotf:

[barryllium]

And again....as it's been said in countless threads prior to this one....all the CIC has to go on is his Intel. In this case that intel, and the intel of other nations said Saddam had WMD.

He was certainly acting as if he had WMD by playing the shell game with the UN weapons inspectors during the 90's.

Oh, and don't forget the UN. Koffi Annon said himself that Iraq had WMD for which they could not give account.

With all that on the table as president, invading Iraq made sense.

Actually, the UN did have info that Iraq did not have WMD's (as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency)...

United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
International Atomic Energy Agency - http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

And, we have lots of evidence that not only did Al-Qaeda not have a presence in Iraq at the time (another claim of the government as to why we were going to war)...

CIA - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
CIA Kerr Group - http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf

And finally, info that evidence was manipulated by our government to strengthen the case for going to war...

Defense Department - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

Iraqi National Congress (formed with aid and direction of US) provided false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion
Defense Department - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm and http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp

Why would we need to lie about these things, and manipulate evidence to strengthen the case for war if we, in the end, had an overall nobel and just case to go to war in the first place? :hmm:

[kevin28_1962]

I think that was pretty tactful!

very. I respect the way xxlt wrote that. Too bad everyone who writes in here isn't as tactful.

[busamboy]

I personally dont see a conspiracy there. The WTC's were basically steel, glass and some concrete and while both towers withheld the impact at first, the heat from the jet fuel burning weakened the structure and brought about the collapse. You take into account the the aircraft that impacted the towers did not have to slow down much to hit them. On the other hand with attacking the Pentagon they did have to slow down. Basically they have to slow to a landing speed (around 145 knots) to come and pinpoint a smaller lower target. You also have to remember that the Pentagon is built with reinforced concrete and very little steel. The damage was 30 yards wide by 10 yards deep. I would think that is consistant with an aircraft flying at slower speeds hitting the building. I'm not a structural engineer though so take my assessment for what it's worth.




I do like your assessment of speed and height. It looked to me that the planes were not going that fast to make sure they hit the buildings too. Especially considering none of them had actually flown a plane before.

The problem that i have with the whole Pentagon plane, is that there were witnesses that said there was not a 747 that hit that building. But also, it would have easily been dismissed by the number of cameras that are pointed directly to it. But what happened. The government came in and confiscated all those tapes. What is so hard about showing a plane crash into the Pentagon. There were what seemed like millions of cameras showing the planes hit the towers. All I am saying, is that it is a little weird that the evidence that is needed to prove to me that we should be at war with the Taliban and more importantly Iraq, it is not there. But the tapes that constitute the fear that has been placed into America are readily available and were shown millions of times, time and time again!

I also know someone from New York that said he saw a news report in New York about 4 non arabs being arrested while placing bombs on the George Washington bridge during the emergency. I don't really think it happened, but he seemed adamant that it was true. Only one report, then it disappeared from the news permanently. I don't really know, just an example of the crazy stuff that people have put into my head over the years that is plausible in my opinion.

Another example, I would not have believed the government would exploit Pat Tillman like that, and guess what it did. We should be completely and utterly ****** about that right now. Our government doesn't give two ****s about the average person. Only if we pay taxes, that is all they give a crap about. That is why all this attention has turned towards the illegals, so that they can help fund the war.

[kevin28_1962]

I do like your assessment of speed and height. It looked to me that the planes were not going that fast to make sure they hit the buildings too. Especially considering none of them had actually flown a plane before.

The problem that i have with the whole Pentagon plane, is that there were witnesses that said there was not a 747 that hit that building. But also, it would have easily been dismissed by the number of cameras that are pointed directly to it. But what happened. The government came in and confiscated all those tapes. What is so hard about showing a plane crash into the Pentagon. There were what seemed like millions of cameras showing the planes hit the towers. All I am saying, is that it is a little weird that the evidence that is needed to prove to me that we should be at war with the Taliban and more importantly Iraq, it is not there. But the tapes that constitute the fear that has been placed into America are readily available and were shown millions of times, time and time again!

I also know someone from New York that said he saw a news report in New York about 4 non arabs being arrested while placing bombs on the George Washington bridge during the emergency. I don't really think it happened, but he seemed adamant that it was true. Only one report, then it disappeared from the news permanently. I don't really know, just an example of the crazy stuff that people have put into my head over the years that is plausible in my opinion.

Another example, I would not have believed the government would exploit Pat Tillman like that, and guess what it did. We should be completely and utterly ****** about that right now. Our government doesn't give two ****s about the average person. Only if we pay taxes, that is all they give a crap about. That is why all this attention has turned towards the illegals, so that they can help fund the war.

Well that's the thing with consipracy theories; there can be certainly plausibilities but does it neccessarily make them true? I think some disenchanted with the government are naturally going to see some logic and plausibilities in some theories that align with their belief. On the flip side you have people that think there is no way "OUR" government would do something like that. So who do you believe? I also think some of the evidence that was there is also going to be seen in a way that can explain those plausibilities as well. I've looked at a few Pentagon conspiracy websites and a few that refute the consipracy. You can look at the evidence from you own personal light and come up with different conclusions of what happened. I personally dont believe in the conspiracy. I do personally believe that an American Airlines 757 flew into the Pentagon. I'm sure there are others that say I'm a fool and bought into the government's cover up. As far as witnesses who said it was a missile I didn't see any names from the places I looked at. One web site said that one eye witness that stated it was a missile was in the underground Metro station at the time of the impact. I did see a list of eye witnesses that reported it was definitely a plane.

Would our government stoop to some sort of activity to fire a missile into it's own Defense Headquarters? I hope they wouldn't but I guess anything is possible. Is our government perfect? No far from it, but I do believe that we have the best system in the world. Could you imagine living someplace that wouldn't even allow you to discuss a topic of government cover up (such as Communist USSR in recent history, Communist China presently)? I've been around the world and you have too. We've seen what other countries are like and we can see in the news how messed up some other countries are. I'll tell you this..there isn't anywhere else that I'd rather live than our screwed up country. Sure it has it's flaws but tell me somewhere that doesn't.

The Pat Tillman issue, heck yeah that was a major screw up. I think someone was performing some major CYA. Duty in the Air Force is cushy compared to what you guys in the Army and Marines have it. Even in that cushy environment I see guys get p.o.'d at other guys. I always wondered if someone who was tired of Pat's gung-ho mentality, and under the stress of the situation just got fed up and said enough is enough. Then of course someone tried playing cover up and bit them in the arse. I dont know how it went down, but I wonder if that was how it happened.

Regarding our government not giving a crap about there average guy/gal; I think you're lumping the institution as a whole into one big bucket. There are some government agencies and some government officials who do care about the average person. Some work their butts off to help the average guy and gal but there's no news value in reporting stuff like that so all were going to focus on is the negativity. just my opinion.

[xxlt]

Kevin, nice job in post 63. You know what is sad as far as I am concerned? The conspiracy nuts seem more rational than the America can do no wrong crowd. But, I really think the former (nutty as they can be) are more rational than the latter.

I was gonna start a thread about Pat Tillman on Memorial Day, but I decided not to. I have a hard time listening to people who say "they hate us for our freedom" and "we have to fight them over there." But, if they can at least acknowledge what a debacle the handling of Pat's death was I figure maybe I can have a conversation with them. I saw some guys from his unit - I think on 20/20 or 60 Minutes - talking about the whole thing. His mom still doesn't know what happened for sure. But, based on what the guys from his unit who were there said, I don't think he was killed deliberately by a friendly. They explained what happened as best they could, they were very critical of the government cover up, they all spoke highly of him. I just think it was another unfortunate death that happened to be a friendly fire one. Too bad our government used it as an opportunity to further undermine its own credibility.

[EatonFan]

5 to 6 months is not that long. Why are we just not training thier Men and Women to defend themselves so we can leave?

Not exactly the same thing. You have to recruit (you have to have people there who WANT to, and you have to be sure they are not working against the newly formed government -- Two VERY huge hurdles right there), there's a language barrier, you have to equip them, and you have three major sects of the same religion that basically are quarreling and killing each other. Mix that all together and you have Iraq. Nothing is simple.

[EatonFan]

Actually, the UN did have info that Iraq did not have WMD's (as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency)...

United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
International Atomic Energy Agency - http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

And, we have lots of evidence that not only did Al-Qaeda not have a presence in Iraq at the time (another claim of the government as to why we were going to war)...

CIA - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
CIA Kerr Group - http://irrationallyinformed.com//pdfcollection/20040729_Kerr_Report.pdf

And finally, info that evidence was manipulated by our government to strengthen the case for going to war...

Defense Department - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

Iraqi National Congress (formed with aid and direction of US) provided false intelligence about connections with al-Qaeda to build support for a U.S. invasion
Defense Department - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0316-02.htm and http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/4/mccollam-list.asp

Why would we need to lie about these things, and manipulate evidence to strengthen the case for war if we, in the end, had an overall nobel and just case to go to war in the first place? :hmm:

Quite frankly because George W. bet that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. If WMD were found, his popularity poll would still be sky high and nobody would've cared about the "contrary" evidence (as there always is when making this high profile of a decision). Now that WMD were not found, we can now 20/20 look into the past and say, "Hey, this was there, why didn't you believe it?"

Politicians will always try to make themselves look good when making a big decision, ignoring the contrary view and try to strengthen their claims.

[VCU Rams]

Quite frankly because George W. bet that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. If WMD were found, his popularity poll would still be sky high and nobody would've cared about the "contrary" evidence (as there always is when making this high profile of a decision). Now that WMD were not found, we can now 20/20 look into the past and say, "Hey, this was there, why didn't you believe it?"

Politicians will always try to make themselves look good when making a big decision, ignoring the contrary view and try to strengthen their claims.

Should we really wage war based on a hunch/"bet"?

[EatonFan]

Why did that matter at all! Iraq was none of our business, we just wanted to control their oil flow. Nothing more. Since when did Iraq ever become a threat to the United States. Oh, thats right, not until we went in there!

If this was our intent (and it was likely one of many of our intents... not the only one), it failed miserably. I have not heard one thing about us exploiting their oil reserves. Am I wrong? Are we somehow hoarding their oil over there while crude prices hit record highs? Our intents as I see them:

1) Get WMD out of the hands of a bizarre and cruel dictator... mostly to shield Israel not us.

2) Liberate the Iraqi people from someone who killed literally hundreds of thousands.

3) Attempt to stabilize one country in the Middle East by setting up a Democracy who is at least somewhat friendlier to the US than most of the Mid East.

4) Protect one of the world's larger supplies of oil so that another regime (such as Iran) does not control a larger %.


There may be others but I believe these (in the order listed) are the reasons. Like them or not. Faulty thinking or not. Those are it. IMO.

[EatonFan]

Should we really wage war based on a hunch/"bet"?

It's happened many times before. See Cuba: Bay of Pigs as an example.

When the evidence is not 100% sometimes that's all you can do. When you are right everyone calls you a hero and you have monuments named after you. When you are wrong you are scoffed, second guessed, and mocked.

[barryllium]

Quite frankly because George W. bet that Saddam Hussein did have WMD. If WMD were found, his popularity poll would still be sky high and nobody would've cared about the "contrary" evidence (as there always is when making this high profile of a decision). Now that WMD were not found, we can now 20/20 look into the past and say, "Hey, this was there, why didn't you believe it?"

Politicians will always try to make themselves look good when making a big decision, ignoring the contrary view and try to strengthen their claims.

This last statement I can completely agree with.

[busamboy]

If this was our intent (and it was likely one of many of our intents... not the only one), it failed miserably. I have not heard one thing about us exploiting their oil reserves. Am I wrong? Are we somehow hoarding their oil over there while crude prices hit record highs? Our intents as I see them:

1) Get WMD out of the hands of a bizarre and cruel dictator... mostly to shield Israel not us.

2) Liberate the Iraqi people from someone who killed literally hundreds of thousands.

3) Attempt to stabilize one country in the Middle East by setting up a Democracy who is at least somewhat friendlier to the US than most of the Mid East.

4) Protect one of the world's larger supplies of oil so that another regime (such as Iran) does not control a larger %.


There may be others but I believe these (in the order listed) are the reasons. Like them or not. Faulty thinking or not. Those are it. IMO.

Again, as I have told anyone that uses excuse number one. The have had WMD's since we gave them to them to go to war with Iran.

And we also can't put it past some of the smartest minds that they planned it to go the way it did. I'm just saying. Also, the price of oil hasn't gone up, it just has for us because the value of the american dollar has gone down a lot. We are paying a little more in taxes for gas, but us being there has no bearing on the price.

I don't want to go on too much about this, I just wanted to throw it out there.

[EatonFan]

Again, as I have told anyone that uses excuse number one. The have had WMD's since we gave them to them to go to war with Iran.

And we also can't put it past some of the smartest minds that they planned it to go the way it did. I'm just saying. Also, the price of oil hasn't gone up, it just has for us because the value of the american dollar has gone down a lot. We are paying a little more in taxes for gas, but us being there has no bearing on the price.

I don't want to go on too much about this, I just wanted to throw it out there.

I realize the dollar is weak, but honestly it hasn't halved in the last year. Some of it is a rise in price here!

Then where is your argument that we want to be there to "control the flow of oil"?

[busamboy]

I realize the dollar is weak, but honestly it hasn't halved in the last year. Some of it is a rise in price here!

Then where is your argument that we want to be there to "control the flow of oil"?


Just think what the extra money is going to though. Who do you think is controlling it? The Iraqi government, I highly doubt it. I would think that an invasion was planned to make oil fund the war. And it is, it is a legitimate reason to raise prices now. And everyone will continue to say that it is because of the war. We're just talking about opinions vs. opinions here really.

[CloeHokie]

Just think what the extra money is going to though. Who do you think is controlling it? The Iraqi government, I highly doubt it. I would think that an invasion was planned to make oil fund the war. And it is, it is a legitimate reason to raise prices now. And everyone will continue to say that it is because of the war. We're just talking about opinions vs. opinions here really.

Isnt it obvious?

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hardball_1.jpg

Matthews will grill the secrets of Oil out of him once and for all!

[philhos]

If this was our intent (and it was likely one of many of our intents... not the only one), it failed miserably. I have not heard one thing about us exploiting their oil reserves. Am I wrong? Are we somehow hoarding their oil over there while crude prices hit record highs? Our intents as I see them:

1) Get WMD out of the hands of a bizarre and cruel dictator... mostly to shield Israel not us.

2) Liberate the Iraqi people from someone who killed literally hundreds of thousands.

3) Attempt to stabilize one country in the Middle East by setting up a Democracy who is at least somewhat friendlier to the US than most of the Mid East.

4) Protect one of the world's larger supplies of oil so that another regime (such as Iran) does not control a larger %.


There may be others but I believe these (in the order listed) are the reasons. Like them or not. Faulty thinking or not. Those are it. IMO.

Those are precisely the reasons we went to war with Iraq. It cracks me up when people think the only reason we went was WMDs. That was a big reason and the one mainly touted by the President and Congress and the media, but it wasn't the only reason.

[EatonFan]

Isnt it obvious?

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hardball_1.jpg

Matthews will grill the secrets of Oil out of him once and for all!

I knew it was Jethro all along! :p