# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?

## Logan13

*If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?*
salon.com
"To those of you against the war in Iraq, here is what you do not understand: Iraq is but one battle in the 60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror." Do you really want to leave Iraq and wait for the enemy and ideology that dropped the World Trade Center to grow into a much stronger, deadlier and efficient killing force? Did you not understand or believe President Bush in his address to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, when he said: 

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there ... This war will not be like other wars. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen ... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime ... But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows ... I ask for your ... patience in what will be a long struggle." 

I consider myself an independent conservative who still thinks Bush & Cheney are much better than the last administration, if for no other reason than they are not adulterers and liars, and I believe character counts. Bush in my opinion is very honest, loyal, wise and walks with much integrity. He confounds his critics by doing what he says and saying what he does without wavering. 

Bush did not steal the 2000 election! He won every time the votes were counted. History will show that the opposition tried to steal that election but failed. He did not lie about WMD in Iraq! His administration inherited an intelligence organization that made him believe WMD were being stockpiled in Iraq, along with a stated policy of regime change. 

Bush is mature, acts responsibly and governs by doing what is right, living by the creed "the buck stops here." The previous administration governed by polls and acted like "the buck never got here." After 9/11, and with current knowledge of the day, had Bush not invaded Iraq, I believe he would have been acting as irresponsibly as the previous president. 

I do not believe foreign policy under Bush has created more terrorists. On the contrary, it has revealed them. 

I also think that a quick retreat from the Middle East would be the same as circling our wagons while waiting for 9/11-inspired attacks to continue here with greater and greater lethality by an enemy who will use WMD as soon as possible. Just try to imagine 9/11 with nukes. 

If we choose defeat by giving up and retreating now, even if we are able to avoid attacks at home, we will be back in the Middle East within 10 years facing a much stronger and emboldened enemy with WMD at a cost to the United States in lives and resources hundreds of times higher than at present levels. Victory in the Middle East will be much less costly in a slow deliberate struggle over a long run and should be treated with the same patience that has kept us in Japan, Germany and Korea for more than 40 years."

----------


## ***xxx***

a retreat would be bad, but I am very certain that the bush area has created more terrorists than ther opposite.

and the argument about korea/germany/japan: totally different story! u can t compare religious fanatics with the ppl in those country after the war. the muslim fantics believe that they will enter heaven and get their 70 virgins if they get killed fighting against the us/west. they don t care if they live or die.

----------


## eliteforce

Stale right wing facist-rhetoric, the notion that this huge quagmire in Iraq-that costs $2,000,000,000 a week and 100's coalition deaths everymonth with US service members getting killed everyday-with no end in sight-is somehow "not that big of deal" because it's "only 1 battle"..and everyone is just supposed to ignore it and pretend that it's not there and stick with it year after year, even as it bankrupts the nation. 

The US will not stay in Iraq for 60 years, but even if it did, thats just more proof that the Iraq war can never be won, that the enemy can continue guerrilla warfare forever.

And then there's this annoying condecending and manipulative neo-con dogma that exploits 9/11-saying "remember how you felt that day" and then suggesting that America made a pact that day to persue this failed foreign policy for 60 years and there's no going back -_ the decision has been made_

finally there's this ignorant simplistic approach to terrorism like it this big blob that you can attack-you just need to find "Islamic terrorists" somewhere and blindly throw all your money and military strength at it until it dies..with complete disreguard to the countries and people this grouse policy affects and complete denial that bombing and attacking these arab and moslem nations creates terrorists itself. In this fantasy world you are either a US 'us' state or a 'them' Terrorist state.

and ofcourse the US in Japan and Germany cannot be compared to the Iraq war because there was no guerilla campaign against the UD forces and for most of the time, they have only been in isolated bases-not an occupation..do you think it costs 2 billion a week to keep that base in Japan?

----------


## ginkobulloba

Is it just me or is America headed into a sort of civil war? This us versus them mentality has been going on for the last 6 or 7 years but it's getting to be more and more in your face. Be it the blue states versus the red or what have you, America's got a schism happening that is kind of disturbing. One nation, divided by politics.

----------


## gixxerboy1

On CNN they had a few terrorists experts and whatnots. And they were saying al-queda is stronger now then before we went into Iraq. We have made it worse.

----------


## Mogamedogz

*



"I consider myself an independent conservative who still thinks Bush & Cheney are much better than the last administration, if for no other reason than they are not adulterers and liars, and I believe character counts. Bush in my opinion is very honest, loyal, wise and walks with much integrity. He confounds his critics by doing what he says and saying what he does without wavering."


*

Whoever wrote and believes this crap should be institutionalized immediately.

----------


## Red Ketchup

My personnal opinion is that the USA "Loses for good" more and more every time an American soldier dies in Iraq.

To this date, there are 3608 American deaths in Iraq (including 116 suicides!) confirmed by the DoD. ( http://icasualties.org/oif/ ) 26558 American soldiers wounded....

Was that piss hole of a country worth the life or limb of a single brave soldier? I don't personally think so. 

Red

----------


## gixxerboy1

I understand nobody wants to loose. But when do we win?

----------


## Logan13

> Whoever wrote and believes this crap should be institutionalized immediately.


Care to elaborate on where this person is wrong?

----------


## Mogamedogz

> Care to elaborate on where this person is wrong?



I never said that they were "wrong" (that is not really possible considering they are simply stating their "opinion").

I just happen to be of the "opinion", that anyone who *REALLY* believes that nonsense, is either related to Dubya' or delusional.

----------


## Primalinstinct

We are not leaving anytime soon. 

I tell ya, everyone watches too many movies these days. Instant gratification, commercial-watching drones (Look! The stain is gone instantly!!).

When the U.S. bombs the living piss out of a nation they flip the bill and offer the labor to rebuild the specific area. For example, the government currently has _25,000_ contracts with private companies alone, in Iraq, to rebuild. It takes years -- if not decades to recoupe a region. The U.S. federal government likes it this way, any how. It gives them reason to hit the American people up for more money and continue to become the greatest corrupt corporation in human history. This approach is the new 'cold war excuse' of fear to suck trillion$ from citizens. "War on terror?" You go to war on a country, not on an 'act' such as terror. Terror is a method, a strategy. "War on terror" is a bottomless statement that leaves you hopeless on a daily basis.

Bases and military presence will likely be evident in Iraq by the U.S. for my lifetime and beyond. That is the really of this situation regardless of what the AP has you pumped up about today. Frankly, *I am proud of all our troops* who have the foresight to realize this war does not need to carry over the Atlantic ocean and onto U.S. soil. We are not used to that kind of a horrible lifestyle here and we would decline swiftly as a nation. Can you say, "goodbye, Dow Jones"? See you, 401k? All in a matter of weeks, if not days. 

We are in Iraq for years to come. 

Get over the daily reports that have you hyped up simply for THIER ratings of the day. News is a profitable and powerful business/medium. They are simply trying to make their buck at any persons' expense.

----------


## Mogamedogz

> We are not leaving anytime soon. 
> 
> I tell ya, everyone watches too many movies these days. Instant gratification, commercial-watching drones (Look! The stain is gone instantly!!).
> 
> When the U.S. bombs the living piss out of a nation they flip the bill and offer the labor to rebuild the specific area. For example, the government currently has _25,000_ contracts with private companies alone, in Iraq, to rebuild. It takes years -- if not decades to recoupe a region. The U.S. federal government likes it this way, any how. It gives them reason to hit the American people up for more money and continue to become the greatest corrupt corporation in human history. This approach is the new 'cold war excuse' of fear to suck trillion$ from citizens. "War on terror?" You go to war on a country, not on an 'act' such as terror. Terror is a method, a strategy. "War on terror" is a bottomless statement that leaves you hopeless on a daily basis.
> 
> Bases and military presence will likely be evident in Iraq by the U.S. for my lifetime and beyond. That is the really of this situation regardless of what the AP has you pumped up about today. Frankly, *I am proud of all our troops* who have the foresight to realize this war does not need to carry over the Atlantic ocean and onto U.S. soil. We are not used to that kind of a horrible lifestyle here and we would decline swiftly as a nation. Can you say, "goodbye, Dow Jones"? See you, 401k? All in a matter of weeks, if not days. 
> 
> We are in Iraq for years to come. 
> ...


IN-FVCKINIG-DEED!!! ^^ 

I wonder which lucky company is going to make the most mula off of those "Rebuilding Contracts"? That would be interesting to know...  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Primalinstinct

> Is it just me or is America headed into a sort of civil war? This us versus them mentality has been going on for the last 6 or 7 years but it's getting to be more and more in your face. Be it the blue states versus the red or what have you, America's got a schism happening that is kind of disturbing. One nation, divided by politics.


And race.

----------


## eliteforce

YOU ARE WRONG, does the US still have bases in Vietnam? 

If you think the Americans can just go 'hide' somewhere in the desert and _not_ get KIA everyday and _not_ spend Billions everyweek you are very mistaken-it doesn't work that way..once you get down to 100,000 say good bye to Anbar province, Diyla province, most of the shiite cities and most of Bagdad-at this point most of those areas becomes Insurgent Land with the US military and the fake "Iraqi Government" having no control-at this point the Insurgents have defacto large swaths of total soverignty. Get down to 60,000 and say good by to Baghdad..keep in mind that even now with 200,000+ foriegn occupation forces (includes sec. contractors), the Green Zone is coming under sustained mortar and rocket fire..at 60,000 the place will be surrounded and the insurgents will stockpile rockets and mortars and greatly increase the harrassment..meanwhile whatever president will still be forced to come back again and again to Congress for "Emergency Funding".. a petty tough sell especially if it's gonna be a D Pres. and D Cong.
Once it starts unravelling maintaining any kind of a "strategic" presence just becomes pointless..

Lets not forget-the US has Kuwait as a reliable 'beach head' position, near landlocked Iraq has always been a useless position..WHEN, in the modern imperialist era, going back to the 1700's, has a landlocked country _ever_ had any strategic importance?




> We are not leaving anytime soon. 
> Bases and military presence will likely be evident in Iraq by the U.S. for my lifetime and beyond. That is the really of this situation regardless of what the AP has you pumped up about today. Frankly, *I am proud of all our troops* who have the foresight to realize this war does not need to carry over the Atlantic ocean and onto U.S. soil. We are not used to that kind of a horrible lifestyle here and we would decline swiftly as a nation. Can you say, "goodbye, Dow Jones"? See you, 401k? All in a matter of weeks, if not days. 
> 
> We are in Iraq for years to come. 
> 
> Get over the daily reports that have you hyped up simply for THIER ratings of the day. News is a profitable and powerful business/medium. They are simply trying to make their buck at any persons' expense.

----------


## Logan13

> I never said that they were "wrong" (that is not really possible considering they are simply stating their "opinion").
> 
> I just happen to be of the "opinion", that anyone who *REALLY* believes that nonsense, is either related to Dubya' or delusional.


I was just interested what, in your opinion, was specifically "delusional" and why.

----------


## Logan13

> IN-FVCKINIG-DEED!!! ^^ 
> 
> I wonder which lucky company is going to make the most mula off of those "Rebuilding Contracts"? That would be interesting to know...


Don't know, but I do know that not one US company got a contract on the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil fields. Let's get the facts straight before making absurd statements, to not do so makes you look, well...........absurd.

----------


## Mogamedogz

> I was just interested what, in your opinion, was specifically "delusional" and why.


"BUSH IN MY OPINION IS VERY HONEST..."  :Hmmmm:   :Hmmmm:  ?? Are you serious!?? That statement says it all!!!

Maybe this person MISSED what could go down as the single most DEVASTATING lie ever told to the American people... "There are WMD's in Iraq". 

We went overseas to find those responsible for 9/11 and when we ran into trouble finding them, we pulled up stakes and proceeded to run "unprovoked" into a country that (while we have a history with), did nothing of relevance to ask for it recently. ALL BASED ON LIES!! 

Iraq was not a threat to us. Iraq could have never done much damage to us, and knew full well that if they masterminded any major attack on the US, they would literally be swept from the planet with a full-scale and coordinated attack (key word being coordinated) that was supported by the majority of the planet. Now, however, we aren't against just Iraq. We have accomplished something that no one was thought to be capable of. We united the Middle East with one overlying thought. Hate America. While we have never had allot of friends over there (mostly because of the way we have treated the area over the last century), most of the true hatred wasn't focused, and the countries were never allied in their hatred. For crying out loud, we almost have Iran and Iraq as friends, which has been an eternal war for centuries (granted, I think Iran only wants to expand their borders, but that's not the point).

Thru our bullying tactics, and our support of Israel and their bullying tactics the vast majority of the Middle East (even those who are non-fanatical) are slowly uniting against us. THAT will be a threat. Nearly the entire southern edge of Asia has all but spit in our faces now, and have displayed that they will not concede to our will any longer, and if necessary will die for that belief. This is not even saying how much we have pissed off the rest of the world, including many European nations, as well as most of Asia. We are quickly isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, and we almost cannot come out on top any longer.

WWIII is likely just around the corner, only it will be the most of the entire world against us, and if that happens, we will not survive. How that war will manifest itself appears to be the only question...at least to me. 

WMDs wasn't even sufficient reason for us to pull up stakes and plunge into an unorganized battle plan with a completely separate and unclear agenda. Even if it were true, (which it clearly was not) so much for Dubya's "HONESTY"). 

The funny thing is, he muttered WMD's constantly as if that changed the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and THAT was what the people supported, and THAT was what THE WORLD supported. Instead we half-assed it into Iraq and opened a can of worms that we can't get the lid back on.

In the end, we are there for personal agenda, and no other reason. If you can honestly sit there and come up with another reason why we went there that isn't propaganda ridden garbage, then please...tell me, cuz I am dying to know. It was personal agenda, whether financial or political is moot (I happen to believe that it was for BOTH), there's just no other explanation.


Anyone who considers a moral wrong like ADULTRY, more EVIL than the sacrifice of 3,658 American lives and counting (because of a personal agenda), needs to have their head examined.

----------


## Mogamedogz

> Don't know, but I do know that not one US company got a contract on the rebuilding of the Iraqi oil fields. Let's get the facts straight before making absurd statements, to not do so makes you look, well...........absurd.


Simple yes or no... 

*DID DICK CHENEY AND HIS FRIENDS PROFIT FROM "NO BID" CONTRACTS AWARDED DURING (and as a direct result of) THE WAR IN IRAQ??* 

if your answer is "NO"... than it is YOU my friend who sounds "absurd" (and dillusional :Icon Rolleyes:  ).

----------


## ginkobulloba

This is why America is in the middle of a growing civil war. This shit going on the desert, of which I was a part of for more than one tour, is tearing apart America. Blue versus red or what have you is only growing with each day that passes.

----------


## givemethejuice

> "BUSH IN MY OPINION IS VERY HONEST..."   ?? Are you serious!?? That statement says it all!!!
> 
> Maybe this person MISSED what could go down as the single most DEVASTATING lie ever told to the American people... "There are WMD's in Iraq". 
> 
> We went overseas to find those responsible for 9/11 and when we ran into trouble finding them, we pulled up stakes and proceeded to run "unprovoked" into a country that (while we have a history with), did nothing of relevance to ask for it recently. ALL BASED ON LIES!! 
> 
> Iraq was not a threat to us. Iraq could have never done much damage to us, and knew full well that if they masterminded any major attack on the US, they would literally be swept from the planet with a full-scale and coordinated attack (key word being coordinated) that was supported by the majority of the planet. Now, however, we aren't against just Iraq. We have accomplished something that no one was thought to be capable of. We united the Middle East with one overlying thought. Hate America. While we have never had allot of friends over there (mostly because of the way we have treated the area over the last century), most of the true hatred wasn't focused, and the countries were never allied in their hatred. For crying out loud, we almost have Iran and Iraq as friends, which has been an eternal war for centuries (granted, I think Iran only wants to expand their borders, but that's not the point).
> 
> Thru our bullying tactics, and our support of Israel and their bullying tactics the vast majority of the Middle East (even those who are non-fanatical) are slowly uniting against us. THAT will be a threat. Nearly the entire southern edge of Asia has all but spit in our faces now, and have displayed that they will not concede to our will any longer, and if necessary will die for that belief. This is not even saying how much we have pissed off the rest of the world, including many European nations, as well as most of Asia. We are quickly isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, and we almost cannot come out on top any longer.
> ...


\

Bullshit!! Think about it. The world has become too commercilaized. If you take away the U.S.'s buying power from the rest of the world, everybodys economy would crumble. We are the number 2 importer in the world behind China!

----------


## Mogamedogz

> \
> If you take away the U.S.'s buying power from the rest of the world, everybodys economy would crumble.


That's what happens in a (modern day) "WORLD WAR"...Economies will crumble. 

You dont think that the "former" Soviet Union is sitting back right now watching us fight this war that we cant win, wearing a huge grin?? (Similar to what we did to them??) I wouldnt be (even a little bit) surprised if the insurgents were getting a little "secret asistance" from our old foe's. 

Like I said... it is not a matter of "IF", it is a matter of "When" and "How". What you are seeing in Iraq, is the begining stages of the third World War.

----------


## Flagg

First of all, what is a "win" in Iraq exactly? What is the primary objective to achieve that win cause it seems to have just been forgotten in the shuffle and secondly, what then? Is Bush gonna declare War on Terror on the entire Middle East after that? Cause if he wants to stamp out Al Queda, thats what he's gonna have to do. Go into every Muslim dominant country in the world.

----------


## Primalinstinct

> YOU ARE WRONG, does the US still have bases in Vietnam? 
> 
> If you think the Americans can just go 'hide' somewhere in the desert and _not_ get KIA everyday and _not_ spend Billions everyweek you are very mistaken-it doesn't work that way..once you get down to 100,000 say good bye to Anbar province, Diyla province, most of the shiite cities and most of Bagdad-at this point most of those areas becomes Insurgent Land with the US military and the fake "Iraqi Government" having no control-at this point the Insurgents have defacto large swaths of total soverignty. Get down to 60,000 and say good by to Baghdad..keep in mind that even now with 200,000+ foriegn occupation forces (includes sec. contractors), the Green Zone is coming under sustained mortar and rocket fire..at 60,000 the place will be surrounded and the insurgents will stockpile rockets and mortars and greatly increase the harrassment..meanwhile whatever president will still be forced to come back again and again to Congress for "Emergency Funding".. a petty tough sell especially if it's gonna be a D Pres. and D Cong.
> Once it starts unravelling maintaining any kind of a "strategic" presence just becomes pointless..
> 
> Lets not forget-the US has Kuwait as a reliable 'beach head' position, near landlocked Iraq has always been a useless position..WHEN, in the modern imperialist era, going back to the 1700's, has a landlocked country _ever_ had any strategic importance?



No need to shout at me. I already had a Mom.


I'm going to give you an example just with a little sliver of land called Japan. I will not even get into Europe, Guam.... Even Kuwait *foot in your mouth* a country we invaded:

For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past *58 years*, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa "hosts" *ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island's second largest city*. (Manhattan's Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people's countries, but no one -- possibly not even the Pentagon -- knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years.

----------


## eliteforce

OK the difference is in all those places you mention, the US never faced an organized guerilla war and real local police controlled the general area. Even if these bases are large-they are pretty much large peices of land and the Americans are concentrated in them. That is not an occupation, that is just have military assets stationed in a friendly country. The one place America had an insurgency is Vietnam, and ultimatly every last position had to be evacuated.

----------


## Property of Steroid.com

I think that the bottom line is that the Iraqis did not and would not have fought for the freedom they now have. They didn't fight for it, they don't respect it, and they won't be able to keep it if we leave, for all of those reasons.

----------


## Joemeek

I believe the Iraqi people felt they were let down in 91 when the forces pulled out and left them to it, hence the reason so many were killed after it and why they were so reluctant to get involved the second time. 
They should have finished the job off the first time like Schwarzkopf wanted.

----------


## Hoggage_54

"Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
-- George H. W. Bush, "A World Transformed," 1998 memoir
(explaining why the US did not occupy Iraq in the 1991 "Desert Storm" war)

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?
How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"
-- Dick Cheney, 1991

----------


## eliteforce

What ever happened to Dick Cheney? I read thatn and remember prety much agreeing with everything he used to say back then when republican forign policies were successful.

one more note-the number of people slaughtered in the aftermath of the shia uprising in 91 was greatly exagerated, numbers like 100,000 were floated around but in reality it was probably less than 10,000. The notion that the Iraqi people felt "let down" in 1991 because the US _didn't_ occupy their country subjecting them to years of destruction and mass killing is absolute non-sense; The Iraqi people never wanted this invasion,then or in 2003; even the hardcore islamists who hated saddam didn't want his regime deposed in that way.

----------


## Army God

> On CNN they had a few terrorists experts and whatnots. And they were saying al-queda is stronger now then before we went into Iraq. We have made it worse.



That doesn't seem to make sense considering we haven't had an attack in America since Sept 11th. Don't forgot that we were attacked in America numerous times BEFORE we went into Iraq. 

We kill thousands of terrorists a day. Fight the war over there or let them bring it back to U.S. soil and create another 911

----------


## BgMc31

> And race.



And which race should that be?

----------


## BgMc31

> That doesn't seem to make sense considering we haven't had an attack in America since Sept 11th. Don't forgot that we were attacked in America numerous times BEFORE we went into Iraq. 
> 
> We kill thousands of terrorists a day. Fight the war over there or let them bring it back to U.S. soil and create another 911



So not true and absolute political rhetoric. We aren't killing thousands of terrorists a day, we are killing thousands of guerrilla fighters who want an occupying force out of their country. Even Fox news reports that al Queda is responsible for 15% of the attacks on US soldiers. 

The fact that we haven't been attacked since 2001 doesn't mean we are safer. The last terrorists attack on American soil (by Islamic terrorists) before 2001 was the WTC bombing in 1993. It took 8 years before another attack. It has only been 6yrs since 9/11. We cannot claim that a BS war in Iraq (which has already been proven to not house terrorists and no affiliation with Al Queda until we invaded) had prevented terrorist attacks in the US.

In reference to the original post where the cat claims that Bush is more honorable and trustworthy than the 'previous adminstration', I would much rather trust a man who lied about getting a blow job than a guy who lied about a DUI conviction ("George Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. [The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie.] Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. His spokesman says that he had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. Bush was 30 at the time. He now says that he stopped drinking when he turned 40 because it was a problem. 

More troubling, Bush lied in denying such an arrest, and still won't take responsibility for his actions. His first reaction was to blame Democrats and Fox News -- the only openly conservative TV network -- for reporting the story. "Why [was this reported] now, four days before the election? I've got my suspicions." He refused to say what his suspicions are, though. Bush admits covering up the story, but seems to think he has no responsibility for the failure of his cover up. ")

----------


## Army God

So if another attack happens on American soil will you blame it on our Iraqi occupation?

----------


## BgMc31

> So if another attack happens on American soil will you blame it on our Iraqi occupation?


No I will blame it on the increase in radical islamic fundamentalism which is exaspirated by our continued presence in the Middle East. Do you honestly believe these people have no reason to hate us? Do you think it's just because the hate our way of life? If that is the case, how come there aren't any terrorists attacks in Sweden, Denmark, etc.? These places have no real presence in the Middle East.

----------


## Joemeek

> one more note-the number of people slaughtered in the aftermath of the shia uprising in 91 was greatly exagerated, numbers like 100,000 were floated around but in reality it was probably less than 10,000.


I never mentioned numbers but you seem to think 10,000 people being slaughtered is an acceptable number then ?




> The notion that the Iraqi people felt "let down" in 1991 because the US didn't occupy their country subjecting them to years of destruction and mass killing is absolute non-sense;


I never said that either. A lot of people felt let down because with the "ALLIED" help they stood up and wanted Saddam out. Remember a lot of these people lived in fear of this man and rightly so, therefore they were a bit hesitant to offer more help and information to help the Allied troops second time incase they pulled out again. So chill out, i'm not here to argue with you.

----------


## Primalinstinct

> And which race should that be?


All races. 

It is a melting pot on the hill, now. Everyone is in it for themselves and NOTHING is getting done. Just take a look at how may caucuses / special interest committees that have been start in just the past 5 years. It went from 20 or 30, to 200 or 400 of them! How the heck is anything going to get done that way?

And, yes. Race plays a big part of stagnant progress.

The majority is not represented in th US anymore. This is the ultimate demise and decent of the quality in the US. Is not majority the catalyst of a democracy?

This is intentional to bring on the the _North American Union_ (Mexico, US, Canada merger) and _Amero_ currency that will be instilled. The Federal Reserve cartel will have a field day with the change over and make their inbred kids even more wealthy. It only took less than 100 years for the Federal Reserve (1914) to take the power (money) over. Hence, our land Thanks lawyers. Thanks Corporations.

Did you know the Federal Reserve is NOT a branch of the federal government? J.D. Rockefeller and company decided to start loaning money to a country who already collected trillions from it's citizens. It is a bunch of rich bastards whom you will never know. Did you ever see the board who appointed the infamous Mr. Greenspan? Of course not. They're too ****ing rich. They run this land.

Did you know your US dollar is backed only by confidence? It is paper you could wipe you ass with someday. The gold standard was taken away from the currency I think during Nixon's years... Like magic. Why isn't anyone upset about such an action on a people? Because Paris Hilton is out of jail and that is more important.

----------


## Primalinstinct

_YOU ARE WRONG, does the US still have bases in Vietnam?_


Vietnam = rice patties

Iraq = oil

Any questions?

We are not there because corn is their major crop.

----------


## Decoder

the iraqis didnt fight for there freedom, Therefore when its given to them when we leave they will loose it again. The war is a waste.

----------


## Primalinstinct

> the iraqis didnt fight for there freedom, Therefore when its given to them when we leave they will loose it again. The war is a waste.


yes. you can lead a horse to water.


but do they want what we want? 


they have such different tradition and beliefs.

----------


## LawMan018

> *If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?*
> salon.com
> "To those of you against the war in Iraq, here is what you do not understand: Iraq is but one battle in the 60-plus-year ideological struggle we call "the war on terror." Do you really want to leave Iraq and wait for the enemy and ideology that dropped the World Trade Center to grow into a much stronger, deadlier and efficient killing force? Did you not understand or believe President Bush in his address to the nation on Sept. 20, 2001, when he said: 
> 
> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but does not end there ... This war will not be like other wars. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen ... Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime ... But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows ... I ask for your ... patience in what will be a long struggle." 
> 
> I consider myself an independent conservative who still thinks Bush & Cheney are much better than the last administration, if for no other reason than they are not adulterers and liars, and I believe character counts. Bush in my opinion is very honest, loyal, wise and walks with much integrity. He confounds his critics by doing what he says and saying what he does without wavering. 
> 
> Bush did not steal the 2000 election! He won every time the votes were counted. History will show that the opposition tried to steal that election but failed. He did not lie about WMD in Iraq! His administration inherited an intelligence organization that made him believe WMD were being stockpiled in Iraq, along with a stated policy of regime change. 
> ...


I'm sorry, I thought you were going to have a punch line at the end of this, wow... Still got my laughs worth tho... Bush's regime better then the last? Wow... Um, I don't believe we were in debt 25 trillion plus, and I believe most of the world actually liked us... So, we can thank him for ruining our image as liberators and turning us into conquerors... What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq, clearly it was linked to the terrorist group within Saudi Arabia... And we have to fight terrorism head on.. Okay, why don't we go into Iran next? Clearly Bush has been one of "the worst" President's the United States has ever had... Just look at his approval rating  :Owned:

----------


## Fat Guy

> IN-FVCKINIG-DEED!!! ^^ 
> 
> I wonder which lucky company is going to make the most mula off of those "Rebuilding Contracts"? That would be interesting to know...


 Can you say HALIBURTON?

----------


## Logan13

> Clearly Bush has been one of "the worst" President's the United States has ever had... Just look at his approval rating


So with that same logic, would you say that today's Congress is the worst in history as well since they have the LOWEST approval rating in history? Which, BTW, is lower than Bush's..........

----------


## Mogamedogz

Hey Logan... see post #18. Still waiting for an answer.... :Shrug:

----------


## LawMan018

> So with that same logic, would you say that today's Congress is the worst in history as well since they have the LOWEST approval rating in history? Which, BTW, is lower than Bush's..........


Well they were Republican so I wouldn't doubt it, but now that the Democrats are in I'm sure it's going up quite nicely  :AaGreen22:

----------


## BgMc31

> So with that same logic, would you say that today's Congress is the worst in history as well since they have the LOWEST approval rating in history? Which, BTW, is lower than Bush's..........



Logan everytime someone brings up Bush's approval rating you resort to mentioning Congress' even when the topic has nothing to do with Congress. This is getting old and you know it. Stick to the topic brotha!

----------


## Hoggage_54

"Let's all forget this word "insurgency". It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started - they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting."

-- Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter, "We've Been Taken Over By a Cult" Jan. 26, 2005

----------


## Logan13

> Logan everytime someone brings up Bush's approval rating you resort to mentioning Congress' even when the topic has nothing to do with Congress. This is getting old and you know it. Stick to the topic brotha!


I am sick of you and others bringing up Bush's rating, but not Congress'. Congress' is the lowest in history, and yet you speak nothing of it. What's getting old are the obtuse statements and mindsets....... News flash for you. The dems will not take the Whitehouse in 2008, they do not have anyone who can win outside of the democratic nomination. Anyone who thinks that they do is living a fairy tale. What does this mean? It means that I have to hear you whine and wring your hands for another 4 years, at least.  :Chairshot:

----------


## Logan13

> "Let's all forget this word "insurgency". It's one of the most misleading words of all. Insurgency assumes that we had gone to Iraq and won the war and a group of disgruntled people began to operate against us and we then had to do counter-action against them. That would be an insurgency. We are fighting the people we started the war against. We are fighting the Ba'athists plus nationalists. We are fighting the very people that started - they only choose to fight in different time spans than we want them to, in different places. We took Baghdad easily. It wasn't because be won. We took Baghdad because they pulled back and let us take it and decided to fight a war that had been pre-planned that they're very actively fighting."
> 
> -- Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter, "We've Been Taken Over By a Cult" Jan. 26, 2005


You quote Seymour Hersh and expect us to be in awe? Come on.......

----------


## Logan13

> Well they were Republican so I wouldn't doubt it, but now that the Democrats are in I'm sure it's going up quite nicely


Captain Obvious.......This approval rating is for the _current_ Congress.......Anything else that you need me to explain?

----------


## Logan13

> Simple yes or no... 
> 
> *DID DICK CHENEY AND HIS FRIENDS PROFIT FROM "NO BID" CONTRACTS AWARDED DURING (and as a direct result of) THE WAR IN IRAQ??* 
> 
> if your answer is "NO"... than it is YOU my friend who sounds "absurd" (and dillusional ).


Is Cheney employed by them? Haliburton did profit. Can you point to any other US company that does what they do? I sell to the US gov't as well on a yearly contract. One item in particular is patented and is therefore unavailable elsewhere. Therefore, I win this every year under a "No-Bid contract". Can you tell me what is wrong with that? You speak of things for which you do not understand. Just because you are ignorant of the facts, does not make it wrong, it just makes you ignorant............

----------


## Army God

Logan, do you realize why you're the only conservative in this thread? Because anyone who says anything pro-war or conservative gets banned and what they say gets erased. It happened to a buddy of mine.

----------


## Logan13

What is obvious from many of your posts in this thread is that many of you simply do not know, what you just do not know. The world is more complex than what you might read on the dailykos. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the full perspective needed to make the irrational comments that many seem inclined to give in here. You have two choices: Either put the time into learning for yourself so that you can make informed comments, or just keep letting the blogger trolls form your opinions for you.

----------


## BgMc31

> What is obvious from many of your posts in this thread is that many of you simply do not know, what you just do not know. The world is more complex than what you might read on the dailykos. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the full perspective needed to make the irrational comments that many seem inclined to give in here. You have two choices: Either put the time into learning for yourself so that you can make informed comments, or just keep letting the blogger trolls form your opinions for you.



Just because we don't agree with your point of view Logan doesn't make us ignorance. Ignorance is believing there is only one point of view on any subject.

As far as you bringing up Congress' approval rating constantly, you tend to bring it up when it has nothing to do with the subject. Start a thread on Congress' approval rating or refer to one when no one says anything about it. Bush's approval rating has been declining way before this congress took office. That is something you don't speak of. Why is that? His own party members are distancing themselves from him. You have a tendency not to respond to those facts, you just continue to whine about Bush bashing and claim congress' approval rating is lower than Bush's...wah, wah, wah! Stick to the subject!

Where do you base your argument that a Dem can't win the White House? That is simply your opinion and stating it with emotion still doesn't make it fact it is still your opinion because most polls indicate otherwise. 

As far as the comment made by Army of God, stop whining. Conservatives don't get banned, intolerant and offensive people get banned. If being a conservative means being intolerant and offensive than you can keep that.

----------


## LawMan018

> What is obvious from many of your posts in this thread is that many of you simply do not know, what you just do not know. The world is more complex than what you might read on the dailykos. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the full perspective needed to make the irrational comments that many seem inclined to give in here. You have two choices: Either put the time into learning for yourself so that you can make informed comments, or just keep letting the blogger trolls form your opinions for you.


Logan we aren't going to get attacked more then we have been since the country was born... Sending troops to foreign countries for bullshit reasons (Iraq was never linked to 9/11, nor were there WMD's... Bush just wanted revenge for his daddy) is only going to increase the hate towards America, and not having a thorough plan what to do after our so called "victory" was just stupid on Bush's part... Bush has clearly gone way beyond FUBAR on leading our country and instead has dug us a big deep hole that the next President is going to have to get us out of! Hopefully we'll get another Clinton in to fix things up... After all, the only thing you Conservatives have on Clinton is his little act with you know who... And so what if he lied about it? I have no right to know about his personal life, and it in no way affected his leadership skills which were quite high up on the par, not to mention how great of a speaker he was as opposed to the current world-fumbling President we currently have. So if you're going to say Bush is better then Clinton, compare them first... We actually had a surplus of money, and weren't 25 trillion in debt, most of the world liked us, he was a great speaker, and I believe one of the greatest President's of all time! Oh speaking of Bush, I found a very interesting image of him...

----------


## Hoggage_54

We need more Republicans... The nightly jokes on The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report are too funny.

----------


## Logan13

> We need more Republicans... The nightly jokes on The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report are too funny.


That proves my point, you get your "news" from the comedy channel. Now that is funny!

----------


## m8intl

> On CNN they had a few terrorists experts and whatnots. And they were saying al-queda is stronger now then before we went into Iraq. We have made it worse.


+1 Iraq is now were terrorists go to train. The war has made the region more unstable.

----------


## rock357

We were complete fools to hang Saddam's a**. he was the best thing we could have hoped for in that stankhole of a country. He kept 3 groups of people who hate each other more than Dem's and Republicans together and made damn sure no fundementalist said a f'ing peep in Iraq while he was around. There was some stability in the country when that murdering nut was around instead of a breeding ground for a HUGE regoinal war. And please don't give me all that crap about "he killed innocent people." please we supplied the chemical weapons and know how to gas the Kurds and the Irainians. He was certainly no worse than some of the murders we've supported in Asia and South America. Big Mistake, and now were paying the price in our son's and daughters blood, not to mention our treasure. Which by the way was exactly what Osama wanted us to do. Didn't he say that we would bleed ourselves to death by attacking one of "his" enemys. Btw, did we ever catch that dude, or did we really attempt it.

----------


## rock357

> That proves my point, you get your "news" from the comedy channel. Now that is funny!



I hope you don't get yours from Fox News???????

Make no mistake about it. We will leave Iraq with our head hung in shame just like Vietnam, and there will be even more serious consequences than 9-11from this.

----------


## Hoggage_54

> Btw, did we ever catch that dude, or did we really attempt it.


There was an opportunity to capture/kill some senior Al Qaeda chiefs, but Donald Rumsfeld pulled the plug on it because he believed it would put too many American lives at risk.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/....0708intel.php

----------


## Information

> Logan, do you realize why you're the only conservative in this thread? Because anyone who says anything pro-war or conservative gets banned and what they say gets erased. It happened to a buddy of mine.


*Linksys

Once banned, always banned.*

----------


## Joemeek

Perhaps it doesn't help when you're all fighting amongst one another about Bush in America rather than trying to stand together about terrorism, we live in new times fighting these fanatics and don't think that if war never happened you'd all live a happy ever after life and it would never affect you or generations to come and If there was a pull out it would only strengthen these fanatics even more.
I did have my doubts about going to war there but it's done now and people with the luxury of criticizing the war from the comfort of their armchair say's a lot to me about the message you're sending out to these guy's over there giving their lifes for for their country's. It just makes it sound like they're fighting for nothing.
Just my oppinion.

----------


## m8intl

> It just makes it sound like they're fighting for nothing.
> Just my oppinion.


I'm not a soldier, but the soldiers with whom I've spoke, have flat out said _they_ feel like they're fighting for nothing and the whole situation is bull****.

----------


## Serotonin

Terrorism is never going to be stopped by invading a country. First, it costs way too damn much. Look at what this catastrophe of a "liberation" has done to our deficit. 

The people we're fighting are uneducated, religious zealots. (ok some may be educated but lack insight) Now whether these terror groups are actually fueled by zeal or some super villain sitting in his secret lair... I don't know, but force isn't the answer to taking these people out. It's pretty much like kicking the hornets nest. 

What we need to do is drop some science books in these fundamental Islamic countries instead of bombs. Maybe they'll learn something.

----------


## BgMc31

> I did have my doubts about going to war there but it's done now and people with the luxury of criticizing the war from the comfort of their armchair say's a lot to me about the message you're sending out to these guy's over there giving their lifes for for their country's. It just makes it sound like they're fighting for nothing.
> Just my oppinion.


So are you saying everyone should sit by and be quiet just so we can make the soldiers feel like they are fighting for something? 

Soldiers fight, that's what they do, that's there jobs and they are ok with what they signed up for. Soldiers don't normally question orders and right or wrong they carry them out. As a son of a soldier I respect what the troops are doing, as does everyone else. Let's stop trying to make it seem like everyone who is against the war are against the troops. This war isn't the fault of the soldiers, they are just following orders. This administration has screwed the pooch on this. THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE SOLDIERS, SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT SO!

----------


## Joemeek

> THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE SOLDIERS, SO STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT SO!


I'm not trying too, i'm from the UK and behind "all" the soldiers out there. The difference between you and me is that i'm taking a positive from the situation by saying they are fighting for something good (war on terrorism)unlike your negative demoralizing view of (they shouldn't be there) but they are, so calm down and stop shouting, it's just my take.




> What we need to do is drop some science books in these fundamental Islamic countries instead of bombs. Maybe they'll learn something.


I agree, but you can't teach people who don't want to learn. This stuff is brainwashed into them.

----------


## rock357

Fella's we all support our soldiers there's no doubt about that. Whether you support the war or are the most liberal hippy on the board I'm sure you don't want our soldiers to die. 

The problem isn't our military, they are the best war fighters in the world. The problem is our civilian leadership has failed them and us. Both Dem's and Rep's. We need to make them accountable for their actions. Until then we'll always be dealing with sh*t like Iraq's made up WMD and the made up "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. Straight from LBJ's mouth, completely made up.

----------


## Flagg

What I find bullshit about this war now is Bush's reason why he is still there in Iraq. Its to ensure that Al Queda dont set up shop like they did in Afghanastan. AND THEN WHAT??

They are everywhere. I mean what is he gonna do, invade EVERY COUNTRY that has a Terrorist Cell in it.

----------


## Joemeek

> _YOU ARE WRONG, does the US still have bases in Vietnam?_
> 
> 
> Vietnam = rice patties
> 
> Iraq = oil
> 
> Any questions?


Well if that's what you believe, then surely Americans must shoulder some blame then ? 
Being that America produces something like 7-9% of the worlds oil yet you consume around 40%.

----------


## gixxerboy1

Just my opinion. 

Nobody like war and if if we are winning or win people are going to die and towns destroyed. its going to upset people. I honestly think there is way to much media coverage and journalist on the front lines embedded with the troops. Whats the reason for this? Get the news station rating but how does help our military or troops? Like i said even if we have an easy victory someone is still going to get hurt and people are going to be upset.

Can you imagine how WWII would have been different if there was live coverage of the war? People would have freaked on what was going on over there. 

We are better off not knowing some things. I say if we are going to stay pull out the media and just f'n win the war.

----------


## m8intl

> Just my opinion. 
> I say if we are going to stay pull out the media and just f'n win the war.


How do you win against an enemy that isn't afraid to die, has no regard for human life, and _truly_ believes everything we stand for is evil? Unless we turn the whole region into a parking lot, I don't see how it's possible to win.

----------


## Mogamedogz

> Is Cheney employed by them? Haliburton did profit. Can you point to any other US company that does what they do? I sell to the US gov't as well on a yearly contract. One item in particular is patented and is therefore unavailable elsewhere. Therefore, I win this every year under a "No-Bid contract". Can you tell me what is wrong with that? You speak of things for which you do not understand. Just because you are ignorant of the facts, does not make it wrong, it just makes you ignorant............


You call me ignorant... I call you Delusional... works for me. In the end, you're just spinning your wheels trying to create a dust cloud of BS. I could pick apart your weak attempt to discredit my understanding of what "no bid" contracts are, but it would be pointless. Obviously you are too brainwashed to ACCEPT what they have done. You actually compared adultery to initiating an "unprovoked" invasion of a country... how can anything you say after that be taken as credible? Sane people don't think like that. Fanatical nut-job's do. 

BTW: The answer is a BOOMING "YES". Dicksmoker Cheney and his friends made more money as a result of this war than anyone. I guess by their calculations (appox) 4,000 US lives (and counting) were well worth it. I wonder how many of them have kids over their fighting to CREATE MORE...err... "Stop" ( :Aajack: )Terrorism.

----------


## BgMc31

[QUOTE=Joemeek]I'm not trying too, i'm from the UK and behind "all" the soldiers out there. The difference between you and me is that i'm taking a positive from the situation by saying they are fighting for something good (war on terrorism)unlike your negative demoralizing view of (they shouldn't be there) but they are, so calm down and stop shouting, it's just my take.



You are not taking a positive view, you are taking a disillusioned view. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Al Qaeda in Iraq is there because we are there, Al Qaeda had no Iraq affiliation before the war. Finally Al Qaeda is responsible for 15% of the violence in Iraq, the vast majority is by insurgents fighting what they feel is an occupying force. But if believing what you believe helps you cope with this f'ed up situation then so be it. Oh one other question Joemeek, how's the idea of us fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them on our own soil workin out for the Uk? It's been proven that you all are definately not safer.

I wish people would realize we aren't trying to bring democracy to that country. We are trying to have an ally in that area. Look what happened in Palistine. When they had free elections the voted for a Islamic militant group, so we cut off funding and support. The same would happen in Iraq and we will do the same. You cannot impose a western style democracy in countries controlled by religious fanatics. There religion doesn't allow it. Iraq is a mess, there is no 'victory' in terms of military action. We are spiraling downward and need a completely new course. I think the surge should have been directed towards Afganistan and Pakistan. That is where the true terror threat is.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> How do you win against an enemy that isn't afraid to die, has no regard for human life, and _truly_ believes everything we stand for is evil? Unless we turn the whole region into a parking lot, I don't see how it's possible to win.


I do agree with you. I guess i mean more about just securing Iraq. We could i believe do that.

----------


## m8intl

> I do agree with you. I guess i mean more about just securing Iraq. We could i believe do that.


I agree too. If we leave them up sh1t's creek, we'll create an evironment that fosters affinity for the terrorist agenda. They'll likely believe we screwed them for oil, and more will undoubtedly join the cause. We should secure the region and get out, but it's impossible to win imo.

----------


## Joemeek

> Just my opinion. Can you imagine how WWII would have been different if there was live coverage of the war? People would have freaked on what was going on over there.


They did..well kinda, they never had the technology for live footage then but they used to bring up the Pathe news in cinemas before the film to show footage of the war and i believe they showed film footage in cinemas during WW1 as well.




> We are better off not knowing some things. I say if we are going to stay pull out the media and just f'n win the war.


This i agree with but will never happen unfortunately.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> They did..well kinda, they never had the technology for live footage then but they used to bring up the Pathe news in cinemas before the film to show footage of the war and i believe they showed film footage in cinemas during WW1 as well.


I didn't know that. I'm assuming it was more of a propaganda hooray troops kind of footage. I remember seeing old black and white clips of war "commercials".

I'm assuming it wasn't coverage like today were the yare reporting how may deaths to us soldiers every minute

----------


## Joemeek

> I'm assuming it wasn't coverage like today were the yare reporting how may deaths to us soldiers every minute


I believe they showed clips from the Somme in WW1 about what was really happening and people dying, it just brought home the real truth about war, people crying in the cinemas as well.
People at home were very much in high spirits and lots of people were signing up for war, not really knowing what they were getting into.
They stopped putting groups of friends together as well when they signed up cause they were watching each other getting killed and these were people who knew each other all their lifes. So imagine going into war with all your best mates and watching them all getting their heads blown off in front of you cause this was what was happening  :Frown: .

----------


## UberSteroids

All this war and 9/11 is all BS. 
Took people some time to gather all the evidence and rethink everything that happened about 9/11 attack. Everyone was shocked back than, so obviously everyone believed it. I've seen some crazy documentary videos about 9/11, hope everyone did. 
So many poor people and soliders had to die in this f#$%ing nonsense for nothing. 
Trashing our own country and killing our own people, next using this as a reason to bomb the F out of their country then later drop crates with food and supplies. Destroying the sh!t out of the Iraq then trying to rebuild the whole thing and get the country going. What the F#[email protected] is this?! Why don't we get the F back to our home country and protect it and spend all the money to focus on rebuilding our economy!? It is all too late now, too much time passed, too much sh!t happened, too many people died. Well at least we could save all these poor soldiers that are stuck in this sh!t.
This is so messed up that I almost don't believe it is real.

----------


## Logan13

> What I find bullshit about this war now is Bush's reason why he is still there in Iraq. Its to ensure that Al Queda dont set up shop like they did in Afghanastan. AND THEN WHAT??
> 
> They are everywhere. I mean what is he gonna do, invade EVERY COUNTRY that has a Terrorist Cell in it.


What would you have us do, GIVE UP?

----------


## Logan13

[QUOTE=BgMc31]


> I'm not trying too, i'm from the UK and behind "all" the soldiers out there. The difference between you and me is that i'm taking a positive from the situation by saying they are fighting for something good (war on terrorism)unlike your negative demoralizing view of (they shouldn't be there) but they are, so calm down and stop shouting, it's just my take.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not taking a positive view, you are taking a disillusioned view. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Al Qaeda in Iraq is there because we are there, Al Qaeda had no Iraq affiliation before the war. Finally Al Qaeda is responsible for 15% of the violence in Iraq, the vast majority is by insurgents fighting what they feel is an occupying force. But if believing what you believe helps you cope with this f'ed up situation then so be it. Oh one other question Joemeek, how's the idea of us fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them on our own soil workin out for the Uk? It's been proven that you all are definately not safer.
> 
> I wish people would realize we aren't trying to bring democracy to that country. We are trying to have an ally in that area. Look what happened in Palistine. When they had free elections the voted for a Islamic militant group, so we cut off funding and support. The same would happen in Iraq and we will do the same. You cannot impose a western style democracy in countries controlled by religious fanatics. There religion doesn't allow it. Iraq is a mess, there is no 'victory' in terms of military action. We are spiraling downward and need a completely new course. I think the surge should have been directed towards Afganistan and Pakistan. That is where the true terror threat is.


Is Al Queada in Iraq now?

----------


## Logan13

> I hope you don't get yours from Fox News???????
> 
> Make no mistake about it. We will leave Iraq with our head hung in shame just like Vietnam, and there will be even more serious consequences than 9-11from this.


This would make you happy, wouldn't it. When you invest in defeat, you expect a return..............

----------


## eliteforce

This is a non-sense, the US is not making any money off Iraq's broken oil infrastructure, it's billions wasted every week- the entire pipeline grid in the north of the country has been halted and the insurgents smuggle and graft oil money at an alarming rate-which means Iraq's oil is used to kill US troops everyday-oh yea thats something worth fighting for..oil is just a commodity like rice..and as a matter of fact Vietnam exports $1.6 Billion Dollars of rice a year, so you could have just as easily said "blood for rice"
Oil is a commodity available all over the world and Iraq's oil production declined after the invasion helping to push the price at the pump up but ultimatly refining capacity has what has really driven prices up-a commodity-there is no real strategic value to holding a country just because it has some good reserves.




> _YOU ARE WRONG, does the US still have bases in Vietnam?_
> 
> 
> Vietnam = rice patties
> 
> Iraq = oil
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> We are not there because corn is their major crop.

----------


## Joemeek

After World War I, the oil companies carved up Iraq. Shell, BP, Exxon and Total all had stakes in the Iraq Petroleum Company. They paid pennies for each barrel of oil and built a pipeline to take it away. 

In 1972 the Iraqis nationalised the industry and threw the foreigners out. From then on Western oil companies could only dream of Iraq's oil reserves - the second largest in the world. 

With Saddam Hussein came decades of war followed by sanctions and Iraq's massive reserves lay largely untouched. But with Hussein's regime under threat, at last there was a chance to get back in.

Some could say 911 was the great opportunity to get there and get the oil.
I would not like to think it was but you can't say that was never discussed.

----------


## ROBOCOP

For what its worth, as a brit, the "war on terror" can and never should be ignored. Like yours our country is under threat every day since the attrocity of 9/11. Yes, we have always been under threat with our soldiers in Northern Ireland and many lives have been lost as a result of IRA bombings. But the IRA threat of which we have lived with for a considerable part of my life has never impacted on me like 9/11. My wife works for an airline and was in NY at the time the planes went into the towers. I fell to pieces, knowing that she was due out of JFK that day. Watching those pictures of what could have been my wife, drove me crazy. No one knew what airline, or who or why!!!!! I couldnt get in contact with anyone who could give me answers. As it unfolded I was truly ecstatic when I realised the airline involved was not that of my wifes. The euphoria didnt last long though. Reality of those who died so unnecessarily brought guilt of my good fortune home. What happened still haunts me to this day,,,,,why,,,,Im a brit, why should it bother me???? The fact is, I love America, all that it stands for and the patriotism you embrace so openly. Should we in Britain have gone to war, being the much needed allies of our friends. Your damned right we should. We are plagued with threats of more terrorist attacks in doing so but surely we cannot give in to acts of mindless cowardess and slaughter. I realise lives are still being lost from both USA and UK. Opinions here in the UK differ on the rights and wrongs, much the same as yours I expect. I do not see this war as a means of monetary cost or gain. I see it as two countries fighting for what we have done for centuries and that is a peaceful society free from terror. I applaud all those involved in the war over in iraq and afghanistan and I humbley respect those who are against our involvement. My gratitude to those who have suffered. Peace everybody.

----------


## BgMc31

> I am sick of you and others bringing up Bush's rating, but not Congress'. Congress' is the lowest in history, and yet you speak nothing of it. What's getting old are the obtuse statements and mindsets....... News flash for you. The dems will not take the Whitehouse in 2008, they do not have anyone who can win outside of the democratic nomination. Anyone who thinks that they do is living a fairy tale. What does this mean? It means that I have to hear you whine and wring your hands for another 4 years, at least.



Funny Logan that even your beloved Fox News is reporting that likely voters (both Republican and Democrats) would choose either Clinton or Obama over the Republican frontrunner Guiliani.

----------


## Mogamedogz

Man I cant stand Guiliani. PLEASE dont let that man win!!

----------


## BgMc31

> For what its worth, as a brit, the "war on terror" can and never should be ignored. Like yours our country is under threat every day since the attrocity of 9/11. Yes, we have always been under threat with our soldiers in Northern Ireland and many lives have been lost as a result of IRA bombings. But the IRA threat of which we have lived with for a considerable part of my life has never impacted on me like 9/11. My wife works for an airline and was in NY at the time the planes went into the towers. I fell to pieces, knowing that she was due out of JFK that day. Watching those pictures of what could have been my wife, drove me crazy. No one knew what airline, or who or why!!!!! I couldnt get in contact with anyone who could give me answers. As it unfolded I was truly ecstatic when I realised the airline involved was not that of my wifes. The euphoria didnt last long though. Reality of those who died so unnecessarily brought guilt of my good fortune home. What happened still haunts me to this day,,,,,why,,,,Im a brit, why should it bother me???? The fact is, I love America, all that it stands for and the patriotism you embrace so openly. Should we in Britain have gone to war, being the much needed allies of our friends. Your damned right we should. We are plagued with threats of more terrorist attacks in doing so but surely we cannot give in to acts of mindless cowardess and slaughter. I realise lives are still being lost from both USA and UK. Opinions here in the UK differ on the rights and wrongs, much the same as yours I expect. I do not see this war as a means of monetary cost or gain. I see it as two countries fighting for what we have done for centuries and that is a peaceful society free from terror. I applaud all those involved in the war over in iraq and afghanistan and I humbley respect those who are against our involvement. My gratitude to those who have suffered. Peace everybody.


Just like I asked the other UK resident on this thread, how's the idea of fighting them in Iraq so you won't have to fight them on your home soil working out for ya?

----------


## BgMc31

[QUOTE=Logan13]


> Is Al Queada in Iraq now?



Is Al Queada in Pakistan? Is Al Queada in many parts of North and Eastern Africa? If we are going to fight them, by your logic, we should be fighting them everywhere right?

----------


## Joemeek

> Just like I asked the other UK resident on this thread, how's the idea of fighting them in Iraq so you won't have to fight them on your home soil working out for ya?


It's nothing to do with fighting on your own soil, has history not taught you anything about brutal dictators if you just turn a blind eye ?
Is it just a case of, we'll leave them to it as long as they don't bother us.

----------


## ROBOCOP

> Just like I asked the other UK resident on this thread, how's the idea of fighting them in Iraq so you won't have to fight them on your home soil working out for ya?


Dude. You gotta be joking right?????? I take it that you dont approve of our help, however insignificant you feel it is/was. Why badmouth a brit when he gives a response in support of all opinions on the "war against terror" in Iraq?

Please tell me I misread what you said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## BgMc31

> It's nothing to do with fighting on your own soil, has history not taught you anything about brutal dictators if you just turn a blind eye ?
> Is it just a case of, we'll leave them to it as long as they don't bother us.



Are you speaking in terms of brutal dictators we used to support or just generally bad guys in general. BEcause if that is the case, Saddam was just a thug with no ties to terror organizations. There are far more dangerous and destructive men out there that we aren't taking care of... i.e North Korea and Iran. Please quit trying to justify this war.

----------


## BgMc31

> Dude. You gotta be joking right?????? I take it that you dont approve of our help, however insignificant you feel it is/was. Why badmouth a brit when he gives a response in support of all opinions on the "war against terror" in Iraq?
> 
> Please tell me I misread what you said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This isn't something I joke about. I'm not badmouthing a brit, nor am do I disapprove of your help. The fact that your are jumping on the Iraq bandwagon when it's been proven that Iraq had no ties to terrorists is foolhearted. Blair regrets his decision to blindly follow Bush into this war and his popularity took the hit because of it. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of your country is against the war in Iraq (not the war on terror, there is a difference), even moreso than our country. 

If I misread your post then I apologize, but it seems that you are on board with the war in Iraq. The reason I brought up the attacks on the UK is because that is the main justification used by this administration for our presence there. Supposedly if we fight them there we won't have to fight them on our own soil. But that has not proven true for the UK.

----------


## ROBOCOP

> This isn't something I joke about. I'm not badmouthing a brit, nor am do I disapprove of your help. The fact that your are jumping on the Iraq bandwagon when it's been proven that Iraq had no ties to terrorists is foolhearted. Blair regrets his decision to blindly follow Bush into this war and his popularity took the hit because of it. As a matter of fact, the overwhelming majority of your country is against the war in Iraq (not the war on terror, there is a difference), even moreso than our country. 
> 
> If I misread your post then I apologize, but it seems that you are on board with the war in Iraq. The reason I brought up the attacks on the UK is because that is the main justification used by this administration for our presence there. Supposedly if we fight them there we won't have to fight them on our own soil. But that has not proven true for the UK.


Bro The main essence of my input wasnt a bid to show my approval or disapproval on the war in Iraq. I do have to admit that the "weapons of mass destruction" were never found but could we as a Nation sit back and let Saddam commit mass genicide over and over again without lifting a finger to help? Yeah, Hans Blic should have been given more time, we were all screaming for that over here, but they went ahead anyway! My other point was to mention how the 9/11 attacks affected me and with good reason. Im not having a dig at you bro, I respect everyones opinion. And again for the record,,,the opinion of those who support the war and those who are opposed to the war IMO have equal merit.

----------


## king6

> Logan we aren't going to get attacked more then we have been since the country was born... Sending troops to foreign countries for bullshit reasons (Iraq was never linked to 9/11, nor were there WMD's... Bush just wanted revenge for his daddy) is only going to increase the hate towards America, and not having a thorough plan what to do after our so called "victory" was just stupid on Bush's part... Bush has clearly gone way beyond FUBAR on leading our country and instead has dug us a big deep hole that the next President is going to have to get us out of! Hopefully we'll get another Clinton in to fix things up... After all, the only thing you Conservatives have on Clinton is his little act with you know who... And so what if he lied about it? I have no right to know about his personal life, and it in no way affected his leadership skills which were quite high up on the par, not to mention how great of a speaker he was as opposed to the current world-fumbling President we currently have. So if you're going to say Bush is better then Clinton, compare them first... We actually had a surplus of money, and weren't 25 trillion in debt, most of the world liked us, he was a great speaker, and I believe one of the greatest President's of all time! Oh speaking of Bush, I found a very interesting image of him...


Don't you want to join the military? I don't see why you would if you feel this way. Or are you doing it for the college money?

----------


## king6

You know how Bush and Clinton differ? Bush had the balls to stand up to someone. Any other Democratic president after 9/11 would have just had everyone join hands in a circle and sing "give peace a chance". He did what everyone else was afraid to do. Maybe they didn't have WMD, but they were a threat. And Bush didn't show up at my door step with a gun and force me to join the Marines. I joined, I volunteered to go to Iraq. Besides, I hear the dems complain about the Bush administration, but do they offer solutions? No. They just say get out of Iraq. There was a reason that the republicans held the house and senate for so long, and they will have control again.

----------


## Logan13

> Funny Logan that even your beloved Fox News is reporting that likely voters (both Republican and Democrats) would choose either Clinton or Obama over the Republican frontrunner Guiliani.


ah yes, and the polls showed that Kerry had won the last presidential election as well. And as Dan Rather stated about the closing polls, "They have never been wrong since they were tracked". The funny thing is that Fox is reporting this, I thought that they slanted to the right........... :1laugh:

----------


## Logan13

[QUOTE=BgMc31]


> Is Al Queada in Pakistan? Is Al Queada in many parts of North and Eastern Africa? If we are going to fight them, by your logic, we should be fighting them everywhere right?


So your answer is "Yes, they are in Iraq"? Why not try dealing with the present and future? I'll bet that you still listen to Debarge and Cindy Lauper don't you. Move on Bg, move on!

----------


## Logan13

> Is it just a case of, we'll leave them to it as long as they don't bother us.


Unfortunately, many naive liberals do think this way. 
Liberal mentality:
Global war on terror = bumper sticker
Global warming = let's have a concert in support of it, and all of us should start driving bicycles around.

Liberals are the ones painting the "Doomsday scenario".  :Aajack:

----------


## Logan13

> *Linksys
> 
> Once banned, always banned.*


Hey, your profiling.............. :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Logan13

> You call me ignorant... I call you Delusional... works for me. In the end, you're just spinning your wheels trying to create a dust cloud of BS. I could pick apart your weak attempt to discredit my understanding of what "no bid" contracts are, but it would be pointless. Obviously you are too brainwashed to ACCEPT what they have done. You actually compared adultery to initiating an "unprovoked" invasion of a country... how can anything you say after that be taken as credible? Sane people don't think like that. Fanatical nut-job's do. 
> 
> BTW: The answer is a BOOMING "YES". Dicksmoker Cheney and his friends made more money as a result of this war than anyone. I guess by their calculations (appox) 4,000 US lives (and counting) were well worth it. I wonder how many of them have kids over their fighting to CREATE MORE...err... "Stop" ()Terrorism.


You are ignorant of the facts. Nothing you have said proves otherwise. Again, can you point to one other company that does what Haliburton does?

----------


## king6

> Funny Logan that even your beloved Fox News is reporting that likely voters (both Republican and Democrats) would choose either Clinton or Obama over the Republican frontrunner Guiliani.


Obama wont be in the run for much longer, he is about to be indicted for his dealings with the mob a few years ago when he profited several hundred thousand dollars off of a land scheme. And no one will vote for Clinton, she is too damn shady. I think McCain has the best chance, he is a republican, but is liberal enough for the dems.

----------


## king6

> Unfortunately, many naive liberals do think this way. 
> Liberal mentality:
> Global war on terror = bumper sticker
> Global warming = let's have a concert in support of it, and all of us should start driving bicycles around.
> 
> Liberals are the ones painting the "Doomsday scenario".


I think I love you Logan.  :Wink/Grin:

----------


## Carlos_E

> *Obama wont be in the run for much longer, he is about to be indicted for his dealings with the mob a few years ago when he profited several hundred thousand dollars off of a land scheme.* And no one will vote for Clinton, she is too damn shady. I think McCain has the best chance, he is a republican, but is liberal enough for the dems.


Do you have a link to back this?

----------


## king6

> Do you have a link to back this?


This is what happened, the Illinois states attorney is going to try and tie Obama to this.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...bama24.article

----------


## DNoMac

> How do you win against an enemy that isn't afraid to die, has no regard for human life, and _truly_ believes everything we stand for is evil? Unless we turn the whole region into a parking lot, I don't see how it's possible to win.


If your truly interested, you should read into the beg of Special Forces and General Bill Yarborough. It's completely unconventional tactics, quite the opposite of creating parking lots with heavy warpower. The basic philosophies go back to Mao Tse-tung which is about respecting the indigenous people in an attempt to win over their support. Using propoganda to weaken the enemies moral. It's essentially winning over the civilians, not killing as many guerillas as possible. It could be debated forever whether or not this method would work in Iraq (or any method). However, this clearly isn't a conventional war.

----------


## Flagg

> What would you have us do, GIVE UP?



You say "would you have us give up" like there's a possibility Al Queda can be beaten. They are not like the IRA, this organisation can't be threatened or reasoned with. Would you have Bush invade every country that has terrrorist cells operating within them?

----------


## Joemeek

It's not helping matters when half your country is against this war, for it's only giving more detrmination to the other side, i see it as only making these people want to kill more and more when half the country they're fighting appears to be on their side (in their eye's).

----------


## Joemeek

> Please quit trying to justify this war.


Do you think Bush, Blair went to war, throwing away American and British lifes for nothing and they have that much disregard for their soildiers ?
Or could it be that beacause you think it's being lost that you're against it ?
Maybe if "you" thought we were winning, your opinion woudl be different.

----------


## Carlos_E

> This is what happened, the Illinois states attorney is going to try and tie Obama to this.
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...bama24.article


No where in the article does it say this guy is associated with the mob or there is a plan to indict Obama.

???

This article is from April. It is now almost August. Why haven't we heard anything?




> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...bama24.article
> 
> Obama: I didn't know about Rezko problems
> 
> BY TIM NOVAK Staff Reporter/[email protected]
> 
> U.S. Sen. Barack Obama said Monday he accepted campaign contributions from Antoin "Tony'' Rezko without knowing that Rezko was a slumlord with problem buildings in the state Senate district Obama represented at the time.
> 
> "Should I have known these buildings were in a state of disrepair? My answer would be that it wasn't brought to my attention,'' Obama, who's seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said at a South Side campaign stop.
> ...

----------


## BgMc31

> Do you think Bush, Blair went to war, throwing away American and British lifes for nothing and they have that much disregard for their soildiers ?
> Or could it be that beacause you think it's being lost that you're against it ?
> Maybe if "you" thought we were winning, your opinion woudl be different.


I can't speak for Bush or Blair, but I don't believe Bush's goal was a benevolent one. Blair just went along for the ride because he always followed Bush without question.

I was against the war (in Iraq) from day 1. Whether we are "winning" or "losing" is irrelovent. There was no reason to go into Iraq. The excuses used were bogus and they changed after WMDs and a link to Al Queda wasn't established. After those excuses failed, it changed to getting the big bad Saddam Hussein out, comparing him to Hitler and such. Again, I knew from day 1 there was no military solution to Iraq. So there isn't any way to 'win'. Since you obviously support the war, what is the definition of victory? Staying until Iraq has a stable government? Ending all sectarian violence? Neither of these situations are viable. Even if it were, it would take 10+ years to stabalize that country. Should we stay for an additional 10 years and risk even more American lives. 

Again, our focus is screwed up. We would have a better chance in Afganistan (where the real terrorist threat is) if our military focus was there. 

But like Logan says, we are already in Iraq so now what? I'm not for an all out pullout in Iraq. But we need to redirect our focus to training and fighting Al Queda and defending Iraqi borders from foreign fighters. We could do that with 1/4 of the numbers of troops we have there now. Our presence in Iraq should be modelled after our presence in Korea.

----------


## Logan13

> You say "would you have us give up" like there's a possibility Al Queda can be beaten. They are not like the IRA, this organisation can't be threatened or reasoned with. Would you have Bush invade every country that has terrrorist cells operating within them?


Certainly you have a better solution than just packing up and going on the defensive. I'll bet that you were easily bullied in school, weren't you......?

----------


## Flagg

> Certainly you have a better solution than just packing up and going on the defensive. I'll bet that you were easily bullied in school, weren't you......?


Nice assumption, how old are you again Logan?

----------


## Logan13

> Nice assumption, how old are you again Logan?


Then don't leave things to assumption. You either have a better solution or you don't. Whining about the current state of affairs is not a solution. But it is obvious from your posts that you are easily swayed and prone to just giving up. Maybe if you hide under your bed, the bad guys won't find you....... :1laugh:

----------


## eliteforce

The other side is always going to be more determined because they are on the other side...of the world-where that country is, they will always fight until their country is liberated from foriegn control..and the people who are "on their side" is not half, it's 65 or 70% of American public want US out of Iraq..and it's only going to get worse as the spiraling costs of this disaster start to effect the average american more and more..at most the US can continue the occupation into 2009 and your dreaming if you think the situation by then will be any different, it hasn't changed in 5 years and it's not going to change in 3 more..
You keep talking about winning but you can't solve the most fundamental political issue -that the Iraqi security forces will not stand up, unite under the command of the premier/cabnet/parliament and take over the country because they see the installed central government as foriegn occupation 'puppet' and the Iraqi population itself has no respect for the installed government, and the insurgents and militias are entrenched among the general population. Time is not on Americas side on this issue-America has less domestic support in Iraq than the Soviets did in Afghanistan or the US did in Vietnam.





> It's not helping matters when half your country is against this war, for it's only giving more detrmination to the other side, i see it as only making these people want to kill more and more when half the country they're fighting appears to be on their side (in their eye's).

----------


## Flagg

> Then don't leave things to assumption. You either have a better solution or you don't. Whining about the current state of affairs is not a solution. But it is obvious from your posts that you are easily swayed and prone to just giving up. Maybe if you hide under your bed, the bad guys won't find you.......



And it's obvious from your numerous posts that you're nothing more than a redneck bigot, but that's my assumption. 
You know I seen this happen a few times now, where just cause you don't agree with someones post you get snotty and the thread then decends into a tit for tat argument.

----------


## Logan13

> And it's obvious from your numerous posts that you're nothing more than a redneck bigot, but that's my assumption. 
> You know I seen this happen a few times now, where just cause you don't agree with someones post you get snotty and the thread then decends into a tit for tat argument.


Redneck....never been called that, but that comment could be skewed as racist/ethnic to those from the deep south. That is not allowed on this website, no matter the group being slurred. 
Regardless. Stupid is as stupid does/says. I call it like I see it. I am able to draw a conclusion about your character based on what you say. If you don't like my assumption, perhaps you really just do not like who you are.......

----------


## Fat Guy

Logan I think the main intention of this thread is just to be provocative. And yet, I admit I have enjoyed reading the many responses this thread has generated, but this thread is slanted from the start. 

Your title initially implies that leaving Iraq is wrong and leaving Iraq as of now would be a greater wrong. Entering Iraq in the 1st place was wrong and to continue to stay is prolonging the wrong. I think the American public is starting to become conscious of this fact and that is why this war is becoming so unpopular.





> Is Cheney employed by them? Haliburton did profit. Can you point to any other US company that does what they do? *I sell to the US gov't as well on a yearly contract. One item in particular is patented and is therefore unavailable elsewhere. Therefore, I win this every year under a "No-Bid contract*". Can you tell me what is wrong with that? You speak of things for which you do not understand. Just because you are ignorant of the facts, does not make it wrong, it just makes you ignorant............


As far as all the no contract bids that are taking place in Iraq this is just plain war profiteering. And, I can understand your pro-war / continuing war position if you have a no contract bid and I am sure it is a quite profitable arrangement. However, it does not make it right. This war is definitely shifting wealth into the private sector which is a top down system and IMHO is the main reason for this war. 






> What is obvious from many of your posts in this thread is that many of you simply do not know, what you just do not know. The world is more complex than what you might read on the dailykos. Ignorance may be bliss, but it sure as hell doesn't give you the full perspective needed to make the irrational comments that many seem inclined to give in here. You have two choices: Either put the time into learning for yourself so that you can make informed comments, or just keep letting the blogger trolls form your opinions for you.


And for my last comment about this threadYou are defiantly WRONG about people not knowing. There are many good comments here and these comments are based on rational decision making. However, there has been some serious media/ political spin and lies on this issue, but I think time will tell the truth and as I stated before that the wrong of this war is starting to avail it self to the people, hence the disapproval ratings. There are many smart people here and if you critically think about this political event just slightly you can see the holes and then realize the cost this *political charade* has and is going to have on humanity as a whole. 
*IMHO the price of humanity is greater than profit!*

----------

