ForumGarden

Clint;517028 wrote: GMC,

Thank you for the spirit of decency in your post.

When the president committed to this action in Iraq he had the support of the politicians and the public (mostly). Those who are criticizing him now conveniently forget where they stood when this started. They now use their perfect hind sight to degrade the honest intent at the time. We are there now and some who opposed going in the beginning now find great pleasure in pointing it out at the expense of the effort.

As I have stated, war isn’t like a sporting event. When you move in and destabilize a country you can’t just decide to remove your support when the home team isn’t doing well. More than half the battle against this enemy is public opinion and the will to finish. If the enemy can demoralize the “fans, the team will lose¦guaranteed. In this war each of us is as valuable as a soldier. 12th man doesn’t go anywhere near far enough in explaining how important it is. Remove your support and you have removed a soldier from the team.

Politicians don’t have my respect on a personal level but this isn’t personal and the enemy is worse than any politician. If I’m choosing sides, I’ll side with the politician and use mouthwash later.

When I came home from Vietnam I came home to people who hated me because I wore the uniform of my country. The politicians had listened to those who had decided the effort wasn’t worth winning. All of those who died died for nothing. That made me angry then and it still makes me angry. To make things worse we pulled out in a way that cost untold loss of life. We just walked away from those people who depended on us and let them be slaughtered. I gave three years of my life and a lot more for nothing. But what we did to them makes me forget about that.


One of the things I value about this forum is the chance to talk to people whose world view is quite different from ones own. I was hoping to spark a sharing of views but my apologies for not responding to you sooner. Every now and then the real world gets in the way of having fun and I have been unable to spend the time a proper reponse would have called for. More later but I would say that GW, cheney et al act in what they think are americas interests however much you can argue they are badly mistaken. God knows what Tony blair is up to.

gmc;543573 wrote: One of the things I value about this forum is the chance to talk to people whose world view is quite different from ones own. I was hoping to spark a sharing of views but my apologies for not responding to you sooner. Every now and then the real world gets in the way of having fun and I have been unable to spend the time a proper reponse would have called for. More later but I would say that GW, cheney et al act in what they think are americas interests however much you can argue they are badly mistaken. God knows what Tony blair is up to.


Indeed, the real world does get in the way.:wah:

I hope things change so you can get back to the fun soon.

RedGlitter;514944 wrote: .



As for making money off the war and the dea dpeople, how many yellow ribbons and American flag stickers/decals/crap did you buy? Any? Do you think you helped someone make a profit off perhaps, the war and the soldiers over there?



I see no difference in the shirt.



.


really? no difference? hmm..

those of us that bought yellow ribbons, and all that "crap" did it to support our troops. i didn't do it to further some political agenda. I have a yellow ribbon on my tree and a decal on my car for those soldiers. Not for Pres Bush.

and please don't refer to the American Flag as "crap"

i find that terribly offensive.

other than that, have a great day Glitter.

Wolverine;543647 wrote: really? no difference? hmm..

those of us that bought yellow ribbons, and all that "crap" did it to support our troops. i didn't do it to further some political agenda. I have a yellow ribbon on my tree and a decal on my car for those soldiers. Not for Pres Bush.

and please don't refer to the American Flag as "crap"

i find that terribly offensive.

other than that, have a great day Glitter.


What she said was true, maybe you read it the wrong way.

People did make money off all of that, many beliveng the money went to support the troops.

as for crap.......... It angers me to see gas stations,Banks and companies fly tattered old flags.........they make enough money to fly a pristine flag, when I was a kid the flag was always taken down, now they throw a light on it and let it rot.

Wolverine, you may find my remarks offensive but I still have a right to say what I mean. For your info, I don't consider OUR flag to be crap either, By crap I am speaking of all the little "support the troops" trinkets and some of those include flags in various forms. But the actual flag, crap? No. My government? Crap. This war? Crap. I will not pretend to support this war just to make the troops feel better.

RedGlitter;543676 wrote: Wolverine, you may find my remarks offensive but I still have a right to say what I mean. For your info, I don't consider OUR flag to be crap either, By crap I am speaking of all the little "support the troops" trinkets and some of those include flags in various forms. But the actual flag, crap? No. My government? Crap. This war? Crap. I will not pretend to support this war just to make the troops feel better.


that's cool. i read it one way, and you meant it another. no biggie.

That's okay, Wolverine. But I have to say that that "kitten killer" thing really bugs me. Kind of like you feel about our flag. :-3

I sure do wish people could see what's really going on. Their hate for the President is blinding them. They want him to fail so badly, they would be happy if the war was lost. To use the names of those who have given their lives for thier country as a tool to express hatred for the leader those who died followed demonstrates hate that is out of control.

I don't like war and I didn't think we should invade Iraq but we are at war and we did invade. I have to beleive that the information the President has is better than what the news media who never leaves the Green Zone gets. If I had better information than the President I may or may not agree with the invasion. I don't know and there is no way for me to know. I am amazed at how people second guess the President when all they know is what CNN or FOX tells them.

Video clip about Bush and his plans for Iran.

Just click on the link above to watch.

All those who are self-mutilating lovers....get ready to get excited, because your Wish for the United States to be suckered into another War, a bloodier war, is very close to coming true.

Far Rider;551459 wrote: You should change yer name to Lie-Slinger! At least then youd tell one truth.


Perhaps you would make more sense with that comment if there was any "truth" to it whatsoever.

Since you are such a big fan of the truth and all. Like me. =)

Scrat;514968 wrote: Right on RG. Just where have all of the billions poured into Iraq gone? There's a lot of American businessmen getting very rich off of this. Talk about blood money.






Please NAME names......Scrat?

Besides your whipping post companies Haliburton......... and Brown & Root who are these American businessmen that are gettin VERY RICH?

BTS;553268 wrote: Please NAME names......Scrat?

Besides your whipping post companies Haliburton......... and Brown & Root who are these American businessmen that are gettin VERY RICH?


How much was funneled to the UN thru the Food For Oil Program.........?



UUUHHHHMMMM...........

Just as I thought..You don't know

.. As you NEVER look at that type of news...... ONLY anti-American news.

Scrat;553283 wrote: Christ!!! There are so many in on this it's kind of pointless to name them. It's not only American companies. If coke sells a case of soda to the army and it arrives at the greenzone at a cost of $44 there are so many hands in the pot you'll never be able to trace it. Kuwaitis, Saudis, French, Greek companies. Shippers storage companies you name it.



http://www.blackwatchsecurity.com/about.html



Companies like this are just the tip of an iceberg the size of the greenland ice shelf. Our "allies" like the Czechs and Poles still make AK-47 ammo and sell to people without asking a lot of questions.



Billions have disappeared down the memory hole in Iraq, we both know where a lot of those billions has went. Just like stepping on a rake.


Scrat I asked a simple question.........



Originally Posted by BTS

Please NAME names......Scrat?



You link to a security agency.

And YES billions are missing and I hope they are accounted for when it is all said and done but you make a statement as if it is a fact, I quote;



"There's a lot of American businessmen getting very rich off of this. Talk about blood money."



Again I ask ...Name Names?



Who is getting rich off this war?

Are we (they ) getting rich off the oil?

If so SHOW us...............JUST who you are talking about

PLEASE

posted by clint

I hear and read about Dick Cheney’s ulterior motives. I have yet to see any proof. People so dislike him they fabricate things and hang them on him as though there was a truck load of proof and a trial had already been held.

If the invasion of Iraq was all about oil and I don’t think it was, would it be illegitimate if it was to preserve the world’s oil supply? I would say no but there are others who would say it was essential.

I’m not a military planner so I don’t know any more than anyone else about this but I have an idea as to why we went in. My idea is as valid as those who’s position it is that we went in for ill gain. We both hypothesize.

Right now we are looking at a very aggressive Iran. My guess is those in the know have seen it coming for many years. Syria has been a bad actor for a long time as well. The whole region’s population is Islamic and even though a small percent of them are radical it represents a large number of people. They want the west destroyed. It isn’t about oil to them, it is about religion. They are the ones we are at war with. Iraq is strategically located to provide a base for us to operate from and deal with a problem that will follow us home if we don’t keep it occupied there.

Extreme Muslims follow the teachings of Mohamed. They believe Mohamed teaches them to deal with their closest enemy first, then their worst enemy and after that the others until there is no one left but those who have converted to their brand of Islam. They will joyfully kill other less extreme Muslims. If we base ourselves where we are the closest enemy at all times, they won’t be free to concentrate their efforts on their worst enemy and begin working their way down the list of priorities.

If my idea is correct it certainly wouldn't be something that could be made public as the purpose for being there.




Cheney et al have been talking about using America's military superiority to further american interests for some time.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/state ... ciples.htm

Have a look at the statement of principles and the signatories. Where are they now?

Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.




It reads almost like a 21st statement of manifest destiny. It does seem to be a genuine site even if it is like somethimng ouit of a conspiracy theory.

It goes back further than that but during the eighties there seems to have grown up this idea that the technoligical superiority in warfare gained by the US should be used to further american ecomomic nterests. That wars could be fought without any real cost in terms of lives lost to the attacker by the side with the most advanced weaponry. Couldbe used and should be used.

http://www.iwar.org.uk/iwar/resources/a ... jenson.htm

If you get the chance the book by the tofflers "war and anti war" is an interesting read.

I'm not american and lack the familiarity with American politicians except when they appear on the world stage so I am unable to post umpteen links to where cheney or anyone else for that matter talked about using the military for economic gain. I susopect there are probably quite a few.

As a non american I find that the idea that the rest of the world is going to sit back and watch the US use it's military in that manner remarkable naive. True the soviets cannot induge in another arms race but China can and seems to have spend the years since the gulf war revamping it's weaponry in case it has on take on the US.

There are a number of questions

Do you think it right that the US military should be used to impose the will of the US on other nations?

Do you think it right that the US military be used in an aggressive way to protect the interests of the US?

Who gets to decide what those interests are? Who calls the tune, the people or big business.

Is warfare the best way to settle trade disputes?

It is also rather naive to believe that those faced with overwhelming force will always back down. The US wouldn't if threatened so why assume that other natuons will?

posted by Clint

If the invasion of Iraq was all about oil and I don’t think it was, would it be illegitimate if it was to preserve the world’s oil supply? I would say no but there are others who would say it was essential.


I would disagree with you there. There was no Iraqui connection to 911 the evidence had to be manufactured to make the case. logicaly it would have made more sense to invade Saudi arabia since that is where the perpetrators and all the finance came from. If Iraq had no oil do you really think the GW would have been interested in invading?

Oil is a finite resource.n Rather than developing stratgies to hold on to supplies energy would be better spent developing alternatives. To do otherwise is ramarkably short sighted and will hand the technological advantage to those countries that take a future without oil a bit more seriously.

China is likely to be the main protagonist in years to come either with the US or the Soviet Union as oil supplies dwindle and demand keeps growing.

There is an old adage that trade between nations is warfare without shooting. The EEC and US are at each others throats over trade as it is. China, Russia and eastern european economies are fast developing. I can now buy a korean car made in bratislavia with a general motors diesel engine. While the US is opsessing about oil and keeping hold of it the world is moving on.

posted by clint

Right now we are looking at a very aggressive Iran. My guess is those in the know have seen it coming for many years. Syria has been a bad actor for a long time as well. The whole region’s population is Islamic and even though a small percent of them are radical it represents a large number of people. They want the west destroyed. It isn’t about oil to them, it is about religion. They are the ones we are at war with. Iraq is strategically located to provide a base for us to operate from and deal with a problem that will follow us home if we don’t keep it occupied there.




Iran is not militarily capable of attacking anyone. Extremists get a hold when there is no scope for political dissent-left alone they are usually so appaling that people get fed up and turf them out. An external enemy helps them keep a grip. The Shah was an undemcratic ruler supported by the West. the West aided and cheered on iraq in it's war with iran. Sunnis and shiahs hate each other. left alone they will turn on their co religionists just as is happening in iraq now. It's the same as yugoslavia-old ethnic tensions that were not fought out erupt when the lid is taken off. The iraquis need to solve their own problems no one else can do it for them and anyone trying will become the target for both sides.

Put yourself in an iranians shoes for a moment. From an Iranian perpective they are faced with a very hostile and aggressive american government that seems hell bent on finding an excuse to attack. Every attempt at concesson gets turned down. As to syria who says they are a bad actor? You could make the same claim of israel which seems to be a point of view that gets little credence.

Quite frankly the idea that any muslim country would be able to take on America or Europe in a war and win is ludicrous. Similarly I really can't see Americans voting to becme a fundamantalist islamic state any time soon. Fundamantalist christian may be a different story though i hope not.

Frankly I am more worried about what that arsehole blair is up to than any muslim fundamantalists. To paraphrase corporal Jones "They don't like it up them them fuzzy wuzzies don't"

posted by clint

I'm beyond wondering if we should be there or not. It doesn't matter anymore. The reality is that we are there and we have started a job that has to be finished. If it isn't, what will follow will be so much worse than what is going on now even Scrat will say we should have stayed to finish. It isn't going to be over in the time it takes to watch the evening news. This is something that will take decades fighting an enemy willing to fight for centuries.


Ever get in to a conflict that you just shouldn't have? Sometimes walking away and leaving others to solve their own problems is the best option. Why not arm every Iraqui and let them fight for their own freedom? I suspect in the UK if any of the parties came right out and said if electedc we will pull out our troops it would be a massive vote winner

posted by clint.

I don't like war and I didn't think we should invade Iraq but we are at war and we did invade. I have to beleive that the information the President has is better than what the news media who never leaves the Green Zone gets. If I had better information than the President I may or may not agree with the invasion. I don't know and there is no way for me to know. I am amazed at how people second guess the President when all they know is what CNN or FOX tells them.




Why should you assume that? How about maybe he is just hearing what he wants to hear. You are a citizen in a free country where your opinion is as good as the next man's. Free people question their political leaders and call then to account and IMO should never ever beleive that just because someone has been elected leader means that he is actually capable of doing the job or somehow that he now has access to information that makes decisions any more sensible. That's somethimng else that puzzles me in some of thse discourses. How can it possibly be unpatriotic to criticise political leaders in a democracy. Here it is almost a national sport. The idea that you respect and obey the office not the man seems to also be taken to mean it is unpatriotic to slag off the president.

What happens of the congress want to stop the president sending more troops? can they do it or does it need congress and senate together to block a president doing something. I think i used to know but have forgotten somewhere along the way.

Still can't understand why people would be so hostile to their own troops post vietnam especially if they wee conscripts. Maybe it's a displacement thing, if you can't get at the source of your frustration (politicians ) then you lash out at a convenient alternative.

Clint;515451 wrote: We'll know we have victory when (not a complete list):


People stop bombing themselves and everyone around them no matter if they are innocent or not just because things aren't going thier way.

It's okay to ask someone to join you in your faith but it isn't okay to demand they do or die.

You can get on an airplane and only wonder if it will have a mechanical failure.

The people of Iraq are sharing in its wealth.

Iraq is sharing its wealth with the world.

We can leave and know that there won't be the slaughter that occured when we left Vietnam.

The government of Iraq is able to maintain order (peace is an individual state of mind)

Most of the above is happening and we can see the rest will follow.Winning to we Americans is what happens in a game. This can't be compared to a game...it isn't even close. Too many see it as a game you can just say we've had enough of, throw our hands in the air and go home from, only concerned that the record book will show a loss on our side.



I'm beyond wondering if we should be there or not. It doesn't matter anymore. The reality is that we are there and we have started a job that has to be finished. If it isn't, what will follow will be so much worse than what is going on now even Scrat will say we should have stayed to finish. It isn't going to be over in the time it takes to watch the evening news. This is something that will take decades fighting an enemy willing to fight for centuries.



We can't continue to fight an enemy that wants to kill millions of men, women and children like we are police in a domestic dispute. We have to be able to take them out and the people who allow them to exist in their midst. Ugly indeed, but war isn't pretty.



And finially, Patsy...don't tell me how I should feel about an experience I had unless you shared in the same experience. You and those who share your views presume too much. The idea that I only have the right to be angry and speak as a vet is if I didn't make it back...sheesh.



How dare you imply that those who have sacrificed in this war have done it for nothing then worry about the money they may get instead of you?




CLINT 4 PRES..............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrat twards ACC.,.

And not with greedy, self centered, narcissitic people like you around.





Accountable;515542 wrote: :wah:

Where's your evidence that I'm any of those adjectives?




Waiting SKRATTTT

Please DEW show us ALL what a putz ACC is?

Diuretic;515843 wrote: No Clint - it's far more complex than a personal motivation. You forgot to mention Dick Cheney, he was the one urging Bush after 9/11 to get into Iraq.








PLEASE show us the source for this?

Diuretic;515966 wrote: Nothing will be achieved until Bush is out office. Importantly anyone connected with Bush must be removed from government as well. Then and only then can there be a sensible response to what is a serious problem - international terrorism.


Way kool....Diuretic.... kummin from a Ausie...... whose country was NEVER attacked, as OURS was from "international terrorism" Tell all the FGer's how you would have handled this mess?

Scrat;515973 wrote: I agree, the real threat is international terrorism. We are becoming a globally oriented people. Technology has made the world very small, that is obvious.



America has to learn how to work with the world, not try to dominate it. When we have the major industrialized nations working together to fight this terrorism globally, we have won over it.



Iraq has created an engine FOR terrorism, not against it.


Did not Bush ASK for support and not try to DOMINATE it?



I will ask again..............

WHERE would this FIASCO be if there was support from the UN?



Oh yah thats right.................. The LEADER of the UN's SON............

was skimming off the OIL 4 FOOD program.......... So how could they support an invation of IRAQ???????

Scrat;516539 wrote: I'm going to be sick.







He has access to information that if you dig deep enough you can find for yourself. The problem is that he is fed the information by sychophants that are more concerned with what he wants to hear (and their careers) than what the truth is.






HMMMMM

SKEE RATT

Why did not the demo-Ratts not DIG DEEP ENOUGH prior to the invasion ?

IF As U say "He (BUSH) has (HAD) access to information that if you dig deep enough you can find for yourself."



Why didn't the Demo-Ratts that sat on ALL these committees FIND it TOO?



Juss a few examples:



(****I KNOW YOU WON'T READ**********)

BUTT here goes:



























“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ¦ He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ¦ And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ¦ So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real¦

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

“Hussein has ¦ chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons¦

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ¦ We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ¦ It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 |

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

gmc;516908 wrote:

posted by clint



Quote:

I didn't set foot on U.S. soil for three straight years (67-70). I didn't know what the likes of this guy selling T shirts and Scrat were doing back home. I thought I was fighting for my country like my father had. When I returned I was angry and I've been angry every since. You want to do that to another generation of men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line. If you do, we will never be able to stand for anything again. Maybe that appeals to some but it sure doesn't appeal to me.





Don't know the truth of it but from what I can gather Bush wriggled out of going to vietnam. Does it not anger you that he is ready to send men to fight for his country when he would not go himself? What were you angry about? I'm not trying to wind you up I'm curious to hear your answer because i don't understand why your anger is directed at your fellow citizens not politicians.


OH really now............GMC

You show you ignorance FRONT and CENTER.........



READ this again!!!!



"I was fighting for my country like my father had. When I returned I was angry and I've been angry every since. You want to do that to another generation of men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line. If you do, we will never be able to stand for anything again. Maybe that appeals to some but it sure doesn't appeal to me."



CAPEECH GMC?



Go back in history and WHY we invaded IRAQ and the intelligence used.

IT Was WORLD WIDE intelligence that was accepted by ALL the upity upities.......

Viet Nam was over 68,000 Americans died. WWII was 500,000 Americans alone. Russia lost 21,300,000 people The Jews lost over 6,000,000 people. Tell me about Korea - 47,400 Americans dead.

So come tell me this is a bad conflict.

Gulf War - 147 Americans dead.

Iraq War- 2,803 Amercans dead......Sept 11, 2001 2,948 Americans dead.. Four years compared to 3 hours.

BTS;555925 wrote: OH really now............GMC

You show you ignorance FRONT and CENTER.........



READ this again!!!!



"I was fighting for my country like my father had. When I returned I was angry and I've been angry every since. You want to do that to another generation of men and women who volunteer to put their lives on the line. If you do, we will never be able to stand for anything again. Maybe that appeals to some but it sure doesn't appeal to me."



CAPEECH GMC?



Go back in history and WHY we invaded IRAQ and the intelligence used.

IT Was WORLD WIDE intelligence that was accepted by ALL the upity upities.......


I do capeech but clearly you don't. Go back over what was written and let me know which of the big words you are having difficulty with. Try and understand what is actually written rather than just seeing what you expect to see.

posted by clint

GMC,

Thank you for the spirit of decency in your post.


At least clint had the decency to read what was written, take it inthe spirit intended and extend the courtesy of a civil reply.

I don't care of you don't agree with me or even of you think I'm a pillock, If you disagree then come out with some reasons why. But if all you can do is come out with semi articulate rants with no real substance then basically you are indulging ina form of intellectual masterbation. No doubt satisfying for a short period but ultimately a bit pointless.

posted by BTS

Go back in history and WHY we invaded IRAQ and the intelligence used.

IT Was WORLD WIDE intelligence that was accepted by ALL the upity upities.......


Actually no it wasn't. In the UK it is clear TB lied about WMD's and altered the wording of intelligence reports to make the case. GW did the same

This is a link to the speech made by our foreign secretary on resigning rather than support the war. Who knows you might find it edifying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?


Had he not died I reckon he would be a serious contender to oust Tony Blair as leader of the labour party.

Post 911 had you gone after the terrorists there would have been no question that the US would have hag widespread support. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack and the reasons for invading were spurious to say the least. Being a cynic maybe GW and his cronis realised that if they caught Osama they would not have had any reason to go after Iraq.

Perhaps it's like the emperor's new clothes. no one wanted to say out loud that the president and his administration were lying to their own ends. Plenty said it here about TB but our MP's have the moral integrity of a plank.

Did not Bush ASK for support and not try to DOMINATE it?

I will ask again..............

WHERE would this FIASCO be if there was support from the UN?

Oh yah thats right.................. The LEADER of the UN's SON............

was skimming off the OIL 4 FOOD program.......... So how could they support an invation of IRAQ???????


Well it wouldn't have been such a fiaso in the first place. Course there are crooks everywhere after all no americans have done well out of the war have they?

You can't have it all ways. Tell the UN to support you or you will go your own way and then criticise then for inaction and not suupporting you. What did you expect the response to be? Nor can you say to allies you are with us or against us and be surprised when said allies tell you to get stuffed. The French never said they would not support military action they just wanted to be sure before taking it. The spanish aren't intimidated by terrorism having suffered countles attacks over the years they have the sense to realise you don't fight terrorists by invading countries not connected to them, the madrid bombing is just another episode in a long series of terrorist attacks.

posted by BTS

IT Was WORLD WIDE intelligence that was accepted by ALL the upity upities.


You are a citizen in a free country. If you are prepared to just touch your forelock and follow your leaders blindly withoput questioning what they tell you the chances are you won't be free for much longer. Just because an elected official tells you something does not make it true. and if you really believe your opinion is not as good as anyone elses maybe you shouldn't vote.

You elected all these politicians (well not just you ) now you are in a position to assess how they behaved and decide if they get elected again. Perhaps you should carefully assess if any of them can be trusted before you hand them the power to make war in your name.

I still don't get why your anger is directed at people that oppose the war. Why not get angry at the politicians that got you in to this mess in the first place?

Scrat;556773 wrote: I'll tell you why. It's a form of fascism, fascism lite you might say.



From Websters.



It's a get in line, get with the program type of mentality very akin to a fascistic mindset. Much of the terminology above fits the chickenhawk/Bushco mentality to a tee.


Except Busf won't get elected again and he's not using force to shut up the opposition. If he starts jailing liberals you can start worrying.