|
Iraq Revisited
So, it appears all the war threads were removed or were merged then removed. Only found one dealing with WMD's, so I figured I start a new one.
I'm just curious to where all the pro-bush pro-war people went? When the going gets tough, the tough abandon their thinking and go mainstream, which is now the same accusedly liberal stance I took when I started debating the topic here? I mean, I remember a few threads and debates on the subject, now we have none and those who were arguing for the war and bush and the existance of WMD's haven't posted in months. I had an excuse for not being here - where is everyone else? I'm not one to say I told you so, but...err.., well, I guess I am ;) Yes, I am trying to stir the pot. It's getting rather dull here, and with the president getting a new scandal in the news everyday, hell, I couldn't start enough new threads on the topic of ol' gw if I wanted to! Tis the main reason I let the website I was hosting and helping run 'The Axis Of Evil' expire. I mean, when I started it back after 9-11 when bush went all security crazy and was talking about war, I had to search every news wire for days just to get a handful full of articles to post. Now, every major news paper, show, radio station, and news wire has a dozen storeys a day that would fix on the site - I got so bogged down trying to keep up I said, 'why the hell am I now trying to setup a clearinghouse website for bush/iraq articles and his abuses when now, every site with a news feed has the exact same articles?' I went from being labeled as an anti-american, anti-patriotic, left-wing crazy to mainstream lad who is right in line with 3/4 of America overnight. How the hell did that happen? :) So, back to my original question - where does everyone stand NOW? |
Quote:
Ah well. You're back to being a miniscule minority, Sternn. Enjoy your extremism and be proud of your radical beliefs. ;) And yes, kudos on being arrested. As much as you try to brag about it, being arrested and found guilty is still associated with being a fuck up. But being a fuck up is cool, right? I mean, all of your friends over there are doing it. It must be cool! LOL. |
Slightly right of the middle ground.
I don't agree with a lot of the things Bush is supposedly trying to do(like changing laws to get yet another term, if it's even true.), but I still think he's better than Kerry. I'd actually like to see someone like Obama run for President. He seems like a decent candidate, but I haven't done much research on him. As far as Iraq goes, I think we all agreed that it's almost impossible for us to think of pulling out. As with sex, it's not always a good thing. ;) |
Quote:
My 'radical beliefs' are now reflected my the majority of American's. In a poll taken in the past month... http://news.**********/s/nm/20060316/...sh_politics_dc A majority of Americans, 56 percent, believe Bush is "out of touch," the poll found. When asked for a one-word description of Bush, the most frequent response was "incompetent," followed by "good," "idiot" and "liar." In February 2005, the most frequent reply was "honest." I mean, his approval rating is almost in the 20's, right where his father was before he left office, but this bush still has a few years and no lights on the horizon. That means over 70% of America is against him - and I'm the minority? I mean even the troops have turned against him... http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/030406a.html ...and the funny thing is, 85% of them still believe Sadaam was behind 9/11, because thats what they are still telling the troops to keep them there. Of course 72% say they should be going home now no matter what and that the war is no longer worth fighting. Are the troops now un-american since they no longer support the war? As far as those pics, before I posted them 99% of people here and elsewhere had never seen dead bodies in Iraq as the bush adminstration went through great lengths and expenses to hide all coverage of dead bodies. Now, you see them daily, and look what it's done to the war support. Get a lot more real when you see the truth, and brutality, of what 'war' really is. It's not pretty, and it's not just a word, even though until recently most American's thought of it that way. Quote:
If that makes me a 'fuck-up', then I am a proud 'fuck-up'. |
President Bush is live on TV right now.
Man, he is media savy. All he does is repeat the same jargon over and over and over. How could a person like that be elected as our president? I don't think that he can tell the truth anymore. *shakes head in disgust* |
Bush screwed up, no question about that. Remember when he was on that battleship and said that the 'war' was over? HA!!! He is still saying that 'fighting' Iraq is part of the war on terror. What a load of crap. I am totally disgusted with his administration and am glad that I didn't vote for him.
|
Quote:
I am an American. I pay my taxes, vote and try to follow my country's laws. I never supported war, ever. I did, however, support our soldiers. I have friends over there right now. It would be wrong of me to start parading around picketing this war. We are there. We made a mess. We now have to clean it up. So is the way of everything. When people like yourself, start to bitch about a problem that isn't even yours, it annoys me. I will stand behind and support my friends. A self-righteous terrorist like yourself will never be able to change my mind about that. |
Quote:
We had several anti-war critics here on this site. Tea, Granny, Dis (shortly before moving to Canada?), and others who were vocal. No one from the 'right' called them anti-American or extremists. That's because what they DIDN'T do that you DID, was post pictures of dead american soldiers while making a pointedly offensive attempt to use them as humor, post sick jokes about 9/11, and repeatedly called Americans in general; fat and stupid on this site. That makes you about as mainstream as Osama Bin Laden amongst Americans, Sternn. Hey, he was an anti-war critic too! Quote:
But whatever. Continue to be extremely vague and act like your Martin Luther King all you want without any kind of back-up. Anyone that really knows you here Sternn can smell the bullshit. You advocate the murder of innocent people/civilians, sometimes with nothing more to justify it than, "Well she was a tattle-tale!" |
Actually, the only benefit I have found is that I can use it to walk right through the Canadian border without having to go through customs or any other security screening. :)
But glad to see everyone is now moving towards my side of the argument. No more of that 'we will find WMDs', or 'we DID find WMDs', or my favorite 'Sadaam was behind 9-11'. I miss all those arguments. Too bad they were all removed so we can't reflect on them. But either way, I look forward to seeing all new comments here. For example, on bushes speech today, the three things I, and the media, appeared to take out of it... 1. 'Future presidents will decide when we need to pull out of Iraq' -Obviously expect troops to be there well beyond 2008, and even by his own time table, possibly past 2012 2. 'All war plans are good on paper until you meet the enemy' - Yeah, no exit strategy, as is yer war plans are that far off, and the leader says wow, our plans were way far off, then yer screwed on an exit strategy. 3. 'Our strategy is to stop civil war...' - When civil war breaks out, we also have no plan and will be floundering while more US troops die for no reason. Of course don't be surprised when gw goes back to congress in say 3 months for emergency funding to help pay for more troops/equipment/etc to be thrown at the problem of an un-winable war. Just my observations. Anyone else out there agree/disagree? |
Quote:
|
Ahhh binkster - oh how we missed ye! Once again trying to change the topic with personal attacks. If I didn't think it was just yet another attempt to draw attention away from how wrong you were, and still are, on most of those previous arguments I might actually respond to those petty, childish taunts... :)
Anyone who is NOT afraid of their political views care to comment on how they feel about the current state of Iraq and or bush's current handling of the issue? My points are pretty defined and laid out. Anyone with something meaningful to say care to comment/debate/challenge? |
Quote:
|
So, CptSternn, other than this being a big whiney rant about how screwed up it all is, what is your solution? And I mean what should people do today to make it right. Cause I'm thinking that the polls aren't ever going to influence Bush into budging on his policy. But if they did, what could he do?
What could possibly be done now that would make this better than continuing what we are doing now? Withdrawing all our forces from Iraq? What do you think would happen to that country if we just walk away now? How badly damaged would the Middle East become as a result of us leaving the country to that fate? What would the other countries of the world, countries we rely on greatly for strategic and economic purposes; what would they think of us? How would they treat us and how would it impact us in the future? I'm asking because I think it just doesn't matter anymore about the why's and how's of the mistakes that got us there. And I think that other than voting for other candidates and other parties in the next elections, that most of this is wasted energy. And I just want to hear what you think we should do. |
If we leave Iraq I think that Iran will assume control. And because of that, other Middle East countries will attack claiming that that land is their promised land or something.
We cannot pull-out now. Period. We have to clean-up this mess. Give them another dictator. I don't believe that they can survive with a democratic government. They are different from us. |
Ben -
Nice post. My answer would be to pull out. See, your still thinking you can win. You can't. Iraq is unwinable. Like Vietnam, you have to cut and run. Now thats not popular, but as the war drags on and more deaths pile up and the news that comes out gets worse and worse, the American people will demand an immediate pullout. And yes, all those bad things will happen, but thats how it goes. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, the North Vietnameese poured in and communism prevailed, but hey, was that the end of the world? did America suffer anything other than loss of pride? Sadaam is gone, there are no WMD's, and so this whole thing has become one big pissing contest to see who has the bigger balls. Bush and his cronies won't back down because he is to narrowminded and has that whole texas thing going on. My opinion is he would be willing to bankrupt the country and let every soldier die there just to prove he isn't willing to back down. Question is, will everyone in American let him? I mean, the US is the only first world country, supposedly a super-power even, that doesn't have free healthcare. Even emerging African nations are instituting free healthcare. The EU requires it. And right now the US is spending how many BILLIONS a month to fight this war? My advise is to pull out, take it on the chin, and take all that cash flow and re-route it into healthcare for the American people. The politicans always say there is no money in the budget for it, but somehow found BILLIONS a month to pour into war. What they mean to say is there is no money to be made pouring cash into healthcare as where war makes a small group of companies with close ties to the current administration alot of money. So my answer, pull out now. You can't win, and the longer you stay the worse off you will be. A good leader knows when to fall back. Hell, bush could even try to do one of those new names for old things and call it a 'strategic advancement to the rear' or something and try to save face. Yes, it will embolden the enemy, but as you already know but probably haven't figured out, since Sadaam DIDN'T have WMD's, then chances of him attacking the states was nil. So therefore if you pull out, you can be sure the new Iraqi government isn't going to launch some attack, and if they do the troops will be at home to defend, not that it would be much of an issue, as since most of the country doesn't have running water I don't see them launching an attack half a world away. And if yer worried about terrorists, guess what? They are out there and always will be. If you worry about them all yer life then you have already lost the war. If all those new security measures can't protect you now, they won't protect you ever. At this point bush has started to quote Lyndon Johnson said we can fight them there or fight them here, this war is winnable, and a few other classic Johnson quotes he has since ressurected in this war. But face it, it is un-winable, and people are dying for no reason. Take the resources and put them where they are WANTED and needed. So pull out now and at least save a few lives. |
Sadam needed to be removed from power. he was.
As for the rest of the war, I don't think Iraq is winnable either. While I think that it's pointless to continue the war, I also think that as soon as the US does pull out, whether it's now or 10 years from now, the pseudo government that is there will collapse. As for Sadam being behind 9/11, i'm sure he had something to do with it. maybe not in the planning but at least in the funding. somewhere in the mess of things, somehow, he and/or his sons were involved. |
Quote:
Your in the right ballpark mate. Remember that whole Iran/Iraq war that took place for like the past few decades? Yeah, the Sheits and Sunnis fighting over who controled Iraq. The US backed the Sunnis to help keep them fighting as we found out in the Iran/Contra affair. By keeping them fighting they couldn't really progress in the world. So the US helped perpetuate the idea that the Iranians did indeed control Iraq and at the same time told the Sunni's that no one should come in and take their land. But in reality, if you go by standard demographics and democratic rule, then the Sheits should be in control, they are the vast majority, and they pledge their allegence to Iran. Thats the crux right there. If democracy DOES take off, much like bush boasting just last year after arafat kicked the bucket that Palestein would have it's first free and open elections, if you give them democracy, they will use it to elect who they want, who is exactly who the US doesn't want them to pick. Oh the irony. But like Russia, Vietnam, and every other country the US has had to concede something to at some point, at the end of the day it's that sovern nations decision. You can't control those nations, so why not just engage in proper diplomacy. Works for everyone else. Quote:
Look at the US revolution. The colonists fought back because britain tried to rule them as they did their own subjects. That style of rule didn't work half a world away. They were out of touch with the people. Much like the states in Iraq - they can't get a feel for it because they are outsiders who have never lived there, and only know what works in their world, with their people, and in their religous context. There was a show on BBC the other night where politicans and scholars are now leaning towards the idea that maybe, possibly, Sadaam had it right, at least on some levels, and that his style of rule is the only thing that will keep the peace there. Once again, ironic, but we will see... |
Quote:
Let's review: 1.) Quite a good number in Iraq's military at the time consisted of Shia troops. Iran tried to appeal to the Shia of Iraq, but failed to convince them to rise up in any significant fashion against Saddam. Saddam, in turn, tried the same with Iran's Sunni minority. It resulted in failure as well. Most of these people were nationalistic and stood their ground in Iraq or Iran respectively. So no, it wasn't Shia vs. Sunni. It was Iran verses Iraq. 2.) The war wasn't about who controled Iraq. It was over a boundry dispute. 3.) The Iran/Contra affair showed we backed the Sunnis? You do know we sold arms to the SHIA of Iran in that affair, right? Which was strictly an arms for hostages deal at the time. 4.) "For like the past few decades?" Try one decade. |
The Shia that fought were factions that have since rejoined the majority in Iraq. It's like this - if you have never lived in an occupied country, you have no frame of reference. There are dozens of lads in the british military who hold allegence to ireland. In fact, the lad just recently arrested for the IRA bombing of the biritsh base in Germany was a former Blackwatch soldier. He was in the Blackwatch, patrolled Belfast, but was a member of the IRA. Just because Shai fought in the Iran/Iran war doesn't mean they were Sadaam loyalists and believed in Iraq winning. It just means they knew how the game was played, got their military training and weapons, and used the system to their advantage. It's what you do when your country is under occupation, play the naive, act the part, rise up when the time is right. Look at every major government thats every been toppled from within.
In fact, thats what the bush administration was counting on when they invaded this time. They talk about it in various pre-war speeches. The 'boundry dispute' was quite a sizeable chunkn of land, IN IRAQ. Like now, as the different groups tend to live together in various parts of Iraq, that boundry was the difference bewteen a large group of Shai living in Iran or Iraq. Prior to the brits splitting it up just a few decades ago it was one big Shai region. And yes, you are correct, the US sold arms to the Shia. At the same exact point in time the US was sending aid to Sadaam, seen all those pics of rumsfeld shaking his hand? That was all the same time period under reagan. Furthers my point the US was playing both teams at the same time against each other - outfitting each with weapons to fight each other, but claiming to support Iraq. But you still have yet to weigh in on what you think about Iraq these days and your solution on what to do...avoiding the question this time not by personalk attacks but trying once agan to nitpick small details that have no real bearing on the agurment. You have spent 3 posts now not saying anything about where you stand or what you think should happen. If your at a loss say so. If your confused let us know. But really, you should stop avoiding the topic and post something meaningful here. |
[quote=ExistentialAs for Sadam being behind 9/11, i'm sure he had something to do with it. maybe not in the planning but at least in the funding. somewhere in the mess of things, somehow, he and/or his sons were involved.[/QUOTE]
As mentioned in that article I posted, the us government has now conceded this is 100% false. Just for reference, these groups fight. They hate each other. In fact, Bin Laden supports the Iran faction to take over Iraq. Those groups that rose up that the bush admin were counting on were comprised of men like Bin Laden. To say Bin Laden would have worked with a government he was trying to internally overthrow is insane. Sadaam had his own go-to men for that kind of thing. Tis why Bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan. Sunnis and Shites do not get along. It would be like saying the IRA was working with the loyalists to help the british government occupation. Or saying that back in the 1700's, the Minutemen in America worked with the tories to help further the british occupation there. Things that just would never happen, no matter what. |
First off, Sternn, shut the fuck up about Northern Ireland. I just don't give a fuck what happened in that tiny little part of the UK. You only moved there long after the Good Friday Aggreement. Next to that, the UK is NOTHING like Iraq. Nothing. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, in case you didn't get the memo. You're not being occupied if it's your own god damn troops being stationed there. And don't come back trying to tell me about Ireland should be as one and all this bullshit cause I don't care and it doesn't negate the fact that the UK has it's own troops stationed on IT'S OWN TERRITORY in Northern Ireland.
Secondly, your bullshit arguements of, "Well, you know, the history books may say I'm bullshitting but I have first hand experience," don't hold any weight. Sorry. It's still bullshit and you're still factually wrong as hell. Try picking up a book, reading an encycopedia, or enroll in a college course to learn, because chances are, you're not just going to suddenly alter history on the Iran-Iraq war because YOU lived in Northern Ireland for a few months. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote]Furthers my point the US was playing both teams at the same time against each other - outfitting each with weapons to fight each other, but claiming to support Iraq.[/quotes] They weren't playing both sides of the field - the situation was somewhat forced, as Iran had direct influence in whether or not Lebonese terrorists would release American hostages from a hijacked plane. They used that to bring the US to the table and aquire badly need arms sales, as they were running real short, real quick. Quote:
|
Wow, once again, not one mention of the current state of Iraq, bush and his policies, and nothing about how you think it should be fixed.
But good job dodging the question once again and trying to drag me into some personal flame war. |
Quote:
Quote:
And by the way, I would suggest that we could have won Vietnam if we had really committed to it. If we'd have bombed North Korea to the stone age when we could, would we be dealing with the monster that is developing nuclear weapons there now? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So next election (2008) we get a Democrat or maybe (there are a few out there) an enlightened Republican in the office. And the new guy doesn't have all the baggage of the whole debacle with the UN. So he (or she ... it's a possibility) has two outs. Declare that it is no longer in our interest to be there and pull out. No skin off his nose, 'cause it wasn't his policy in the first place. And the world can't look at him/her and say "You didn't keep your word." No problem. Or, go to the UN and ask for them to institute a mutlinational peacekeeping force. Less likely, but that route is impossible right now because most of the members are still pissed at Bush for invading. New guy gets a chance because he's not Bush. Hell, he can even go before them with his hat in his hand and go "I wish you folks would help us out, 'cause frankly, I don't know what that cowboy was thinking." Okay, longshot at best, but still worth an effort. Especially since it's in a lot of those folks back yard, and having it disintigrate into a civil war is definitely not in their interests. But get over this call for pulling out, because our fearless lonestar leader has a 10 gallon hat full of stubborness ... and earplugs. |
Quote:
|
This reminds of the Band Camp chick.
"According the best seller novel by Brown, Jesus was-" "...yeah yeah mate, but this one time in Northern Ireland..." "The earth, my people, is indeed not flat for I calcu-" "...but I'm a dual citizen, and this one time, in Northern Ireland I stumbled outta pub and..." Everything reverts to Northern Ireland. No matter what you talk about. i still stand by my original beliefs, mate. Oh, and *hugs Binkie. No Sternn, you can't have any. |
Of course!
*hugs Xng. No Sternn! Git! |
Tek,
you and X are freaking awesome, man. S'all I gotta say about that. Freaking awesome, the both of you! |
Sternn,
I don't think you'd actually want all those threads back up. I distinctly remember the Binkster handing you your ass quite a few times. You don't want people reading back over that kind of embarrassment do you? |
Ben -
Good idea there. I'm guessing thats also probably what will happen. Just too bad yer talking about waiting out the next president - who won't sit in office until January 2009. Calculated at current costs and lives yer talking another 1,200+ dead Americans at current rate of killed per day and another 1.5 billion dollars, if they don't raise troop levels and ask for more money per month. But what your saying is the current administration is willing to sit it out while more Americans die in a quagmire half a world away and piss away more money than is spent on most government programs just to ride out an unpopular policy because of one mans stubborness. Everyone else - Those threads before, much like this one, were poor attempts to attack me personally for my views. And much like this one, none of the pro-bush people have anything useful to contribute to the argument. I mean, tired rhetoric, personal attacks, and debating what exactly happened a few decades ago does nothing to help the lads dying in your name right now. It reminds me of bush's last speech. And I quote.. Reporter -Mr President, what are your plans if civil war breaks out in Iraq? gw - My job is to make sure that doesn't happen Reporter - ...but what if it does? gw - My job, as president, is to make sure is doesn't. See, I have to make sure these things don't happen, because thats my job as president. Yeah, great answer, eh? If he answered the same question if someone asked 'what happens if there is another hurricane Katrina' and he responded 'my job is to make sure there isnt' I think people would worry. I think people worry now, because much like the people posting here, they have no plan, no new idea, and just spew the same tired old cookie-cutter reponses and avoid the issue because they know they are backing a losing horse but are too stubborn to admit it. I could be wrong about my Iraq ideas, and think Ben, and a few others have expressed good ideas on how and when pull out should happen. Too bad others want to dodge the question and follow the president like a lemming off that cliff. Also too bad another thousand or so Americans will die for this stubborness. Glad none of my mates are over there getting shot at so bush can say he has a big penis. |
Quote:
Pop quiz: What did President Warren G. Harding do of import? Don't know? Had to go look it up? How many American citizens do you think even know who Warren G. Harding was? Now, do you think people will remember who Lyndon Baines Johnson was in a hundred years? I do. They'll think "That's the president that got us bogged down in Vietnam." Bush is building a legacy. You know what they say ... there's no such thing as bad publicity. So ... if I were you, I would stop railing about the wasted tax dollars and the sqaundered lives. Because while it's all true, it ain't gonna change a thing. But if you want us out by 2007, you better get active and try to motivate the electorate. Make the incumbent senators and congressmen that are up for re-election sweat that they are going to lose their jobs if they don't pass legislation that cuts funding and support for the war effort before the November elections. Otherwise, we're all waiting until 2009. I'm really sure of that. |
my views on the war in iraq remain as i've stated in the past.
- iraq is a cesspool. it will always be a cesspool. it is neither our financial nor is it our moral responsibility to elevate it above the status of cesspool. iraq belongs to the iraqis, not to america. we have no jurisdiction there. they are a sovereign nation. we are forbidden, by our constitution, to interfere within a sovereign nation. - i continue to support bush's decision to go to war for the reason he stated - purported weapons of mass destruction with a belief of imminent threat to the united states. - i believe the president was telling the truth when he stated he believed we were in harm's way. - it is the president's responsibility to us, the citizens of america, to protect us at all costs when he believes we are in danger of imminent attack. - my issue with this war in iraq now is as follows, not that i haven't said this before... a.) we declared the search for weapons over in january 2005. once that search was called off, our justification for staying in iraq ended. b.) president bush was elected here in the united states. at no time were we voting for the president of, the government within or the rebuilding of iraq. c.) iraq receives an inordinate amount of american tax-payer money. why? in the past year alone, if we'd kept that money here and had no idea what to do with it, it could have gone to help pay off federal loans, been used for scholarships, been used to rebuild american infrastructure that is in need of attention, could have been used to build, period - for america. d.) barring the above, that money could have been issued as refund checks for working, taxpaying american citizens. i know my mindset wasn't to work for the past year just so that new buildings, toilets and hospitals could be erected inside iraq. fuck them. e.) the united states military exists for two reasons - to destroy things and to kill our enemy. using our military to provide for "a better way of life" in iraq is an absolutely inappropriate misappropriation of resources. think about that - the american military is fighting for iraqi freedom, whatever that means. f.) the people of iraq have been killing each other for thousands of years. they're barbarians and savages. you can put a tuxedo on a wild gorilla but that doesn't make it civilized. |
Ben -
I agree with you on that. And you once again are spot on. EE - Althought I disagree with parts of yer first statements, it appears the second part of your statements about what the US should do and where the money should be spent are right in line with what I think should happen as well. Also, in my last post I mean TRILLION, not billion as right now over 6 billion is being spent monthly, so 1.5 billion over the next 2-3 years is waaay off on that mark, so I apologise - was typing fast. Also EE. At first, I though in the back of my mind that maybe what you said could be true. gw could have believed that there were weapons, and that he did feel there was a threat. But the reason I lost faith in him was his track record of either 'altering' the truth or outright lying. I could go back and list various arguments, but I think the last most high-profile one will suffice - the Katrina reponse. Bush claimed that 'no one had any idea' and a laundry list of other statements he made, all of which turned out to be 100% false, and with that video conference which emerged showing experts telling him exact what he denied ever hearing, well, its stuff like that that makes me think he's not only capable of lying to the public, but doing it, then covering it up without one shred of remorse and still refuses to say he did anything wrong. That bothers me when someone is caught in a lie and continues to change the subject when asked about it. What makes it worse is he tried to shift blame off on everyone else but himself, and make scapegoats out of people who actually tried to warn him and people who actually attempted to save lives. |
Found this after I entered the last post...
U.S.: Iraq on own to rebuild http://news.**********/s/usatoday/200...ltBHNlYwM3MTY- The head of the U.S.-led program to rebuild Iraq said Thursday that the Iraqi government can no longer count on U.S. funds and must rely on its own revenues and other foreign aid, particularly from Gulf nations. "The Iraqi government needs to build up its capability to do its own capital budget investment," Daniel Speckhard, director of the U.S. Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, told reporters. The burden of funding reconstruction poses an extraordinary challenge for a country that needs tens of billions of dollars for repairing its infrastructure at the same time it's struggling to pay its bills. Iraq's main revenue source - oil - is hampered by insurgent attacks on production facilities and pipelines, forcing the country to spend $6 billion a year on oil imports. A few things I found interesting in this article. First, all those trillions have dried up and are gone. No more money for recunstruction, and there is sitll no running water, sweage, or power for like 90% of the country. In fact, based on pre-war stats, the country has reverted like 20 years thanks to the war. This will not bode well for the people living there I, would bet on that. Second, Iraq is importing 6 billion in oil a year to keep their operations running now. Importing 6 billion means they are not making squat of what they have, are using it, and sitll need more. This also is not a good sign, expecially since the US is saying they aren't going to pay for anything and the Iraq oil revanue must cover the cost, even though now those profits are actually a 6 billion dollar defict. This means the country is in tatters, there is no money, and there is no way to bring more capital in as it stands. Am I reading this wrong? Anyone else care to comment? |
Quote:
I guess you haven't taken a look at the USAID site for REAL figures. Quite alright. You wouldn't want to actually know that the real situation is, after all. That would destroy your preception that the US is Evil Satan Lucifer! Rawr! Well here is the USAID site, Sternn: http://www.usaid.gov/ Now you can't cite ignorance to mark your fabrications and numerous false statements. ;) |
Yer right, Iraq is going swimmingly. I must be way off watching all those left wing news shows on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and in all the major new papers and wires. The US should keep the troops there because like Cheney said, there is no civl war, the world loves america, and all it well!
How could I have even gotten the idea that Iraq isn't going as planned. Me and the other 78% of america must have been misled by those liberals running the government! Thanks for pointing this out! I'll get right on trying to explain to those other few million americans that there is this girl binkie on gothic.net that is an expert on Iraq and whats going on there and we should ignore all the news and images we see everyday on the news and all the body bags coming home and pay attention to her because, shes a self professed expert on the topic, even though she has never left the confort of her own country. Maybe you should go meet with Sheehan and the traveling group of Iraqi veterans who were you know, there, just a few months ago who are traveling around the world telling people what its like there and correct them as well because obviously they too have no idea what they are talking about. You go sort them out! Smell that? Tis sarcasm. ;) |
Ya know what's funny? I read over your entire post and I don't see anything to back up what you were saying like I was asking for. You know? Like real figures from a reputable source. Hummmm...
Me thinks you're making shit up again. And you are, unless you've got real statistics and sources that prove otherwise. ;) |
I started the topic. My topic was how does everyone think the Iraq war is going. In a nutshell, I said its a quagmire, another Vietnam.
Your are now asking me to prove that? I say you need to prove to me (and almost 80% of america) that it's going well. If you think I am wrong, just turn on the telly and watch yer local news. Thats all the sources I need. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, in fact - visit any of their websites (they can be easily found by typing in '.com' after those first three letters) and look at the headlines. ...then tell me why exactly I am wrong for claiming the Iraq war is NOT going well. Let me help you out... First storey listed on CNN.Com right this second as I am browsing there: Iraq suicide bomber kills 30 From MSNBC: Attack on Iraq base kills 40 From ABC: U.S. Denies Mosque Raid; Suicide Bomber Kills 40 From CBS: At Least 40 Killed At U.S.-Iraqi Base And with all those articles these footnotes were listed... In other recent developments: -At least 21 more corpses were found Monday, many with nooses around their neck. Nine were found in west Baghdad, handcuffed, blindfolded and with ropes around their necks, police Lt. Akeel Fadhil said. Militias are blamed for many of these killings, Logan reports. -Mortar and bomb attacks killed at least four Monday. In the capital, a bomb exploded in a bus headed for the Sadr City slum of east Baghdad, killing two passengers and wounding at least four others, police Col. Hassan Jaloob said. The bomb had been left in a bag, he said. A car bomb at the entrance to Sadr City also exploded, though reports on casualties were not immediately available. -Saddam Hussein's chief deputy, who has eluded capture since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq three years ago, purportedly called for Arab leaders to back Iraq's Sunni-backed insurgency, in an audiotape broadcast Monday. The tape, which Al-Jazeera television said was made by Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, appeared to be an address to the Arab League summit in Khartoum, Sudan, this week. The voice on the tape said Iraq's Sunni-led insurgency was "the sole legitimate representative of the Iraqi people." It was impossible to determine the tape's authenticity. -A total of at least 69 people were reported killed Sunday in one of the bloodiest days in weeks. Most of the dead appeared to be victims the shadowy Sunni-Sectarian score-settling that has torn at the fabric of Iraq since Feb. 22 when a Shiite shrine was blown apart in Samarra, north of Baghdad. -Iraqi authorities reported late Sunday that U.S. forces raided an Interior Ministry building and arrested 40 policemen after discovering 17 non-Iraqi prisoners in the facility. Police 1st Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said the arrested police were being held for investigation, but the reason was not known. *snip* And it goes on, and on, and on. Here are the other articles listed in 'related stories'... Battle Over Baghdad Mosque Firefight Iraqis Claim Forces Open Fire In Mosque, U.S. Military Denies Charge 30 Dead In Sectarian Violence Fearing Ambush, Iraqi Army Can't Confirm Reports Of Beheaded Bodies Iraqi Student Killed In Bombing Young Iraqi Teen Was Headed To School When Roadside Bomb Blew *snip* And thats the major news sites. Am I missing something? I'm glad the USAID organisation that is paid by the bush adminsitration to post good reports on the net have done their job and posted some feel good storeys there, but lets look at the big picture - look at any news site and any news cast and tell me you think the Iraq war is going good for the american people. Is that whay you are arguing? As I am saying without a doubt, it's gone to piss, and the people are not happy there. But please, find me a news site with some happy Iraq stories that are not on a paid US government website. Glad to know you think things are going well. I would hate to see what would happen if the Iraq war WASN'T going so well... |
*yawn*
It's nice that you typed all of that out. A waste though. Looks like I'm going to have to do this hand holding thing again. Let me refresh your memory on what I want you to provide statistical back-up for since you're continually tap dancing around it: https://www.gothic.net/boards/showpo...6&postcount=42 If you can't provide the evidence or statistical backup, then obviously you made that figure the fuck up. Pretty simple. |
You know what? I'm not even going to sit here and waste more time reading your diatribe. I'll just press forward and discredit your statement right here and now:
USAID SOURCE |
Your seriously arguing that the Iraq war is going well?
So ye old head in the sand, forget whats on the news and the body bags coming home with no end in site means nothing? Well, found a few more sites ye might want to check out. First, a few more pictures to make it a birt more real. This site was started by US troops who want the world to see what is happening first hand. http://www.undermars.com Over a thousand pictures taken by the troops there, showing bodies, dimemberments, death, destruction, and all that good stuff. And still, once again all you have in your aruge that Iraq 'is going well' is the same USAID site, a site bought and paid for by the bush admin so impartial perspectives are out the window. I quoted every major news source, and the best you have is bush's own personal news site? Thats weak. Find me one news site thats not a US government agency that tells how 'well the Iraq war' is going. But back on topic, this article which came out today and will be hitting the papers in your country soon enough is pretty insiteful as well... Bush told Blair determined to invade Iraq without UN resolution or WMD NEW YORK (AFP) - US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported. Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003. Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo. " 'The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,' Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. 'This was when the bombing would begin'," the paper continued. The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment, the paper said. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, then US secretary of state Colin Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. *snip* The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. http://news.**********/s/afp/20060327...BhBHNlYwM5NjQ- Wow, thats a long way to go to 'bring freedom'. I mean, faking an attack on a UN plane? Breaking the US governments own ban on assassination of heads-of-state? |
Ok I was one of those Pro-Bush Pro-War idiots that thought anyone that opposed it was an idiot and un-american and all that. Now I know voting for Bush twice was two of the biggest mistakes I've ever done. The war was a lie. Conservatives are whores. Im one of those pissed off angry rebelious Republicans that will vote democrat unless I REALLY like the republican. But no more voting for the lesser of two evils. I would rather vote for someone that cant win then to vote for another Bush.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 AM. |