skins Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Do we own it? Maybe. Way to take responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 It's about religion but no one wants to admit the truth. The Islam religion wants to take over the world. I've yet to see Osama and his merry band of suicide bombers blowing themselves up because of oil. Their last words are "Praise to Allah!". Fighting a religious war nowadays is too un-PC for anyone to admit. It's Christianity vs Muslims and that's the truth. The oil is just the financing for the radicals. Take away the oil and you'll still have the terrorists. Before oil was king, the Middle East still hated the West. The revenue from the oil in the past 50 years have only allowed them to carry out their agenda instead of digging around in the sand. And that's why we've had to deal with them in the past 30 years or so. i agree that the terrorists are doing what they are for religious purposes. i don't think the US is running a crusade though. otherwise, we'd be in india, bangladesh, and every american city with guns in the faces of other faiths. i was mostly commenting on the middle east iraq conflict war that started with revenge againsts the terrorists and is now about "diplomacy"....yeah, right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I just want to point out that I was calling this war a pointless, inneffective quagmire before it was the cool thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I just want to point out that I was calling this war a pointless, inneffective quagmire before it was the cool thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Do we own it? Maybe. Way to take responsibility. You seem to have (accidentally I'm sure) left out an important part of what I said... let me help you: But the people of Iraq own it much more than we do. Do you disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFFL Chump Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Saddam murdered a ton of people when he was in power. Now he's gone and other people have stepped up to become the murderers. Whether we are a part of it or not, someone will always be there to keep the killing going. Murder is glorified as Martyrdom, and apparently there's just no fighting that sentiment. Do we own it? Maybe. We took out the Murderer-in-Chief allowing a bunch of new candidates to try to make their claim for the office. But the people of Iraq own it much more than we do. Either way, whether we have an obligation to be ther or not, we need to find a way to stop being sitting ducks. If we cannot find a way to change that reality, then let's get the heck out. Our soliders deserve better than to become such an easy target for that kind of blind hatred. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Saddam murdered a ton of people when he was in power. Now he's gone and other people have stepped up to become the murderers. Whether we are a part of it or not, someone will always be there to keep the killing going. Murder is glorified as Martyrdom, and apparently there's just no fighting that sentiment. The area has long been ruled by murderers. Strong men have been the only ones that succeeded there in recent history. George Bush was told this and ignored it. After 911 the world was united with us. There were pro american rallies in Tehran and the Iranians helped us get rid of the Taliban. We could have done much to change the sentiments in the arab world, but the neo cons pushed their agenda and we lost a lot of what could have been accomplished. 2 weeks after helping us Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil. Later he called Iraq a crusade. Both were incredibly dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 After 911 the world was united with us. There were pro american rallies in Tehran and the Iranians helped us get rid of the Taliban. We could have done much to change the sentiments in the arab world, but the neo cons pushed their agenda and we lost a lot of what could have been accomplished. i agree with this. i think we could've possibly gained some weak allies rather than seperating ourselves more from a number of nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 2 weeks after helping us Bush called Iran part of the axis of evil. So Irans stated policy is the destruction of Isreal and you want them on our side? You are a goofbat m0ran with no grasp of reality, son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 So Irans stated policy is the destruction of Isreal and you want them on our side? Of course, the implemented plan of basically handing them Iraq doesn't seem to be working too well either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 (edited) You seem to have (accidentally I'm sure) left out an important part of what I said... let me help you: Do you disagree? Uh, yeah I disagree. We are an occupying force of their country. They are not a sovereign nation anymore. We dont "maybe" own Iraq. We bought and paid for it and took possession and then busted it up. You cheerleaders for doing that dont get to now conveniently say "well, the Iraqis are more responsible." At least man up to yer responsibility. I always knew it was an incredibly stupid idea but I am more committed to getting it right than you guys who loved the idea of Bush leading us into Iraq to "spread democracy" or get rid of WMD or whatever. You blindly supported the idiotic policy and now want to dump the Iraqis when yer clown leader f's the whole thing up. Consider me yer conscience. Edited December 7, 2006 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 The reason of course is the war was about oil and setting up 11 permanent bases in Iraq. Saddam was not the real reason for this. He was just one of the many excuses given for the attack. I still hear this moranic arguement by liberal idiots. And sounds more stupid each time I hear it. For the record, I am very thankful that Randull is on your side guys! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 I still hear this moranic arguement by liberal idiots. Yep. It is the liberal equivalent of saying that we went into Iraq to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Yep. It is the liberal equivalent of saying that we went into Iraq to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Who has ever made that ridiculous assertion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 Who has ever made that ridiculous assertion? fixed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted December 7, 2006 Share Posted December 7, 2006 (edited) Who has ever made that ridiculous assertion? Like 40% of the people who voted Republican in 2004. ... Oh, and Cheney. Edited December 7, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I just want to point out that I was calling this war a pointless, inneffective quagmire before it was the cool thing to do. SI5 at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 (edited) .. Oh, and Cheney. Well, what can you really expect from a man who is the head of an anti-gay organization? Edited December 8, 2006 by spain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I just want to point out that I was calling this war a pointless, inneffective quagmire before it was the cool thing to do. I have a soul patch too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Uh, yeah I disagree. We are an occupying force of their country. They are not a sovereign nation anymore. We dont "maybe" own Iraq. We bought and paid for it and took possession and then busted it up. You cheerleaders for doing that dont get to now conveniently say "well, the Iraqis are more responsible." At least man up to yer responsibility. I always knew it was an incredibly stupid idea but I am more committed to getting it right than you guys who loved the idea of Bush leading us into Iraq to "spread democracy" or get rid of WMD or whatever. You blindly supported the idiotic policy and now want to dump the Iraqis when yer clown leader f's the whole thing up. Consider me yer conscience. That kind of hits all the chicken hawks where it hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 Uh, yeah I disagree. We are an occupying force of their country. They are not a sovereign nation anymore. We dont "maybe" own Iraq. We bought and paid for it and took possession and then busted it up. You cheerleaders for doing that dont get to now conveniently say "well, the Iraqis are more responsible." At least man up to yer responsibility. I always knew it was an incredibly stupid idea but I am more committed to getting it right than you guys who loved the idea of Bush leading us into Iraq to "spread democracy" or get rid of WMD or whatever. You blindly supported the idiotic policy and now want to dump the Iraqis when yer clown leader f's the whole thing up. Consider me yer conscience. I was all for deposing that hero of the Democrats, Saddam Hussein. But we owe the Iraqis nothing. We didnt buy and take possession of anything. We went in and killed a very de-stabilizing force in the region and the world. Now its time to leave. Very simple. What exactly do you mean by "getting it right"? You mean like Gerneral Westmorland wanted to get it right in Vietnam? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 I still hear this moranic arguement by liberal idiots. And sounds more stupid each time I hear it. For the record, I am very thankful that Randull is on your side guys! These are the neo cons- Clinton wouldn't listen to them but Bush hitched his wagon to them and we have all suffered because of it. Read their manifesto. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American political neo-conservative think tank, based in Washington, DC co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting American global leadership. The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The Executive Director and chief operating officer has been Gary J. Schmitt. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1] Present and former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the daughter of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Federal Grand Jury Indictee, Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors. Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana). Some have argued the American-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 So Irans stated policy is the destruction of Isreal and you want them on our side? You are a goofbat m0ran with no grasp of reality, son. Stated policies can change. Our stated policy was to harness moderate muslims to our side and change radical regimes(like Iran). IOf you knew anything about the country most of the people there are young and pro west. By influencing them vs the Mullas they can change their country. Attacking neighboring countries has taken their influence away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted December 8, 2006 Author Share Posted December 8, 2006 We went in and killed a very de-stabilizing force in the region and the world. I know that this is likely part of your schtick, but you do realize how silly this statement is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted December 8, 2006 Share Posted December 8, 2006 (edited) (wiegie @ 12/7/06 4:59pm) Yep. It is the liberal equivalent of saying that we went into Iraq to avenge the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Who has ever made that ridiculous assertion? 85% of our troops in Iraq said the US mission was mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks" I still think out of all the f'd up stuff that has happened with this war, the above statistic is the one that disgusts me the most. It is almost impossible to believe that this many of our soldiers could believe something so "ridiculous" without a deliberate (though, of course, unofficial) policy to deceive them. Edited December 8, 2006 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.