Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

iraq- are we winning or losing ?


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#41 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 06:01 PM

whether or not I predicted bush would be elected or not. lol. That is the democracy 2,000 of our soldiers have died for.
RR


Well, atleast we have come to the agreement that they have died for democracy, died for a democracy where people can freely elect their leaders. Thats what the United States military is all about, we have always said that we will help any oppresed people fight for freedom, atleast our president has the balls to stick to that philosophy!

#42 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 06:22 PM

the winners' names haven't even been formally announced yet,
let alone any government formed.
the simple truth is that rodger has no idea
who won any of the elections in iraq.
he doesn't even know who the next prime minister will be,
because no one does,
yet.
:lol:
don't let him bluff ya.

#43 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 07 January 2006 - 07:42 PM

atleast our president has the balls to stick to that philosophy!


Provided they have oil.
RR

#44 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 07:49 PM

Well, all I can really say to that is that if you really believe that this war has anything to do with Bush getting his hands on their oil, your an idiot. As far as oil goes, it probably does play a part though, Think about it, our country depends heavily on oil, middle eastern oil. Wouldnt it be in the best interest of our country, a matter of national security even, to assure that the oil we rely on stays in the hands of a stable, reliable government?

#45 Raul del Angelo

Raul del Angelo

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 123 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 10:09 PM

The US was solely responsible for the withholding of water and sewage parts and chemicals. The sanctions allowed the US to approve or reject any hardware or chemicals going into Iraq and the US tactic was to let the paperwork sit which stopped the flow of materials. The US is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths of children. Quotes from Air Force Generals show that it was our intention to conduct war in this manner. Our country used our power to conduct war against children.

All the objections that you raise take more time than it takes to use Google, do some searches and learn the truth. Its hard to take responsiblilty for electing leaders that would do such things. If we don't learn the truth and spread the truth and stop such outragous use of our countries power then we accept the karma for so many murders.

Perhaps it would make you feel better to know that this is a plan that Clinton approved and continued but so did both Bushes.

Raul

#46 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:05 AM

Well, all I can really say to that is that if you really believe that this war has anything to do with Bush getting his hands on their oil, your an idiot.


And you are a brainwashed fool. See? What good does name calling do but cause you to lose an argument?

You say the war was to bring democracy to Iraq. A billion people in China have no democracy, but where are the US troops and the president with the balls to help them fight for freedom? Oops, China is an oil importer. No freedom for them.

There's genocide and open slave trading markets in Sudan. Where are the US troops and the president with the balls to help them fight for freedom? Oops, no oil, the UN can handle this one. No freedom for them.

Bush said this war is about "Weapons of mass destruction", "Yellow cake uranium from Niger", and "mushroom clouds over America". Those are HIS words. They were lies. He ignored CIA information to the contrary.

Bush is an oil man, with thousands of shares of oil stocks. Cheney is an oil man. Between them, they have put BILLIONS of dollars into the hands of the oil companies, and BILLIONS more in the hands of Halliburton, which still pays Dick Cheney a salary and bonuses. Guess where those billions came from? You and me. This war has nothing to do with weapons, freedom, or democracy. It's about oil profits. Period. Our commander in chief has sent US troops to their deaths in the interest of fattening his own bank account.
RR

#47 Guest_JT_*

Guest_JT_*
  • Guest

Posted 08 January 2006 - 10:42 AM

http://hosted.ap.org...-01-08-10-10-51

#48 golly

golly

    modapotato

  • Expired Member
  • 6,205 posts

Posted 08 January 2006 - 11:26 AM

And the beat goes on:eusa_snoo

#49 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 08:31 AM

:lol:

note how my point was dodged-
no denial of the truth,
just ignored
:lol:
not one of you anti-war 'critics' have posted hard evidence to show
that your claims are true,
instead you just keep repeating yourselves
as if saying something
over and over will make it true.
:lol:
this thread served its' purpose,
i'm quite certain no one here knew
that we lost 2400 fewer men last year
than we did the year before.

further grateful soldier provided eyewitness accounts
from inside iraq , as an american soldier.

and raul-
your claim that clinton approved the 'plan'
does not work as you intend.
i couldn't care less about geo. bush,
that is not why i take my position.
you are just wrong to claim the us bears responsibility
no matter which president initiated the policies.
saddam fired the first shots.
you cannot dodge that fact.

#50 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 08:35 AM

Provided they have oil.
RR



another lie.
we fought the germans, twice
but they had no oil.
we fought the japanese and the italians too,
neither had any oil.
we supported the koreans, the philippines too,
no oil there.
we supported the vietnamese,
no oil there.
we supported the bosnians,
no oil there.
we tried to help the somalis, ethiopia-
no oil there.
we are in afghanistan,
no oil there either.

in fact
iraq is the ONLY oil-rich nation we have ever
tried to install a democracy in by force-
there are NO other cases
as rodger incorrectly implies.
yet another 'point' based on deception.
:lol:

#51 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:13 AM

LMFAO at more disinformation hippie. You just won't stop will you? You ignore all evidence and state the same thing over and over again yourself as if that would make it true. :lol: Here's a FACT for you. According to the polls in Iraq, 80% of the population wants the US military to leave.

WW2 was not fought by either bush administration. Vietnam and Korea were not fought by either bush adminstration. The war in Bosnia was Clinton's not bush's. The ONLY wars bush jr and sr have started were over oil. That is a fact. (unless you consider hiring the Northern Alliance as mercenaries to overthrow the taliban, but let bin laden and mullah omar escape, a war) Bush sr sacrificed American soldiers to 'liberate' the Ruling family of Kuwait, but made no attempt to 'install democracy'. Kuwait to this day remains a slave holding country where women have no rights. Don't compare the honorable past of our great country with the neocon oil junta that has hijacked it and destroyed our reputation in the world as bringers of peace and democracy.
RR

#52 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:18 AM

:lol:
saddam fired the first shots.
you cannot dodge that fact.


What are you trying to do here? Blame saddam for 911 again? Perhaps you're back on the Iran/Iraq war? Or maybe it's when he tried to unify his terrority that the British carved Kuwait out of to reward a group of collaborators? :lol:
RR

#53 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:18 AM

the congress of the united states voted to authorize the use of force against iraq, so your pathetic attempt to label it as just bush's war is laughable.
the american public validated its' support for the war by re-electing bush.
hard facts even harder for you to swallow.

bush invaded afghansitan too and there was no oil there
so your point is still invalid.
:lol:

#54 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:21 AM

What are you trying to do here? Blame saddam for 911 again? :lol:
RR


get a clue rodger.
you know what i'm talking about
but let me repeat
s l o w l y this time-
saddam invaded kuwait
which is the reason all this happened.
if not for his actions
there would have been
no sanctions, no inspectors,
no no-fly zones,
no american army in kuwait & saudi arabia,
etc.

9/11 is just one day and not the subject of this thread at all.
comprende ?
you are the one trying to confuse the issue by playing games.
i'm talking about saddam and iraq,
not 9/11.
got it ?

#55 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 11:33 AM

I really wish I was going to have the chance to continue with this thread, I have to go away for a couple weeks, maybe a month. Hopfully this conversation will still be going on when i get home! I should be leaving in the morning, I am waiting for a bed at the treatment facility but they say tomorrow looks good. Take care, ---Mike

#56 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 09 January 2006 - 07:50 PM

Oh, thank you for repeating it s l o w l y for me. :lol: So, NOW we're in this war because saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Most of us consider that was what we fought desert storm 1 for. This war is about WMD, Mushroom clouds over America, and yellow cake uranium, but it's YOU who keep steering the rational for war off on side tracks, not me. There was no mention of 'democracy building' before the war. It was all about wmd and saddam's agents in Prague, etc.

Congress did NOT authorize war. Congress gave the president authority to take all steps necessary, including war, to make saddam comply with UN mandates. This vote was taken after the administration told Congress the same prevarications they told the rest of us.

Saddam did NOT fire the first shot in this war. The opening volley came from US cruise missiles.
RR

#57 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 09 January 2006 - 07:53 PM

Grateful Soldier, I wish you the very best man. Get well.
RR

#58 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 08:21 PM

desert storm did not end with a peace treaty-
all that happened was a
conditional cease-fire.

the cease-fire laid the legal foundations
for all subsequent conditions that were
imposed on iraq by the UN-
as you well know
we did not invade iraq because of 9-11,
neither did congress authorize force against iraq
because of 9/11.

rather
the entire legal basis for war
was built
on saddam's failure to comply with
the conditions of the cease fire that stopped our offensive operations against iraq-
notably the condition that required him
to account for all the materials, documents, personnel, etc.
from his WMD and conventional weapons programs.

the UN inspections
were a direct result of desert storm,
and saddam's failure to comply
was the direct cause for the 2nd invasion,
operation iraqi freedom.

the whole world watched the UN security council
cite saddam for his failure to comply
and threaten dire consequences
if he did not immediately and fully comply.

he did not,
according the the report of the inspectors.

therefore
he was held to be in material breach of the
cease fire
which was then terminated
and our offensive operations resumed.

this current war is a direct result
of saddam's invasion of kuwait,
we simply would not be in the situation
if saddam had not waged war on his neighbors.

the only relevance of 9-11 is the
psychological effect of the attacks
on the american public,
the congress and the president,
which caused them to
re-evaluate the priority assigned to
a threat perceived
not just by bush
but by most of the world's intelligence agencies, the un,
and previous administrations and congresses
which had already targeted iraq in many resolutions.

#59 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 09 January 2006 - 09:02 PM

Except for one thing. The UN did NOT authorize war. They asked to finish their job, but bush said there is no time for patience, we must invade now. It was Bush who kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq, as you well know, not Saddam.

It is also well known that Saddam needed the pretense of having weapons in order to keep Iran from attacking across the border. What you fail to mention when you site the foreign intelligence services who agreed saddam had wmd, is they disagreed on the threat imposed by them. The overwhelming majority of the world was against the invasion, and in favor of letting the UN finish the job it had started.

I believe we should announce the election a success, our job over, saddam in prison, time to come home. The shiite and kurd militias that have heavily infiltrated the Iraqi forces will have no trouble fighting the minority sunni insurgency on their own.
RR

#60 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 09 January 2006 - 10:07 PM

i tend to agree.
the sunni really have little choice in the long run
as the shia with the kurds
have enough power to crush them in time.
but you know as well as i do
that one slowly, cautiously disengages from
a fight with a dangerous enemy.
we cannot simply
run for the border.
within a few years,
i'd say by the end of the bush administration
the us will leave iraq to its' fate
as we'll be too busy
with iran.




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!