PRIVATE POLL: Question; Do You Think We Should Get Out Of Iraq, Or Stay There? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : PRIVATE POLL: Question; Do You Think We Should Get Out Of Iraq, Or Stay There?

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 09:30 AM

I know my opinion about getting out of Iraq is not a popular one among my conservative friends here on the board. But I've recently read more than one article where polls are cited that say people by majority want us out of Iraq, both democrat and republican alike. So, I thought I'd poll the board here. But I'm going to keep the who voted how private, so you can vote how you feel without worrying about being found out. Please vote the truth.

The question is going to be this... do you believe we should begin pulling our troops out of Iraq immediately, until they're all home, or do you believe we should stay there, never to leave, in an open ended commitment? In more simple terms, should we stay or should we go? I know there's some qualifying people want to do, like saying, "we should stay until the job is done." Well then you would vote we stay, because as of right now, you don't think the job is done. If you think we've already achieved what we went there to do, then you would vote we leave. Discussion will be welcome, but how someone voted will remain private. So again, please vote how you truly feel. Not the popular opinion.

chesswarsnow

12-31-2007, 09:42 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. I think we stay, and keep an eye on leaving, when things are stable enough for them to stand on their own feet.
2. If we leave before they can have a viable government, that governs all the people, whether they are this kind of Muslim or that kind, we don't really care about all the differences.
3. But seeing they are all three or four in a spiraling death grip on each other, we have to have it in consideration.
4. Otherwise we fail along side of their failures.
5. When their failures effect themselves in rebuilding their Nation, because they can't forgive their differences, it seeps down to the USA and our effort to start something good for them.
6. If they can't get to the root of the problem, their own hatreds of each other, how can they ever work together as *ONE NATION*?
7. Islam is an overly hateful religion, that all in all would better off being banned from the human race, for everyone's benefit.
8. Even their own, Islam is killing them as human beings, and they in-turn are killing others who don't follow Islam.
9. Islam is a crime against humanity.
10. *Their hands are all stained with blood, and nothing good is under the sun and or will ever come from Islam.*

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

gabosaurus

12-31-2007, 09:45 AM

Sorry bout that, but

1. You
2. Are
3. Full
4. Of
5. Shit

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 10:13 AM

Sorry bout that, but

1. You
2. Are
3. Full
4. Of
5. Shit

Sorry bout that,

1. But
2. That's
3. Some
4. Funny
5. Shit
6. :laugh:

Regards,
SirPreacherofNevada

chesswarsnow

12-31-2007, 10:16 AM

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that, but

1. You
2. Are
3. Full
4. Of
5. Shit

1. You got nothing eh?
2. So you slink down to personal attacks.
3. I am right, you just know you can't win against the, *CWN* point of view.
4. NEXT!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 10:19 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. You got nothing eh?
2. So you slink down to personal attacks.
3. I am right, you just know you can't win against the, *CWN* point of view.
4. NEXT!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Sorry bout that,

1. You gotta admit.
2. That was funny shit.
3. Made me laugh.
4. If you can't laugh at yourself,
5. Then you can't laugh at anything.

Regards,
SirPreacherofNevada

5stringJeff

12-31-2007, 10:28 AM

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.

DrJohn

12-31-2007, 10:44 AM

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.

I agree with this post.
Let the Iraqis take care of themselves.

chesswarsnow

12-31-2007, 10:49 AM

Sorry bout that,

Sorry bout that,

1. You gotta admit.
2. That was funny shit.
3. Made me laugh.
4. If you can't laugh at yourself,
5. Then you can't laugh at anything.

Regards,
SirPreacherofNevada

1. Thats the nature of comedy.
2. And human nature like wanting to see dead bodies when driving up on a car crash on the freeway in America, or any place on earth.
3. I lol at my self from time to time, but what was said wasn't funny, it was a personal attack.
4. And wasn't even original.
5. I condemn gabo~obnoxious for doing it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 11:20 AM

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.

I agree Jeff. Our job is done. We have no more good reason to be there. Let the chips fall where they may, and get the hell otta there. We've been there far too long as it is, not to mention we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place. And it looks as though the majority of Americans believe as we do too, like 54%.

KarlMarx

12-31-2007, 11:48 AM

Sorry bout that, but

1. You
2. Are
3. Full
4. Of
5. Shit

// java class that models liberal thought processes
public class liberalMentality extends far.left.wing.lunacy.from.the.1960s{

// constructor - creates a single instance of a liberal
public liberalMentality(){

MarxistDoctrine();

}

// method that mimics liberal behavior
public String liberalBehavior(String otherPersonsOpinion){

if(otherPersonsOpinion == anAcceptedLiberalPosition()){
return compliment(otherPersonsOpinion);
}
else {
return abusiveComments(otherPersonsOpinion);
}

}

// method that mimics the liberal's idea of debate
public String liberalsIdeaofDebate(String issue)
{

String ignore = factsAboutIssue(issue);
String rubbish = liberalPositionOnIssue(issue);

return rubbish;
}

}

82Marine89

12-31-2007, 01:35 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. You gotta admit.
2. That was funny shit.
3. Made me laugh.
4. If you can't laugh at yourself,
5. Then you can't laugh at anything.

Regards,
SirPreacherofNevada

He's a sorry ass,

1. Yup, that was funny.
2. Someday he'll post in complete thoughts.
3. I'd rep her, but I need to spread it around.
4. We all laugh at him.

Regards,
SirPokerofFun

BTW, you should have given a choice for cleaning up our mess from a completely mismanaged execution of a UN resolution.

Mr. P

12-31-2007, 01:40 PM

Out. Then we can program the ICBM for the appropriate target.

avatar4321

12-31-2007, 02:23 PM

I haven't voted. I don't really like the choices.

However, I think the generals should decide.

trobinett

12-31-2007, 02:28 PM

I don't give a shit if people know what I think about pulling out or staying.

We ALREADY are pulling out, and I agree with the current strategy. A phased, well planned withdraw is the best policy.

I did like Mr. P's final solution though.:lol::lol::lol:

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 03:19 PM

I haven't voted. I don't really like the choices.

However, I think the generals should decide.

What is the choice that you'd have liked? In your words...

avatar4321

12-31-2007, 03:25 PM

What is the choice that you'd have liked? In your words...

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 03:27 PM

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

I agree. From what I've read, which is quite a lot, the draw down on the surge begins in Jan. By June, at the latest, barring no unforseen problems, the draw down begins to extend to those numbers beyond the surge. There isn't a 'time table' but it's been laid out, in both the MSM and by Petraeus.

Mr. P

12-31-2007, 03:33 PM

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 03:34 PM

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

gabosaurus

12-31-2007, 03:42 PM

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

**bows to Pale's astounding logic**

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 03:45 PM

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

You're now convinced that the war was wrong in the first place? It doesn't matter a whit then if the 'job is done' or not. The troops were fuked in the first place. It doesn't matter how many AQI they killed. It doesn't matter about Saddam. None of it matters, in your opinion?

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 03:50 PM

You're now convinced that the war was wrong in the first place? It doesn't matter a whit then if the 'job is done' or not. The troops were fuked in the first place. It doesn't matter how many AQI they killed. It doesn't matter about Saddam. None of it matters, in your opinion?

No, I don't think we should have gone in there. It wasn't our job. If the rest of the world didn't give a damn about Saddam and what he was doing, and weren't willing to go in WITH US, and STAY WITH US, then we shouldn't have been there either. Other means should have been used other than a full blown invasion by the USA. That is NOT what our constitution says we should be doing, and that isn't how this country operated in the past, and now it's turned into nation building. When did we get in that business? Who authorized that?

So what about Korea? They're late on their nuclear dismantling. Should we invade them? And what about Iran? Invade? So what about the new killing in Kenya? Should we invade? Why don't we just invade anybody and everybody? Why stop at Iraq? What was so special about Iraq? Oh yeah... oil.

5stringJeff

12-31-2007, 03:52 PM

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

It should be up to them to say whether we've done what we set out to do. However, it's obvious that we have done that, as there is a government, and army, and a police force in place.

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

I still agree that we should have gone in the first place, although I think that we are to the point where every extra day we are there is a day too long.

trobinett

12-31-2007, 04:13 PM

Yea, we should hold off on the invasions for awhile.

:slap:Maybe a few well placed nuke's IS the answer to the worlds problems.

We did the right thing, we did it for the right reasons, and though there has been life lost, many more have been saved.

Looking back serves no purpose, and will not change a thing.

Looking forward does serve a purpose, and brings worth, and goodness to a deed well done.

:salute:

LiberalNation

12-31-2007, 04:15 PM

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.
Depends on what our job was in the first place. If it was to stop terrorism leaving will leave an unstable country and terrorist hot bed. If it was to make Iraq a stable democracy and stop the killing then leaving at this point means failing.

But then what are winning staying.

OCA

12-31-2007, 05:07 PM

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

Bush won't let the generals decide, he keeps fighting the war with more emphasis on the political than the strategical(if thats a word lol).

Lets face it, the Iraqis are not ever going to be a cohesive nation, ever. The minute we leave, whether its tomorrow or 10 years from now, the Sunnis ans the Shiites are gonna go at it for control of the country, we should just let that happen and see where the chips fall.

chesswarsnow

12-31-2007, 05:09 PM

Sorry bout that,

He's a sorry ass,

1. Yup, that was funny.
2. Someday he'll post in complete thoughts.
3. I'd rep her, but I need to spread it around.
4. We all laugh at him.

Regards,
SirPokerofFun

BTW, you should have given a choice for cleaning up our mess from a completely mismanaged execution of a UN resolution.

1. You are full of shit.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 05:09 PM

It should be up to them to say whether we've done what we set out to do. However, it's obvious that we have done that, as there is a government, and army, and a police force in place.

I still agree that we should have gone in the first place, although I think that we are to the point where every extra day we are there is a day too long.

So even though Petreaus says we should stay, because it's 'obvious' we should leave? What's wrong with this?

mrg666

12-31-2007, 05:14 PM

OCA

12-31-2007, 05:19 PM

So even though Petreaus says we should stay, because it's 'obvious' we should leave? What's wrong with this?

Kath, let me ask you this; the surge troops are scheduled to come home in April and there won't be others replacing them, what happens then?

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 05:20 PM

Kath, let me ask you this; the surge troops are scheduled to come home in April and there won't be others replacing them, what happens then?Time will tell, no? What are you all going to do if the Iraqis deal with the problems?

If they don't, I can easily say, 'we tried.'

actsnoblemartin

12-31-2007, 05:21 PM

you expect more from her?

:lol:

Sorry bout that,

1. You got nothing eh?
2. So you slink down to personal attacks.
3. I am right, you just know you can't win against the, *CWN* point of view.
4. NEXT!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

chesswarsnow

12-31-2007, 05:24 PM

Sorry bout that,

you expect more from her?

:lol:

1. Not really, she is not unlike others here who tend to slip down to the gutter with personal attacks.
2. We even have so~called Republicans who do as much.
3. Thats whats scary as hell.
4. But what do you do?
5. You *Shoot Em In Der Gurts!*:laugh2:

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

OCA

12-31-2007, 05:27 PM

Time will tell, no? What are you all going to do if the Iraqis deal with the problems?

If they don't, I can easily say, 'we tried.'

I'm going to say I was wrong but there is no way to find out if we stay there. I just do not want the troops there indefinitely, I took Bush at his word in the 2000 campaign about nation building and wanting no part of that.

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 05:35 PM

I'm going to say I was wrong but there is no way to find out if we stay there. I just do not want the troops there indefinitely, I took Bush at his word in the 2000 campaign about nation building and wanting no part of that.

So did I then, then 9/11 happened, all bets were off. I doubt anyone was as surprised as GW, he shouldn't have been, but I'll bet he was.

OCA

12-31-2007, 05:45 PM

So did I then, then 9/11 happened, all bets were off. I doubt anyone was as surprised as GW, he shouldn't have been, but I'll bet he was.

Well yeah 9/11 happened and as you know I am a firm supporter of the initial thrust into Iraq but i'm not a supporter of the strategy used since and what seems to be the waffling going on on all sides(Iraqi government, U.S. etc. etc.), now if the stinky Turks get more involved fugghedaboutit, its over.

Dilloduck

12-31-2007, 05:46 PM

I hope our troops slowly consolidate to a few big ass bases in Iraq to be prepared for the next acts of insanity that arise in the that area of the world.

Abbey Marie

12-31-2007, 05:49 PM

You guys sure seem to know a lot about military strategy. I voted "Not sure".

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 05:50 PM

I hope our troops slowly consolidate to a few big ass bases in Iraq to be prepared for the next acts of insanity that arise in the that area of the world.

Ah but then we'd have been for it, before being against it.

Has anyone spoken about the flypaper strategy lately? That worked out, ya know. Costs were high, but not as high as feared. Then again, in hindsite, it was supposed to be cost free.

LiberalNation

12-31-2007, 05:54 PM

A few big bases, that means indefinitely. Do you think the Iraqis will allow it in the long term, infidels on muslim soil. We'd be in the same boat as Israel, constant war with no end in sight ever.

Anybody wana respond to my other post?

82Marine89

12-31-2007, 05:54 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. You are full of shit.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Try to stay on topic jimmy. This thread is about Iraq, not laxatives.

Back on topic...

Make the Iraqi army start to control certain sectors of Iraq with absolutely no US intervention. If they can handle it, give them more. If they get their asses kicked, make sure the terrorists stay in that sector and let them fight it out. Until we make the Iraqi army accountable, we will continue to fight their battles and more Americans will die.

OCA

12-31-2007, 05:54 PM

You guys sure seem to know a lot about military strategy. I voted "Not sure".

My dear I don't either but I know for sure that the one currently being used, the one where we send out 20 guy patrols to get picked off because we are afraid of civilian casualties isn't working.

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 06:01 PM

The initial response to 911 is long since over. Just ask Bin Laden.

We went into Iraq because of oil, and that's why we're still there. The whole bush family is big oil, and they didn't want to let down their oil rich friends.

We're nation building in Iraq right now, We're nation building and playing police man. That is NOT our counties function. We deposed Saddam, the country is stable, we should get the hell out. If the nation erupts into a killing field the second we're gone, then I have to agree with OCA, it doesn't matter then if we'd have pulled out immediately or ten years from now. If it's going to happen it's going to happen. We need to get out of there, now. Too many lives and too much money have gone into that shit hole for BUSH and BIG OIL! Invading Iraq had little to NOTHING to do with the security of America, or 911.

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 06:04 PM

Dilloduck

12-31-2007, 06:05 PM

Ah but then we'd have been for it, before being against it.

Has anyone spoken about the flypaper strategy lately? That worked out, ya know. Costs were high, but not as high as feared. Then again, in hindsite, it was supposed to be cost free.

Then again that's all in the past and for historians and politicos to argue about. We need to do the right thing as the situation presents itself.

LiberalNation

12-31-2007, 06:06 PM

Invading Iraq had little to NOTHING to do with the security of America, or 911.
Oh you say that now, you were singing a different tune a few years ago. Flip-flopping, kook liberal.

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 06:06 PM

Then again that's all in the past and for historians and politicos to argue about. We need to do the right thing as the situation presents itself.

Which is what in your opinion?

Dilloduck

12-31-2007, 06:09 PM

Which is what in your opinion?

I already posted it. You didn't pop that cork too early did ya ? :laugh2:

OCA

12-31-2007, 06:14 PM

Now it's about oil. Funny thing, that didn't work in the first place, with the price increase and all. If it were for the oil, damn we need to do a better job.

I do think that oil played a part in it, its not like, as oil dependent a country as we are and as much oil as exists in the M.E. we simply have to be concerned about who controls what, so yes oil does play a part in our foriegn policy in the M.E. and was a factor in going into Iraq.

But yeah, I wish we'd see a few more benefits from that oil also.

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 06:20 PM

I do think that oil played a part in it, its not like, as oil dependent a country as we are and as much oil as exists in the M.E. we simply have to be concerned about who controls what, so yes oil does play a part in our foriegn policy in the M.E. and was a factor in going into Iraq.

But yeah, I wish we'd see a few more benefits from that oil also.

I'm not saying it's Darfur, but I am saying we went in because it was ME, not because of oil for us.

actsnoblemartin

12-31-2007, 06:38 PM

israel is at constant war because the muslim god forbid has a country that isnt 95% plus muslim, while israel is 20% muslim IN israel.

A few big bases, that means indefinitely. Do you think the Iraqis will allow it in the long term, infidels on muslim soil. We'd be in the same boat as Israel, constant war with no end in sight ever.

Anybody wana respond to my other post?

OCA

12-31-2007, 07:02 PM

israel is at constant war because the muslim god forbid has a country that isnt 95% plus muslim, while israel is 20% muslim IN israel.

Can someone translate this for me? Its unreadable.

5stringJeff

12-31-2007, 07:05 PM

Time will tell, no? What are you all going to do if the Iraqis deal with the problems?

If they don't, I can easily say, 'we tried.'

Whether they do or don't, we did what we came to do. Whether Iraq becomes a thriving democracy means little to me.

5stringJeff

12-31-2007, 07:07 PM

Make the Iraqi army start to control certain sectors of Iraq with absolutely no US intervention. If they can handle it, give them more. If they get their asses kicked, make sure the terrorists stay in that sector and let them fight it out. Until we make the Iraqi army accountable, we will continue to fight their battles and more Americans will die.

I think we should give Iraq one sector: the whole country. It's sink-or-swim time.

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 07:33 PM

Now it's about oil. Funny thing, that didn't work in the first place, with the price increase and all. If it were for the oil, damn we need to do a better job.

Yes it's about oil. Piss poor thing about it though is we're not benefiting from it, we're just protecting it, well, in a way we benefit from that. Think about it, if Iran or Venezuela decided to stop selling oil to America, we've got our own private oil fields in Iraq. You don't think that was why we went into Iraq? Maybe it wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a BIG reason.

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 07:36 PM

Oh you say that now, you were singing a different tune a few years ago. Flip-flopping, kook liberal.

Ummm... no... I've said from the beginning that I never knew why we went into Iraq.

I didn't think you were old enough to drink... :alcoholic:

Kathianne

12-31-2007, 07:37 PM

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 07:39 PM

We don't Pale, have the oil fields, I mean. If anyone decides not to sell us oil, we'll buy it somewhere else. It's all on the market, there's no controls about that. Believe me, FDR would have hated this back in '41.

Honestly then Kath, if it's not about the oil, what are we still doing there?

Gaffer

12-31-2007, 07:59 PM

So what happens if we just up and pull out of iraq. The shites and sunnis start fighting with each other. A major blood bath. No big deal for us as its just a bunch of muslims killing each other. But over time it will draw in all the other arab and muslim countries. Eventually one religious fundamentalist government will arise over the others. No biggie. Just a bunch of muslims. But then fundamentalist muslims are a dangerous lot to be controlling anything.

Since oil is of major importance to the world as well as the US, it is of primary importance to be sure of who controls the oil shipments going out of the middle east. If iran was in control of all the shipments, because of intimidation or outright control of the other countries, do you think we could actually sit by and do nothing? iraq would eventually become a puppet of iran, as would other arab states. That is not in the security interests of the US. It becomes a threat to our economy and our security.

By nation building we can attempt to insure a moderate and friendly government being in place. One that will keep the fundamentalists under control and out of power. It's being done now. The iraqi army has taken over a big share of the fighting along with the militia in tribal areas. But you won't hear about that on the media. They don't report the huge amount of success the troops have had. Both US and Iraqi troops.

I was all for the invasion of Iraq. I still am. I have stood behind the troops since the beginning and not changing course just because something goes wrong once in a while. Was Bush wrong on things. In some cases yes. We all make bad judgments. You learn from them and move on. Success takes time and perseverance.

As for a combat patrol just going out to be picked off. That's not how it works. They are not going out just to get shot at. They are going out to locate and engage the enemy. Sometimes that means letting the enemy fire first. You just hope you see him first, or that he's a really bad shot.

Ever really read the reports of battles that took place. Whenever there are multiple casualties they are from IED's. When troops are shot there are one or two and the enemy takes ten or more with dozens captured. You never hear reports of a company sized engagement 50 casualties in one fight. That's because our guys are professionals, well trained and highly motivated. They are not victims being sent to the slaughter.

As I see it we have a choice here. Nation build or eventually fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war.

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 08:17 PM

As I see it we have a choice here. Nation build or eventually fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war.

I'll take the latter. It has a conclusive outcome.

retiredman

12-31-2007, 09:12 PM

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.

bingo

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 09:17 PM

So far I'd say the voting here pretty closely follows the national trend. That being most people want us out of Iraq, now.

82Marine89

12-31-2007, 09:38 PM

I think we should give Iraq one sector: the whole country. It's sink-or-swim time.

I would love to, but I think we need about a year to phase ourselves out of there. Then we should make it a sink or swim deal.

Pale Rider

12-31-2007, 09:41 PM

I would love to, but I think we need about a year to phase ourselves out of there. Then we should make it a sink or swim deal.

Realistically, it very well may take that long to drawn down in a safe manner, as to not put any of our troops in danger. We have a lot of shit over there. It's going to take a huge effort to get it out.

red states rule

12-31-2007, 09:52 PM

No, I don't think we should have gone in there. It wasn't our job. If the rest of the world didn't give a damn about Saddam and what he was doing, and weren't willing to go in WITH US, and STAY WITH US, then we shouldn't have been there either. Other means should have been used other than a full blown invasion by the USA. That is NOT what our constitution says we should be doing, and that isn't how this country operated in the past, and now it's turned into nation building. When did we get in that business? Who authorized that?

So what about Korea? They're late on their nuclear dismantling. Should we invade them? And what about Iran? Invade? So what about the new killing in Kenya? Should we invade? Why don't we just invade anybody and everybody? Why stop at Iraq? What was so special about Iraq? Oh yeah... oil.

Again PR we can agree to disagree

But most Americans did not think Hitler was worth fighting a war over, and a majority was opposed to getting involved in WWII even thought FDR wanted to get in well before Pearl Harbor

5stringJeff

12-31-2007, 11:42 PM

I would love to, but I think we need about a year to phase ourselves out of there. Then we should make it a sink or swim deal.

I'm sure it will take us that long to withdraw completely. I'm not naive enough to think we can wave a magic wand and see everyone home tomorrow. But we should start with that withdrawal now.

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 12:53 AM

Well there's a couple thousands troops lives wasted and billions to achieve nothing if we pull out. Tho I never quite knew what we were trying to achieve anyway.

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 12:54 AM

Ummm... no... I've said from the beginning that I never knew why we went into Iraq.
I'm bettin you were all over the Saddam has WMD's lets go get him bandwagon in the beggining. You were for it before you were against it. Just like Kerry and Hillary.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 12:55 AM

Well there's a couple thousands troops lives wasted and billions to achieve nothing if we pull out. Tho I never quite knew what we were trying to achieve anyway.

The fact you do not have clue to what the troops were accomplishing in Iraq is not a shocking revelation

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 12:57 AM

What they are accomplishing don't mean shit if it's all gona go to hell as soon as those troops aren't there anymore and we can't stay there forever.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:00 AM

What they are accomplishing don't mean shit if it's all gona go to hell as soon as those troops aren't there anymore and we can't stay there forever.

You must have missed this link

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

and having things go to hell as soon as those troops aren't there anymore is what Reid and Pelosi want to happen. That is why they are still pushing for surrender even with the progress being made

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:03 AM

It ain't just reid and Pelosi pushing for a pull out.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:04 AM

It ain't just reid and Pelosi pushing for a pull out.

Yea, 99% of Dems and a few RINOS

Even Murtha had to admit the surge is working and progress is being made. Must have pissed off Pelosi and Reid

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:08 AM

Damn there's a bunch of Rino's on this board even and I thought they were conservatives. Your bar sure is high.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:10 AM

Damn there's a bunch of Rino's on this board even and I thought they were conservatives. Your bar sure is high.

I was speaking about DC not the board

I see you have no comment about the link that points out the incredible progress in a years time

Why am I not surprised?

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:12 AM

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:14 AM

No you inferred that those wanting to pull out of Iraq were Rino's for their position.

As for the progress in Iraq, good for us. Hope it continues enough so we can leave leave and declare the war and nation building operation a success.

In DC - yes Folks like PR I feel are wrong on this one issue

As far Iraq, I understand the last things libs like you want is for Pres Bush to be prven tright. After all you guys have called it "Bush's war"

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:19 AM

Well I'll be happy if Bush is proven right maybe. If Iraq becomes a stable democracy friendly to the US. If they become a democracy and elect leaders if are very anti-US and pro-terrorist then that'll be worse then if we failed at the democracy part if we coulda got a friendly dictator.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:21 AM

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:22 AM

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:24 AM

Who are these you guys. I speak for myself, I was pro-war in the beggining because I thought it would liven up the news with a new war going on and thought we'd win not end up in some long occupation winning nothing.

You guys are most libs - one of the exceptions is Joe Lieberman

So war is just to liven up the news? Wow do you have a fucked up view of the real world

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:30 AM

So war is just to liven up the news? Wow do you have a fucked up view of the real world
Wars do liven up the news and history as well. It only sucks for the people who have to fight in them.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 01:33 AM

Wars do liven up the news and history as well. It only sucks for the people who have to fight in them.

You must have taken your history classes in the public school system

5stringJeff

01-01-2008, 07:15 AM

I was pro-war in the beggining because I thought it would liven up the news with a new war going on

How pathetic. Tell that to your ROTC professor and see what he says.

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 07:49 AM

Now why would I do that?

red states rule

01-01-2008, 07:53 AM

Now why would I do that?

Well, it is not like it would start an argument

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 07:55 AM

and why would I want an argument of that nature? I don't mind a good argument but that just ain't smart.

red states rule

01-01-2008, 07:56 AM

and why would I want an argument of that nature? I don't mind a good argument but that just ain't smart.

Since both of you would agree with your liberal bullshit, there would be no argument at all

Sir Evil

01-01-2008, 09:48 AM

Yes it's about oil. Piss poor thing about it though is we're not benefiting from it, we're just protecting it, well, in a way we benefit from that. Think about it, if Iran or Venezuela decided to stop selling oil to America, we've got our own private oil fields in Iraq. You don't think that was why we went into Iraq? Maybe it wasn't the ONLY reason, but it was a BIG reason.

Hell Iran, and Venezuela are two countries that are hating America so if we went into Iraq to control the oil then why the hell are we still buying from them?

Going in for the oil is the fucking lamest excuse ever, it's been stated since the begining yet nobody offers any evidence or benefits of all this new found oil wealth. Saddam was getting richer by the second with the UN's oil for food program but we opted to put the lives of our soldiers in harms way instead of joining the corruption for oil business because the US as a nation could never do something like that? :laugh2:

KarlMarx

01-01-2008, 09:52 AM

// java class that models liberal thought processes
public class liberalMentality extends far.left.wing.lunacy.from.the.1960s{

// constructor - creates a single instance of a liberal
public liberalMentality(){

MarxistDoctrine();

}

// method that mimics liberal behavior
public String liberalBehavior(String otherPersonsOpinion){

if(otherPersonsOpinion == anAcceptedLiberalPosition()){
return compliment(otherPersonsOpinion);
}
else {
return abusiveComments(otherPersonsOpinion);
}

}

// method that mimics the liberal's idea of debate
public String liberalsIdeaofDebate(String issue)
{

String ignore = factsAboutIssue(issue);
String rubbish = liberalPositionOnIssue(issue);

return rubbish;
}

}

wait a minute, scrap the whole idea. I just realized that this code is a Java class, and we all know that liberals have no class....

red states rule

01-01-2008, 09:54 AM

wait a minute, scrap the whole idea. I just realized that this code is a Java class, and we all know that liberals have no class....

damn good one Karl

Had to rep you for that one

DrJohn

01-01-2008, 11:38 AM

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

Pale Rider

01-01-2008, 11:47 AM

Now why would I do that?

Why do it here?

Kathianne

01-01-2008, 11:48 AM

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

There were others:

You can read the reasons, here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107xY5N0K::)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTI2OGVkMmJkNTE5MThiM2JhMDM4ZDc4NTljYjkwNWQ=

...

But after September 11, and the realization that state-sponsored terrorists from the Middle East had the desire to destroy the United States and the capability to do it great harm, the decade-long containment of Saddam Hussein, in light also of his serial violations of both armistice and U.N. accords, was considered inadequate. Few disagreed.

So both houses of Congress, backed by an overwhelming majority of the American people, authorized the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein, at the vigorous request of the President.

The WMD Debacle
Though the Congress in October 2002 formulated 23 different reasons why Saddam posed a threat to our security, the administration — in easy hindsight, quite wrongly — mostly privileged and exaggerated just one writ: Saddam’s arsenals of weapons of mass destruction might enhance Middle East terrorist operations enough to trump even what we had witnessed on 9/11.

Supporters of a narrow war to remove WMDs relied on a past, though false consensus of such an existential threat; it was one, however, that had nevertheless prompted embargoes, sanctions, no-fly zones, and periodic bombing. Perhaps they were sure of such a WMD danger because it had been formulated at home in the 1990s and echoed abroad by both European and Middle Eastern agencies — and alone would galvanize the public in a way the other sanctioned casus belli might not.

Nevertheless, when such weapons were not found in Iraq, and the insurgency imperiled the brilliant three-week victory, the case for the war, in the eyes of many, collapsed. It did so on both moral and practical grounds. For some reason, no one cared that the other twenty-some Congressional causes were still as valid as when they had been first approved in October 2002.
...

red states rule

01-01-2008, 11:49 AM

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave.

They probably went to Syria before we went into Iraq. Hell, the Dems made Pres Bush give Saddam enough time to ship them out by wasting time at the UN

DrJohn

01-01-2008, 11:51 AM

They probably went to Syria before we went into Iraq. Hell, the Dems made Pres Bush give Saddam enough time to ship them out by wasting time at the UN

Didn't the repubs control Congress at that time?

red states rule

01-01-2008, 11:54 AM

Didn't the repubs control Congress at that time?

One of the big mistakes Pres Bush made for years was trying to work with and appease Dems

He wasted alot of time trying to reason with the thugs who hate the US at the Useless Nations - and that is what the Dems were telling him to do

Pale Rider

01-01-2008, 11:57 AM

Hell Iran, and Venezuela are two countries that are hating America so if we went into Iraq to control the oil then why the hell are we still buying from them?

Going in for the oil is the fucking lamest excuse ever, it's been stated since the begining yet nobody offers any evidence or benefits of all this new found oil wealth. Saddam was getting richer by the second with the UN's oil for food program but we opted to put the lives of our soldiers in harms way instead of joining the corruption for oil business because the US as a nation could never do something like that? :laugh2:

Well fuck, fuck, fuck. Did I say fuck? :laugh:

Well I think WMD's is the lamest FUCKING excuse ever. We had some sketchy intel that led us to think he still may have some, but we didn't know for sure. Even so, if chemical warfare weapons are reason enough to invade a nation, who's next. I'm sure we're missing out on invading another 100 nations or so.

You can think what you want. That's your right, and so can I. We went in there to secure those oil fields.

DrJohn

01-01-2008, 12:00 PM

One of the big mistakes Pres Bush made for years was trying to work with and appease Dems

He wasted alot of time trying to reason with the thugs who hate the US at the Useless Nations - and that is what the Dems were telling him to do

Maybe he put up the pretense of appeasing the Dems because he is the Great Unifier!

red states rule

01-01-2008, 12:03 PM

Maybe he put up the pretense of appeasing the Dems because he is the Great Unifier!

Pres Bush tried to work with Dems but all he got in return was a slap in the face

Dems ran on their hate for Bush in 2 elections and lost both

In this election, Bush is not running and they are still running on their hate

5stringJeff

01-01-2008, 12:04 PM

There were others:

You can read the reasons, here. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107xY5N0K::)

Linky no worky. :(

Kathianne

01-01-2008, 12:07 PM

Linky no worky. :(

Thanks. I'll have to copy, it was probably the 10th click I made through Thomas.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

.....

LiberalNation

01-01-2008, 01:24 PM

Why do it here?
Cuz I enjoy exploring my views in a nice safe environment.

Now I said, I was pro-war in the beginning because I thought it would liven up the news with a new war going on and thought we'd win, not end up in some long occupation winning nothing.

That probably wasn't exactly true back then but with time to think and looking back with clearer eyes I'd say it sums up what most American thought even if they didn't realize or put it in those words. War fever had gripped the nations, 75% of Americans supported it, it was something new and quite exciting, we were gona go in a whoop Saddam’s ass, no one thought there may be real consequences or it would drag out for years. Most were not and did not have relatives in the military, they weren’t gona hafta fight it so it was just detached excitement. Something to watch on the news and get into heated discussions about with nice catch phrases like WMD's, yellowcake, nukes, al quedia.

avatar4321

01-01-2008, 01:43 PM

I certainly understand the desire to get out of Iraq. I don't want my friends going out to risk their lives if there isn't a good reason for being there.

But I am not sure there isnt a good reason to be there. If we leave too quickly, Iran has stated they will go in. If Iran moves, then so will Saudi Arabia and Turkey creating a regional war.

And as much as it would be nice to act as though this has no effect on us, it does. We don't live in the same world we did the last century where we can sit safely on our continent and have nothing to worry about from over seas. Let's face it, our economy is built on energy, specifically produced by oil. And if we let this region fall into war, the oil prices will spike and our economy will tank. That will leave us vulnerable to attack.

We also have two other major problems.

1)the chaos may allow terrorists to gain control of the energy supply. Which means in order to keep our economy going we will have to pay the terrorists money. Money they win in turn use to attack us.

2)We don't know the extent of weapons of mass destruction in the region. (Which can seriously increase if the Pakistan government collapses).

I am not saying I want to stay in Iraq indefinitely. I dont think that's a good solution. But I do think we need to be reasonable with the withdrawal. It would be a bad idea for a rapid withdrawal. It would be a bad idea to leave with Iraq having an unstable government.

If we do this, we have to do it right. I dont have the details on how to do that, but if we don't do it right it will have negative consequences for us and them.

Sir Evil

01-01-2008, 02:24 PM

Well fuck, fuck, fuck. Did I say fuck? :laugh:

Well I think WMD's is the lamest FUCKING excuse ever. We had some sketchy intel that led us to think he still may have some, but we didn't know for sure. Even so, if chemical warfare weapons are reason enough to invade a nation, who's next. I'm sure we're missing out on invading another 100 nations or so.

So you are one of those who thinks the whole reason for invading was based solely on the wmd's? or just one of those who really have no other reason to say it was a mistake? I was never one to say that we should of went in over the WMD's, hell I have always said there was reason enough without the whole WMD argument.

You can think what you want. That's your right, and so can I. We went in there to secure those oil fields.

Indeed, we are all individual thinkers. Thing is there is not a damn thing that supports the war for oil thing at the moment. I dunno, are you seeing some sort of benefit from all those secured oil fields? are contractors the only ones finding benefit from our new found oil wealth? I guess the Bush admin. better hurry up, and tie up all that all before time runs out, and a dem is in office. Can't wait until those fuel prices come down that have done nothing but go up since the invasion....

Pale Rider

01-01-2008, 07:58 PM

So you are one of those who thinks the whole reason for invading was based solely on the wmd's?
No, you misunderstand. I'm saying going in there for only that reason shouldn't have been enough.

or just one of those who really have no other reason to say it was a mistake? I was never one to say that we should of went in over the WMD's,
And that's what I'm saying also.

hell I have always said there was reason enough without the whole WMD argument.
I don't.

Indeed, we are all individual thinkers. Thing is there is not a damn thing that supports the war for oil thing at the moment. I dunno, are you seeing some sort of benefit from all those secured oil fields? are contractors the only ones finding benefit from our new found oil wealth? I guess the Bush admin. better hurry up, and tie up all that all before time runs out, and a dem is in office. Can't wait until those fuel prices come down that have done nothing but go up since the invasion....
I don't know why you think we HAVEN'T benefited from securing Iraq's oil fields. Iraq has the forth largest oil fields in the world. We are there to "protect" those fields. Period. The whole Bush family is deep in the oil business. They have deep ties to the oil cartel in the middle east.

You're argument that weren't NOT there for oil doesn't hold any water when it comes to the pulling out argument. Because if it's not about oil, then we have no business there, right now, at all. None.

Sir Evil

01-01-2008, 08:51 PM

I don't know why you think we HAVEN'T benefited from securing Iraq's oil fields. Iraq has the forth largest oil fields in the world. We are there to "protect" those fields. Period. The whole Bush family is deep in the oil business. They have deep ties to the oil cartel in the middle east.

Explain how we have benefited? We are securing the oil fields for what, the next millennium? So is the Bush family hoarding this oil to themselves? Are they selling it off for prophet? Again it seems a bit silly to do that when the whole corruption over the oil existed in the first place. Essentially the Bush administration allowed the death of all these soldiers to get a grip on a already corrupted oil industry?

You're argument that weren't NOT there for oil doesn't hold any water when it comes to the pulling out argument. Because if it's not about oil, then we have no business there, right now, at all. None.
Actually it's your argument that holds no water, you have made the accusation of invading for oil but have yet to offer anything other than opinion.

REDWHITEBLUE2

01-01-2008, 08:51 PM

The fact you do not have clue to what the troops were accomplishing in Iraq is not a shocking revelation

:cheers2:

REDWHITEBLUE2

01-01-2008, 08:57 PM

Hell, everyone know that we went in to get the WMDs.
They didn't have them so let's leave. thats because Saddam shipped them to Syria

nevadamedic

01-01-2008, 09:36 PM

Sorry bout that,

1. You got nothing eh?
2. So you slink down to personal attacks.
3. I am right, you just know you can't win against the, *CWN* point of view.
4. NEXT!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Gabby can't have an intelligent Debate so she resorts to personal attacks all of the time.

red states rule

01-02-2008, 05:42 AM

thats because Saddam shipped them to Syria

That is where they may have went

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200602%5CSPE20060202a.html

Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges
By Sherrie Gossett
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
February 02, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A former Iraqi general alleges that in June 2002 Saddam Hussein transported weapons of mass destruction out of the country to Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.

That's one of several dramatic claims made in the book by former Iraqi General Georges Sada: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein." Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sada has served as the spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and continues to serve as national security advisor. He is the former vice marshal of the Iraqi Air Force. Sada was interviewed at the headquarters of Cybercast News Service on Jan. 30.

Sada contends that Saddam took advantage of a June 4, 2002, irrigation dam collapse in Zeyzoun, Syria, to ship the weapons under cover of an aid project to the flooded region.

"[Saddam] said 'Okay, Iraq is going to do an air bridge to help Syria," Sada recounted. Two commercial jets, a 747 and 727, were converted to cargo jets, in order to carry raw materials and equipment related to WMD projects, Sada said. The passenger seats, galleys, toilets and storage compartments were removed and new flooring was installed, he claimed. Hundreds of tons of chemicals were reportedly included in the cargo shipments. [See Video]

"They used to do two sorties a day," said Sada. "Fifty-six sorties were done between Baghdad and Damascus."

Sada said he obtained the information from two Iraq Airways captains who were reportedly flying the sorties. "They came immediately and they told me," said Sada.

This is not the first time that the possibility of a transfer of WMDs from Iraq to Syria has been raised. Two years ago, U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, (R-Kan), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence acknowledged that "there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria." No details were forthcoming. The claims have also been made by the U.S.-based Reform Party of Syria.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 06:44 AM

Explain how we have benefited? We are securing the oil fields for what, the next millennium? So is the Bush family hoarding this oil to themselves? Are they selling it off for prophet? Again it seems a bit silly to do that when the whole corruption over the oil existed in the first place. Essentially the Bush administration allowed the death of all these soldiers to get a grip on a already corrupted oil industry?
I think you're being a little naive here SE. It would much easier to explain what would happen if we DIDN'T have those oil fields under our control. What do you think would happen then? Would we better off? Would your gas be cheaper? What if all that oil money was going back into the pockets of the terrorists? Tell me none of that matters. And you'll have to excuse my misinformation. So correct myself, it has been proven that Iraq has the SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD. Here's a little interesting reading SE. It's about oil alright. To think different is just kidding yourself...

Oil in Iraq

Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

Actually it's your argument that holds no water, you have made the accusation of invading for oil but have yet to offer anything other than opinion.
You haven't offered anything better.

red states rule

01-02-2008, 06:47 AM

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 06:53 AM

Oil, Iraq and America

Dilip Hiro

Of the two slogans that the Bush Administration has coined to sell the idea of invading Iraq--installing democracy and monopolizing Iraq's petroleum riches--the one about democracy means little to ordinary folks. It is the prospect of uncontested access to the world's second-largest oil reserves--leading to the end of America's growing reliance on petroleum from Saudi Arabia, the homeland of most of the 9/11 hijackers--that excites popular imagination in the United States. And the US hawks, who are determining Iraq policy, know it.

Interestingly, there is a rare concurrence of perception between Americans and Iraqis at both official and popular levels regarding the centrality of Iraqi oil to the current crisis and the earlier conflicts with Baghdad. "The weapons of mass destruction is just an excuse," says Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. "The Americans are after the Iraqi oil." Many months earlier, Muhammad Bagga, an elderly resident of Saddam City, Baghdad, explained the 1991 Gulf War to me thus: "The big Western powers got angry because Saddam Hussein wanted to benefit all Arabs from Iraq's oil; and so they attacked us."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021230/hiro20021216

red states rule

01-02-2008, 06:56 AM

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 07:03 AM

PR you are using the Nation as a credible source?

rsr, respectfully, this war is about bush, and Iraq having the second largest oil reserves in the world. After we deposed Saddam, America took control of all of Iraq's oil money. Recently, they tried to pass a law that would let vets and others sue Iraq for injuries and other things due to the war. Bush put the death blow on that bill because it would have put all that oil money at risk. But at the same time the bush people feel they have free reign to spend that money as they see fit... maybe like the WORLDS LARGEST EMBASSY BUILDING in BAHGDAD, and that's AMERICA'S embassy building.

I'll tell you all this who think it isn't about oil... I've given you at least SOMETHING to show that it IS, so now, YOU people show me SOMETHING to "prove" to me it ISN'T.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 07:06 AM

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

As the United States made preparations for war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, on 2/6/03, again denied to US journalists that the projected war had "anything to do with oil." <1> He echoed Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld, who on 11/14/02 told CBS News that "It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."

Speaking to British MPs, Prime Minister Tony Blair was just as explicit: "Let me deal with the conspiracy theory idea that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever if oil were the issue that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam...." (London Times 1/15/03).

Nor did Bush's State of the Union Message, or Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council, once mention the word "oil." Instead the talk was (in the president's words) of "Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."

However our leaders are not being candid with us. Oil has been a major US concern about Iraq in internal and unpublicized documents, since the start of this Administration, and indeed earlier. As Michael Renner has written in Foreign Policy in Focus, February 14, 2003, "Washington's War on Iraq is the Lynchpin to Controlling Persian Gulf Oil."

But the need to dominate oil from Iraq is also deeply intertwined with the defense of the dollar. Its current strength is supported by OPEC's requirement (secured by a secret agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia) that all OPEC oil sales be denominated in dollars. This requirement is currently threatened by the desire of some OPEC countries to allow OPEC oil sales to be paid in euros.

Entire article here... (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.html)

red states rule

01-02-2008, 07:14 AM

Here is a snip from a long article on the war in Iraq. The author is hardly a ruight winger PR

snip
A War to Be Proud Of

The second bit of luck is a certain fiber displayed by a huge number of anonymous Americans. Faced with a constant drizzle of bad news and purposely demoralizing commentary, millions of people stick out their jaws and hang tight. I am no fan of populism, but I surmise that these citizens are clear on the main point: It is out of the question--plainly and absolutely out of the question--that we should surrender the keystone state of the Middle East to a rotten, murderous alliance between Baathists and bin Ladenists. When they hear the fatuous insinuation that this alliance has only been created by the resistance to it, voters know in their intestines that those who say so are soft on crime and soft on fascism. The more temperate anti-warriors, such as Mark Danner and Harold Meyerson, like to employ the term "a war of choice." One should have no problem in accepting this concept. As they cannot and do not deny, there was going to be another round with Saddam Hussein no matter what. To whom, then, should the "choice" of time and place have fallen? The clear implication of the antichoice faction--if I may so dub them--is that this decision should have been left up to Saddam Hussein. As so often before . . .

DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:

(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.

(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.

(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)

(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.

(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.

(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.

(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.

(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.

It would be admirable if the president could manage to make such a presentation. It would also be welcome if he and his deputies adopted a clear attitude toward the war within the war: in other words, stated plainly, that the secular and pluralist forces within Afghan and Iraqi society, while they are not our clients, can in no circumstance be allowed to wonder which outcome we favor.

The great point about Blair's 1999 speech was that it asserted the obvious. Coexistence with aggressive regimes or expansionist, theocratic, and totalitarian ideologies is not in fact possible. One should welcome this conclusion for the additional reason that such coexistence is not desirable, either. If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. A recent essay of his appears in the collection A Matter of Principle: Humanitarian Arguments for War in Iraq, newly published by the University of California Press.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=1

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 07:33 AM

rsr, respectfully, this war is about bush, and Iraq having the second largest oil reserves in the world. After we deposed Saddam, America took control of all of Iraq's oil money. Recently, they tried to pass a law that would let vets and others sue Iraq for injuries and other things due to the war. Bush put the death blow on that bill because it would have put all that oil money at risk. But at the same time the bush people feel they have free reign to spend that money as they see fit... maybe like the WORLDS LARGEST EMBASSY BUILDING in BAHGDAD, and that's AMERICA'S embassy building.

I'll tell you all this who think it isn't about oil... I've given you at least SOMETHING to show that it IS, so now, YOU people show me SOMETHING to "prove" to me it ISN'T.

Here's something:

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue9/vol2issue9kohlhaas.html

... Could we increase production in Iraq after an invasion? Yes, but that increase would also require investment just as it would anywhere. We can make that investment in Iraq if the opportunity is available or elsewhere if it is not. But in Iraq any investment for oil would be increased by the large sunk cost of the war. That cost is not justified by the amount of oil production. Nothing is changed by an invasion and the cost of the war is still a large cost without any return based on oil.

From a political and diplomatic standpoint, the United States will probably not be able to impose any taxes or fees on the production nor take any competitive advantage for American companies. As noted above, immediate objectives will be to encourage formation of a stable government and political system. Control and administration of the oil industry will probably remain in the hands of Iraqis. First priority will be to rehabilitate the existing wells, fields, facilities, and infrastructure that are quite dilapidated after years of isolation from modern technology, services, and materials. Except for the costs of this rehabilitation, oil income will probably be used for general governmental purposes to rebuild the country and its infrastructure and services. Therefore, any expansion into development of new fields will probably require foreign capital and a significant increase of activity by foreign companies. Privatization of the fields is not a practical possibility, so foreign investment and activity will be in the form of contracts for which the operating, fiscal, procurement, labor, liability, insurance, accounting, legal and regulatory terms must be established. Such a process is subject to lengthy political and bureaucratic delays.

So not only can the United States not receive any direct payback of the cost of the war from the oil, but any significant increase of Iraqi supplies will probably not be realized for a few, or possibly several, years.

As a business decision, invading Iraq "for the oil" is a loser, a big loser. Anyone who would propose, in a corporate boardroom, invading Iraq for the oil would probably find his career rather short. No, the slogan "no war for oil" is a blatant misrepresentation propagated for political reasons.

Charles A. Kohlhaas is a former Professor of Petroleum Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and has worked for, founded, managed, and consulted for major and independent companies in the international oil and gas industry.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 07:34 AM

I think you're being a little naive here SE. It would much easier to explain what would happen if we DIDN'T have those oil fields under our control. What do you think would happen then? Would we better off? Would your gas be cheaper? What if all that oil money was going back into the pockets of the terrorists? Tell me none of that matters. And you'll have to excuse my misinformation. So correct myself, it has been proven that Iraq has the SECOND LARGEST OIL RESERVES IN THE WORLD. Here's a little interesting reading SE. It's about oil alright. To think different is just kidding yourself...

Of course they need to be secured now, the country lacks any real leadership, and someone has to keep the industry secured. Again, what benefits have come thus far from the invasion for oil?

At this point I have seen nothing that indicates this as a reason for invasion, perhaps in those decades to come I might feel different but as of now it seems nothing more than pure speculation.

You haven't offered anything better.

Umm, I never offered that we invaded for oil, I simply said it was a dumb conclusion when easier deals over oil could of easily been had with all the corruption involved with it.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 07:39 AM

"The weapons of mass destruction is just an excuse," says Tariq Aziz, Iraq's deputy prime minister. "The Americans are after the Iraqi oil."
:lol::lol:

Ok, Tariq Aziz says so, I'm in, we certainly must of invaded for those reasons.

Many months earlier, Muhammad Bagga, an elderly resident of Saddam City, Baghdad, explained the 1991 Gulf War to me thus: "The big Western powers got angry because Saddam Hussein wanted to benefit all Arabs from Iraq's oil; and so they attacked us."
Yeah the arabs benefited alright, and it showed within the corrupted oil for food scandal. :rolleyes:

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 07:43 AM

Pale, you did see my post #103?

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 09:28 AM

I think the reason we invaded Iraq was in large part oil. You people don't. I haven't proved anything to you, and, you haven't proved anything to me, and it doesn't look like you're going to provide anything factual to back up your belief. I at least tried.

Call it a draw. I'm not going to argue four against one, even though I'd be willing to bet more than just me here believes as I do. They just don't want to come out and admit it here. It's too hard to argue against the mob that believes different.

And thanks for calling me "dumb" John.

Gadget (fmr Marine)

01-02-2008, 10:16 AM

I posted this in another spot, earlier.....sorry to quote myself, but I think it is valid:

If you think OIL is the reason, you are myopic and pedantic (go ahead and check out the meaning Define for the mouth breathers (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pedantic))

Crude is so much more easily gotten from the open market at decent rates....there is little to no economic value to the oil in Iraq, if you would really consider the alternatives.

If this administration were to have such influence, and has such a great desire to "get the oil," then it would be so much easier to bulldoze all the liberals in this country, declare a national emergency, and drill in the ANWR, and have 9.2 billion barrels at our disposal in the next 4 month...the money we save on the war, and delivery of OPEC shipments would enable us to build a couple hundred refineries, and life would be grand....we would even have enough money to take over all the oil fields in South America to further our isolationist policy.

FcuKing grow up!!!!!!!!! This is not about OIL or REVENGE or any of the other BULL$HIT that the liberal mantra wants you to believe. It is about Nation building, and trying to convert the most economically viable nations in the world to join a capitalist society where free markets and "democracy" are the dominant forces on our planet and where religious intolerance, hatred, and ignorance are currently the norm, and prophesied to become the new caliphate (OK...check out the meaning, again: Muslim taking over the world, defined (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9018681/Caliphate)) are exterminated.

If you want to hold their hands, they will gladly walk you to the the end of the garden and use your freshly cultivated noggin as fertilizer, as soon as you turn the corner. You will sell the the proverbial NOOSE that Stalin wanted to buy to the Muslim extremists, and do so with the noblest of intentions, because of your naivete.

I think the reason we invaded Iraq was in large part oil. You people don't. I haven't proved anything to you, and, you haven't proved anything to me, and it doesn't look like you're going to provide anything factual to back up your belief. I at least tried.

Call it a draw. I'm not going to argue four against one, even though I'd be willing to bet more than just me here believes as I do. They just don't want to come out and admit it here. It's too hard to argue against the mob that believes different.

And thanks for calling me "dumb" John.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 10:51 AM

I just love to be called "dumb, myoptic, pedantic," or anything else you people can think up that I "thought" were my "friends," simply because my opinion differs from yours.

Makes me rethink the whole idea of being here.

Gadget (fmr Marine)

01-02-2008, 10:59 AM

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:07 AM

I am not insulting you......I respect your opinions, and that is what "debate" is about, right?

Being pedantic is not an insult, at all....it is a narro academic focus....(similar to myopic).....

JUst want to encourage you to look a bit beyond the scope of vision that you currently have.....being outside of our comfort zones is what makes us grow, and develop.....

Thinking that our involvement in Iraq is about OIL, is really elementary, don't you think? It is a very complicated issue, that cannot be summed up with 1 or 2 tidy words, and compartmentalized so it fits with one ideology or another.....there are many reasons for our involvement there, and to say it is about revenge, or oil is not fair to all the men and women who are doing the work to help make Iraq a viable partner in the world's economy.

No offense meant directly at you, PR, I just get a little worked up , when it appears as though people are trying to simplify the BIG PICTURE, which cannot and should not be done.

Well I never once contended that the ONLY reason for invading Iraq was oil. I just said it was the BIGGEST reason, and other very influential people feel the same way...

Was the Iraq War for Oil?"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan

According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq was a means to gain control over that country’s vast oil reserves is “nonsense” and “a myth.” However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq’s oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

*Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.

*Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;

*Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.

Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves.

http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

LiberalNation

01-02-2008, 11:11 AM

I just love to be called "dumb, myoptic, pedantic," or anything else you people can think up that I "thought" were my "friends," simply because my opinion differs from yours.
A lil taste of your own medicine. Nice ain't it.

Gadget (fmr Marine)

01-02-2008, 11:16 AM

Privatizing a commodity....how distateful! (that was sarcasm)

Every other Middle Eastern country is not the example that should be followed, because it does not work for the people of those countries, it suppresses them! The dictators (err....Royal Families) get the spoils and the poor become the disenfranchised, and send their state run schools that teach hatred, intolerance and do not support freedoms.....not exactly what w2e should encourage, don't you think?

I respect Alan Greenspan's record of success in helping manage the economy....but I also think he is responsible for the economic mess we are in now, as well....he just chose to get out, right before things got as bad as they are....he is hardly the guy I would look to for when it comes to geopolitics.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:16 AM

Well c'mon... keep telling me it isn't about oil. Below is EXACTLY what I've been saying, and now it comes straight from the horses mouth.... contend THAT...

At the naval base, Bush declared, ''We will not rest until victory is America's and our freedom is secure" from Al Qaeda and its forces in Iraq led by Abu Musab alZarqawi.

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:17 AM

A lil taste of your own medicine. Nice ain't it.

Are yoy my new board toy that follows me around the board? You'll have to learn how to suck dick if you are.

LiberalNation

01-02-2008, 11:19 AM

lol are you the new board idiot that is suprised people call you out when your opinions differ considering you do the same damn thing yourself.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:20 AM

Privatizing a commodity....how distateful! (that was sarcasm)
Creating a monopoly is more like it, while the takin's easy.

I respect Alan Greenspan's record of success in helping manage the economy....but I also think he is responsible for the economic mess we are in now, as well....he just chose to get out, right before things got as bad as they are....he is hardly the guy I would look to for when it comes to geopolitics.

I don't. I blame the spending habits in Washington.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:22 AM

lol are you the new board idiot that is suprised people call you out when your opinions differ considering you do the same damn thing yourself.

Wrap your puffy little ignorant lips around this fag. Maybe you'll get over that gender crisis you're having.

glockmail

01-02-2008, 11:27 AM

Are yoy my new board toy that follows me around the board? You'll have to learn how to suck dick if you are.:lol: she's a clam licker.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:29 AM

And thanks for calling me "dumb" John.

I said the argument that the invasion was for oil was dumb but if you want to take it that I directed it that you were dumb so be it, and your welcome.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:32 AM

Well c'mon... keep telling me it isn't about oil. Below is EXACTLY what I've been saying, and now it comes straight from the horses mouth.... contend THAT...

''If Zarqawi and [Osama] bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks," Bush said. ''They'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions. They could recruit more terrorists by claiming a historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

C'mon what? because the president suggested that terrorists would seize the oil fields for funding their ideals means we invaded for the oil?

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:35 AM

I said the argument that the invasion was for oil was dumb but if you want to take it that I directed it that you were dumb so be it, and your welcome.

I am the one putting forth the argument, so calling it dumb is in effect calling me dumb.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:36 AM

C'mon what? because the president suggested that terrorists would seize the oil fields for funding their ideals means we invaded for the oil?

DAMN RIGHT, that's part of it, and that's a big reason we stay. OIL... and the MONEY that goes with it.

If you don't see it, then you're just refusing to admit it, for whatever reasons. I don't know.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:41 AM

That's part of it, damn right, and that's a big reason we stay.

Of course securing the oil fields from terrorists is a need, be kind of stupid to think otherwise. Basing the invasion on securing Iraq's oil is a whole other thing.

So all these years in, and yet nobody seems to have huge gains over this new found oil wealth, when does it all come to fruitation?

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:43 AM

DAMN RIGHT, that's part of it, and that's a big reason we stay. OIL... and the MONEY that goes with it.

If you don't see it, then you're just refusing to admit it, for whatever reasons. I don't know.

:laugh2:

Seriously, I was able to read "oil" without the huge letters.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:44 AM

If you don't see it, then you're just refusing to admit it, for whatever reasons. I don't know.

See what? What am I supposed to see? we secured oil fields so I should assume that we based the invasion off of that?

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 11:48 AM

See what? What am I supposed to see? we secured oil fields so I should assume that we based the invasion off of that?

Whatever John... I quit.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 11:58 AM

Whatever John... I quit.

Sorry, I have seen nothing to indicate we went in for the oil. We have the highest fuel prices ever at the moment, and with all the oil that we invaded for it would of simply helped the cause of the administration as many I am sure would like to see better prices. Nobody on either side of the fence has done a single thing to even address the issue yet we secured a whole coutries industry by way of invasion.

It's been a weak argument since day 1 of the invasion, it's simply an easy accusation for the obvious reason of their oil supply. When it come to pass that facts are brought foward we invaded for this purpose I will be more than happy to eat my words. Otherwise suggesting we invading so little Bush was just getting back at Saddam for big Bush holds about as much water in my opinion.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 04:17 PM

Sorry, I have seen nothing to indicate we went in for the oil. We have the highest fuel prices ever at the moment, and with all the oil that we invaded for it would of simply helped the cause of the administration as many I am sure would like to see better prices. Nobody on either side of the fence has done a single thing to even address the issue yet we secured a whole coutries industry by way of invasion.

It's been a weak argument since day 1 of the invasion, it's simply an easy accusation for the obvious reason of their oil supply. When it come to pass that facts are brought foward we invaded for this purpose I will be more than happy to eat my words. Otherwise suggesting we invading so little Bush was just getting back at Saddam for big Bush holds about as much water in my opinion.

That's just your opinion. Nothing you've said is a fact. I at least did prove oil was part of the reason for the invasion, and remains a reason we stay there.

If you want ME to believe YOU, "prove" to me it WASN'T for oil.

How 'bout that?

actsnoblemartin

01-02-2008, 04:18 PM

if it was for oil, why is oil at 100$ a barrel and gas over 3.00 nationally so long?

That's just your opinion. Nothing you've said is a fact. If you want ME to believe YOU, "prove" to me it WASN'T for oil. I at least did prove oil has been a reason for th invasion, and remains a reason we stay there.

How 'bout that?

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 04:23 PM

That's just your opinion. Nothing you've said is a fact. I at least did prove oil was part of the reason for the invasion, and remains a reason we stay there.

If you want ME to believe YOU, "prove" to me it WASN'T for oil.

How 'bout that?

You proved what? can ya point that part out, must of missed it.

retiredman

01-02-2008, 04:26 PM

if it was for oil, why is oil at 100$ a barrel and gas over 3.00 nationally so long? did you notice Exxon-Mobil's profits???

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 04:30 PM

If there wasn't oil in Iraq would we have invaded, no. Then again they wouldn't have had the military, at the cost of their people, to have invaded Kuwait years ago. Congress recognized that, as I posted. http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=179423#post179423

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 04:31 PM

You proved what? can ya point that part out, must of missed it.

Well then, I guess I proved about as much you did... nothin'.

But, I did post SEVERAL articles that support my assertion, one of which quotes the President himself... but that's OK, I know you're just ignoring it.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 04:32 PM

If there wasn't oil in Iraq would we have invaded, no.

Thank you.

And one step further, I posted a quote from President Bush himself that states that's why we stay in Iraq.

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 04:34 PM

if it was for oil, why is oil at 100$ a barrel and gas over 3.00 nationally so long?

China.

Sir Evil

01-02-2008, 04:34 PM

Well then, I guess I proved about as much you did... nothin'.

But, I did post SEVERAL articles that support my assertion, one of which quotes the President himself... but that's OK, I know you're just ignoring it.

:laugh2:

No, I addresses that, and again your article stated that the president wanted the oil fields secured so they could not be destroyed or exploited by terrorists, how this supoorts anything remotely close to an invasion for oil is beyond me. However not ignored.

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 04:35 PM

Thank you. And one step further, I posted a quote from President Bush himself that states that's why we stay in Iraq.

I know it and saw it. As I've said from the beginning, oil wasn't the be all and end all, as were not WMD. Significant? Yes. Casus belli? Not on their own.

glockmail

01-02-2008, 04:40 PM

did you notice Exxon-Mobil's profits???
Less than 10%. What's the guv'mint's percentage on the three bucks? :poke:

retiredman

01-02-2008, 04:46 PM

Less than 10%. What's the guv'mint's percentage on the three bucks? :poke:
so do the math. If Exxon maintains a 10% profit margin, what does increased crude oil prices do to their total earnings?

glockmail

01-02-2008, 04:53 PM

so do the math. If Exxon maintains a 10% profit margin, what does increased crude oil prices do to their total earnings?
There lies the error in the Liberal Theory of Economics. The pump price is based on market forces, not set by Exxon. They don't have the ability to set a margin. Not like the gov'mint.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question though. :coffee:

jackass

01-02-2008, 08:00 PM

Pale Rider

01-02-2008, 09:21 PM

:laugh2:

No, I addresses that, and again your article stated that the president wanted the oil fields secured so they could not be destroyed or exploited by terrorists, how this supoorts anything remotely close to an invasion for oil is beyond me. However not ignored.

Well... you don't think so, I do. Good enough. I'll sleep just fine tonight.

pegwinn

01-02-2008, 10:11 PM

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 10:16 PM

I only read the first three pages so if I missed something cool from 3-11 lemmie know.

I voted to leave on the grounds that we did the right thing and the Iraqis still haven't stepped up to the plate fully.

Don't get me wrong. I completely support that we did what was needed. But, not counting the first eight months, I hated how we went about it.

From the time we captured Saddam, it was all bad. Until Patreaus, man he is my Patton. It still may fall apart in the end, but it won't be because of US.

Dilloduck

01-02-2008, 10:40 PM

Why we invaded should have no bearing on how long we stay there and our continued presence should be determined by the assessing the best intel available, not only of the situation in Iraq but the entire region. We already invaded and left once. How much extra did it cost in dollars and lives to do it all over again?

pegwinn

01-02-2008, 10:46 PM

From the time we captured Saddam, it was all bad. Until Patreaus, man he is my Patton. It still may fall apart in the end, but it won't be because of US.

In 03 if you shot at us, we smoked a grid square. Those who stood and fought, died. No pussyfooting around.

Then the pols shackled ROE which put our guys at greater risk.

My beef in addition to the ROE is the Iraqi .gov. They managed to try and hang Saddam. But, they still cannot get a handle on the interior. Locals are doing it and the .gov (Iraqi) needs to shit or get off the pot.

Kathianne

01-02-2008, 11:49 PM

In 03 if you shot at us, we smoked a grid square. Those who stood and fought, died. No pussyfooting around.

Then the pols shackled ROE which put our guys at greater risk.

My beef in addition to the ROE is the Iraqi .gov. They managed to try and hang Saddam. But, they still cannot get a handle on the interior. Locals are doing it and the .gov (Iraqi) needs to shit or get off the pot.

I understand, I keep hearing this from guys that 'were there' but aren't now. I think it's normal to want to protect your younger brothers and sisters, just like those before you, especially if you have sons or daughters there. :salute: What needs to be heard though our 'their voices.'

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/a-plan-to-kill.php

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/748/aplantokilleveryoneyoumqn5.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1096/limacompanysignae5.jpg

anuary 2, 2008
A Plan to Kill Everyone

“War, children, it's just a shot away, it's just a shot away” – The Rolling Stones, from “Gimme Shelter”
Girl in Doorway Fallujah.jpg

FALLUJAH — A sign on the door leading out of India Company’s Combat Operations Center says “Have a Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet.” For a fraction of second I thought it might be some kind of joke. But I was with the Marine Corps in Fallujah, and it wasn’t a joke.

I asked Captain Stewart Glenn if he could explain and perhaps elaborate a bit on what, exactly, that sign is about. “It’s pretty straightforward,” he said rather bluntly. “It means exactly what it says.”
A Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet.jpg

Welcome to counterinsurgency.

A sign outside Lieutenant Nathan Bibler’s Joint Security Station in the slums of Fallujah makes the point a little more clearly, and delicately. “Look at everyone as though they are trying to kill you, but you cannot treat them that way.”

“The threat's always there,” Sergeant Chuck Balley told me as he looked blankly at nothing in particular. “Everybody is sketchy.”

Maybe they are. But very few people in Fallujah try to kill Americans – or other Iraqis – anymore. It has been months since a single Marine in Fallujah has been even wounded, let alone killed. But at least a handful of disorganized insurgents still lurk in the city. Once a week or so somebody takes a shot at the Americans.
Lima Company Sign.jpg

“Do you have plates in that Kevlar?” one Marine sergeant said to me as I donned my body armor on our way into the city. He was referring to steel SAPI plates that fit inside Kevlar vests that can stop even a sniper round.

“No,” I said, and I didn't care. The odds that I, personally, would be the first person shot in Fallujah for months were microscopic.

“Look,” he said. “You are not gonna get shot. But you should still carry some plates.”

One lieutenant forced me to wear Marine-issue body armor – which weighs almost 80 pounds – before he would let me go out on patrol with him. I felt like Godzilla lumbering around with all the extra bulk and weight, and I didn’t really feel safer. Running while carrying those extra pounds all of a sudden wasn’t much of an option. Sacrificing most of my speed and agility to make myself a little more bullet-proof might not be worth it. But perhaps that’s just what I told myself so I could justify wearing lighter and more comfortable armor. It’s hard to say. What I do know for certain is that Fallujah at the end of 2007 was neither scary nor stressful. No one can go there right now without feeling what is perhaps a dangerous sense of complacency.

But complacency kills. The Marines are reminded of this fact every day, as was I when I traveled and worked with them.

The day I arrived at India Company's Forward Operating Base, which had been converted from an old train station, all the Marines had to attend readiness training classes designed to offset complacency.

“Too many Marines are getting complacent and lax,” Captain Glenn said. “Complacency is as potentially deadly as an IED at this point.”
Complacency Kills.jpg

The Marines couldn't help it, and neither could I. Combat operations in Fallujah are over. It wasn't possible to work myself up into feeling nervous in that city. I just knew I wouldn't be shot. Of course, I could have been wrong, and I knew that, too.

*

“Are you a strict non-combatant?” Second Lieutenant Mike Barefoot said to me as we stepped out of the joint security station in Jolan, Northern Fallujah, and began a patrol.

“What do you mean?” I said. Of course I am a non-combatant. Was he asking if I’m a pacifist?

“Do you fight?” he said.

I narrowed my eyes at him slightly, still not quite sure what he was getting at.

“If we get in a fire fight,” he said, “and I give you my pistol, will you take it?”

Mike Barefoot.jpg
Second Lieutenant Mike Barefoot

He put his hand on his sidearm and fingered the thumb break. He wasn't kidding. All I had to do was say so and he would hand me that pistol.

“I'm not allowed to carry a weapon,” I said.

He rolled his eyes, not at me but at the policy.

“No embedded journalists are allowed to pick up a weapon,” I continued. “They’ll throw me out of Iraq if I do. It’s a good policy. Most of us aren’t trained to fight in a war. If reporters were armed, eventually one of us would shoot a kid or an old woman.”

It is a sound policy. He nodded and seemed to understand that. Still, he repeated the question. “If I give you my pistol, will you take it?”

“If it gets bad enough out here that either I shoot it or die, then yes,” I said. “I’d rather be thrown of Iraq then be killed. But that is not going to happen, so I can't take your pistol.”

We walked a few steps.

Mike Barefoot on Patrol.jpg
Second Lieutenant Mike Barefoot on patrol

“Thanks, though,” I said, and I meant it.

Several Marines were shocked that I was willing to walk around the streets of Fallujah without a gun, but I didn’t feel the slightest bit nervous. Complacency kills, and I get that. But I had Marines as bodyguards and I wasn’t allowed to defend myself anyway. So I figured I might as well relax.

“Anyway,” I always said to Marines who thought I should carry a weapon, “if it gets bad enough out here that you’re relying on me in a fight, you’re really screwed.”

....

“There’s two people up there now,” said another.

They were too far away to accurately shoot at us with anything but a sniper rifle. But they could give away our position to somebody closer if that’s what they wanted to do. It didn’t seem like a big deal to me. But complacency kills, so I stopped walking in a straight line and started to zig zag at random to make myself harder to shoot at. It was not because I was paranoid. I never felt nervous in Fallujah, not even after what happened next. I’ve just learned to do a few things that soldiers and Marines do to make myself a harder target. I do it casually now, often times without even thinking about it.

We walked a few moments in silence and kept our eyes on the roof of that house. Suddenly we heard automatic gunfire behind us.

“Shit,” I said. “That sounds close.”

“It sounds bad,” I heard a Marine say.

More gun shots.

“It sounds like it’s coming from that checkpoint we just passed,” Corporal Hayes said.

Then there were more shots, also automatic, and they sounded different. More than one kind of weapon was being fired.

“That’s intense,” I said. And it was. It sounded like a full-blown fire fight had just broken out.

“That’s worse than anything we’ve seen since we got here,” said another Marine.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3193/twobulletholesfallujahck5.jpg

We crossed the street and leaned up against the outer walls of the houses.

“We have to get you back,” Corporal Hayes said to me.

“Back to Khaderi?” I said.

He nodded.

“I don’t want to go back,” I said.

I was slightly surprised to hear myself say this. I probably should have been scared. A fire fight in Fallujah is nothing to shrug at. But I wanted to see what would happen. And of course I would stay in the rear where I wouldn’t be personally shot at.

Several Marines sized me up in ways they hadn’t before. They were obviously trying to determine if I would be a liability for them in a fight, if I would need to be babysat while they were being shot at. No one objected when I said I didn’t want to go back, but I have no idea what they were thinking.
Crouching Marine and Small Boy Falllujah.jpg

“Is that coming from the train station?” someone said.

Oh, I thought. Yeah. The Forward Operating Base that had been converted from a train station was only a few hundred meters away.

“Maybe they’re test firing at the station?”

As soon as somebody said it, I was sure that’s what it was. The shots were probably on the practice range. Fallujah is no longer a war zone.

But we didn’t know. The Marines are supposed to be warned in advance when the range goes live so they don’t overreact and think there’s a war on. Every single one of them first thought what we were hearing was combat.

“Khaderi isn’t answering.”

“That has to be the range, right?”

“The shots are too consistent. It isn’t a fight.”

“Somebody should have told us.”

We still weren’t sure, though. No one at Khaderi answered the call. But everyone was slowly convinced that the gun shots were practice rounds on the range.

The platoon’s radio squawked. It was Khaderi. Twenty minutes from now, we were told, they will be gun shots at the train station.

“Nice of them to tell us,” Corporal Hayes said.
Clouds and City Fallujah.jpg

It was only then that I noticed that none of the Iraqis on the street reacted in any noticeable way to what had just happened. They didn’t take cover when we did. We were all briefly certain that war had returned to Fallujah. But the Iraqi kids still played in the street. They did not run and hide. Their parents did not yank them inside. Try to imagine that in an American city.

One of the Marines later told me that military dogs, while they’re being trained, are put into rooms with loud speakers. The first half hour of Stephen Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan — that terrifying scene where hundreds of soldiers are shot and blown to pieces while storming the beach at Normandy – are played over and over again until the dogs no longer fear the sounds of war.

Iraqis who live in Fallujah have heard more shots fired in anger than I ever will. Machine gun fire has been the sound track in that city for a long time. War is just a shot away, but even the children of Fallujah won’t flinch if it breaks out again.

Post-script: Please support independent journalism. Traveling to and working in Iraq is expensive. I can’t publish dispatches on this Web site for free without substantial reader donations, so I'll appreciate it if you pitch in what you can. Blog Patron allows you to make recurring monthly payments, and even small donations will be extraordinarily helpful so I can continue this project.

All material copyright Michael J. Totten

Powered by
Movable Type 4.01

typomaniac

01-03-2008, 12:12 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But
2. That's
3. Some
4. Funny
5. Shit
6. :laugh:

Regards,
SirPreacherofNevada

Sorry bout that,

1. There once was a cretin named chesswars
2. Whom DP.com totally abhors,
3. 'Cause he's so full of shit
4. That he'd never admit
5. That he walks, dragging knuckles, on all fours.

Regards,
SirTypoofLimerick

(All in good fun, chessie... :) )