Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 1:24:20 AM   
Kedicat


Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline 		He's lucky to be a tank commander in this particular war.
He can avoid having to do some of the less clearly honorable operations that infantry types are engaged in every day.
Most of the negative reports from soldiers in Iraq are from those that have to kick in doors, drag out suspects and hand them off to be taken to........who knows what......
Soldiers who do the much dirtier work, more face to face, or sights to head work.
The armoured warfare part is mostly done. And was a clear battle plan executed swiftly and cleanly.
It's the others that are more in the morass that exists now, that wonder what the hell they are doing now.

There is very little good news in Iraq. Even the very right wing media can come up with very poor, even staged examples. Do you really think FOX news can't find more good stuff to report in Iraq? Or are they also biased leftwing media?
What they do report is pretty lame as far as making it look good.

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 1:30:55 AM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave. 


Hmm The US is still in Germany sixty years after the war, Japan, S. Korea and about 40 other countries. One of the reasons for the terrorism is that the US did not leave Saudi Arabia. It is according to Bin Laden, his raison d'etre.


They do not occupy any of those countries.  I know they are stationed all over the place, but they have agreements with those countries to have bases there.  I do not see the problem with that.  I am sure if the country wants them to leave, they would stuff their tanks into their backpacks and go home.

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 2:03:12 AM   
Kedicat


Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave. 


Hmm The US is still in Germany sixty years after the war, Japan, S. Korea and about 40 other countries. One of the reasons for the terrorism is that the US did not leave Saudi Arabia. It is according to Bin Laden, his raison d'etre.


They do not occupy any of those countries.  I know they are stationed all over the place, but they have agreements with those countries to have bases there.  I do not see the problem with that.  I am sure if the country wants them to leave, they would stuff their tanks into their backpacks and go home.


It's only the Canadian army that has to backpack their armour :) If the US has no extra lift for us to hitch a ride on. Or Russia's big lifter is already chartered. Sadly the UN doesn't provide transportation to their parties. At least taxi chits would be nice :)

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 2:11:10 AM   
NastyDaddy


Posts: 957
Joined: 9/8/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave. 


Hmm The US is still in Germany sixty years after the war, Japan, S. Korea and about 40 other countries. One of the reasons for the terrorism is that the US did not leave Saudi Arabia. It is according to Bin Laden, his raison d'etre.


That's odd, I always heard ol' bin laden say he hated westerners and their religions which he felt have perverted his native Saudi homeland. This is despite the fact he also wore western style suits and ties while working in his father's construction business which profitted immensely from arabic countries.  If memory serves me correctly, he was also pissed that his family disowned him and especially pissed over the issue of the Saudi's inviting a US presence there and modernizing their defenses against aggression from warring arabic factions and facilitators, including ol' sweet osama himself. 

Your earlier reply to a few of my reasons for Saddam's removal after the UN resolution was passed (a few reasons to point out the coalition invasion was not solely for Iraqi oil as has been repeatedly and unfoundedly alleged over and over), tended to hint that my reasons were strictly humanitarian... strictly to end genocide attrocities.  This is not the case, as Saddam's warlike posture of attacking neighboring nations was also a big factor... the fact that he repeatedly attempted to do what he continually threatened to do.

Apparently there is a also need to also point out the obvious... the obvious being that good ol' peace loving Saddam boasted often of having nuclear weapons, and of the fact he considered himself a "chosen one" to lead all the islamic and arabic nations as their one true leader.  This stance he was quite adamant about, combined with his repeated boasts of having nuclear weapons made him tenfold as dangerous as he projected himself to be. 

The "mother of all battles" of Gulf War One (Desert Shield, followed by Desert Storm when Saddam continually refused to withdraw from Kuwait) embarrassed Saddam's self induced grandeur as he was ran like a whipped puppy back to Iraq. With the fall/breakup of the nuclear power USSR first world nation, and Saddam's newly created ties to eastern former soviet block military apparatus, this further created widespread concerns that such a fool could actually procure nukes, or the technology to develop rudimentary versions. 

This constituted a very serious set of conditions which threatened not only Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but most other islamic nations in the region. Saddam's repeated warlike stance to regain the grandeur he lost in Gulf War One, coupled specifically with his boasts of being a nuclear power made him a threat to future peace of any kind in the middle east.  His history of aggression towards his neighbors and his repeated boasts of possessing nuclear weaponry while defying UN weapons inspectors sealed his own fate, period.

Add to all this the attacks on America of 911, and the proclaimed terrorist organization bin laden achieved, coupled with the taliban controlled nation of Afghanistan where bin laden established terrorist training camps while announcing his personal flavor of the Quran interpretation of killing all westerners (infidels)... it was a very bad cocktail. Terrorists loyal to bin laden were already setting up camp in Iraq, and Saddam was not included in bin laden's plans, he was quite expendable yet the Iraqi nation was there for the taking by popping the head off the ass pimple dictator ruler/former US puppet as seen by bin laden.

The way I see it, it simply boiled down to who would take Iraq first... would it be the free world or would it be the extremist terrorists who had accomplished the unthinkable by attacking America on 911? Which was the lessor of two evils which could easily be viewed as a humanitarian question? In reality, the US and other western nations were left with very little choice but to act in a pre-emptive manner. The instability and the high probability of bin laden's followers toppling Saddam and using Iraq as their new staging ground against the west as well as western allies in the middle east left no room for pause... and these factors all led to the removal of Saddam the warlord, to prevent his overthrow by even more fanatical elements of bin laden.

Did George W. Bush invade Iraq alone; did George W. Bush kill Saddam to please daddy George H. Bush who failed in the Bush quest to kill Saddam; did George H. or George W. Bush send US troops to bring Saddam's head on a platter.... no, none of these things happened or were ever intended to happen.

You want to sit back and proclaim this a war over oil... go right ahead, that is your perogative. You can be as unrealistic as you would like in your opinions, after all... you do not live under the sword of bin laden yet do you? You don't have to worry about bin laden at all do you, and this entire page in history is all about oil isn't it... tell that to the next terrorist victims if you are not in fact one of them yourself, ok infidel.      

_____________________________

"You may be right, I may be crazy... but I may just be the lunatic you're looking for!"

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 2:32:07 AM   
SirKenin


Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave. 


Hmm The US is still in Germany sixty years after the war, Japan, S. Korea and about 40 other countries. One of the reasons for the terrorism is that the US did not leave Saudi Arabia. It is according to Bin Laden, his raison d'etre.


They do not occupy any of those countries.  I know they are stationed all over the place, but they have agreements with those countries to have bases there.  I do not see the problem with that.  I am sure if the country wants them to leave, they would stuff their tanks into their backpacks and go home.


It's only the Canadian army that has to backpack their armour :) If the US has no extra lift for us to hitch a ride on. Or Russia's big lifter is already chartered. Sadly the UN doesn't provide transportation to their parties. At least taxi chits would be nice :)



The only thing we backpack is our peashooters and blowguns before we pile into our row boats and row home.  The only tanks we have haven't moved from in front of Armories in 50 years.  We have fighter jets.. Sure we do.  They are on stands outside the Army Navy Air Force halls.  We can probably fend off an invasion with muskets and cannons, but we have no b.b's, the cannons would have to be unplugged and the cannon balls are welded to the ground.  By the time we're set and ready to go we'll be a communist nation or something.

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 9/21/2006 2:35:32 AM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to Kedicat)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 2:45:41 AM   
Kedicat


Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

There is no mystery to what you feel. The daily bombardment of negative reporting on the war is being contradicted by someone with credibility. Namely the Lieutenant Colonel.
It is no wonder that people feel that it is hopeless in Iraq when all we get are stories and reporting that push this position. The Lieutenant is right in his opinions about the news media, but it is even worse than that. Most of the media hate the president, and would love nothing better than to see him fail in Iraq. That's why you will rarely see any positive reporting about Iraq. I think you have probably learned something very important, courtesy of this brave man fighting for freedom.


So this soldier is right.
Are the other ones who say opposite things also right?
This is a good example of opposite things coming from similar sources. But one is truth the other bias.
Truly the eye of the beholder.
That's why I prefer facts.
And there are plenty. And legal charges. Money trails. Videos. Dead bodies purposely uncounted. Bombs going off. Little clean water. Little electricity. Fewer schools operating. Hospitals still in ruins. Hospitals freshly targeted. 50+ bodies dumped a day. The Green Zone the only moderately safe place. On and on and on..........
If the mission was accomplished, what the hell was the mission?

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 2:50:18 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		I have no argument with the invasion of Afghanistan, I think the US had every right and I don't object to British troops being there now but the fact that the US was concerned about Saddam is laughable since the US supported him in the war against Iran. That doesn't show much American concern for unrest in the area. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was another matter, a weak friendly oil rich dictatorship had to be protected, even if this little country was a western construct to secure oil in the first place or maybe because of that. The difficulty in believing the US's and the west's concern is that it is only concerned when oil is involved, otherwise people can die and so decrease the surplus population.

If the US is more concerned about rhetoric and not proof, then it would have invaded many other countries around the world. It didn't and hasn't so once again we have to ask what Iraq and so Saddam had that other mouthy dictators did't. Again we come back to oil. The terrorists had no foot hold in Iraq before the invasion, if the US was most concerned about keeping terrorists at bay, they could have had no one better than Saddam in charge of Iraq, now there are terrorists well and truely planted in Iraq and one suspects Bush is looking for a cut and run option while he insists he is steadfast. Terrorism is just proving a useful excuse for so called peaceful nations to use military action for their own ends ie. Russia in Chechnya and Israel not to concede to a two state solution. Why was the US the only country concerned about Iraq? Apart from Blair who'll bark when ordered, Britain wasn't and neither was any other European country and Iraq is our back yard.

(in reply to NastyDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 3:04:31 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

They do not occupy any of those countries.  I know they are stationed all over the place, but they have agreements with those countries to have bases there.  I do not see the problem with that.  I am sure if the country wants them to leave, they would stuff their tanks into their backpacks and go home.


Yes, in the case of Germany, the Potsdam agreement post WWII. I think you will find that US troops are in Germany only under sufferance, most of the population want them out but successive governments haven't wanted to upset the status quo.

I think you will find that the US wanted to site its latest defence missiles in rthe Czech Republic or Hungary but these governments said no because of hostility to the idea from the general population because they are purely for American defence. That is the true feeling of most Europeans, they resent being American forward defence positions, however, the US seems to have some sort of hold over the western European elite apart from the French. No doubt money and corruption are involved somewhere. As a Brit I resented the fact that the US used UK airbases without permission while supplying Israel with smart bombs. I fucking resent Blair for belatedly saying it was OK. Alliances are supposed to be two way streets but that is our problem.

(in reply to SirKenin)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 5:15:48 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kedicat

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

The thing about the US is that they have not been taking what is not theirs.  They move in, restore order and leave. 


Hmm The US is still in Germany sixty years after the war, Japan, S. Korea and about 40 other countries. One of the reasons for the terrorism is that the US did not leave Saudi Arabia. It is according to Bin Laden, his raison d'etre.


They do not occupy any of those countries.  I know they are stationed all over the place, but they have agreements with those countries to have bases there.  I do not see the problem with that.  I am sure if the country wants them to leave, they would stuff their tanks into their backpacks and go home.


It's only the Canadian army that has to backpack their armour :) If the US has no extra lift for us to hitch a ride on. Or Russia's big lifter is already chartered. Sadly the UN doesn't provide transportation to their parties. At least taxi chits would be nice :)



ROFLMAO   Kedicat

I spent 20 years in the movements business in the Army.   and at one point I did have a Canadian in my chain of command that I reported to.  Was it he wasn't learning or the lessons learned weren't passed on or absorbed?

Sheesh  btw  the reason that they pack them in their backpacks is economics.   on ships you pay by the metric tonne (measurement ton for us americans)  if you fold up your tank into a small enough package it is cheaper to ship (true not facious).

The higest  point on an old army 2 1/2 ton truck is the sterring wheel.   the cab and canvas fold up nicely.  By rail, air, truck we pay by the pound.

(in reply to Kedicat)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 5:36:00 AM   
Kedicat


Posts: 251
Joined: 3/13/2005
Status: offline 		Saddam would have been less affected by a 911 type attack than the US was.
If they had flown planes into the biggest buildings in Iraq, would Iraq then have been taken over by Al Queda?

Nonsense.

Saddam had more security and anti terrorist methods in place than the US. If it was that easy to topple Saddam, why did it take the US military's shock and awe?

Iraq was ripe for takeover only because of sanctions that had gone on for years. It had been ready to be taken for years and nobody but the US tried. Your words are silly.

It is the oil and the strategic position for more oil!!!
Read the Project for the New American Century document entitled rebuilding Americas Defences. It laid the plan out years in advance, and it was written and signed off on by the neocons in power in the present US administration!!!
It was all planned out! In their own words!! Signed!!!
Not just oil for the US, but control of the oil. To deny it to others. As it is written, no other country shall be more powerful than the US!!!!

Read the F#*king thing and read the writing on the wall!!!
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

There's a link to get you started.

(in reply to NastyDaddy)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 7:02:54 AM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks for everyone for responding. A few short points.
 
Europe did come out against the invasion of Iraq. I'm not sure that plays all that well in the minds of many Americans ... not ignorant Americans, but educated ones that know the history of the last few hundred years, and know Europe's propensity for ignoring a small problem until it becomes a big one. No offense to anyone intended, but in another thread the suggestion was made that the entire world would be better off if Europeans ran American foreign policy (paraphrased). As a person that has studied European history extensively, I find that notion almost comical.
 
There was a point made about differing opinions from soldiers stationed in that region. I think that makes my point perfectly. Not even the people that are actually there can be sure about what's going on. How do we here expect to know the truth of things? When someone says that the reason for the invasion was a lie, that isn't something that can be proven at this point. Absence of proof today, doesn't not mean absence of existence. During the Second World War, there were many people that denied the existence of Nazi death camps, because there was no proof.
 
To be quite honest, I find the opposition's arguments to be just as full of holes as the Administrations. Not a single person here, or the many people I discuss this matter with offline, have opinions backed by any more fact than those presented by the President. None of us are privvy to the inner circle. It may be that there is intelligence that we know nothing about, and that can't be revealed without revealing the source for that intelligence. Going back to the example of Nazi death camps in the Second World War, both the British and Americans knew they existed, but could not disclose this, as it would have made obvious, how this information was gathered. There is a possiblity that this scenario plays out concerning weapons programs, and Iraqi intent.
 
In my opinion, only a closed mind would dismiss this possiblity outright.

(in reply to Kedicat)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 7:57:18 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
 
but educated ones that know the history of the last few hundred years, and know Europe's propensity for ignoring a small problem until it becomes a big one.



I think you are not talking about the last couple of hundred years but post WWI, when most of Europe hoped Hitler would go away. The US was in no hurry to see that problem either, Britain and the empire/commonwealth fought the axis powers alone for over a year.

Now if you are complaining that no European countries would fight in N Korea and Vietnam, well they were smart not to, they were colonial wars. Europe also never had the same perception of the Russian threat as the US either. No one realistically expected the Poles, Hungarians, even the East Germans to fight for the country they so loathed.

However, if Europe thinks twice about joining in a war, it might be to do with the millions that died and the total destruction caused in both world wars. If the US suffered the same, the US might not be so keen to start conflicts.

Edit - Chirac thought WMD were a fantasy. Schroeder would have never got the deployment of troops through parliament because the wide spread view in Germany was the war was (rightly or wrongly) about oil  and Italy would never have got deployment of troops for a war through their parliament either. The other western European countries are quite small but the general feeling was that the war was unnecessary. It was only Blair who was able to send troops to war because of the British constitution didn't require parliamentary permission.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 9/21/2006 8:08:20 AM >

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:15:06 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

There is no mystery to what you feel. The daily bombardment of negative reporting on the war is being contradicted by someone with credibility. Namely the Lieutenant Colonel.
It is no wonder that people feel that it is hopeless in Iraq when all we get are stories and reporting that push this position. The Lieutenant is right in his opinions about the news media, but it is even worse than that. Most of the media hate the president, and would love nothing better than to see him fail in Iraq. That's why you will rarely see any positive reporting about Iraq. I think you have probably learned something very important, courtesy of this brave man fighting for freedom.


As was explaining to caitlyn, prior to the invasion, the media bomarded us with truckloads of BS about what a threat to civilization Saddam was, it probobly didn't bother you when things were going your way - this is the backlash, and it's proportional to the original overreaction - deal with it.

Americans have never been very sympathetic to colonial wars, there were very high levels of public protest over the Phillipine war, in fact, Americans are typically isolationist, which is why there usually has to be some heinous sneak attack to centripetalize us, i.e., Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, 9-11, etc.

Even then, we tend to tire of slaughter, it's distinctly American trait, we like to get it over with. This thing was poorly planned, and turned into a drawn out clusterfuck, we're split between hunting insugents and trying to keep the country from disintegrating into all out civil war - what is the primary objective here? Nobody seems to know, or ever have, first WMD's, then democracy, now oil - I thought you guys were supposed to be no-nonsense, take charge guys? Shit, democrats even fight wars better than you do.

See the thing about obective reality is that it really isn't subject to subjective consensus definition of reality - it is what it is, and you ignore it at your own peril, and whining when it turns around and bites you in the ass is just something you can reasonably expect.

(in reply to Estring)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:25:01 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy

If you are aware of a genocide currently taking place in Sudan, what if anything have you done about it? Have you expressed your outrage to your elected officials, and/or taken your concerns to the UN, or have you merely turned a blind eye while accusing the US and "dubya" (GB2) of invading a friendly sovereign nation merely for the sake of it's oil?



If troops invaded Darfur, though I doubt they will because of the logistics and there is nothing there but people to save, the only conclusion one could come to is that the invasion is humanitarian in its aim. However, simply sending troops doesn't mean a problem can be solved and why get troops killed for nothing other than the population at home is handwringing. With its bad infrastructure, supporting and supplying troops would be a nightmare with a hostile government in Khartoum.

On the other hand, Saddam was being successfully contained and there was no reason to invade Iraq other than to control oil production or strategic reasons. If the invasion's aim was humanitarian, one has to ask why was Iraq chosen when there are more serious humanitarian emergencies in the world. Simply because it could be done? Possible but I doubt it and if that was the reason, its a lesson in how not to stop a humanitarian disaster unrolling.

Britain did send troops to Sierre Leone and they were openly welcomed by the locals in Freetown, in the way it was predicted they would be welcomed in Iraq but maybe they were welcomed in Freetown because that was a genuine humanitarian project.


Um, sorry, the US doesn't fight wars for humanitarian reasons - US foreign policy from a strategic standpoint isn't even based on blocs anymore, it's based on what are called "energy corridors" - Kosovo was one, so was Afghanistan, Iraq is another as is Iran.

quote:

Energy Corridor We have seen real progress in building the East-West Energy Corridor, which will allow the Caspian Region to develop its energy resources - for commercial benefit, yes, but also in a way that will help diversify world energy supplies and will help secure the sovereignty and independence of the Caspian and Caucasus nations. The United States Government has been firm in its support of the pipelines. The United States' Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation have played a significant role in the financing, and we are seeing the results now, as work on BTC continues, with oil expected to be flowing in 2005.

SIX MONTHS OF TRANSITION By Ambassador Reno Harnish III
Speech to the American Chamber of Commerce
http://baku.usembassy.gov/pas/speeches/fambspeeches/ambspeech1en.html
quote:

Camp Bondsteel, the biggest �from scratch� foreign US military base since the Vietnam War is near completion in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo. It is located close to vital oil pipelines and energy corridors presently under construction, such as the US sponsored Trans-Balkan oil pipeline. As a result defence contractors�in particular Halliburton Oil subsidiary Brown & Root Services�are making a fortune.
In June 1999, in the immediate aftermath of the bombing of Yugoslavia, US forces seized 1,000 acres of farmland in southeast Kosovo at Uresevic, near the Macedonian border, and began the construction of a camp.
Camp Bondsteel is known as the �grand dame� in a network of US bases running both sides of the border between Kosovo and Macedonia. In less than three years it has been transformed from an encampment of tents to a self sufficient, high tech base-camp housing nearly 7,000 troops�three quarters of all the US troops stationed in Kosovo.

Camp Bondsteel and America�s plans to control Caspian oil
by Paul Stuart
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STU205A.html

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:30:27 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline 		Of course the Caspian reserves, previously thought to be extensive, turned out to be mostly illusory - it was discovered just before that we dropped Afghanistan and started massing troops on the Iraqi border in fact.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:31:01 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Hmm So not even Kosovo was about saving the muslims. I never knew that base was there. I need to read more.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:33:03 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline 		Now tell me Clinton didn't pull that shit off slicker than snot.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 8:34:09 AM   
Amaros


Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline 		I think it's called "killing two birds with one stone".

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 5:26:23 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"It may be that there is intelligence that we know nothing about, and that can't be revealed without revealing the source for that intelligence. Going back to the example of Nazi death camps in the Second World War, both the British and Americans knew they existed, but could not disclose this, as it would have made obvious, how this information was gathered. There is a possiblity that this scenario plays out concerning weapons programs, and Iraqi intent.
 
In my opinion, only a closed mind would dismiss this possiblity outright."
 
......not entirely impossible....but to my mind highly unlikely on the balance of probability. The data we have had access to is so tenuous as to cast serious doubt on anything yet to be revealed. We are left with something of a dilemma.......at what point do we cease to trust our government? Everyone must make their own choice, but i'd argue there has to be a line somewhere they must not be allowed to cross.

(in reply to Amaros)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth - 9/21/2006 5:41:53 PM   
EnglishDomNW


Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline 		Unless it's a soldier writing them, I'm always wary when people start romanticising war with poetic words. 

_____________________________


"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Iraq: For Whatever This May Be Worth Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109