|
|
|
|
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 9:16:04 AM |
Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I am, but I could be, But, The militia was attacking the soldiers not the average joe samali, so to your comment
it would not be me who would be shooting you, it would be the Local police......
Thats what I got out of that......
You are wrong the Militia was controlling the people the way they always did by hijacking the food supplies and threatening the "average joe samali" to either fight or starve. Thats why we went in there to help the UN get its food deliveries safely to the people. The military action was to remove Aihdid and break down the militia so that the UN could move freely.
It was the "average joe samali" who were fighting the US, It was the "average joe samali's" we all witnessed on the news dragging and desicrating the bodies of the U.S chopper pilot and sniper. Instead of helping to fight there oppressors the faught alongside them. And that was a sore spot that made people hate Clinton because we didnt create a bloodbath in that country in retaliation!! I felt the same way at the time!!
But you have to take time to remember who the Military was at the time, You know why Bush sr. and****Cheney didnt want to go into Bahgdad to get Saddam the first time during Desert Storm??? Cause they werent ready to fight urban gurilla warfare! They anticipated that they would loose too many people and get locked into a quagmeyer similar to Vietnam No other reason. During Clintons terms they still werent ready but they started to train for such an event incase it should be necessary, and I could remember thats when the Pentagon brought out the new "hi-tech" soldier equipment ( camera's mounted on guns to shoot around corners, GPS, real time info relayed from satellite to each soldier via eye piece and headphones ect ect.)
However they didnt have that and were still green to that type of fighting when the somalia thing kicked in. So Clinton decided rather than loose more soldiers in gurilla urban combat to try help people who were shooting at our troops, he pulled them out.
Fast forward to now, theres been 8 years of training in urban combat traing in the military and were still loosing lots of soldiers over in Iraq, so doesnt that tell you that if we persisted in Somalia we might have had the same body count or worse over there??
So to put it into context of our example: It would have been you threatening to starve your kids to make them shoot at me when I tried to bring food in!
no, we ran away. We lost men, and then we pulled out. In my book, that is running away, why did we go in the first place?? We knew the risks, We sent them in, Risking their lives, and then when we lose some of them, we pull out. That just confuses me......
whatever
Asked and Answered above !!
So what would be your solution? loose hundreds more?? have to move military resourses from other key places that were vital to American security to bolster an effort in Somalia to try feeding people while they shoot at us??
Do you know how Vietnam started? We went there to help the South Vietnamese and train them to fight the north, then next thing you know it was our war and we lost 58,000 soldiers over a 10 year span!!!
Do we really need to repeat that? Does that make sence to you to loose all those soldiers and for what??
History is a good teacher, learn from past mistakes, the reason were in this crap Iraq war now is because the lessons of the past were ignored. Bush went in unprepared cause he and the rest of the hawks couldnt see past their own beaks! The Cheifs of staff warned them that this wouldnt be the cake-walk they expected because Desert Storm was a conventional war where uniformed army faught uniformed army out in the desert, but this war we're in now is the same gurilla warfare thats soo much more difficult to prosecute. Your enemy could shake your hand today and say thanx for taking out Saddam, then shoot you in the back tomorrow!
So to answer your statement, its not "tuck tail and run", its having the forsight to realize this battlefield is not the best situation for your soldiers and either you find another way or dont do it at all. its time this country stop sacrificing soldiers lives for bravado, image, and politics.
One more thing, while I speak of learning from history, dont think for one minute that our enemies arent learning either. They watched every conflict from Vietnam on up and realized that "Mighty America" can be defeated if they dont fight a conventional war.
In a conventional war we could desimate any two countries at the same time, but in gurilla war its the reverse, Saddam realized this after Desert storm, he faught a conventional war out in the open and got his ass handed to him, he smartened up over the years studied Somalia conflict and decided to tell his troops to wait inside Bahgdad for the americans with no uniforms and play "joe civilian" and now look at the situation we're in.
Vietnam starting all over again. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 9:19:23 AM |
"Thats what happened in Somalia, and futhur Aidhid's ( I agree, not worth looking up his name) Son is now running that country. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"
This is disturbingly familiar, eh?
Unfortunately for us it is.  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 11:09:40 AM | | Oh no...I support the war I just can't abide those troops. Such a good cause hijacked by the troops. For shame ! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:47:43 PM | "3) removal of a tyrant dictator and to plant the seed of democracy in the middle east."
To quote Pete Townshend of "The Who";
"Meet the new boss;
Same as the old boss..."
As for "planting the seed of democracy"; more like planting evidence to support a bad idea. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 12:55:20 PM |
As for "planting the seed of democracy"; more like planting evidence to support a bad idea.
And what would be a good idea then. What is the right thing to do. Given the very little the general public knows, I look forward to knowing the better way to do it. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 2:50:28 PM | The "bad idea" is a reference to that fact that people are being sent over there to die under false pretences. (aka WMD; planted evidence) Surely, by now, everyone with a functioning frontal lobe realizes that story is a crock.
A better way to do it would includes things like, maybe checking the FACTS before going in; like perhaps doing it in conjunction with the U.N. instead of defying the world court.
Face it, the whole thing is a farce and a tragedy that so many innocent lives are being lost at the whim of a mad leader, who struts around like a dime-store Napoleon and likes to dress up like an action-figure. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 7:41:21 PM | You are back on the WMD and false evidence kick? Didn't we debunk that? The quantity of WMD expected was less than accurate, that was the ONLY error with regard to WMD.
And WMD , once more and again, was not the only reason we invaded | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 7:51:54 PM | | Not sure what revisionism you've been reading, but even the administration has admitted they found no evidence of WMD's. President's own search team came up with nothing. And WMD's may not have been the only reason for going in, but it was the only reason they gave the UN, congress or the American people. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 8:55:41 PM | | I agree! Nobody of any importance said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. George Dumbya Bush, Shlong Cheney, Dumsfield, none of those guys are important! George Bush lost the election to Al Gore, and Bush lost again to John Kerry, so that makes Bush and CHeney unimportant. And yes, the Republicans did say that the war was a retaliation for 9/11. Or at least that was one of the reasons they cited. Who knows, they are so wishy washy and they keep changing their minds about why we went to war. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 9:00:39 PM | Personally, I don't think that viewing them as "unimportant" helps anything. You might not like the power that they have, but refusing to acknowledge it doesn't change anything! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 9:02:52 PM | If you ask me George W Bush seemed disappointed at not finding WMD's. I think he knew that his most credible reason for the war has now been shot in the ass.
I have a question for all you warmongers out there. Why is it ok for the United States to have weapons of mass destruction, but its not ok for Iraq? Iran has WMD's and we arent going in there, at least not yet. During the cold war Russia has nukes and we never went over there and blew them to smithereens. Mosh **** Bush. Impeach the muddafugga! he lies while innocent people die. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/23/2005 9:09:37 PM | "You are back on the WMD and false evidence kick? Didn't we debunk that? "
But of course! In much the same way we confirmed the existence of unicorns!
Read halftime's post; even the administration has admitted the WMDs aren't there. (Or did you miss that because you were in a cave for the past 3 years?)
Hmmm...."spacebluesonoma" rhymes with "Osama"...Got it!! I know who you are!! | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 12:45:37 AM | All of you do realize why we invaded Iraq right....
We invaded Iraq and overturned The Iraqi Regime for one purpose and one purpose only...
We wanted all of our PS2's back.....Duhhhh
you know how many that **stard stole from us......jezzze
whats he ganna do, put the chips from those into the WMD's.....LOL
why do you think they're only 50$ now | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 8:39:16 AM | Show me a direct quote from one of them that said we were invading iraq because of 9/11
Complete, and in context, not every other word of a 45 minute speech or brief.
Come on Ocean Camper, lets see it.
They have NEVER changed the reasons we went into iraq. The only thing that has changed is the LIEberal Focus | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 1:00:41 PM | Now now Spaceblue,
Don't go picking in Ocean Camper. He/she cannot help that they are only going by the same slew the leftist have been speaking,
It's not his/her fault that they do not let the facts, that it was truly the 12 UN resolutions Saddam broke that led us into downtown Baghdad, stand in his/her way.
It's not his/her fault that he/she is more than likely illinformed because of hatred or simply towing the party line instead of actually forming an intelligent thought all on his/her own.
So please stop trying to pick on poor illinformed OC. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 1:18:35 PM | LOL
yeah
nothing wrong with a LIEberal that swallows everything they are spoonfed without question and then repeats it at whim!
LOL
| |
|
| |
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 2:04:46 PM | "nothing wrong with a LIEberal that swallows everything they are spoonfed without question and then repeats it at whim!"
Gee, spaceblue, you're kinda hung up on those schoolyard insults, aren't you? Guess that shows how much credence we should attach to your opinions. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 2:06:54 PM |
Gee, spaceblue, you're kinda hung up on those schoolyard insults, aren't you? Guess that shows how much credence we should attach to your opinions.
Oh trust me...it comes from both sides. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 4:10:49 PM | "Oh trust me...it comes from both sides. "
Of course it does. Neither side has a monopoly on intelligence...or bone-headedness! We all have our moments.  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 6:08:49 PM | Well grog your credence means very little to me. You are proven wrong on something and then a few posts later you are right back to the ignorance.
You are lost. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 7:10:11 PM | "Well grog your credence means very little to me. You are proven wrong on something and then a few posts later you are right back to the ignorance.
You are lost."
...and you are irrelevant. Have a nice life, blissfully free from the burden of intelligent thought.  | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/24/2005 7:11:54 PM |
Show me a direct quote from one of them that said we were invading iraq because of 9/11
Complete, and in context, not every other word of a 45 minute speech or brief.
You offer the challenge because you know it can't be met, at least in the 'context' you offer as the defining criterea.
Just because you limit the criterea doesn't mean there is any 'truth' in your contention and taunts.
The reason it can't be met and that there is no real 'truth' in your challenge, is because the connection was always very carefully infered, and deliberately so. The Administration parsed its words about the 9-11 Saddam conection as carefully as Bill Clinton did when speaking about sex with Monika.
The main difference between the two was that Bill Clinton was unsuccessful in his parsing of words while the Bush Administration was wildly successful in theirs.
''Support for War in Iraq Based on Fallacious Reasoning''
2 September 2003
On Wednesday, September 17, U.S. President George W. Bush admitted that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any role in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. President Bush stated, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11." The day before, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made similar comments, telling ABC's "Nightline" that "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11." Yet despite these statements by members of the Bush administration, according to a recent poll, some 70 percent of Americans believe that Saddam was personally involved with the terrorist attacks of that day.
It is obvious why the American people believe this to be true: While there is clearly no serious evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 hijackings, members of the Bush administration consistently justified their invasion of Iraq over the past two years by implying a connection between the two. President Bush himself frequently made statements linking Saddam Hussein and September 11 by placing the two, previously separate issues within the same context during speeches advocating an invasion of Iraq. For example, President Bush argued on October 7, 2002: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America." As recently as May 1, 2003, Bush warned, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001 -- and still goes on." And as recent as September 14, Vice President****Cheney claimed, "If we're successful in Iraq … then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
By not making concrete statements connecting Saddam and the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration was able to avoid explicitly lying to the American people -- while at the same time achieving their objectives of getting support for a U.S. intervention in Iraq by putting Saddam Hussein's government into the same political and military context as the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. From this perspective, the recent comments made by administration officials denying that they've ever tried to connect Saddam and September 11 are being made in order to disarm critics who charge that the administration mislead the American people into supporting the war in Iraq.
http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_printable&report_id=94&language_id=1
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader.
The rest of the article is an excellent examination of other Administration prevarications in the run up to the war.
darjeeling | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 7:57:45 AM | Well
if YOU infered a connection between iraq and 9/11 I am sorry you were not able to keep things straight. I never drew that conclusion, in whole because it was never said!
The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11. It's always difficult to prove a negative, but that simply never happened.
Many people may believe this was the case because in "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore truncated a comment by Condi Rice in order to deliberately give viewers of his movie that false impression. Here's the quote as it appeared in the film:
"There is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11"
Now here's the full quote:
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York."
Setting aside Moore's little deceit, there just aren't any quotations I've ever seen from anyone in the Bush administration saying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. That's why, in a piece called "Answering 50 Frequently Asked Questions About The War On Terrorism," which incidentally was written about a week before the war began, I wrote this:
The Bush administration has never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11...
Furthermore, after the war had begun, in September of 2003, President Bush himself publicly & explicitly said:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks."
It doesn't get much clearer than that. | |
|
| Are you against the War?
Posted: 10/25/2005 8:27:35 AM | "Well
if YOU infered a connection between iraq and 9/11 I am sorry you were not able to keep things straight. I never drew that conclusion, in whole because it was never said!"
All together now: DUH!!!!
You're just reiterating exactly what darjeeling said in his post.
"The reason it can't be met and that there is no real 'truth' in your challenge, is because the connection was always very carefully infered, and deliberately so."
Please try to read more carefully. Even better, please try to actually COMPREHEND what you're reading. It really does make a difference. Try it, you'll see. Really..... | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 54
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
