Marines End Role In Iraq

[MSgt]

Let me pull this out Catawba. You're all about branding Iraq as solely about oil. You're all about blaming America for Iraq's misery throughout the 90s. And you're all about the rediculous exhonerating notion that if Iraqis (I assume you include non-Sunni Iraqis too) wanted freedom from Hussein they would have done it for themselves (even though they tried and died). But you continue to avoid the thinking part of this....


1) If it would have been easier to simply drop in a handy dandy dictator like we would had done during the Cold War, why the democracy?

2) If getting the oil through the UN was as simple as continuing to allow him to starve out his population, why bother at all?

3) Considering that we denied them their opportunity to oust Hussein in 1991 by placing him back on his throne and "containing" him for stability, how did we not have responsibility to remove him?

4) If rolling the dice over Afghanistan produced the Tali-Ban and later root base for Al-Queda, how would it have been practical to simply roll the dice over Iraq?

Simple answers like "none of our business" don't cut it in this globalized import/export world. Most everything in your house demands a measure of stability in regions throughout the world. And when that stability is threatened because of some fool dictator on a rampage, some internal civil war leaking across borders, or some inability to contain disease in third world countries, it becomes our business. Therefore,...

5) How exactly are we supposed to keep relying on the Middle East for their most popular product of export when it is covered with dictators, religious fantacism, and instability?

Maybe there's something to that "democracy" word, huh? Maybe dealing with prescribed and celebrated dictators only worked during the chaos of the Cold War decades. And hey, if some people get freed and offerred an opportunity they have never had before then so be it. In the end...it's just the right thing to do.

 

[MSgt]

Afraid I have to go with the Pentagon in their findings that there were no WMD and no al Qaeda ties to Saddam.

Cheney and his oil cronies task force spelled out our reasons for regime change in Iraq 2 years before we invaded their country...

Blah, blah, blah, avoidance. Still entertaining the fool's argument against the Iraq war. WMD and ties to Al-Queda had nothing to do with it. It never did. Hussein pumped his chest out and conitnually pretended to be athreat to his neighbors. As late as 2002 he flew military jest over his neighbors soveriegn air space. Bin LAden used the "Starving children" of Iraq as an excuse for 9/11. In the end, the thorn was removed.

But a regime change from dictator to democracy, but not dictator to dictator? Why the democracy Catawba?

 

[Catawba]

No..this would be more of that fog you prefer to pretend prevents the truth from being clear. Truth, being too incomprehensible, guarantees the senseless bitching.

You've got to be one of the very few left holding out on the protest that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMD. Perhaps you should remove the fog and look at the situation and assess it truthfully for a change. If there was no WMD and he was no immediate threat...then what is the reason for why would we remove him and ignite a democracy? Answering this means that you have to slide by the senseless bitching.

Thanks for your opinion, I think I'll go with the Pentagon's findings, and Cheney's energy taskforce report (now released under the freedom of information act) that laid out the plan for regime change in Iraq.

You avoided again. After helping them organize to fight the Soviets, would Afghanistan be in better shape had we set them on the correct path rather than rolling the dice? Avoid the reality all you want, but reality happens. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but avoiding foriegn entanglements have always cost more American lives in the end. How long would it have taken for the Soviet Union to cost millions of American lives because we "refused to engage?" How long would it take for the Middle East to work itself into something that will cost hundreds of thousands of American lives if we merely pretend that we can "minding our own business?" Minding our own business introduced the world to two world wars. There does exist lessons. Complain about smaller activities all you want, but it's those activities that hold back the big ones.

Germany and Japan had the capacity to be threat to the US. Iraq and Afghanistan represented about as much threat to the US as Grenada.

Even the French had to vote in Napolean before they emerged from their decades of internal terror and got democracy right. I guarantee Iraqis get it right quicker with ours and the international community's help. Your "faith" is mere pessimism because you feel you must protest to your dying breath. Even the French quickly dropped a consulate building in Iraq once the international business started introducing itself.

The Iraqis voted Saddam into power. We have achieved our goal in Iraq, we removed the regime that nationalized Iraqi oil, kicked out the Western companies, and was threatening to switch to the Euro.

We set up the same government in Afghanistan as we did Iraq. It's their culture that created the corruption. They too will work it out as the source of that corruption gets weeded out by their own.

Right all we have to do is to weed out the native culture and replace it with our own. :roll: Some plan!

And if Germans were so dissatisfied with Hitler they would have simply rebelled and emerged successful. But people would have you believe that not all Germans were celebratory of Hitler's carnage (I guess white Europeans get the benefit of the doubt whereas brown Muslims get ****). History is full of oppressed and brutalized people unable to organize and lead successful campaigns against their brutes. Today, history has brought us to a period of globalization where one population's oppression and civil injustice affects things far from borders. Pretending otherwise will get you no where.


You don't really know much about the Iraqis do you? Hussein's army and police force were almost entirely made of the Sunni. Those few Shia in power that were in the south were watched very closely. Which means that any defiance was half-assed and loosely organized amongst watchful eyes. Even the Sunni spied on each other for fear of being accused of being a part of anything that defied Saddam Hussein. The Sunni terrorized the Shia. The Shia did rebell. Even under Clinton, they were slaughtered for their defiances. Do you even know that President Clinton ordered four separate bombing campaigns over Iraq during his 8 year term? Was this the way to do business? Contain a dictator we should have killed and merely bomb his cities out whenever he steps out of line?

But besides all of this, the thorn was Hussein and he needed to be removed opne way or another. If the Shia in Iraq couldn't do it then we would.


Well, that's exactly what they have. After determining that Hussein's further existence would serve the West greater than an Iraq in the people's hands back in 1991, I fail to see where prior to 2003 that Iraqis had the ability to determine anything. I'm starting to see that you use "Iraqi" to equal only the Sunni. Many Iraqis rejoiced when Hussein was toppled because many more were not Sunni. Only the once empowered Sunni pouted and ignited slaughter (their behavior didn't work out very well in the end.)

When Saddam was his most murderous worst, we were his allies, but that was before he kicked our oil companies out of Iraq wasn't it?

There's no reason to ignore anything. This is the history. You may as well chastize the American government for daring to call the Soviet Union an enemy after WWII. You're the one dodging the issues in favor of senseless black/white protest. You also seem to have a fetish with hating Reagan. Regean dealt with him as the shield in front of Khomeini. Bush dealt with him after he invaded Kuwait and ruptured the oil stability of the region. Clinton criticized Bush for allowing him to go home and wound up bombing him four separate times. Son of Bush was more than prepared to do the same until 9/11. Osama Bin Laden used the containment mission to justify 9/11. And in 2003, we faced our responsibilities and removed ourselves from the corrupt mission.

Yes it is history, of the US energy program. Our blood for oil policy in operation for decades.

Well, we didn't stop bombing him did we? But this aside....since we can agree that Hussein was of no immediate threat, why then remove him after 9/11? Why not simply replace him with another dictator that would give all of his oil to the evil American empire? Answering this means you will have to get past the protestor brick wall of complaining.

We did exactly that, we removed him and replaced him with a US friendly Government which we have propped up with our military 7 years and counting now. Its been a higher priority than the "war on terror."

What does this have to do about anything? I talked about oil being a matter of warfare since the 1950s and you carry on about a free market as if the Soviet Union wasn't seeking to dominate the region. Last I checked they weren't about the free market and therefore demanded Western competition for the resource. Avoiding again? Complaining about a war that freed people and offerred them something we denied them for over a decade as a simpleton's cry of "No War For Oil," is avoiding the ugly truth about the global demand for oil. But speaking of free markets...now Iraq can play. I guess it doesn't stop at the American borders. But if you had it your way, Iraq would still not be a player today.

We will not permit the middle east to do with their oil (their property) as they wish, a right we defend in our own country. The Soviet Union did not invade the ME, we did! We have freed the people we have invaded and occupied their country militarily now going on 7 years. Iraq has no obligation to pay with their blood for our lazy ass refusing to take responsibility for our own energy needs. We've only had 40 years, and we've done jack ****.

You are avoiding again. Why would we seek to ignite a democracy in this region when a handy dandy dictator would have sufficed? "Our" military interference is why they aren't on an Al-Queda/Tali-ban path today. Leaving years ago would have cost "our" military much more deaths later.


Safe under a dictator or safe under a democracy in a region that has never really had the opportunity thanks to the West's dictators? Avoid all you want, but you are talking in circles to cling to senseless griping.



And dictators only when convenient, right? But protestors often define the word as anything that allows them to wash their hands of their responsibility. Morality means allowing others to suffer at our prescriptions and cheering for them to step up against the odds we placed in front of them? Give me a break. Sooner or later the dominoes of colonialism and the Cold War have to stop falling. If Iraq prefers dictators, then they will fail. If they prefer democracies, then they will succeed. Thus far they have fought very hard for democracy and an international relationship.

There is no democracy, there is a puppet government propped up by a military occupation.

Well, it's a little late for a lot of things. Such is history and the learning of mistakes. But you're avoiding again. The Soviet Union and China know as well as the intelligent world that oil builds the militaries that dominate the globe. It was the lack of oil import that really knocked out Germany. It was oil (88 percent from America's reserves and business) that feuled the Allies on. With them seeking to gobble up after WWII, there was no choice but to involve ourseleves in the race if only to deny them their influence for it.

The American people have no stomach for our blood for oil program, that is why they demanded an end to it.

But the Cold War is over now isn't it? One day we will be off oil. But in the mean time, look around your house and start the exhaustive count of oil products throughout. Reality will always trump sanctimonous gibberish.

I've already cut my carbon footprint in half, If everyone did this as Carter wisely suggested 40 years ago, and as McCain suggested last year, we would have no need for ME wars.

Killing them for it or freeing them for it?

Call it whatever you wish, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because we wanted Western oil back in Iraq.

Oh, I'm about to embarras you now...

You see...the "if" game just doesn't work here. What are the facts? The Cold War is over and it is within where we turned our backs on "our" dictators as they kept the "peace." It seems like America is moving on from this period despite your demands to concrete within. "If" the population of Iraq would have behaved niceley under a Western friendly dictator, then why a democracy? Still avoiding this. You just can't come to acknowledging "because it was the right thing to do" for fear that you may chink away at your protestor stage. And maintaining that at all costs really matters.

How else to convince the people to go along with the invasion of a defenseless country? Demonize the enemy and proclaim out invasion and occupation as liberation. Much like Germany liberated Poland. Making Iraq safe for big oil at all costs is what really matters.

I don't think you are and I believe I'm the one that stated that we have been playing the oil stability game long before 2003. Maybe you can't handle that. If you are being honest then you have made yourself useless to the topic because you unwittingly keep avoiding the truths.

It has been our foreign policy for decades ever since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. But it hasn't been as crucial as it is now as we approach world peak oil.

But you know what? After all your bitching and refusals to get past the brick walls that protestors create for themseleves, Iraq got invaded and they have a democracy. So what really does your stubborn self righteous status do for you?

What they have is an occupation by a foreign military propping up a puppet government.

 

[Catawba]

1) If it would have been easier to simply drop in a handy dandy dictator like we would had done during the Cold War, why the democracy?

What democracy? Are you talking about occupation by a foreign military?

2) If getting the oil through the UN was as simple as continuing to allow him to starve out his population, why bother at all?

Iraq did not develop their oil wells to anywhere near their potential, and we need oil to be developed to its greatest capacity to avoid world peak oil for a few more years.

3) Considering that we denied them their opportunity to oust Hussein in 1991 by placing him back on his throne and "containing" him for stability, how did we not have responsibility to remove him?

He was just a fat old man with a shotgun compared to his murderous worst when he was our ally and trading partner.

4) If rolling the dice over Afghanistan produced the Tali-Ban and later root base for Al-Queda, how would it have been practical to simply roll the dice over Iraq?

Afghanistan is of no threat to us either, but it least could be said that is where Bin Laden was at one time. Iraq was of no threat with no ties to al Qeada. Saddam did not get along with al Qaeda.

Simple answers like "none of our business" don't cut it in this globalized import/export world. Most everything in your house demands a measure of stability in regions throughout the world. And when that stability is threatened because of some fool dictator on a rampage, some internal civil war leaking across borders, or some inability to contain disease in third world countries, it becomes our business. Therefore,...

Right, like I said it was all about the oil, since we have been lazy partying for the last 40 years, suddenly we think we can't live without Iraqi oil.

5) How exactly are we supposed to keep relying on the Middle East for their most popular product of export when it is covered with dictators, religious fantacism, and instability?

We don't we get off our ass and provide our own energy.

Maybe there's something to that "democracy" word, huh? Maybe dealing with prescribed and celebrated dictators only worked during the chaos of the Cold War decades. And hey, if some people get freed and offerred an opportunity they have never had before then so be it. In the end...it's just the right thing to do.[/QUOTE]

I guess it makes some feel less guilty for killing others for control of their property if we wrap it up in the democracy wrapping with some glitter added!

 

[Catawba]

But a regime change from dictator to democracy, but not dictator to dictator? Why the democracy Catawba?

I already answered that above - "How else to convince the people to go along with the invasion of a defenseless country? Demonize the enemy and proclaim our invasion and occupation as liberation. Much like Germany liberated Poland. Making Iraq safe for big oil at all costs is what really matters."

 

[MSgt]

Thanks for your opinion, I think I'll go with the Pentagon's findings, and Cheney's energy taskforce report (now released under the freedom of information act) that laid out the plan for regime change in Iraq.

No...no. You are dodging still. You are embracing the WMD angle as lovingly as the White House did in 2003 to avoid the truth. Again...why would they seek to get rid of Hussein once and for all in favor of a democracy?

Germany and Japan had the capacity to be threat to the US. Iraq and Afghanistan represented about as much threat to the US as Grenada.

More avoidance. The trick to saving American lives is to deal with the thorns before they have the capacity to kill Americans.

Right all we have to do is to weed out the native culture and replace it with our own. :roll: Some plan!

Is this really what you believe the plan is? Are Germans still German? Are the Japanese still Japanese? How about Koreans and Haitians and Indians and Philippinos, and Italians, and all the other places an American boot has been? In the end, they will still be who they are. What makes you think that democracy makes them have to surrender their culture? Or does cultural growth only occur in white and yellow populations?

When Saddam was his most murderous worst, we were his allies, but that was before he kicked our oil companies out of Iraq wasn't it?

I guess his position as holding back Khomeini was a big coincidence. I guess his invasion into Kuwait and threatening the Saudi doorstep was just a big coincidence too? For twelve years after this event, he was our thorn to deal with. This senseless cult you've created for yourself about oil companies and big business is unhealthy. In the end, that thing you are typing on is made from oil. The Cold War saw us "friends" with a handful of tyrants. Such was the necessity.

The world has always been shaped and moved by natural resources. Syria and Turkey have come close to war over water. Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have water friction often. Egypt has made repeated threats to Sudan over interfering with the Nile's natural flow. Parts of Asia see regional conflicts over farm land. And most of the world relies upon oil. This is the reality and this is thousands of years of history.

Yes it is history, of the US energy program. Our blood for oil policy in operation for decades.

Good god. Get over it or head to the hills where your life can't benefit.

We did exactly that, we removed him and replaced him with a US friendly Government which we have propped up with our military 7 years and counting now. Its been a higher priority than the "war on terror."

Well, this is because the "War on Terror" is hardly about a few rogues of Islam like so many ignorant souls mistake it for. It's about a region on a path to hell because of oppression, religious ignorance, poverty, and a severe lack of proper education. This is why the U.S. military and so many civilian agencies have been at work throughout the region since we invaded Afghanistan. But you dodged and avoided again. What kind of government did we "prop" up in Iraq? And why that kind of government when a handy dandy dictator would suffice to ensure oil flow?

We will not permit the middle east to do with their oil (their property) as they wish, a right we defend in our own country.

Oh really? So the governments of Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are not of the Muslim population in the region? We merely conduct business with those in power. It is they that prescribe oppression and they that decide what to do with their money. Or is it the Bin Laden's that we should do business with?

The Soviet Union did not invade the ME, we did!

Oh man. I have to ask at this point your age. After WWII, Iran and Turkey requested America and Britain's support in forcing Russia out of their countries. They were refusing to leave. Eventually they did. In 1948, they were the first to rush weapons into Israel to help them defend against Arabs. By the early 1950s they were supplying the Arabs with weapons. And by the mid 1950s the Soviet Union had covered most of the earth, to include the ME, with influence. It was at this point that America jumped into the game if only to deny them their unobstructed penetration into the oil fields. In the 1980s they invaded Afghanistan (a long historical event).

America's "invasion" into the ME occurred in 1990 and we have maintained our presence ever since because the West decided that babysitting a dictator was far more delicuious than deposing him (you see, only Europeans get to be rid of their dictators).

We've only had 40 years, and we've done jack ****.

Buy a punching bag.

There is no democracy, there is a puppet government propped up by a military occupation.

Well, there is a democracy and they have proven it to you time and again. You sound like a fanatic.

The American people have no stomach for our blood for oil program, that is why they demanded an end to it.

Hmm. I'm an American people. I don't recall being too much of a hypocrit like that. Starving them out will do though, huh? Americans didn't even shed crocodile tears for Iraqis throughout the 90s. You see, you are like the rest of them who are just fine not knowing the oppression of people under government deals. The absence of war means you don't have to think about it.

I've already cut my carbon footprint in half, If everyone did this as Carter wisely suggested 40 years ago, and as McCain suggested last year, we would have no need for ME wars.

"If" is pointless. "If" we found a way to thrive in a manner as to allow us to match the global competition while using mere water as energy, we would still have wars if only to deal with those who seek oil by any means. The world had wars in it long before oil was discovered. Natural resources have always built civilizations. Thinking that oil is somehow separate from the historical game is fool hardy.

Call it whatever you wish, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because we wanted Western oil back in Iraq.

This is densely obtuse. Why not replace the dictator with a dictator if it was as black and white as oil? You keep dodging this. You also dismiss other facts of the situation.

How else to convince the people to go along with the invasion of a defenseless country? Demonize the enemy and proclaim out invasion and occupation as liberation. Much like Germany liberated Poland. Making Iraq safe for big oil at all costs is what really matters.

Well, how dare they demonize an angel like Saddam Hussein. You dodged again. After 12 years of containing the dictator....WHY A DEMOCRACY?

It has been our foreign policy for decades ever since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971. But it hasn't been as crucial as it is now as we approach world peak oil.

WHY A DEMOCRACY?

What they have is an occupation by a foreign military propping up a puppet government.

You are a cliche. If it does well, it is merely a puppet because Muslims can't possibly do what white men can do. If it is a disaster, it's America's fault for trying at all. We've helped plenty of nations in our history recover from internal conflicts and moved on. But only Muslims get the "puppet government" gripe. Perhaps that's because it is largely the religious freaks there that label them that.

 

[MSgt]

I already answered that above - "How else to convince the people to go along with the invasion of a defenseless country? Demonize the enemy and proclaim our invasion and occupation as liberation. Much like Germany liberated Poland. Making Iraq safe for big oil at all costs is what really matters."

No...you didn't answer it.

You dodged by pretending that there is no democracy. Despite Iraqis voting repeatedly for the laws that would govern them and the officials that would make decisions for them you declare that there is no democracy. I think you hate every successful step they take so much that you deny yourself the ability to learn.

 

[MSgt]

What democracy? Are you talking about occupation by a foreign military?

Dodging. I asked why a democracy instead of a dictator. Pretending there is not one when it is plain to see is a dodge.

He was just a fat old man with a shotgun compared to his murderous worst when he was our ally and trading partner.

He flew military jets over Jordan and Saudi Arabia as late as 2002. His threat was never going to end and was always going to provoke his neighbors to feel like they had to defend themselves and provoke American military action. His pride was never going to see him slowly into the shadows. He even refused to deny his WMD status to the world until American forces began to build for the attack.

When Hussein was a trading partner he was also the Arab shield in front of Khomeini. He was also not seeking to disrupt oil production in the rest of the ME. His murderous worst never ended for anybody in his population. They were petrified of him even after news spread that he had been toppled.

But you avoided again. I asked why, after we denied Iraqis their opportunity to oust Hussein in 1991, did we not have responsibility to remove him later?

Afghanistan is of no threat to us either, but it least could be said that is where Bin Laden was at one time. Iraq was of no threat with no ties to al Qeada. Saddam did not get along with al Qaeda.

You dodged again. I asked why rolling the dice in regards to Iraq is to preferred, especially since rolling the dice in regards to Afghanistan produced chaos?

Right, like I said it was all about the oil, since we have been lazy partying for the last 40 years, suddenly we think we can't live without Iraqi oil.

"Suddenly all about the oil." How obtuse. After twelve years of watching him starve out Iraqis as he supplied Europe with oil, reacting to his every jab at the UN and America, reading Bin Laden's justifications for 9/11, you believe that "all of a sudden we need Iraqis oil."

You've convinced yourself of conspiracy so strongly that all other factors simply can't exist.

We don't we get off our ass and provide our own energy.

Leftist dreams and impractical fantasies.

I guess it makes some feel less guilty for killing others for control of their property if we wrap it up in the democracy wrapping with some glitter added!

I don't think so. In the end, people didn't care about Iraqi democracy once they discovered that the WMD problem proved to be false. The Middle East needs fixed or wiped out. That is the path. Guess where a path of dictators, religious theocracy, and civilizational failure winds up? I mean other than our doorstep?

By the way...have any heartache over killing Europeans for import/export securities? Why are Muslims supposed to be different from white Europeans?

 

[Catawba]

No...no. You are dodging still. You are embracing the WMD angle as lovingly as the White House did in 2003 to avoid the truth. Again...why would they seek to get rid of Hussein once and for all in favor of a democracy?

You are still making unsubstantiated claims. There is no true democracy in Iraq. Yes, we picked a side in the civil war and back them up with the full force of the US military. I would not call that a democracy if its what we had here. A democracy means that a government can stand without violent opposition by its people, without the support of a foreign military occupation.

Remove all our troops and see how long the Iraqis let stand the house of cards we built.

More avoidance. The trick to saving American lives is to deal with the thorns before they have the capacity to kill Americans.

There were much sharper thorns in the world to deal with, but none held the world's second largest reserves of oil now did they?

Is this really what you believe the plan is? Are Germans still German? Are the Japanese still Japanese? How about Koreans and Haitians and Indians and Philippinos, and Italians, and all the other places an American boot has been? In the end, they will still be who they are. What makes you think that democracy makes them have to surrender their culture? Or does cultural growth only occur in white and yellow populations?

Germany and Japan do not require our military occupation to prop up their government against their people now do they?

I guess his position as holding back Khomeini was a big coincidence. I guess his invasion into Kuwait and threatening the Saudi doorstep was just a big coincidence too? For twelve years after this event, he was our thorn to deal with. This senseless cult you've created for yourself about oil companies and big business is unhealthy. In the end, that thing you are typing on is made from oil. The Cold War saw us "friends" with a handful of tyrants. Such was the necessity.

Our only concern in holding back Khomeini was to defend our ME oil spigots.
Saddam ceased to be a threat to surrounding countries oil spigots after we bombed the back a century in the Persian Gulf War, followed by the 10 years of sanctions we enforced right up to the day we attacked them in 2003. The only threat the Saddam administration was that he would not play cricket with OPEC oil pricing, and would not develop Iraq's oil wells to the potential required for the West. Our ME foreign policy has been about the oil since we passed peak oil in this country in 1971.

Have you ever read Cheney's taskforce on energy report that is now available through the freedom of information act. It is all spelled out there.

The world has always been shaped and moved by natural resources. Syria and Turkey have come close to war over water. Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have water friction often. Egypt has made repeated threats to Sudan over interfering with the Nile's natural flow. Parts of Asia see regional conflicts over farm land. And most of the world relies upon oil. This is the reality and this is thousands of years of history.

Thank you for dropping the pretense that our war against the Iraqis was for any reason other than oil.

Good god. Get over it or head to the hills where your life can't benefit.

Excuse me but I have a say about immoral acts done in my name and with my money. Or are you one of those that does not believe in free speech.

Well, this is because the "War on Terror" is hardly about a few rogues of Islam like so many ignorant souls mistake it for. It's about a region on a path to hell because of oppression, religious ignorance, poverty, and a severe lack of proper education. This is why the U.S. military and so many civilian agencies have been at work throughout the region since we invaded Afghanistan. But you dodged and avoided again. What kind of government did we "prop" up in Iraq? And why that kind of government when a handy dandy dictator would suffice to ensure oil flow?

Not everyone is as accepting as you are of killing innocent civilians for oil. How many volunteers would sign up for that?

Oh really? So the governments of Kuwait, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are not of the Muslim population in the region? We merely conduct business with those in power. It is they that prescribe oppression and they that decide what to do with their money. Or is it the Bin Laden's that we should do business with?

Which country were the terrorists on 9/11 from? As both political parties have admitted, we are dependent on oil from people that don't like us very much. We've known this for the last 40 years, why do we continue to sit on our ass and do nothing to provide our own energy needs?

We started under Carter, then the big oil candidate Reagan scrapped it all and said to party like it was 1959!

Oh man. I have to ask at this point your age. After WWII, Iran and Turkey requested America and Britain's support in forcing Russia out of their countries. They were refusing to leave. Eventually they did. In 1948, they were the first to rush weapons into Israel to help them defend against Arabs. By the early 1950s they were supplying the Arabs with weapons. And by the mid 1950s the Soviet Union had covered most of the earth, to include the ME, with influence. It was at this point that America jumped into the game if only to deny them their unobstructed penetration into the oil fields. In the 1980s they invaded Afghanistan (a long historical event).

I'm 57, and I have to ask your age? I meant to say invaded and occupied.

America's "invasion" into the ME occurred in 1990 and we have maintained our presence ever since because the West decided that babysitting a dictator was far more delicuious than deposing him (you see, only Europeans get to be rid of their dictators).

We have maintained our occupation to protect our "so called rights" to their property, the oil.

Buy a punching bag.

I would rather insist my representatives conduct themselves in a moral fashion since they are acting in my name and with my money.

Well, there is a democracy and they have proven it to you time and again. You sound like a fanatic.

That will not be proven until our occupation ends. You sound like someone who is okay with a blood for oil foreign policy.

Hmm. I'm an American people. I don't recall being too much of a hypocrit like that. Starving them out will do though, huh? Americans didn't even shed crocodile tears for Iraqis throughout the 90s. You see, you are like the rest of them who are just fine not knowing the oppression of people under government deals. The absence of war means you don't have to think about it.

You have never heard me condone the sanctions. There was no need, except for those that wanted western oil back in Iraq. I was actually speaking of our 2003 - 2010 war for oil in Iraq that was a higher priority than the war on terror.

"If" is pointless. "If" we found a way to thrive in a manner as to allow us to match the global competition while using mere water as energy, we would still have wars if only to deal with those who seek oil by any means. The world had wars in it long before oil was discovered. Natural resources have always built civilizations. Thinking that oil is somehow separate from the historical game is fool hardy.

There is no "if" any more, we've had the capacity for decades. I do not consider laziness as justification for killing others for their property.

Well, how dare they demonize an angel like Saddam Hussein. You dodged again. After 12 years of containing the dictator....WHY A DEMOCRACY?

What democracy? You mean the puppet government that requires the most powerful nation on the planet to prop it up?

You are a cliche. If it does well, it is merely a puppet because Muslims can't possibly do what white men can do. If it is a disaster, it's America's fault for trying at all. We've helped plenty of nations in our history recover from internal conflicts and moved on. But only Muslims get the "puppet government" gripe. Perhaps that's because it is largely the religious freaks there that label them that.

I am not religious. It is not required to have morals and act in an ethical manner. If you wish to brag about our blood for oil program in Iraq for the last 7 years, and counting, you will just have to wait until all our troops are withdrawn from Iraq and the new regime can stand against its own people.

Until that point, all you can brag about is a successful occupation by the most powerful nation on the planet of one of the weakest nations on the planet!

Big ****ing whoop!

 

[ricksfolly]

no, actually
he is spot on


WE deposed the iraqi dictator
the indigenous people of iraq were not adequately pissed off at his reign to rise up themselves and install a government they would themselves want instead
we gave them a democracy, complete with purple ink for their fingers
we gave iran

Yes, and after we've gone and taken their cash cow and subcontractors away, they'll revert back to the way they were before we came. They needed a dictator before, and they'll need one again.

ricksfolly

 

[cpwill]

yup; just like what happened in Japan and German post WWII. those darn germans, they just don't have it in them to support a democracy.

 

[danarhea]

I have been following this thread, and after reading good arguments on both sides, here is what I believe:

1) The Iraq war was a huge mistake, and probably one of the greatest blunders in the history of the US.

2) Having said that, though, I have nothing but praise for those who fought it, and I don't mean Bush, or Obama, or anyone in either administration. I am talking about the grunts themselves, who put their boots on the ground, and did everything that was asked of them.

3) Also, having bashed Bush extensively over the Iraq war, I will grant him this: He was right in calling for the surge. I was against that surge, but I was wrong. It is because of it that marines are now able to pull out. So, to George Bush, I say "Well done, Mr. President".

4) Iraq may be close to over, but the war against al-Qaeda is far from over. With resources being freed up because of the winding down of the Iraq war, we need to utilize those resources in Afghanistan. I will not be satisfied with anything less than the death of bin Laden and his henchmen. I have not forgotten 911, those who committed that heinous act, and those who need to pay for it with their own blood.

 

[MSgt]

Thank you for dropping the pretense that our war against the Iraqis was for any reason other than oil.

There is absolutely no point in discussing any of this with someone like you if you are going to hold your hands over your ears and hold your breath. You are dependant on the other side to be the opposition you want. At no time have I ever stated that oil was not a factor or that it was the only factor. It has been you, however, who can't fathom that no factor exists other than oil. Let's get a few things that we can agree on - I suspect - up front before I attempt to continue a discussion with you. Otherwise you will just resort to continuing to just jump up and down on your self righteous stage....

1) Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in our history. I can state this because of professional experience and because of my personal studies of American military history. While others merely bitch about the times and make such statements, I can soundly accuse.

2) President Bush, while no where near our worst, has probably been the dumbest President to sit on the throne in our history. He trusted the wrong people until 2006.

3) Iraq was horribly mismanaged from the start because civilians thought they knew better than the military.

4) Most of everything we have been a part of in the Middle east has been about oil.


Now...with this stated, can we move on and have a discussion that does not involve the fantasies of a leftist world or the notion that one has a time machine in which he can go back 40 years and invent a natural resource so that America could compete with the oil hungry Soviet Union and win the Cold War? But you have to stop dodging what makes you uncomfortable.

 

[MSgt]

Iraq may be close to over, but the war against al-Qaeda is far from over. With resources being freed up because of the winding down of the Iraq war, we need to utilize those resources in Afghanistan. I will not be satisfied with anything less than the death of bin Laden and his henchmen. I have not forgotten 911, those who committed that heinous act, and those who need to pay for it with their own blood.

You know....twenty years from now you are going to look back over the span of our activity from Northern Africa to Pakistan and finally realize what this "War on Terror" has been about. America's security depends on the health of the Middle East not the death of an already dead "rogue" of Islam.

Bin Laden and his Al-Queda are symptoms. As was 9/11.

 

[justabubba]

There is absolutely no point in discussing any of this with someone like you if you are going to hold your hands over your ears and hold your breath. You are dependant on the other side to be the opposition you want. At no time have I ever stated that oil was not a factor or that it was the only factor. It has been you, however, who can't fathom that no factor exists other than oil. Let's get a few things that we can agree on - I suspect - up front before I attempt to continue a discussion with you. Otherwise you will just resort to continuing to just jump up and down on your self righteous stage....

1) Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in our history. I can state this because of professional experience and because of my personal studies of American military history. While others merely bitch about the times and make such statements, I can soundly accuse.

2) President Bush, while no where near our worst, has probably been the dumbest President to sit on the throne in our history. He trusted the wrong people until 2006.

3) Iraq was horribly mismanaged from the start because civilians thought they knew better than the military.

4) Most of everything we have been a part of in the Middle east has been about oil.


Now...with this stated, can we move on and have a discussion that does not involve the fantasies of a leftist world or the notion that one has a time machine in which he can go back 40 years and invent a natural resource so that America could compete with the oil hungry Soviet Union and win the Cold War? But you have to stop dodging what makes you uncomfortable.

good post until the final sentence; would you please explain what you had in mind?

 

[ricksfolly]

Yes, and after we've gone and taken their cash cow and subcontractors away, they'll revert back to the way they were before we came. They needed a dictator before, and they'll need one again.

ricksfolly

yup; just like what happened in Japan and German post WWII. those darn germans, they just don't have it in them to support a democracy.

Japan and Germany third world countries like Iraq... Golly gee. Clyde, Ah dint know tha...

ricksfolly.

 

[ricksfolly]

2) President Bush, while no where near our worst, has probably been the dumbest President to sit on the throne in our history. He trusted the wrong people until 2006. >>

You don't know much about politics, do you? Bush had to respond in force or the Dems would have been all over him. Believe me, Clinton and Gore would have done the same thing and probably made the same mistakes.

ricksfolly

 

[MSgt]

good post until the final sentence; would you please explain what you had in mind?

Of course you thought it was a good post. It focused on bashing and criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld. The problem with discussing these matters with some people is that they are so focused on hating Bush and Rumsfeld that they deny themselves the capability to discuss beyond the brick walls they've created for themselves.

 

[MSgt]

You don't know much about politics, do you? Bush had to respond in force or the Dems would have been all over him. Believe me, Clinton and Gore would have done the same thing and probably made the same mistakes.

I have no idea what you are referring to here. Instead of worrying about my knowledge of politics, concern yourself with the ability to convey yourself intelligently.

 

[Catawba]

Let's get a few things that we can agree on -

1) Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense in our history. .

Agreed.
BTW, I've omitted your insults as they are not relevant to the discussion.

2) President Bush, while no where near our worst, has probably been the dumbest President to sit on the throne in our history.
.

Agreed.

3) Iraq was horribly mismanaged from the start because civilians thought they knew better than the military.

The biggest mistake was invading and occupying Iraq.

4) Most of everything we have been a part of in the Middle east has been about oil.

Agreed, we've known for 40 years, since we passed peak oil in this country, that we should transition to sustainable energy and conservation. We chose to keep making the oil companies rich instead. Our lack of planning has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians to maintain our addiction to foreign oil.

 

[justabubba]

looks like we are narrowing in on a consensus about many aspects of this issue

how rare is that

 

[ricksfolly]

Of course you thought it was a good post. It focused on bashing and criticizing Bush and Rumsfeld. The problem with discussing these matters with some people is that they are so focused on hating Bush and Rumsfeld that they deny themselves the capability to discuss beyond the brick walls they've created for themselves.

I don't really think anyone sets out to do harm or get involved in conspiracies, including Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. They said and did things they considered as best for the country at the time, but opposing politics and unexpected situations forced them into doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Like what he told Saddam, "Prove to us that you don't have WMBs"

Obama is in the same position now. Politics force him into doing dumb things. Like accelerating the war in Afghanistan to get OBL when he doesn't know if he's even alive, and putting Iran in the same illogical position. "Prove to us that you aren't making nuclear bombs."

ricksfolly

 

[MSgt]

The biggest mistake was invading and occupying Iraq.

I guess we should have just put off the inevitable until it wasn't on our terms, huh? Or were we to contain the dictator and his regime forever, no matter how many terrorists used it to legitmize the slaughter of Americans?

The error was how it was managed. The "living" CENTCOM plan was thrown out the window by Rumsfeld and his coven of dumbasses because it addressed the tribal divide in the wake of an absent dictator. Of course, such detailed information suggested more of a blood bath and more money than Congress would have approved. Therefore, the Rumsfeld "no plan" went into affect.

Agreed, we've known for 40 years, since we passed peak oil in this country, that we should transition to sustainable energy and conservation. We chose to keep making the oil companies rich instead. Our lack of planning has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians to maintain our addiction to foreign oil.

Now...if you are able to get past the brick wall of protest, maybe we can discuss today's events. You can't change what every single President over the last 4 decades has done or has not done. In the end, Obama will be the same. We will be done with oil when it runs out and our competition can't get it anymore either. Pretending that we could have turned our backs on oil while the Soviet Union built armies and progress upon it is foolish. You can choose to celebrate the shallow and obtuse stage of "No War For Oil" or the "all for oil companies" if you like, but the fact is that we were stuck dealing with oil if only to keep up or deny our enemies thirst for it. This is the bigger picture. If you choose to point out that people got rich off of it, then acknowledge that people always get rich over the world's resources. They have over water, they will over coal. Even sunlight will see the few rise. And people will be caught between the powers that seek it.

 

[MSgt]

I don't really think anyone sets out to do harm or get involved in conspiracies, including Bush, Rumsfield, and Cheney. They said and did things they considered as best for the country at the time, but opposing politics and unexpected situations forced them into doing things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Like what he told Saddam, "Prove to us that you don't have WMBs"

Obama is in the same position now. Politics force him into doing dumb things. Like accelerating the war in Afghanistan to get OBL when he doesn't know if he's even alive, and putting Iran in the same illogical position. "Prove to us that you aren't making nuclear bombs."

ricksfolly

These are outstanding points.

Leaders do not have the luxury of trusting the word of our enemies. Even Clinton told Bush that he was sorry he couldn't finish dealing with the nation's two biggest security threats - Osama Bin LAden and Saddam Hussein. Nor do they have the luxury of taking the intel of some of our allies as "proof" of anything. It was the French that had corrupt oil deals going on under the UN sanctions. And it was the British that gort us involved with Iran and the future Shah. Intel must be absolute and if it is not, our leaders have an obligation to ensure security on every level. But with the Middle East, we have a greater problem to deal with.

Symptoms: 9/11, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Saddam HUssein, Tali-Ban, Osama Bin Laden, embassy bombings, Black September, etc.

If these are symptoms, then there must be a disease. The disease is not "Muslim" because Muslims are quite successful outside the region. The region itself is the disease. It's the oppression and the prescription of religious ignorance that breeds radicalism and extremism. It's the political hatreds between tribes, which have been fueled behind unnatural borders where they are forced to live together or divided. This disease (whole people claim is not our problem) has targetted Americans since the 80s. In 2001, it reached across the ocean and proved something that we can't keep ignoring.

Now, I don't claim that Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld had this as a target in 2003 when they wanted to finally rid us of the UN burden regarding Saddam Hussein and his continual need to disrupt stability in the Middle East. In fact, I would say that this kind of thinking was beyond them. But in the end, a democratic (more healthy) Middle East has to start somewhere. Starting it in the heart of the region where a former "Western" dictator personafied the divisional prescriptions between tribes was as good as any.

It serves a multiple purpose. One, and most celebrtated by protestors, it is easier and safer to do oil business (any business for that matter) with democracies. And two, mostly denied by protestors, the population is given an opportunity they would not have gotten otherwise and that is to create a progressive civilization that may export a regional alteration in terms of placing more importance on international community, proper education, and civil rights.

The arghument I get from this from the protestors is that if this is the ultimate big picture then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. But we didn't conquer Soviet communism by invading Moscow did we? During the Cold War, a concept called "roll back" was discussed as a tactic to roll back communism away from the world and towards the Soviet Union. This tactic was impractical given the global spread. But it is absolutely practical for the Middle Eastern reigon.

 

[ricksfolly]

These are outstanding points.

Leaders do not have the luxury of trusting the word of our enemies. Even Clinton told Bush that he was sorry he couldn't finish dealing with the nation's two biggest security threats - Osama Bin LAden and Saddam Hussein. Nor do they have the luxury of taking the intel of some of our allies as "proof" of anything. It was the French that had corrupt oil deals going on under the UN sanctions. And it was the British that gort us involved with Iran and the future Shah. Intel must be absolute and if it is not, our leaders have an obligation to ensure security on every level. But with the Middle East, we have a greater problem to deal with.

Symptoms: 9/11, Hezbollah, Al-Queda, Saddam HUssein, Tali-Ban, Osama Bin Laden, embassy bombings, Black
September, etc.

If these are symptoms, then there must be a disease. The disease is not "Muslim" because Muslims are quite successful outside the region. The region itself is the disease. It's the oppression and the prescription of religious ignorance that breeds radicalism and extremism. It's the political hatreds between tribes, which have been fueled behind unnatural borders where they are forced to live together or divided. This disease (whole people claim is not our problem) has targetted Americans since the 80s. In 2001, it reached across the ocean and proved something that we can't keep ignoring.

Now, I don't claim that Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld had this as a target in 2003 when they wanted to finally rid us of the UN burden regarding Saddam Hussein and his continual need to disrupt stability in the Middle East. In fact, I would say that this kind of thinking was beyond them. But in the end, a democratic (more healthy) Middle East has to start somewhere. Starting it in the heart of the region where a former "Western" dictator personafied the divisional prescriptions between tribes was as good as any.

It serves a multiple purpose. One, and most celebrtated by protestors, it is easier and safer to do oil business (any business for that matter) with democracies. And two, mostly denied by protestors, the population is given an opportunity they would not have gotten otherwise and that is to create a progressive civilization that may export a regional alteration in terms of placing more importance on international community, proper education, and civil rights.

The arghument I get from this from the protestors is that if this is the ultimate big picture then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. But we didn't conquer Soviet communism by invading Moscow did we? During the Cold War, a concept called "roll back" was discussed as a tactic to roll back communism away from the world and towards the Soviet Union. This tactic was impractical given the global spread. But it is absolutely practical for the Middle Eastern reigon.

The problem is we don't know if our efforts will have a positive effect or make things worse or even who to believe. The media's no help because they only report negative things and sometimes fabricate conspiracies just keep their sponsors and followers interested. As for me, I don't believe anything until I can prove it to myself.

ricksfolly