Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war - Page 5

Sava · August 27, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
You really need to talk with Ruffhaus who lives in DC, he literally wanted to light them up in the ME, the plane that hit the pentagon, went right past his wife's office. BTW if visit Chicago alot and lived there, this has nothing to do with rural vs urban.

well sure... after being so closely affected by a terror attack, some people have the natural emotional response of revenge... I've just noticed that people more affected by the terror attacks, want to punish the RIGHT people for them... you should read "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. It's a wonderful book that gives a detailed look at Bush and the admin and how they responded to the attacks.

MichaeltheGreat · August 27, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
We didn;t go in to defend Mecca (which sits close to the Red Sea): we went in to defend that arae aroudn the Gulf on which sits the majority of SA's (and the world's) oil supply. And yes, there was terrorism before '91: but we are not fighting all terrorism, only international islamist terrorism (no one was advocating invading Northern ireland to end terrorism there in the mid-80's, IIRC), speically those groups that aim to attack the US, groups that did NOT exist prior to '91.

Only because prior to '91, they were busy killing Godless commies in Afghanistan, and building the financial and support networks to er... "diversify"

MichaeltheGreat · August 27, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I think someone should poke Sava with a cleaning rod . . . . .

And I think you should chill with the insults, or I'll poke you with a different kind of rod.

And that goes for you too, Sloww....

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:12

"You do realize most of the Muslim world KNOWS that the US was the one who supplied him with weapons and money for a decade, right? Without US support in the 80's (weapons, and components for WMD programs) Saddam most likely would have been toast. Who do you think the Muslim world blames for Saddam's rise to power?"

I dont' think most of the Muslim world can point out the USA on a map, and they only believe what they are told, remember the state controls the media. Saddam came to power and we gave him some weapons, big deal, it was his decision to use them, Russia armed Iran and they are so much better than Iraq. French Mirages are the planes Iraq fought with, you can blame about 50 countries arming the ME, even today.

MrFun · August 27, 2003, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

And I think you should chill with the insults, or I'll poke you with a different kind of rod.

And that goes for you too, Sloww....

Yes sir, General Lee.

Ming · August 27, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I think someone should poke Sava with a cleaning rod . . . . .

Just one of many personal attacks I see in this thread...
And MrFun... I see you have done similar things in other threads as well...

Next personal attack by MrFun in ANY thread is toast time for him... and any more in this thread will lead to the same for whom ever does it.

Sava · August 27, 2003, 11:14

Quote:

There is no country more diverse than this country, we have people from all over here, that includes about 3 million muslims, if we can make it work, it can work there. Again it's about freedom, you are right, they have been fighting for 1000's of years, we have to put a stop to it, because it is now in our backdoor.

And weren't you just saying how more people are dying in America on a daily basis? Sure we are diverse, but we are not comprised of tribes and ethnic peoples that have been warring for CENTURIES. America is made up of people who WANT FREEDOM. People came here to escape their old world. Freedom and democracy only work when the PEOPLE WANT IT.

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:15

well sure... after being so closely affected by a terror attack, some people have the natural emotional response of revenge... I've just noticed that people more affected by the terror attacks, want to punish the RIGHT people for them... you should read "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. It's a wonderful book that gives a detailed look at Bush and the admin and how they responded to the attacks."

He still wants to hammer them, people react when attacked, first revenge, then to stop it from happening again. I don't want to give any money to Woodward but I will read it and I still don't think Bush handled this wrong, it had to happen, 9/11 was a wake up call for us.

Ming · August 27, 2003, 11:15

Damn... shouldn't have gotten that next cup of coffee... MtG moved in for the kill first.

GePap · August 27, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Only because prior to '91, they were busy killing Godless commies in Afghanistan, and building the financial and support networks to er... "diversify"

An effort we were glad to help, and to stand by while the saud's funded it lavishly..after all, good God-fearing boys like Osama can only hate them Godless commies, no?

Of course, there are other orgs that seek to create Islamist states that don't particularly care to attack the US.

Cruddy · August 27, 2003, 11:17

On topic;-

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

How can the US and the UK extricate themselves from a situation of their own making...

Easy. Keep shooting the extremists and keep protecting the moderates.

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
and how long will it take?

Depends on the supply of extremists and moderates.

Whatsamatter Mobius? You scared of blood?

Every single one of those US and UK troops are volunteers, sworn to defend the oil supply and vested interests of the rich minority.

Of course, that isn't what they pledged allegiance too. But they aren't so stupid as to actually believe Bush & Blair's bullshit.

Are you?

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:18

Good-bye mr. fun, I think this is a great debate between us, no reason for insults. Sava, has a point of view and so do others have his same point, we are here to just argu.

Sava, people want freedom when they know it is achievable and we are trying to deliver that or a chance for them. I have never known anybody to turn down freedom of their own will.

Oerdin · August 27, 2003, 11:18

Quote:

Originally posted by MikeH
And weapons of mass destruction. ATTACK!

Ahh, what's a few hundred nukes between friends?

Sava · August 27, 2003, 11:20

Quote:

He still wants to hammer them, people react when attacked, first revenge, then to stop it from happening again. I don't want to give any money to Woodward but I will read it and I still don't think Bush handled this wrong, it had to happen, 9/11 was a wake up call for us.

It's not a commentary on the war... it's a summary of interviews and recordings of conversations. It's like an official transcript of discussions between administration officials.

I guess my problem is that people are equating Iraq with 9-11 without proof. I was all for going into Afghanistan and kicking some Taliban ass because they were harboring Al Qaeda and OBL. My criticism of the administration have to deal with the lack of stabilization in the region. If you are going to go in and kill off a regime, you need to replace it with something stable and peaceful. What's the point of killing an oppressive, hostile regime if you are leaving a power vaccuum where another will step in and take it's place. That's part of the reason why the war on drugs is failing... I see the same thing happening with the war on terror.

Quote:

Damn... shouldn't have gotten that next cup of coffee... MtG moved in for the kill first.

hahah you are getting slow!

MikeH · August 27, 2003, 11:20

Actually if Iraq really had WOMD we'd never have attacked, see NK.

MrFun · August 27, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

hahah you are getting slow!

That's an insult Sava -- guess you get banned.

Sava · August 27, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Sava, people want freedom when they know it is achievable and we are trying to deliver that or a chance for them. I have never known anybody to turn down freedom of their own will.

I don't think you can accurately say what ethnic peoples in that region want. With respect, you are trying to see things through American eyes. I recall the mantra after Saddam's removal... "no bush, no saddam, yes yes for Islam".

Urban Ranger · August 27, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
It boils down to FREEDOM vs. THEIR CULTURE.

Nope.

It boils down to your attempt to establish a puppet vs their efforts in drawing blood.

This "freedom" thing rings so hollow now...

Ming · August 27, 2003, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
That's an insult Sava -- guess you get banned.

Nahhh... but you remain just a simple post away from getting toasted.

The Andy-Man · August 27, 2003, 11:28

no one is free except the hermit who lives on an island.

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:28

"I guess my problem is that people are equating Iraq with 9-11 without proof. I was all for going into Afghanistan and kicking some Taliban ass because they were harboring Al Qaeda and OBL. My criticism of the administration have to deal with the lack of stabilization in the region. If you are going to go in and kill off a regime, you need to replace it with something stable and peaceful. What's the point of killing an oppressive, hostile regime if you are leaving a power vaccuum where another will step in and take it's place. That's part of the reason why the war on drugs is failing... I see the same thing happening with the war on terror."

Iraq was the best attack point for a presence in the ME, this has nothing to do with a bad dictator(many in africa), or oil, something to do with WMD but mostly because we want a presence in the ME and to start formulation a democracy which we are hoping to spread throughout the ME and the other ME nations know this, that is why they are funneling money to terrorists(from Saudi, primarily), they don't want to lose what they have and a democracy is a threat to them.

"no bush, no saddam, yes yes for Islam".

Alreay they are voicing their opinion, that's freedom, we haven't killed them yet for voicing it, that's their right.
But as you know as well as I, we cannot leave that country in a vacuum, we cannot leave until a real democracy is achieved.

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:29

"Nahhh... but you remain just a simple post away from getting toasted."

Ming, are you salivating yet.

Chemical Ollie · August 27, 2003, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
...(no one was advocating invading Northern ireland to end terrorism there in the mid-80's, IIRC) ...

Thatcher?

GePap · August 27, 2003, 11:36

The Brirts sent the army in before her time (besides, we are speaking strictily about American here..keep your ugly English women out of it!)

Sava · August 27, 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Iraq was the best attack point for a presence in the ME, this has nothing to do with a bad dictator(many in africa), or oil, something to do with WMD but mostly because we want a presence in the ME and to start formulation a democracy which we are hoping to spread throughout the ME and the other ME nations know this, that is why they are funneling money to terrorists(from Saudi, primarily), they don't want to lose what they have and a democracy is a threat to them.

oil played a MAJOR role in war in the region. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. You can't tell me (without lying or being wrong

) that oil didn't play a part in the decision to go in. Proof is in the pudding. US Special Forces, in the first stages of the war, went straight for oil fields and refineries. Halliburton then received a no bid, no competition contract to handle all oil-related "rebuilding" efforts.

Quote:

Alreay they are voicing their opinion, that's freedom, we haven't killed them yet for voicing it, that's their right.
But as you know as well as I, we cannot leave that country in a vacuum, we cannot leave until a real democracy is achieved.

Trust me, you don't want a democracy in Iraq... because Democracy in Iraq would mean a few things:
1. Fundie gov't like Iran
2. Shi'ite rule... which will spark ethnic violence
3. US loss of control of oil production (while I despise US profiteering off of the oil, it's favorable to Islamic elements holding us hostage like OPEC does)

The best solution to Iraq is a secular, representative Republic... look at what Western powers have historically done in the region. The Brit's went in and created Jordan, a constitutional monarchy... Iraq, originally the same thing... Iran... originally a monarchy again. The goal was to seperate things so that a large, unified Arab empire could not arise to rival Western powers. I don't really blame the Brits for the current problems, because had an Arab empire rose up around WWI - WW2... the Axis powers of the day would no doubt have had another ally.

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 11:50

"oil played a MAJOR role in war in the region. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. You can't tell me (without lying or being wrong ) that oil didn't play a part in the decision to go in. Proof is in the pudding. US Special Forces, in the first stages of the war, went straight for oil fields and refineries. Halliburton then received a no bid, no competition contract to handle all oil-related "rebuilding" efforts."

This wasn't about oil and I don't think I am wrong. Sure we captured the oil fields, what are we going to build a new Iraq with, no much good if they are destroyed. And, I am all for taking 10% off the top for payment of the war effort, help them with technology to build new wells and get that country out of the cellar.

Sava · August 27, 2003, 12:00

Quote:

This wasn't about oil and I don't think I am wrong. Sure we captured the oil fields, what are we going to build a new Iraq with, no much good if they are destroyed. And, I am all for taking 10% off the top for payment of the war effort, help them with technology to build new wells and get that country out of the cellar.

well look at a ton of other examples around the world... Liberia... no oil, same violence, oppressive regime... little US interest in peace. In fact, marines just recently withdrew back to the ships off the coast.

look at North Korea... more dangerous WMD's situation... arguably more distasterous human rights violations... but... no oil... and Kim Jong Il gets treated with kid gloves.

look at Iran... more support of terrorism... probably the same status of WMD operations (although closer to nukes from what I hear)... no oil... little talk of military action...

IMO, Bush had a hardon for Saddam for a few reasons...
1. "he tried to kill my daddy" probably the strongest motivation
2. oil
3. WMD programs and weapons provided by US... if Iraq attacks US with WMD's in the form of terrorism, who do you think will get blamed for supplying Saddam with WMD's in the first place... IMO, this was more about CYA (covering your ass) than an imminent danger of WMD attack

far down the list of priorities was the oppressive nature of the regime and human rights abuses... such things don't bother the US as long as the dictator(s) plays ball... case in point, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, attitude towards Taliban (BUSH: "give up OBL and we leave you alone")

Defiant · August 27, 2003, 12:16

"well look at a ton of other examples around the world... Liberia... no oil, same violence, oppressive regime... little US interest in peace. In fact, marines just recently withdrew back to the ships off the coast.

look at North Korea... more dangerous WMD's situation... arguably more distasterous human rights violations... but... no oil... and Kim Jong Il gets treated with kid gloves.

look at Iran... more support of terrorism... probably the same status of WMD operations (although closer to nukes from what I hear)... no oil... little talk of military action...

IMO, Bush had a hardon for Saddam for a few reasons...
1. "he tried to kill my daddy" probably the strongest motivation
2. oil
3. WMD programs and weapons provided by US... if Iraq attacks US with WMD's in the form of terrorism, who do you think will get blamed for supplying Saddam with WMD's in the first place... IMO, this was more about CYA (covering your ass) than an imminent danger of WMD attack

far down the list of priorities was the oppressive nature of the regime and human rights abuses... such things don't bother the US as long as the dictator(s) plays ball... case in point, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, attitude towards Taliban (BUSH: "give up OBL and we leave you alone")

Sava,
You have to remember my choice for Iraq was because we needed a presence in the ME. Sure Taliban in Afghan were harboring OBL and that is why we attacked there first, but 15/19 terrorists came from Saudi(ME). Now we can attack Saudi and maybe we should have but MECCA is there and we had better be prepared to kill alot of Muslims because they would have came out of the woodwork. We could have done it, but do we need to, yet. NK, has to be dealt with, no doubt about it, but they are stronger as well is Iran, the best numbers game in loss of American lives comes with the attack on Iraq. We did it with less than 300 souls lost to date and we are trying to achieve democracy there(and we have to). If we can do this, we did it with the best efficiency.
Doesn't that make sense?
NK, is a different subject, but still has to be dealt with.

Sava · August 27, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

You have to remember my choice for Iraq was because we needed a presence in the ME.

our presence in the region is the key cause behind terrorisms' existence and it's focus on us...

Quote:

Sure Taliban in Afghan were harboring OBL and that is why we attacked there first, but 15/19 terrorists came from Saudi(ME).

And you don't think Osama chose those guys because of the relationship between SA and the US? It was his intent to create a rift between Arabs and the US.

Quote:

Now we can attack Saudi and maybe we should have but MECCA is there and we had better be prepared to kill alot of Muslims because they would have came out of the woodwork.

If you attack Saudi Arabia, you create WW3... good plan

Quote:

We did it with less than 300 souls lost to date and we are trying to achieve democracy there(and we have to).

We don't have to create democracy in Iraq... we need to stabilize the country. The security and safety of America is my primary concern... a stable Iraq is in everyone's best interest. Bush's strategy is destabilizing the region. It's like a grease fire... instinct tells you that water puts out fire... but throwing water on a grease fire is the wrong way to extinguish it.

Agathon · August 27, 2003, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Defiant
Agathon,
What if a asteroid hit the earth and we all die, 100/day, what do you base that on, dumbass, rediculous argument.
Here is one for you, we do nothing and they load up a whole lot more planes and we lose thousands more, anything possible in "what if" scenarios.

P-p-p-p-p-p-p-paranoia!

And what does September the 11th have to do with Iraq? Nothing, until GWB attacked it and gave AQ a shot in the arm.

Nice one Georgie....

And the word is "ridiculous" dear boy...