You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Have Our Troops Taken Needless Casualties To Appease Mulsims?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Here we are 3 years into this mess in Iraq and not one source is calling it what it really is: a grab for oil. The only true interest this administration has in Iraq is what's underneath it: the 2nd largest proven reserve of light sweet crude on the planet. All the other excuses that it gives as justification is a plate full of complete crap that the public has consistently gorged themselves on.
1) WMD- There was never proof that any existed in the first place. He was spending so much damn money building and rebuilding personal palaces and bribing the UN that he was probably considered a bad customer among even the most shady of black market sources.
2) Liberation of Iraq from an evil dictator - Bullshit. This administration doesn't care anything about the welfare of the oppressed. If they did, why do they not even bother mentioning other dictators around the globe with the same type of ruthless reputation? Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, Than Shwe in Burma, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema in Equatorial Guinea; all have the same nasty reputation of murdering and torturing their own people.
3) Spreading democracy among Muslim nations - More Bullshit. Two of the so-called allies of the war on terrorism aren't democracies, don't have free and fair elections, and exist as breeding grounds for fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
4) Saddam was supporting and training terrorists - Even more Bullshit. Fundamentalist Muslims hated Saddam. He epitomized everything they considered a bad Muslim to be. He suppressed fundamentalist religious teaching. He openly engaged in the vices of western decadence. Hell, he claimed to be a decadent of Nebakanezer and was going to rebuild Babylon. To a fundamentalist, this is considered paganism. He wasn't harboring them; they didn't want anything to do with him.
Our soldiers never had a chance. They got thrown into a war rationalized with lies. There was never (and still aren't) any clearly defined objectives. They are now being ordered to do things they were never trained for; counter-terrorism and civil reconstruction.
Someone in the Pentagon needs to grow some balls and they need to do it fast. Our troops are now smack in the middle of a potential civil war zone. Its bad enough not knowing who is shooting at you. Its worse when you are restrained from choosing sides and having everyone shooting at you.
1) WMD- There was never proof that any existed in the first place. He was spending so much damn money building and rebuilding personal palaces and bribing the UN that he was probably considered a bad customer among even the most shady of black market sources.
2) Liberation of Iraq from an evil dictator - Bullshit. This administration doesn't care anything about the welfare of the oppressed. If they did, why do they not even bother mentioning other dictators around the globe with the same type of ruthless reputation? Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, Than Shwe in Burma, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema in Equatorial Guinea; all have the same nasty reputation of murdering and torturing their own people.
3) Spreading democracy among Muslim nations - More Bullshit. Two of the so-called allies of the war on terrorism aren't democracies, don't have free and fair elections, and exist as breeding grounds for fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
4) Saddam was supporting and training terrorists - Even more Bullshit. Fundamentalist Muslims hated Saddam. He epitomized everything they considered a bad Muslim to be. He suppressed fundamentalist religious teaching. He openly engaged in the vices of western decadence. Hell, he claimed to be a decadent of Nebakanezer and was going to rebuild Babylon. To a fundamentalist, this is considered paganism. He wasn't harboring them; they didn't want anything to do with him.
Our soldiers never had a chance. They got thrown into a war rationalized with lies. There was never (and still aren't) any clearly defined objectives. They are now being ordered to do things they were never trained for; counter-terrorism and civil reconstruction.
Someone in the Pentagon needs to grow some balls and they need to do it fast. Our troops are now smack in the middle of a potential civil war zone. Its bad enough not knowing who is shooting at you. Its worse when you are restrained from choosing sides and having everyone shooting at you.
FredBloggs
Guest
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Had Bush not outsourced finding Bin Laden, and finished the job of crushing Al Qaeda.....then the fear would not have been kept alive for Bush to bamboozle the sheeple into thinking that Iraq was a threat.
One of the biggest con jobs in history.....
exactly.
like i posted elsewhere making the red necks see red.....
goering (a big nazi - one of hitlers henchmen) once stated:
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
bush uses nazi propaganda. end of.
FredBloggs
Guest
Quote from riserburn:
Here we are 3 years into this mess in Iraq and not one source is calling it what it really is: a grab for oil. The only true interest this administration has in Iraq is what's underneath it: the 2nd largest proven reserve of light sweet crude on the planet. All the other excuses that it gives as justification is a plate full of complete crap that the public has consistently gorged themselves on.
1) WMD- There was never proof that any existed in the first place. He was spending so much damn money building and rebuilding personal palaces and bribing the UN that he was probably considered a bad customer among even the most shady of black market sources.
2) Liberation of Iraq from an evil dictator - Bullshit. This administration doesn't care anything about the welfare of the oppressed. If they did, why do they not even bother mentioning other dictators around the globe with the same type of ruthless reputation? Omar al-Bashir in Sudan, Than Shwe in Burma, Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan, Saparmurat Niyazov in Turkmenistan, Teodoro Obiang Nguema in Equatorial Guinea; all have the same nasty reputation of murdering and torturing their own people.
3) Spreading democracy among Muslim nations - More Bullshit. Two of the so-called allies of the war on terrorism aren't democracies, don't have free and fair elections, and exist as breeding grounds for fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
4) Saddam was supporting and training terrorists - Even more Bullshit. Fundamentalist Muslims hated Saddam. He epitomized everything they considered a bad Muslim to be. He suppressed fundamentalist religious teaching. He openly engaged in the vices of western decadence. Hell, he claimed to be a decadent of Nebakanezer and was going to rebuild Babylon. To a fundamentalist, this is considered paganism. He wasn't harboring them; they didn't want anything to do with him.
Our soldiers never had a chance. They got thrown into a war rationalized with lies. There was never (and still aren't) any clearly defined objectives. They are now being ordered to do things they were never trained for; counter-terrorism and civil reconstruction.
Someone in the Pentagon needs to grow some balls and they need to do it fast. Our troops are now smack in the middle of a potential civil war zone. Its bad enough not knowing who is shooting at you. Its worse when you are restrained from choosing sides and having everyone shooting at you.
given bushs failure to do anything in iraq - including an oil grab (it is estimated it will take 10-20 years before iraq can achieve its previous production levels), who thinks this could the reason for him saying...
'the usa is addicted to oil and we must kick the habbit'
the other week.
is he only kicking the habbit cos hes only just realised hes shot his own dealer - and himself in the foot while he was at it? (surprise surprise!!!)
Quote from riserburn:
Here we are 3 years into this mess in Iraq and not one source is calling it what it really is: a grab for oil. The only true interest this administration has in Iraq is what's underneath it: the 2nd largest proven reserve of light sweet crude on the planet. All the other excuses that it gives as justification is a plate full of complete crap that the public has consistently gorged themselves on.
... .
Ironically, I wish you were correct that this war was a simple smash and grab operation. At least then we could be confident that we had an objective and a plan to achieve it. Frankly, I can't see either in the way we have handled things. Making it up as we go seems a better description.
Clearly oil played a role, but it was the fear of what Saddam might achieve with Iraq's oil wealth. Of course, the real irony is that we are standing by and watching Iran do exactly what we claimed to fear from Saddam.
I don't think the American people would have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies. We have to have it, and we don't want to have the proceeds of oil sales used to fund our enemies. Plenty of wars have been fought for less. The claim that this Iraq war was designed to seize their oil seems fairly preposterous however. If we are planning on stealing the Iraqi oil, we are certainly taking our time about it and spending billions of taxpayer money to rebuild iraq in the interim.
Quote from traderNik:
It is difficult to explain to people why, now that Hussein is in jail, there is more murder and mayhem than ever before, why it seems to us over here that if Iraq was a hotbed for the development of murderous terrorists before the war, it is now a blast furnace, minting murderer's at a frightening rate.
Quote from spect8or:
Actually, it's not difficult at all. They are Muslims. That ought to answer it.
I know you won't get this, but your comment actually illustrates my point perfectly. And btw...you know how you guys are always claiming that the left plays the racism card whenever you make statements like this?Quote from traderNik:
There is a poor level of understanding among ET right wingers about Islam, the problems that exist within Islam, the mindset of radical Muslims, the reasons that more mainstream Muslims aren't rising up and proclaiming there disgust with the actions of the murderous mullahs and their brainwashed followers.
It's so simple, isn't it? All Muslims are murderous maniacs and that's the justification for the US military presence in Iraq. I can't believe the majority of right wingers on here are going to leap to your defense on that one. It's so simplistic, I actually don't believe that you believe it.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I don't think the American people would have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies.
Jesus Christ, what in the hell????
Impossible to believe that you actually wrote this. Fucking unbelievable.
And you guys wonder why America is in decline. What happened to the principles upon which the country was founded?? I'll tell you what AAA, if you founded a country, it would do very very well, for a short time.
Unreal.
I see you are making the case for American imperialism, something others have been saying from day one....yet the right wing vehemently denied.
Do the American people have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies?
Most Americans at the time had no problem with slaughtering American Indians to secure land, etc.
So, true, most Americans might support such a plan....doesn't make it right or legal though.
Bush has done ZERO to suggest that we conserve oil. No legislation to force automakers to be more fuel efficient, etc.
It is such a sham to say we are addicted to oil, yet say nothing about conservation.
Do the American people have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies?
Most Americans at the time had no problem with slaughtering American Indians to secure land, etc.
So, true, most Americans might support such a plan....doesn't make it right or legal though.
Bush has done ZERO to suggest that we conserve oil. No legislation to force automakers to be more fuel efficient, etc.
It is such a sham to say we are addicted to oil, yet say nothing about conservation.
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Ironically, I wish you were correct that this war was a simple smash and grab operation. At least then we could be confident that we had an objective and a plan to achieve it. Frankly, I can't see either in the way we have handled things. Making it up as we go seems a better description.
Clearly oil played a role, but it was the fear of what Saddam might achieve with Iraq's oil wealth. Of course, the real irony is that we are standing by and watching Iran do exactly what we claimed to fear from Saddam.
I don't think the American people would have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies. We have to have it, and we don't want to have the proceeds of oil sales used to fund our enemies. Plenty of wars have been fought for less. The claim that this Iraq war was designed to seize their oil seems fairly preposterous however. If we are planning on stealing the Iraqi oil, we are certainly taking our time about it and spending billions of taxpayer money to rebuild iraq in the interim.
I disagree. If this administration had publicly based any of it's original reasons for invading Iraq on the pretenses of securing oil, it would have resulted in a serious volley of criticism from all sides politically. Considering the climate of public opinion at the time, with 9/11 fresh on everyone's minds, any justifications short of terrorism and/or a threat of national security was out of the question. He would have lost enough GOP support to cost him reelection and he knew it.Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Ironically, I wish you were correct that this war was a simple smash and grab operation. At least then we could be confident that we had an objective and a plan to achieve it. Frankly, I can't see either in the way we have handled things. Making it up as we go seems a better description.
Clearly oil played a role, but it was the fear of what Saddam might achieve with Iraq's oil wealth. Of course, the real irony is that we are standing by and watching Iran do exactly what we claimed to fear from Saddam.
I don't think the American people would have a problem with a war to secure oil supplies. We have to have it, and we don't want to have the proceeds of oil sales used to fund our enemies. Plenty of wars have been fought for less. The claim that this Iraq war was designed to seize their oil seems fairly preposterous however. If we are planning on stealing the Iraqi oil, we are certainly taking our time about it and spending billions of taxpayer money to rebuild iraq in the interim.
While some Americans wouldn't oppose a war to secure oil, I have to disagree with you there as well. There would have been enough public opposition there as well to cost him reelection. Besides, we don't have to have it, and by weaning ourselves off it, we would indeed be effectively cutting off a major source of terrorist funding. Afterall, isn't that the latest spin from this administration? The curious thing to me is it didn't take a war to achieve this to begin with.
I don't think this administration was planning on "stealing" it. I believe they were operating under the pretenses that the Iraqi majority would be so "grateful" that they would simply install a US friendly regime and, once again, consider us good potential customers. Don't forget, under Saddam, Total Fina Elf and Lukoil would have gotten the Lion's share. Now W's major campaign contributors couldn't have that could they?