What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: spidey07
mission accomplished - we control the house, the senate, the presidency, sadam is out, terrorists are ineffective, afghanistan can't crank 'em out, now iraq. don't mess with the USA.

Mission accomplished, terrorists ineffective, ... you really are living in a fantasy world.

When did Iraq "mess with the USA?"

9/11. All the tree hugging hippies like to forget that small fact.

<cartman>
eh, hippies...they're everwhere....and they smell bad......get a job...
<cartman>

*crickets*

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: spidey07
mission accomplished - we control the house, the senate, the presidency, sadam is out, terrorists are ineffective, afghanistan can't crank 'em out, now iraq. don't mess with the USA.

Mission accomplished, terrorists ineffective, ... you really are living in a fantasy world.

When did Iraq "mess with the USA?"

9/11. All the tree hugging hippies like to forget that small fact.

<cartman>
eh, hippies...they're everwhere....and they smell bad......get a job...
<cartman>

🙂

 

[Gaard]

up is down
black is white
war is peace

People are shown just what was said and presented to Congress, for Congress to decide whether or not to give authority to Bush. But it doesn't validate what they think, so they disregard it.

Take this for example...

"the president has not linked authority to go to war to any of the elements."

"I don't care, he's wrong, I know it. I know more than Powell does. Nah, nah, nah, nah."

 

[flawlssdistortn]

I agree that Iraq was a situation that needed to be addressed from the start, (and by that I don't necessarily mean war), but the Bush administration seemed to go out of their way to step on as many toes as possible. They brought the country into the war with the wrong reasons, they shut out Colin Powell and the rest of the UN, and they also managed to anger much of the arab world with the whole prison torture fiasco.

So does the ends justify the means here? How much "safer" has the world become, compared to the amount of dissent stirred up?

 

[wchou]

Bush is wrong about a lot of things in life. He is a liar, he is a hypocrite.. nuff said.

:disgust:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: spidey07
mission accomplished - we control the house, the senate, the presidency, sadam is out, terrorists are ineffective, afghanistan can't crank 'em out, now iraq. don't mess with the USA.

Mission accomplished, terrorists ineffective, ... you really are living in a fantasy world.

When did Iraq "mess with the USA?"

9/11. All the tree hugging hippies like to forget that small fact.

<cartman>
eh, hippies...they're everwhere....and they smell bad......get a job...
<cartman>

WTF?

You been livin' under a rock, spidey? Or were just a member of the PIPA study. 🙂


Dude, come on...I know you're a pretty bright guy. You're way above this kind of crap.

 

[judasmachine]

I hope the outcome is as positive as it can be, however, it was based on a lie. Two wrongs, or one right and and one wrong, don't make a right.

 

[UzairH]

Democracy at the barrel of a tank gun. Cool!

 

[pinktank]

what was tha about iraq and 9/11, and why don't you regard your attacks to "liberate" Iraq similar to 9/11?
you may be under differnet paradigms but both sides are doing the same thing, following their own beliefs

 

[Kerouactivist]

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"

C.S. Lewis

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: bthorny
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"

C.S. Lewis

And what if you live under both?

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dude! Just switch your voter registration to Republican already and get it over with! Stop lying to yourself! I only say this because as much as you claim to be an "Independent" your posts here never, ever, ever support that alleged fact.

Actually, some folks are Independents but have strong views on issues. I'm a Traditional Conservative for the most part, except on social issues. On social issues conservatives would accuse me of being a liberal, meanwhile the liberals would consider me a Paleo for my beliefs on Law and Order and preserving historical traditions.

Not everyone's political beliefs come all packaged by the Democratic or Republican parties (HA! Neocons took over the GOP, so TC's either hunker low, are independents, or moved to the Consitution party which they loathe too). You can still be true to your beliefs, and vote your conscience --- that's all the matters.

This country truly needs a third party full of moderates, because the Democratic and Republican parties are polarizing on different sides of the spectrum. Extremism is bad news for both political sides.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dude! Just switch your voter registration to Republican already and get it over with! Stop lying to yourself! I only say this because as much as you claim to be an "Independent" your posts here never, ever, ever support that alleged fact.

Actually, some folks are Independents but have strong views on issues. I'm a Traditional Conservative for the most part, except on social issues. On social issues conservatives would accuse me of being a liberal, meanwhile the liberals would consider me a Paleo for my beliefs on Law and Order and preserving historical traditions.

Not everyone's political beliefs come all packaged by the Democratic or Republican parties (HA! Neocons took over the GOP, so TC's either hunker low, are independents, or moved to the Consitution party which they loathe too). You can still be true to your beliefs, and vote your conscience --- that's all the matters.

This country truly needs a third party full of moderates, because the Democratic and Republican parties are polarizing on different sides of the spectrum. Extremism is bad news for both political sides.

Exactly, and great observations.

:thumbsup:

 

[TechnoButt]

Originally posted by: tss4
Its an interesting question. Can a strong prosperour democracy be forged at the barrel of a gun. I said no. Looks increasingly like I might be wrong. I'd say its a hard pill to swallow, but its easier than watching us fail in Iraq.

Exactly which strong prosperous democracy that exists on this planet WASN'T forged at the barrel of a gun?

 

[TechnoButt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Conjur, you're right, if the Iraqi people wanted a democracy bad enough, they would have fought for it themselves. Freedom is earned.

How noble of you to type that behind your computer monitor. Tell you what, move to N .Korea and let us know how that fight works out for you.

Are we the legal guardians of democracy on Planet Earth?


Nope.

Not legal guardians, moral guardians. And we have been since the Spanish American war.

 

[TechnoButt]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742

They are just bitter dissenters who will never know what it's like to care for someone else.

i hope you're not a republican because what you just said goes right in the face of what social security is all about, somthing that republicans rich have hated since its inception

millions for war, pennies for SS


:thumbsup: great logic

Are you kidding? Have you seen the budget numbers for defense versus social welfare?

 

[drpootums]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Those who claim that Bush was wrong will cling tenaciously to that little lifeboat of their own construction - the claim that the invasion was ONLY about WMDs - and patently ignore anything else. They do so because their partisan hatred and closed-mindedness absolutely refuses to allow them to admit that just maybe, possibly, there's a small chance they were wrong. If democracy is successful in Iraq - and most of the RBH'rs claimed it would never even get this far, though many have suddenly and conveniently become amnesiacs about that claim - they'll never, ever attribute one iota of that success to Bush. They'll paint an entirely different picture, revising history along the way, per their usual, and pretend Bush was no influence whatsoever.

But these same folks will be the first to tell you that everyone else is blinded to the truth. :laugh:

The ol' "ends justify the means" rationalization.

Murdering and raping prisoners was just par for the course, eh? It was all worth it: hundreds of billions of dollars; 1,440 dead American soldiers; 232 dead American contractors; at least 18,000 dead Iraqi civilians.


Yeah...it was worth it.


BTW, what is the benefit we're getting? Cheaper oil? Nope...gas here is near record-highs. Democracy in the Middle East? What's the benefit to us from that?

I suppose making POW's dress up in womens underwear is better than beheading civilians/soldiers on TV?

Look at Iraq now, did any of u see any of the videos/pictures of the citizens at the elections? Looks like it was a BIG mistake:roll:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: pinktank
what was tha about iraq and 9/11, and why don't you regard your attacks to "liberate" Iraq similar to 9/11?
you may be under differnet paradigms but both sides are doing the same thing, following their own beliefs

nope, one was to destroy the other was to build. big difference.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: pinktank
what was tha about iraq and 9/11, and why don't you regard your attacks to "liberate" Iraq similar to 9/11?
you may be under differnet paradigms but both sides are doing the same thing, following their own beliefs

nope, one was to destroy the other was to build. big difference.

Spidey, are you for real? Please tell me that you are being sarcastic... ?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: drpootums

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Those who claim that Bush was wrong will cling tenaciously to that little lifeboat of their own construction - the claim that the invasion was ONLY about WMDs - and patently ignore anything else. They do so because their partisan hatred and closed-mindedness absolutely refuses to allow them to admit that just maybe, possibly, there's a small chance they were wrong. If democracy is successful in Iraq - and most of the RBH'rs claimed it would never even get this far, though many have suddenly and conveniently become amnesiacs about that claim - they'll never, ever attribute one iota of that success to Bush. They'll paint an entirely different picture, revising history along the way, per their usual, and pretend Bush was no influence whatsoever.

But these same folks will be the first to tell you that everyone else is blinded to the truth. :laugh:

The ol' "ends justify the means" rationalization.

Murdering and raping prisoners was just par for the course, eh? It was all worth it: hundreds of billions of dollars; 1,440 dead American soldiers; 232 dead American contractors; at least 18,000 dead Iraqi civilians.


Yeah...it was worth it.


BTW, what is the benefit we're getting? Cheaper oil? Nope...gas here is near record-highs. Democracy in the Middle East? What's the benefit to us from that?

I suppose making POW's dress up in womens underwear is better than beheading civilians/soldiers on TV?

You're forgetting about shoving glowsticks up their asses, raping young boys and girls, raping men and women, beating men, killing men. Yeah...good thing Saddam is gone. :roll:

Look at Iraq now, did any of u see any of the videos/pictures of the citizens at the elections? Looks like it was a BIG mistake:roll:

It was NOT our responsibility. The Iraqis managed a nationalist state ~50 years ago, they could have done so again without the US having spent $160billion and losing 1,450 soldiers' lives and 250 civilian contractors' lives.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Conjur, you're right, if the Iraqi people wanted a democracy bad enough, they would have fought for it themselves. Freedom is earned.

How noble of you to type that behind your computer monitor. Tell you what, move to N .Korea and let us know how that fight works out for you.

Are we the legal guardians of democracy on Planet Earth?


Nope.

Not legal guardians, moral guardians. And we have been since the Spanish American war.

Who gave you the title? NO ONE!!! And as I said before, why the "moral guardians" of democracy put in place Pinochet, Somoza, Batista and many others? Why the "moral guardians" of democracy allowed Franco?

If you haven't heard it, the world request is simple. Mind you own business!! As I posted above, however, with all the money ivested in the weapons industry, that is not possible. "freedom" needs enemies......

 

[TechnoButt]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Conjur, you're right, if the Iraqi people wanted a democracy bad enough, they would have fought for it themselves. Freedom is earned.

How noble of you to type that behind your computer monitor. Tell you what, move to N .Korea and let us know how that fight works out for you.

Are we the legal guardians of democracy on Planet Earth?


Nope.

Not legal guardians, moral guardians. And we have been since the Spanish American war.

Who gave you the title? NO ONE!!! And as I said before, why the "moral guardians" of democracy put in place Pinochet, Somoza, Batista and many others? Why the "moral guardians" of democracy allowed Franco?

If you haven't heard it, the world request is simple. Mind you own business!! As I posted above, however, with all the money ivested in the weapons industry, that is not possible. "freedom" needs enemies......

We give the title to ourselves. It's what moral people do, they fight for what they believe is right. The bottom line is that US efforts are not perfect. However, the alternative is to return to the world of 1900 (which is when we began exerting Democratic power to end the Age of Imperialism and to fight for the oppressed peoples under Fuedal/Imperial, yes this includes dictatorship, control).

Can we solve the problems of the whole world immediately? No. Does that mean we don't have a moral obligation to try, especially in areas that affect our economy as well as oppress peoples. Of course we are going to try and shape the world in ways that benefit both Democracy and Capitalism and thwart Dictatorship and Imperialism. Why are we in Iraq instead of Korea? Bottom line, we only have only so many resources.. and we have to use them in areas that both protect our interests and serve the common good of the people oppressed (which these days means OPEC nations). Does that mean we dont' care about Korea or the Sudan? No, we definitely care, but we have to make choices... so we chose Iraq.

If you don't like our methods, why don't you (you being other countries that don't approve of our approach to Iraq/Afghanistan) and you think we should focus on the other hotspots of inhumanity in the world, then show us how it's done by taking the lead in the Sudan or Korea. The US would surely like the help, there is plenty to do in this world.

Is Vietnam a worse place for our efforts? Is Korea a worse place for our efforts? How about Guam? The Phillipines? What about the eastern block countries, should we have left them under the Imperial rule of USSR? Should we have let China establish a similar Imperial rule in Southeast Asia? Perhaps the worst sin of all is the sin of omission. If you can stand by and let things happen, then it is arguable that you are worse than the person/regime committing atrocities? Should we have stayed out of WWII? I mean, it's not like Germany or Japan were really advancing on the US? Where is the line? When does it become our concern? Just because *you* want to turn a blind eye doesn't mean we have the luxury as a moral state to do the same at your request. If you dont' like, well, we regret that, but we're going to do what we think is right anyway.

 

[TechnoButt]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
How about money? How about oil? Yes, you can argue that oil is that record high, so where is the gain in the oil? If you are consumer there is NONE, but if you are in the oil industry high prices mean high revenue, which means.... yes, you got it! MORE PROFITS!!
The oil was never intended to be for the people, the pawns of the system who parrot what the goverment wants. The average brainwashed in the uSA got screwed with the oil (more expensive gas) But if you have investments in oil you are anxioulsy waiting for the murderer in chief to "keep liberating" countries.

Did you get it? MONEY MONEY MONEY! The profits of a business going to the friends of the system..... the rest, well, a few words on TV for their weekly ration of brainwash and they'll be happy, ater al' they should be happy because freedom was defended...... :roll: I am an idiot for not buying oil stock when the agression began.

The vast majority of oil profits go to 2nd and 3rd world OPEC nations who have something of a stranglehold on the U.S. and other 1st world countries because of their abuse of Oligopoly style price setting to maintain ridiculous profit margins on their Oil exports. I'm not saying there is not a profit made by domestic refineries, but the VAST majority of the dollars go to people like Hussein (read: the Princes of Saudi Arabia). If you want to talk about US Restraint, how about we enforce rules on our own Capitalist economy that these third world oppressors openly laugh about. If you think what little bit of Oil profit goes into stock is worth investing? Take a look at Exxon over 5 years. You'll see their stock was booming BEFORE 09/11/01 and took a nosedive in the two years that followed (only turning around when stability started to return to the region). If you had bought stock on 9/10/01 in Exxon, you've paid ~$48 per share and could sell it today for ~$58. A whopping 20% return in 4 years. That's not exactly what I call a big return on the dollar. Goo capitalism war machine! Yeah, that's why we went to war, so Exxon shareholders could get rich quick!

No, you're just an idiot.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Genx87

Conjur, you're right, if the Iraqi people wanted a democracy bad enough, they would have fought for it themselves. Freedom is earned.

How noble of you to type that behind your computer monitor. Tell you what, move to N .Korea and let us know how that fight works out for you.

Are we the legal guardians of democracy on Planet Earth?


Nope.

Not legal guardians, moral guardians. And we have been since the Spanish American war.

Who gave you the title? NO ONE!!! And as I said before, why the "moral guardians" of democracy put in place Pinochet, Somoza, Batista and many others? Why the "moral guardians" of democracy allowed Franco?

If you haven't heard it, the world request is simple. Mind you own business!! As I posted above, however, with all the money ivested in the weapons industry, that is not possible. "freedom" needs enemies......

We give the title to ourselves. It's what moral people do, they fight for what they believe is right. The bottom line is that US efforts are not perfect. However, the alternative is to return to the world of 1900 (which is when we began exerting Democratic power to end the Age of Imperialism and to fight for the oppressed peoples under Fuedal/Imperial, yes this includes dictatorship, control).

Can we solve the problems of the whole world immediately? No. Does that mean we don't have a moral obligation to try, especially in areas that affect our economy as well as oppress peoples. Of course we are going to try and shape the world in ways that benefit both Democracy and Capitalism and thwart Dictatorship and Imperialism. Why are we in Iraq instead of Korea? Bottom line, we only have only so many resources.. and we have to use them in areas that both protect our interests and serve the common good of the people oppressed (which these days means OPEC nations). Does that mean we dont' care about Korea or the Sudan? No, we definitely care, but we have to make choices... so we chose Iraq.

If you don't like our methods, why don't you (you being other countries that don't approve of our approach to Iraq/Afghanistan) and you think we should focus on the other hotspots of inhumanity in the world, then show us how it's done by taking the lead in the Sudan or Korea. The US would surely like the help, there is plenty to do in this world.

Is Vietnam a worse place for our efforts? Is Korea a worse place for our efforts? How about Guam? The Phillipines? What about the eastern block countries, should we have left them under the Imperial rule of USSR? Should we have let China establish a similar Imperial rule in Southeast Asia? Perhaps the worst sin of all is the sin of omission. If you can stand by and let things happen, then it is arguable that you are worse than the person/regime committing atrocities? Should we have stayed out of WWII? I mean, it's not like Germany or Japan were really advancing on the US? Where is the line? When does it become our concern? Just because *you* want to turn a blind eye doesn't mean we have the luxury as a moral state to do the same at your request. If you dont' like, well, we regret that, but we're going to do what we think is right anyway.

You are a total robot, absolutely brainwashed. You come and reply many lines of stupid rethoric that provide no valuable data. Answer the questions straight: Why were Pinochet, somoza and Batista put in place by the "forces of freedom"? why was Franco also an ally of the "forces of freedom"? I know your TV didn't tell you this, but all of them were dictators.

If you really want to start fixing thw world, start with the biggest problem" HUNGER Unfortunately, that doesn't go well for the weapons industry.......

Moral people? By your reply, I assume you are a religious zealot. True freedom start with respect, the respect to what the others want. The others want the empire to stay home. Go back to your TV, your burger and see if your drug package has arrived, you are more incoherent now without it...... It is almost comic how all the rest of the world have been "under therat of tiranny, but the defenders of freedom are here to save it....." just as a teaser: The "land of the free" allowed slaves for almost 100 years after it was founded, and it allowed formal segregation for almost 200 years after it was founded. It also "spread freedom" by extermination. Talk about being moral.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: TechnoButt

Originally posted by: alexruiz
How about money? How about oil? Yes, you can argue that oil is that record high, so where is the gain in the oil? If you are consumer there is NONE, but if you are in the oil industry high prices mean high revenue, which means.... yes, you got it! MORE PROFITS!!
The oil was never intended to be for the people, the pawns of the system who parrot what the goverment wants. The average brainwashed in the uSA got screwed with the oil (more expensive gas) But if you have investments in oil you are anxioulsy waiting for the murderer in chief to "keep liberating" countries.

Did you get it? MONEY MONEY MONEY! The profits of a business going to the friends of the system..... the rest, well, a few words on TV for their weekly ration of brainwash and they'll be happy, ater al' they should be happy because freedom was defended...... :roll: I am an idiot for not buying oil stock when the agression began.

The vast majority of oil profits go to 2nd and 3rd world OPEC nations who have something of a stranglehold on the U.S. and other 1st world countries because of their abuse of Oligopoly style price setting to maintain ridiculous profit margins on their Oil exports. I'm not saying there is not a profit made by domestic refineries, but the VAST majority of the dollars go to people like Hussein (read: the Princes of Saudi Arabia). If you want to talk about US Restraint, how about we enforce rules on our own Capitalist economy that these third world oppressors openly laugh about. If you think what little bit of Oil profit goes into stock is worth investing? Take a look at Exxon over 5 years. You'll see their stock was booming BEFORE 09/11/01 and took a nosedive in the two years that followed (only turning around when stability started to return to the region). If you had bought stock on 9/10/01 in Exxon, you've paid ~$48 per share and could sell it today for ~$58. A whopping 20% return in 4 years. That's not exactly what I call a big return on the dollar. Goo capitalism war machine! Yeah, that's why we went to war, so Exxon shareholders could get rich quick!

No, you're just an idiot.

This is going to be fun! OK, if I am the idiot, tel me please how the stocks have been behaving right when the agression was planned all the way to this day. Furthermore, go back to close when the illegal invasion started. Tell what were the prices of Exxon, chevron, Texaco and similar. you are the idiot, as you don't know how to read what I wrote. Smart investors bank on opportunity, and sell on opportunity. The goverment has "subtle" ties to the oil industry, it should be a good time for the oil industry when a catalizer appears. If you bought stock of Exxon before 9/11/2001 and held it even after the rough ride, YOU are the IDIOT!!! Stocks are bought and sold on opportunity.

You claim very little of the profit goes to the oil companies. Would you care to break it down comparing raw material prices (crude) versus final refined product? (gasoline, etc) Give me the number and prove it. The laws of offer and demand fon't apply to the imperial army, they just go and take it if they don't like the price. Well, the cannon fodder think they take and they liberate people. Have you seen the obscene amout of money halliburton has made with the invasion? I repeat, the benefits are intended for a few ones only.

Give me the prices of the stocks by Mar 2003 and now or stick them up right where you know! Show me also the total numbers of the corporations. Stock prices are only half of the story. How about you show me the summary of the general balance? Profits versus revenue? You better have a big @$$, that is a lot of paper.......