The Iraq War: Somehow Even Worse than you Thought?
-
Funny, but "Maim the Infidel" isn't what they are shouting over there. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
Is that how we get our foreign intelligence now, by listening to what they're "shouting over there"?
-
Chris Meech wrote:
Certain nouns do not require an adjective in order to qualify the use of the noun. War happens to be one of them (at least in my vernacular).
They certainly do when you use them twice in one sentence to refer to two different things. The Iraq War is War, so how do you differintiate the two? Why, with an adjective like "typical" or "normal". English lesson over for today, invoice in the mail.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The Iraq War is War, so how do you differintiate the two?
As you have done in this case. Name them. Far clearer and would allow me to corroborate. And the payment's in the mail too. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
-
I was tipped off to this article in The Australian[^] this morning. Here are some choice quotes from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: "When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired. "(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion. "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that." -------- "The ratio of injuries to fatalities in a normal war is 2:1. In this war they admitted to 7:1 but a true number is (something) like 15:1." What's your favorite Iraq War fun fact? Is it that we could end illiteracy worldwide with just one week's funding, or that there are already 100,000 US Servicepersons with mental problems?
Dammit, Chris - we're Americans. We don't care about petty things like money. This is about peace, and brotherly love. There isn't a 'mercan alive who wouldn't give up their economic well-being and that of their children just to bring a bit of the Roman Peace to our brothers in Iraq. It's a tradition going all the way back to our Revolution, when our Founding Fathers fought against the evil British, whose devious plan to give us money was infringing on our inalienable right to wage war against foreign nations. Or something. I kinda lost track of how this was all supposed to work years ago. :rolleyes:
But who is the king of all of these folks?
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
The Iraq War is War, so how do you differintiate the two?
As you have done in this case. Name them. Far clearer and would allow me to corroborate. And the payment's in the mail too. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Donate to help Conquer Cancer[^]
"The Iraq War: different than War." Yeah, real clear.
-
If oil had been the primary goal I'm sure somebody would have considered that. The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have. Buying neighborhood property there wouldn't have solved any of that.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Oh give it a rest. That isnt what it was about. Sadam was not a supporter or aider to Islamic terorism. Heck, he was suffering it himself. As for WMD, he didnt have any did he? After all, you would have found it if he did so thats bull too. FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
"The Iraq War: different than War." Yeah, real clear.
I think the point was that war is war. You can talk meaningfully about this war and that war, but a normal war? What the hell is that? Which wars have we seen in history that were normal? [edit] Ah, the spiteful 1 voter who has no valid argument and knows it, but still feels the need to lash out. Seriously, what the hell is a normal war? [/edit]
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
modified on Saturday, March 1, 2008 11:48 PM
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The goal was to remove a dictatorial regime that supported terrorists, had a proven track record for using, aquiring and sharing WMDs and related technologies, and refused to let UN inspectors look at what he did have.
Congrats, you learned well your neocons lesson So sad it s a set of lies.
I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly. Fold with us! ยค flickr
Well I'm not much for conspiracy theory, I like to stick with reality most of the time. And we I do deviate, I stick to the old standards like beer.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Regime that supported terrorists: fact - Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bobers thus encouraging it. track record for aquiring, using and sharing WMDs - also a fact. refusal to allow UN inspectors to look - Saddam had expelled them It may well be that he had suspended some of the above, but neither US nor NATO intelligence thought so. Nonetheless, they were not "a sad set of lies". Franky, had France not been so duplicitous in the run up to the war, constantly assuring Saddam that the US would never invade alone, he might have relented and allowed the inspectors back in, or even abdicated. Your country has some significant culpability here...
Rob Graham wrote:
Regime that supported terrorists: fact - Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bobers thus encouraging it.
Totally irrelevant. He sent money to Palestinian families, among them families of suicide bombers. It was never a support for terrorism.
Rob Graham wrote:
track record for aquiring, using and sharing WMDs - also a fact.
Only chemical weapons used only against the Iraqis Kurdish and Shia people. Although that's horrendous by itself it is not a justification for an invasion. And he didn't have the means to use it against the US.
Rob Graham wrote:
refusal to allow UN inspectors to look - Saddam had expelled them
Bullshit... El Baradei was one of the first to say that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, before the war. It was imperialism, like so many times before in the 20th century. It was just to grab the oil and have a place to put some missiles pointing at Tehran.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Oh give it a rest. That isnt what it was about. Sadam was not a supporter or aider to Islamic terorism. Heck, he was suffering it himself. As for WMD, he didnt have any did he? After all, you would have found it if he did so thats bull too. FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Hey look everybody it's someone who still thinks the Iraq War was a good idea! Most of you chickenhawks at least try to backpedal or say we can't get out of it now. We broke it, we bought it or what-have-you. It's rare to see a real died-in-the-wool sheep this late in the game. I guess there's some pride in being the last person to realize something.
Horse patties. Weaklings talk that way around liberals like yourself because they are either sheep following the backpedal fad, or they don't wanna hear your shpeal any more. There are plenty of people that still believe it was a justified move. And it was said plenty at the get go, that this wasn't going to be a weekend vacation war. Only the head-wounds couldn't fathom what would happen when a middle eastern country had to rebuild it's government and infrastructure. Nothing in this war has surprised me. And the fantasy that it could have happened much differently is infantile in it's naivety.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Regime that supported terrorists: fact - Saddam sent money to the families of suicide bobers thus encouraging it.
Totally irrelevant. He sent money to Palestinian families, among them families of suicide bombers. It was never a support for terrorism.
Rob Graham wrote:
track record for aquiring, using and sharing WMDs - also a fact.
Only chemical weapons used only against the Iraqis Kurdish and Shia people. Although that's horrendous by itself it is not a justification for an invasion. And he didn't have the means to use it against the US.
Rob Graham wrote:
refusal to allow UN inspectors to look - Saddam had expelled them
Bullshit... El Baradei was one of the first to say that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, before the war. It was imperialism, like so many times before in the 20th century. It was just to grab the oil and have a place to put some missiles pointing at Tehran.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Totally irrelevant. He sent money to Palestinian families, among them families of suicide bombers. It was never a support for terrorism.
"I get 72 virgins AND my family gets taken care of? Where do I sign?" Yeah, totally irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Diego Moita wrote:
Only chemical weapons used only against the Iraqis Kurdish and Shia people. Although that's horrendous by itself it is not a justification for an invasion. And he didn't have the means to use it against the US.
He had WMDs, was willing to use them, was actively seeking other WMDs, and was secretive. Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies.
Diego Moita wrote:
bullsh*t... El Baradei was one of the first to say that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, before the war.
You can hem and haw about this all day, but it was clearly stated "let the inspectors see everything, or we invade" and he refused. And nukes weren't the only thing they were looking for.
Diego Moita wrote:
It was imperialism
HA. This one cracks me up every time I hear it. How is this like Japan in the 30's or England, France & Spain a few centuries ago?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Horse patties. Weaklings talk that way around liberals like yourself because they are either sheep following the backpedal fad, or they don't wanna hear your shpeal any more. There are plenty of people that still believe it was a justified move. And it was said plenty at the get go, that this wasn't going to be a weekend vacation war. Only the head-wounds couldn't fathom what would happen when a middle eastern country had to rebuild it's government and infrastructure. Nothing in this war has surprised me. And the fantasy that it could have happened much differently is infantile in it's naivety.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
:zzz:
Sleeping would be one potential way to pretend Bush hasn't been the Worst President Ever. Burying your head in the ground could work, smoking crack, or one of the old Republican Standards have an affair, gay or straight whatever floats your Largest Deficit EVER barge. Bush and Cheney suck hard, it's no longer an opinion or prognostication, it's history and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong. All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men (gay or straight we liberals don't discriminate) and admit it, anyone? Let's see all those VALUES shining through eh? Ah yes the silent 1 vote, another Bush Whacker is heard from. Said there ain't no use in crying. Cause it will only, only drive you mad Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had? Oh-oh Heading out for the weekend everyone. Have a great one. Stopped in to see the votes on this post,
3.13/5 (8 votes)which is just about where the last two presidential votes ended up, we've come a long way baby. X|
Last modified: 3hrs 24mins after originally posted --
led mike
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Totally irrelevant. He sent money to Palestinian families, among them families of suicide bombers. It was never a support for terrorism.
"I get 72 virgins AND my family gets taken care of? Where do I sign?" Yeah, totally irrelevant. :rolleyes:
Diego Moita wrote:
Only chemical weapons used only against the Iraqis Kurdish and Shia people. Although that's horrendous by itself it is not a justification for an invasion. And he didn't have the means to use it against the US.
He had WMDs, was willing to use them, was actively seeking other WMDs, and was secretive. Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies.
Diego Moita wrote:
bullsh*t... El Baradei was one of the first to say that Iraq didn't have nuclear weapons, before the war.
You can hem and haw about this all day, but it was clearly stated "let the inspectors see everything, or we invade" and he refused. And nukes weren't the only thing they were looking for.
Diego Moita wrote:
It was imperialism
HA. This one cracks me up every time I hear it. How is this like Japan in the 30's or England, France & Spain a few centuries ago?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
Not forgetting the US and EU pumped millions in to Palestine during the same period.
BoneSoft wrote:
He had WMDs
Did you find any after the invasio? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies
The best he could manage at his strongest was to hit Tel Aviv withe a few modified SS20s which were innefective. Do you think he is any stroger after 10 years of sanctions and restrictions? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is this like Japan in the 30's
Yes. Japan invaded other countries to get their resources. The US did the same.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
the same way it always did
But it wasnt, was it? He couldnt sell it, not till the oil for food was set uo by the EU. But if the US has allowed that to go ahead you would have had to pay in Euros for the oil, and that hurts, because you dont export. No, better to invade, and sell it in dollars. That way you can print as much paper and ink as you like to pay for it, which makes it effectively free.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Not forgetting the US and EU pumped millions in to Palestine during the same period.
BoneSoft wrote:
He had WMDs
Did you find any after the invasio? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
Leave him alone and he could have developed the means to use it against anybody. He certainly had the means to use it against US interests like bases and embassies
The best he could manage at his strongest was to hit Tel Aviv withe a few modified SS20s which were innefective. Do you think he is any stroger after 10 years of sanctions and restrictions? Nope.
BoneSoft wrote:
How is this like Japan in the 30's
Yes. Japan invaded other countries to get their resources. The US did the same.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Japan invaded other countries for land. They occupied with no intention of ever leaving. And if this was all some elaborate conspiracy for the sole purpose of getting oil, then why is gas now at an all time high? To believe this was all for nothing but oil is ludicrous.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Sleeping would be one potential way to pretend Bush hasn't been the Worst President Ever. Burying your head in the ground could work, smoking crack, or one of the old Republican Standards have an affair, gay or straight whatever floats your Largest Deficit EVER barge. Bush and Cheney suck hard, it's no longer an opinion or prognostication, it's history and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong. All that remains is to see how many of them can stand up like men (gay or straight we liberals don't discriminate) and admit it, anyone? Let's see all those VALUES shining through eh? Ah yes the silent 1 vote, another Bush Whacker is heard from. Said there ain't no use in crying. Cause it will only, only drive you mad Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had? Oh-oh Heading out for the weekend everyone. Have a great one. Stopped in to see the votes on this post,
3.13/5 (8 votes)which is just about where the last two presidential votes ended up, we've come a long way baby. X|
Last modified: 3hrs 24mins after originally posted --
led mike
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
led mike wrote:
and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong
How so?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
fat_boy wrote:
FAct is, the US wanted the oil. So it made up a story and invaded.
How can anyone still be promoting that ridiculous notion? We have not, and unfortunantly will not, confiscate any of Iraq's oil. It is hitting the market pretty much the same way it always did. I wish we would confiscate it. Bush invaded bacuse he thought it was the responsible thing to do and because he subscribed to the dubious notion that a democratic Islamic state in that region would be in the long term best interest of the world. There is absolutely nothing more to the story than that. I never supported the invasion because I felt that any military campaign that did not also include Syran and Iran would be worse than a complete waste of time, but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable. (BTW, since you are not an American, your attitude is not offensive to me, you are entitled to your opinions. But when Americans slander the motives of a setting commander in chief while troops are legally committed to combat is the very worst kind of treason imaginable).
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
but there is no reason to believe that the president's motives were any thing less than honorable.
No proof maybe, but certainly plenty of reason.
Stan Shannon wrote:
is the very worst kind of treason imaginable
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, wait, aren't you always touting Jeffersonian Principles here in the SoapBox? Did you pick a bad day to to stop taking your schizophrenia medication?
led mike
-
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
led mike wrote:
and all of their undying supporters have now been proven wrong
How so?
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Carter is the undisputed worst president ever.
You're wrong about that. http://www.wildnesswithin.com/worst.html[^] http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history[^] http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira49.html[^] http://www.heartheissues.com/worstpresidents.html[^]
-
I was tipped off to this article in The Australian[^] this morning. Here are some choice quotes from Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: "When the Bush administration went to war in Iraq it obviously didn't focus very much on the cost. Larry Lindsey, the chief economic adviser, said the cost was going to be between $US100billion and $US200 billion - and for that slight moment of quasi-honesty he was fired. "(Then defence secretary Donald) Rumsfeld responded and said 'baloney', and the number the administration came up with was $US50 to $US60 billion. We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion. "Three trillion is a very conservative number, the true costs are likely to be much larger than that." -------- "The ratio of injuries to fatalities in a normal war is 2:1. In this war they admitted to 7:1 but a true number is (something) like 15:1." What's your favorite Iraq War fun fact? Is it that we could end illiteracy worldwide with just one week's funding, or that there are already 100,000 US Servicepersons with mental problems?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
We have calculated that the cost was more like $US3 trillion.
That will look like chicken feed if we stay there for another 50 years. Don't imagine it can't happen. The Brits were there for something like 40 years.[^]
