Finding a "fix" to get a war

**labmonkey** · 06-13-2005, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

Someone remind me of exactly how Saddam was involved in 911.

oh lord......

**yarimurray** · 06-13-2005, 05:13 PM

oh lord......

Your point being? Frankly I'm not for or against Bush. I just want him to tell the truth. It's sad really. Since we can't find and deal with those who were responsible for 911 we have to "punish" someone. What is even sadder is that the Iraqi people are, in some ways, much worse off as a result of our efforts.

**cigarsarge** · 06-13-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

Your point being? Frankly I'm not for or against Bush. I just want him to tell the truth. It's sad really. Since we can't find and deal with those who were responsible for 911 we have to "punish" someone. What is even sadder is that the Iraqi people are, in some ways, much worse off as a result of our efforts.

How are they worse off? Seems to me we have liberated country of 50 million people. I guess getting to vote makes one worse off. I guess no more ethnic cleansing makes one worse off.

I guess I just don't get it.

**yarimurray** · 06-13-2005, 06:06 PM

How are they worse off? Seems to me we have liberated country of 50 million people. I guess getting to vote makes one worse off. I guess no more ethnic cleansing makes one worse off.

I did say "in some ways." For example, infrastructure is still about the same as when Saddam was in power, despite millions of dollars to Dick Chenney's cronies. I'm not saying ethnic cleansing is good but this thread was regarding the connection between 911 and Saddam and Iraq not whether or not we are responsible for stopping ethnic cleansing. What about Darfur? Oh, wait, I guess they were not involved in 911. (my bad

)

I guess I just don't get it.

I guess you don't!

**jaewing** · 06-13-2005, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

Your point being? Frankly I'm not for or against Bush. I just want him to tell the truth. It's sad really. Since we can't find and deal with those who were responsible for 911 we have to "punish" someone. What is even sadder is that the Iraqi people are, in some ways, much worse off as a result of our efforts.

Yeah I agree. Freedom, Voting, Free Thinking, Free Press, Representative Government, Human Rights, Sports (not killings and military training) at the stadiums . . . sounds like they are much worse off. I am sure they want Saddam back.

**jaewing** · 06-13-2005, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

I did say "in some ways." For example, infrastructure is still about the same as when Saddam was in power, despite millions of dollars to Dick Chenney's cronies. I'm not saying ethnic cleansing is good but this thread was regarding the connection between 911 and Saddam and Iraq not whether or not we are responsible for stopping ethnic cleansing. What about Darfur? Oh, wait, I guess they were not involved in 911. (my bad

)

I guess you don't!

Did you happen to do any research regarding the Halliburton deal? Guess not because that research would tell you that FIRST Cheney is no longer employed by or has any interest in Haliburton and SECOND they were the only company with the resources and ability to accept the contract tin the first place.

Read more ok . . .

**yarimurray** · 06-13-2005, 07:10 PM

Read more ok . . .

Here is some reading for you to do. (I'm sure there are many others.)

I never said Chenney is still with Haliburton, nor did I imply that he is personally benefitting from this deal. However, the question remains of what the money is going for. What has changed for the typical Iraqi beyond all of the hype? Innocent people are still being killed, more and more every week it seems.

Yeah I agree. Freedom, Voting, Free Thinking, Free Press, Representative Government, Human Rights, Sports (not killings and military training) at the stadiums . . . sounds like they are much worse off. I am sure they want Saddam back.

Again, I'm not saying Saddam being gone is a bad thing necessarily. However, the point remains that I've yet to see a solid connection between Saddam, Irag, and 911 (the original point of this thread). And where are all of the stockpiles of WMD? I guess that is a minor point. It is also interesting to note that acts of terrorism continue all around the globe despite our gallant intercesion in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess it is all worth it.

My point is, where do we draw the line? Is it our business to stop all dictators, ethnic cleansers, and terrorists? Or is it our job to protect ourselves and our citizens when they are threatened. These are two separate and complicated isues.

It serves no purpose to blur the line between defense and imperialism. When we tell others what we think they ought to do we make it much easier for Al Queda to recruit new fanatics more than willing to die to fight back.

One last comment. A little over 200 years ago there was an insurgency in this country because some people did not want to be told what to do by another country only interested in how they could profit from our natural resources. Give that some thought.

Michael

**CoventryCat86** · 06-13-2005, 07:13 PM

Sorry to disagree with you Scott but one alleged document with questionable authenticity does not "clearly prove" that he lied.

LMAO!! Excellent point Jason!!

You oughta see the way his liberal butt buddies repeatedly do this on his lefty "America's Debate" site. The lefties see something posted by "leftcoast.com" or the "democraticunderground" then quote it like it's the truth or something and try to get a "debate" going with all their bravado in an attempt to convince others that their lies are reality. LMAO, it doesn't work.

Hey Scotty, you CLAIM that Rush Limbaugh "pisses you off" but how's that Democratic voter registration drive going in Clay County?

You guys crack the 30% registered Democrats level yet? Actually never mind doing that, your talents are far more valuable spewing your liberal horseshit here on on your "debate" boards. After all, you're just so knowledgeable and sooooooooo SMART!!!!!

Oh and yarimurray, try your best to keep this "on topic" okay? Scotty started this thread with some bullshit to try and "prove" some "fix" was in between Bush and Tony Blair and now you're babbling about Dick Cheney and Haliburton.

**cigarsarge** · 06-13-2005, 07:24 PM

Maybe Dan Rather Could sort all this out!!!

**CoventryCat86** · 06-13-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by cigarsarge

Maybe Dan Rather Could sort all this out!!!

LMAO!! Now THERE'S a guy with "credibility"

Isn't he from Nebraska?

**yarimurray** · 06-13-2005, 07:44 PM

Oh and yarimurray, try your best to keep this "on topic" okay? Scotty started this thread with some bullshit to try and "prove" some "fix" was in between Bush and Tony Blair and now you're babbling about Dick Cheney and Haliburton.

All part of the "fix" my friend. That discussion would appear more "on topc" than voter registration in Nebraska or red herring arguments about another forum, no?

**grand cru no 2** · 06-14-2005, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

Here is some reading for you to do. (I'm sure there are many others.)

I never said Chenney is still with Haliburton, nor did I imply that he is personally benefitting from this deal. However, the question remains of what the money is going for. What has changed for the typical Iraqi beyond all of the hype? Innocent people are still being killed, more and more every week it seems.

Do you have any friends over there fighting this war? I DO!!! They complain to me all the time about the one-sided reporting done on the war. How they never show or write about the military building & modernizing schools for the Iraqi children, or them building homes and hospitals. You "liberals" watch so much CNN that you actually start to believe your own bullcrap.

Politicians are HUMAN and are just as flawed as the rest of us. Sure they have their own agendas. But seriously, have you ever done something that you really didn't want or feel like doing (that needed to be done) but you did anyway because you saw away it could benefit you or a friend? Most people have. It's a very human behavior.

Again, I'm not saying Saddam being gone is a bad thing necessarily. However, the point remains that I've yet to see a solid connection between Saddam, Irag, and 911 (the original point of this thread). And where are all of the stockpiles of WMD? I guess that is a minor point. It is also interesting to note that acts of terrorism continue all around the globe despite our gallant intercesion in Iraq and Afganistan. I guess it is all worth it.

My point is, where do we draw the line? Is it our business to stop all dictators, ethnic cleansers, and terrorists? Or is it our job to protect ourselves and our citizens when they are threatened. These are two separate and complicated isues.

It serves no purpose to blur the line between defense and imperialism. When we tell others what we think they ought to do we make it much easier for Al Queda to recruit new fanatics more than willing to die to fight back.

One last comment. A little over 200 years ago there was an insurgency in this country because some people did not want to be told what to do by another country only interested in how they could profit from our natural resources. Give that some thought.

Michael

Damn right it's worth it!!! Someone has to be the good guy! You damn lefties love to sit around and drink your latte's and bash the country that allows you to do it while you gather at Starbucks in your Abercrombie "gear". How about a little respect for the nation you live in? How about a little respect for the soldiers who protect you and others with their lives?

I just love how you guys try and blame us for all the crazy bastards in the world. It's all our fault for being a thriving country that feels that people have certain inaliable rights? You liberals are always screaming it's time for us to "go home". That's what lesser countries would do. It's not enough! We chose to stay around and help rebuild and to help start a sound Iraqi run government. But of course the liberals even find fault in that.

**Bkcloud114** · 06-14-2005, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by yarimurray

Your point being? Frankly I'm not for or against Bush. I just want him to tell the truth. It's sad really. Since we can't find and deal with those who were responsible for 911 we have to "punish" someone. What is even sadder is that the Iraqi people are, in some ways, much worse off as a result of our efforts.

I'm not as well versed in words as some people on this board... so let me start by saying this. If you are so concerned about the Iraqi people and their suffering.... HOP ON THE NEXT F*CKING PLANE TO IRAQ and go help them.... If you really think that Saddam had no involvement in any terrorist acts then you need to get your head out of your ass..... You live in California.... I'm sure the terrorists would love to strike there.... I lost friends, co-workers, neighbors and friends lost family... 3000+ civilians died, 343 Firefighters, 23 NYC Police Officers and 37 Port Authority Police Officers (+1 K-9)... for the next 6 months I lived in fear everyday that when I went to work I was going to die..... The days after Sept 11... I was assigned to a detail to look for "body parts" on nearby roofs..... and to dig thru "Ground Zero" hoping to recover some people. You can take your Liberal bullshit and shove it up your ASS..... This country is a safer place with Saddam out of power

BTW.... Amen grand

**ggiese** · 06-14-2005, 01:10 AM

It was too far away from California, BK - It shocked and stunned the nation long enough for the liberals to HAVE TO vote for going to war... And then their interest dropped off... VERY quickly afterwards....

Maybe the liberals should separate themselves from the right thinking population - create their own Utopian society where leaders like Bill Clinton can be praised for his TREMENDOUS work in bringing about peace... The BS artist did nothing more than mask what the terrorists were doing, while they built up their forces, trained them, and then attacked. Launch a 2 million dollar missile into a $10 tent in the desert is the best fireworks show you're going to get out of the liberals... Osama was laughing his ASS off at Clinton's attempt to "punish" him...

Seperate yourself, because the terrorists are looking for a fat soft US target to hit...

**yarimurray** · 06-14-2005, 12:39 PM

You "liberals" watch so much CNN that you actually start to believe your own bullcrap.

Being liberal (which I'm not), conservative, or moderate has nothing to do with discussion of facts. (Not beliefs, rumours, or wishes.) I have merely been trying to point out that these problems are very complex and not easily solved by simply attacking without planning and thinking through the objective of the attack. I've never said we should never attack (anyone heard of Kadafi (sp) lately?).

Maybe the liberals should separate themselves from the right thinking population

It's amazing to me how we've become a nation of name callers. If anyone disagrees with the status quo they are called liberal scum (or cold conservative). This name calling does nothing to solve the problems and only serves to muddy up the discussion until the issues become more blurred and more complicated.

How about a little respect for the nation you live in? How about a little respect for the soldiers who protect you and others with their lives?

And one more thing. I've never intimated that I do not support our troops. I have family members in Iraq (also in the first Gulf War) and I support them 100%. Questioning our government is one of the most patriotic acts a citizen can take and exactly the right and responsibility that military personnel have been fighting for since our country was born.

People obviously have a lot of passion about these issues. And so they should. However, passion should not overtake reason and balanced discussion of all sides of issues. Saddam and others have had ways to silence their citizens when they disagreed with policy. Hopefully we are above that.

Michael

**ggiese** · 06-16-2005, 12:42 PM

This is specifically directed at SFG75.... (Sorry, but I had to share it)

This is a white paper written about the Skull and Bones society - they're influence on international politics, and most importantly - their influence on the ORIGINAL Gulf war...

Skul and Bones White Paper

And the reason I include this is because of the idea of a "conspiracy" in the federal government to cause certain "conditions" (such as World War II, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War). Maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. Certainly, the article published that Scott quoted in this thread may or may not be what actually happened. It is certainly someone's opinion based upon their reading of memos they received (which may or may not be accurate). Just as much as the author of this White Paper believes he sees connections in what he reads. I especially like the last paragraph concerning the Gulf War:

Regardless of the fact that the United States has not thrown the full weight of its military presence behind the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, the shortsightedness of the present Bush policy may very well lead to a Lebanon-type protracted civil war in Iraq. Such a war could potentially spread throughout the region.

Which leads me to wonder of George Jr. didn't attack Iraq as a means of preventing an all out protracted civil war in Iraq, preventing it from spreading throughout the region. And by doing so, this would have preserved our economic dependence on oil!!! Can you imagine what oil prices would be like if the middle east was in some type of protracted civil war involving a number of countries? And how would it affect us if a regime like Iran or Syria took control of a big chunk of the middle east oil fields? I shutter to think... They would have the potential to financially destroy or severely cripple us based upon the dependence we have on foreign oil...

I think this proves what I originally said - we may or may not ever know what our leaders were thinking when they committed us to the war in Iraq (and Afghanastan - and the "war on terror" in general). Maybe our leaders "baited" Osama bin Laden into his taking action against the US so we could declare the war on the radical Muslims.. Who knows? I don't think we'll be reading in history books about the roots of all of this for at least 50 or more years.

SFG75 · 06-16-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by ggiese

This is specifically directed at SFG75.... (Sorry, but I had to share it)

This is a white paper written about the Skull and Bones society - they're influence on international politics, and most importantly - their influence on the ORIGINAL Gulf war...

Skul and Bones White Paper

And the reason I include this is because of the idea of a "conspiracy" in the federal government to cause certain "conditions" (such as World War II, the Vietnam War and the Gulf War). Maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. Certainly, the article published that Scott quoted in this thread may or may not be what actually happened. It is certainly someone's opinion based upon their reading of memos they received (which may or may not be accurate). Just as much as the author of this White Paper believes he sees connections in what he reads. I especially like the last paragraph concerning the Gulf War:

Which leads me to wonder of George Jr. didn't attack Iraq as a means of preventing an all out protracted civil war in Iraq, preventing it from spreading throughout the region. And by doing so, this would have preserved our economic dependence on oil!!! Can you imagine what oil prices would be like if the middle east was in some type of protracted civil war involving a number of countries? And how would it affect us if a regime like Iran or Syria took control of a big chunk of the middle east oil fields? I shutter to think... They would have the potential to financially destroy or severely cripple us based upon the dependence we have on foreign oil...

I think this proves what I originally said - we may or may not ever know what our leaders were thinking when they committed us to the war in Iraq (and Afghanastan - and the "war on terror" in general). Maybe our leaders "baited" Osama bin Laden into his taking action against the US so we could declare the war on the radical Muslims.. Who knows? I don't think we'll be reading in history books about the roots of all of this for at least 50 or more years.

Interesting idea, I certainly could see why they would want to prevent a civil war throughout the entire region. The sad thing? There are now weird "conspiracies" that the feds demolished the trade center towers. Supposedly there are pictures of "squibs" or whatever in the world those things are that they use to take down buildings. Just type in "WTC 7" to see some rather.....unusual things.

**Diesel Grinch** · 06-17-2005, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by jaewing

I will leave you with a very profound quote:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiams, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end triumph of high achievement, and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory or defeat . . . Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day . . . "

This is actually a part of a MUCH longer speech all of which is VERY good.

In fact since I am in a good mood . . . the first person to PM me with the name of the person who spoke these words will get a small package of cigars sent to them.

Since this was rather long consider it my $.04

Just got the Package from Jason

Great assortment of Cigars. Just want to thank you for the contest.