- ekledim gitti
2 days 3 hours ago - wouw
2 days 3 hours ago - hey
2 days 3 hours ago - aloha
2 days 3 hours ago - thank you for
1 week 5 days ago - thanks..
atari
1 week 5 days ago - drugs addiction
2 weeks 1 day ago - perfect site.. thank you..
2 weeks 3 days ago - thank you.. :))
atari
2 weeks 3 days ago - thanx
2 weeks 3 days ago
Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
(copied from a friend's blog)
Questions and Answers about Foreign Policy (and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
Q:Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A:Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q:But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A:That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q:And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A:Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q:But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A:That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q:Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A:To use them in a war, silly.
Q:I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A:Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q:That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A:It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q:I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A:Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q:And what was that?
A:Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q:Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A:Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q:Kind of like what they do in China?
A:Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q:So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A:Right.
Q:Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A:For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q:Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A:I told you, China is different.
Q:What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A:Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q:Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A:No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q:How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A:Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q:Like in Iraq?
A:Exactly.
Q:And like in China, too?
A:I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q:How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A:Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q:But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A:Don't be a smart-ass.
Q:I didn't think I was being one.
A:Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q:Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A:I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q:What's a military coup?
A:That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q:Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A:You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q:Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A:I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q:Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A:Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q:Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A:Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q:What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A:Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q:So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A:Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q:Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A:Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q:Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A:Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q:Fighting drugs?
A:Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q:How did they do such a good job?
A:Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q:So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A:Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q:Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A:That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q:Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A:No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q:What's the difference?
A:The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q:It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A:Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q:But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A:Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q:Who trained them?
A:A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q:Was he from Afghanistan?
A:Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q:I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A:Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q:Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A:There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q:So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A:Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q:So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A:Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q:Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A:No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q:But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A:Well, yeah. For a while.
Q:Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A:Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q:Why did that make him our friend?
A:Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q:Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A:Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q:So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A:Most of the time, yes.
Q:And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A:Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q:Why?
A:Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q:I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A:Yes.
Q:But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A:Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q:So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A:Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q:Good night, Daddy.
2003 anarchie bunker
Comments
Excellent!
Excellent!
Bush on a mission from
Bush on a mission from God.
Priceless!
"Why be the standard when you can set your own."
political crud
I am a veteran. I am tired of going to innocent websites and seeing this garbage. Can we just keep it to Steph, Computers and other things like that? If I want to hear your uninformed opinions on politics, I'll go to the NY Times website. Don't comment on war until you have been in one.
"It's not the years, it's the miles." Indiana Jones
First, thank you for your
First, thank you for your service to your country. This in no way is a comment on the men and woman who day in and day out bravely defend our country. My father died in service to this country and I have nothing but respect for the members of the armed services.
2nd> If you would like to limit the people who can talk about the war to those who have been in combat you would need to remove most of the current administration.
3rd> Everyone in America has the right to express their opions on war, politics, etc... It's one of those rights that my father died for.
4th> If you do not agree with an opion, that is your right. May I suggest you make the argument for your point of view and not just blast people who do not agree with you.
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
I should note that this
I should note that this website isn't meant to be limited to either things of a geekly nature and to Steph. Any and all subjects that can be reasonably discussed are fair game on this site.
-0000002
For starters, if you'd read
For starters, if you'd read the actual post from the beginning, then you'd notice that it's not even his uninformed opinions, but someone else's.
And Commandergood's got a point when he asks for at least some semblance of logical argument and refutation of the points. In what way are they uninformed? Which points are wrong? Is there documentation for any of your opinions? Why doesn't it count as a lie when the administration said point-blank that they knew where the WMDs were when they really didn't, and they weren't there at all?
Also, I'm all for the support your troops ribbons and whatnot, but why exactly does having been in a war make you more of an authority to talk about politics? What was your rank and what war did you fight in? I was under the impression that the average soldier stays almost completely uninformed as far as the broader scheme of things in a wartime situation, which might actually make someone fighting on the ground *less* informed than someone who has been researching and paying attention back home.
Finally, "don't comment on war unless you've been in one"? What kind of thing to say is that? What an incredibly boring world you must want to live in if people can only ever talk about the things they've already done. No-one can speculate, or discuss things in the abstract, nobody can talk about anything in the future, nobody can have any opinions other than what they've learned through direct experience.
Why do you own a computer that has an internet connection if you have such an aversion to other people's opinions?
That whole "finally" thing was a bit of a lie, too. I'm actually intrigued by the strength of your reaction to this thing. I would've thought that someone who had actually been in a war would be even more angry about people having to go into one under blatantly false and incredibly politicized reasons. No?
- HB
Rebuttal
[quote]I am a veteran.[/quote]
Good for you. If you take time to look, you just may find that there are others here who have served in the military. There are also those who've been civilians in a country during war (or "civil unrest").
And--amazingly enough--you'll actually find people who haven't served in the military, but are actually intelligent and well-informed people who just *might* have a clue about what's going on.
And I'm quite positive that a lot of them are "rooting for the other team", as it were.
While I respect your choice to serve in the military, it really doesn't give you some magic power which causes you to be more informed or more correct about political matters.
[quote]I am tired of going to innocent websites and seeing this garbage.[/quote]
This "garbage" is called "satire". It's an ages-old, and highly-revered way of getting a point across. If you'd bother to study your history (something which, in your profile, you claim to be interested in), you just might find that it was a very powerful tool used by a certain group of revolutionaries in the late 18th century. You may have heard of them. They're commonly known as "The Founding Fathers". Of course, most of them never served in the military, so their opinions probably don't count for anything in your eyes.
[quote]If I want to hear your uninformed opinions on politics, I'll go to the NY Times website.[/quote]
"Uninformed"?
Please explain to me--in detail--how boot camp makes you magically "more informed" than anyone else? How does wearing combat boots give you greater insight into world politics than someone who hasn't worn them?
See... this isn't about you "being informed", it's about you being pig-headed and bigotted. You automatically assume that anyone not agreeing with you is "uninformed", and that anyone who hasn't worn a uniform has no right to an opinion. Well, you're wrong. Sorry; not going to sugar-coat it. You're wrong. I've never served in the military, but I'll put my "informed" status up against yours any day. You want to try me? Go ahead. If you'll take the time to look at my posts around here, you'll find that I'm rather well-informed on a wide range of topics. And I'm not afraid to put brash young punks like yourself in their place.
[quote]Don't comment on war until you have been in one.[/quote]
Which war were you in? You haven't specified. Seing as how you were born in 1968 (according to your profile) that leaves the options of Desert Strorm (not a war, but a military operation), perhaps the Panama invasion (not even close to a war), or the current illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq (or perhaps Afghanistan).
Now, I may be "uninformed", but the US hasn't [i]actually[/i] been "at war" since 1945 (May 8th in the European Theatre, and August 15th in the Asian Theatre). Neither Vietnam nor Korea were declared wars--though I'm not so naive as to claim that they don't count.
However, what's going on right now has a few major points which differentiate it from either of those post WWII conflicts.
1) There's no draft. The current fighting is being done entirely by volunteer forces. The nation isn't at war. The nation is barely [i]affected[/i] by the current military actions. Aside from the financial burden, the only ones paying any price are those of you who chose to sign up.
2) Attainable goals. The "War on Terror" isn't a war, it's a PR gimmick. It's like the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty": it can't, by it's very nature, be won. Even Vietnam and Korea had definable goals: keep the communists out of "our" territory. We succeeded in Korea, and failed in Vietnam. The "War on Terror" has no attainable goal. We can't end terrorism. It's impossible. What this "war" does is gives the current administration a justification for an unforgivable repertoire of civil-rights violations and unconstitutional power-grabs.
3) More importantly, it was an ivasion of a sovreign nation by the forces of the United States for the purpose of deposing the current government and installing one friendly to, and mirroring that of the US. As an "informed" veteran, I'm sure you can see that this is exactly what Germany did to France in 1940. And what the Soviet Union did in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and attempted to do in Afghanistan in 1979.
Our invasion of Iraq was predicated on lies, was opposed by our allies, has directed anger and hatred at us from many nations of the Middle-East, and has only served to replace a single genocidal tyrant with a dozen genocidal tyrant wannabes. We have destabilized the region, fostered hatred, [i]increased[/i] the violence and resolve of the terrorists, and gotten thousands of our military killed without producing any solid results.
[quote]Don't comment on war until you have been in one.[/quote]
And just to point out your bigotry.... My father is a veteran--a [i]volunteer[/i] I should add. He served in the American 5th Army under General Mark Clark in the European Theatre during WWII. He fought Rommel in North Africa. He stormed the beach-head at Anzio. He accepted the surrender of Nazi forces after the bombing of Monte Casino. He was greated with flowers and cheers by the Italainas (exactly the way the Iraqi's [i]didn't[/i]) while Mussolini hung in the plaza in Rome.
And he is disgusted by the actions of our President.
You want to play the "veterans know more" card? I'll print out this thread and give it to him, then record his responses. You want to hear his reactions? You want to go up against him? I guarantee that you won't last 5 minutes against him in a debate.
And he's not the only veteran to oppose Bush and the current military operations in the Middle-East. Not to long ago, a coalition of retired generals came forward to speak out against current policy. Are you saying that prominant generals are "uninformed"? There's also been a number of congressmen who are retired military who have been quite outspoken in their opposition to current policy with regards to Iraq. Being both veterans [i]and[/i] members of Congress, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they [i]just might[/i] be even better informed and all of us. Even Colin Powell (a man in whom I have the greatest of respect) resigned his position rather than continue to be a stooge to this president.
This pretty much shoots full of holes your implication that veterans would automatically share your viewpoint on this "war" since they'd "been in one".
So. You either defend your position with facts, figures, and well-reasoned arguments, or you sit your ass down and shut the fuck up. Because I've got zero tolerance for bigots and braggarts--especially when their brags are bigger than their britches.
Blaze
--------
A warrior is judged by his enemies,
A man by his friends.
Dayaaaammn!
*stares wide-eyed, open-mouthed*
You need to come to where I live and say that. A bunch of Canadian forces just shipped off to Afghanistan and it was a huge hooplah around town as well as on the base right the fuck next door. All the bars were packed with hot-headed, army meatheads looking for a fight over "unpatriotic perspectives".
It felt like fucking Big Brother... course I was the odd one out with my own ideas and my gothy clothes...
Marg
I'm the cousin of this Geek called Steph...
~~ www.marula.ca ~~
Well, you can move in here
Well, you can move in here with me, Marg. Of course, it will involve less clothes.... ;)
As to the debate, I don't believe it was completely wrong to go into Iraq. But we use the wrong reasons and went in far too late. Bush Sr. should have finished it in '91. Or Bush Jr should have just sent in a few hitmen to take out Hussein, his sons and cronies.
Field Marshal Phoenix Hawk
41st Corsairs Regimental Combat Team
(The Black Hawks)
Federated Suns
apples and oranges
The Canadian operation in Afghanistan is fundamentally different. I'm no veteran, so I don't know for sure, but from my understanding, we're more or less sending more and more troops there because the majority of American attention was on the next "let's blow up more shit" side of things and less on the "how bout sticking around until these guys get their shit back together" thing. We're still there on a peacekeeping mission, attempting to actually provide stability while the country theoretically gets cleaned up after the ousting of the Taliban.
It may not be working too well right now, but I think it's quite different from the US being in Iraq.
- HB
Also with the invasion of
Also with the invasion of Afghanistan we had a real goal, get Bin Laden. Oddly enough you don't hear the administration mention him any more.
Thus with imagined wing our swift scene flies,
In motion of no less celerity
Than that of thought.
people will always choose
people will always choose long lives as cowards ahead of short ones as hero's
being split in two the human
being split in two the human brain has been born with the inherent luxury of being forever right and forever wrong
So...
[quote]people will always choose long lives as cowards ahead of short ones as hero's[/quote]
Your implication is that the only way to be a hero is to pick up a gun?
"They also serve who only stand and wait."
-Milton
You think I'm a coward because I never joined the military? Come walk a mile in my shoes. It's a path that cuts through the realms of evil that humans do, and is without the legally-justified option of putting a bullet through the enemy.
I may not be your kind of "hero"--the kind that charges in after the bombs have fallen--but I've looked death in the eye and stood my ground. I know for a fact that there are people alive today because I had the courage to step into their world and fight [i]for[/i] them.
I don't care if you call me a "hero"--I doubt your accolades would mean much to me--but you don't have a thousandth of the understanding you'd need to call me a coward.
(Oh... and you might want to learn about capitalization and punctuation if you want to be taken seriously).
(Why, yes... I [i]am[/i] in a fightin' mood. Why do you ask?)
Blaze
--------
A warrior is judged by his enemies,
A man by his friends.
who was talking about
who was talking about fighting for your country?if those cowardly bastards in charge of our countries want their their wealth protecting let them fight these wars themselves instead of using us as sheep.i'm on about people fighting for the rights of other people in everyday life.this is the only way we can beat them.though those people at the top will invent stuff like 9/11 but we need to see through these scams straight away not 5 years later
To change the world be the change - Ghandi
[color=blue]When Ghandi arrived in England he was asked by a newspaper reporter what he thought of British civilisation - he answered by saying that it would be good thing.[/color]
[size=15]Bertolt Brecht's Children's Anthem was proposed as the German national anthem but sadly it did not make it. But it should be adopted by every country with suitable geographic modifications. Maybe USA and UK and others would not be in Iraq if they did?
There is a beautifully sung English version rendered by Robyn Archer:[/size]
[center][color=blue]
Spare no charm and spare no labour,
passion and intelligence
that a decent German nation flourish
as do other lands.
That the people give up flinching
at the crimes which we did folk
and hold out their hand in friendship
as they do to other folk, as they do to other folk.
Neither over, nor yet under
other peoples will we be,
From the Oder to the Rhineland,
from the Alps to the North Sea.
And because we’ll make it better
let us guard and love our home,
love it as the dearest country
as the others love their own,
as the others love their own.
[/color]
Anmut sparet nicht noch Mühe
Leidenschaft nicht noch Verstand
Daß ein gutes Deutschland blühe
Wie ein andres gutes Land.
Daß die Völker nicht erbleichen
Wie vor einer Räuberin
Sondern ihre Hände reichen
Uns wie andren Völkern hin.
Und nicht über und nicht unter
Andern Völkern wolln wir sein
Von der See bis zu den Alpen
Von der Oder bis zum Rhein.
Und weil wir dieses Land verbessern
Lieben und beschirmen wir's
Und das Liebste mag's uns scheinen
So wie andern Völkern ihr's.[/center]
[color=blue]Listen to this sung in German by Giordano Bruno to the well known Joseph Haydn tune at http://www.leitkultur-humanismus.de/hymne.htm[/color]
[color=blue]Or hear it directly: http://www.leitkultur-humanismus.de/hymne.mp3[/color]
[color=red][size=20]Germany has of course done a lot to progress to the ideals expressed by Brecht in these words.[/size][/color]
[color=blue]See this statement by five people imprisoned in the USA...[/color]
http://www.granma.cu/miami5/ingles/042.htm
Following 7th November 2006 the USA has an opportunity again to progress to a normal state.
http://www.robjan.dircon.co.uk/dcnv01
As Ayn Rand once said, the
As Ayn Rand once said, the only thing more cowardly than the conformist is the fashionable non-conformist. The result of such cowardice is that everyone sits around spewing the party line [on both sides] so they can feel good about themselves without ever having to offer any REAL solutions or unique contributions.
My best friend just returned from a 1 year deployment in Iraq [he was also deployed to Somalia and the Honduras under Clinton]. His assesment of the situation is the war is un-winnable at this point, as has been expressed by many others in command in the region as well [there was an op-ed piece in the army, navy and air force times calling for Rumsfeld's resignation weeks before the election]. So, the question becomes, do we clean up our mess before we leave, or do we leave and let someone else clean it up for us?
This is the ONLY question we face in Iraq. Neither party has presented an answer to this......they are only willing to oppose what the other side says.
I have no answer because I am not a military stratigist /political scientist nor am I directly involved with the war. I am not qualified to answer the question, but I do know we need the right people to answer it......and fast.
Ignoring a lot of what was said
Ignoring a lot of what was said in this thread, I'd like to point something out.
There's a lot of debate material in here; too much for me to really jump in with two feet. That'd take hours and hours of typing that, frankly, I don't have nor care to do.
However, with that said ...
Pointing out other evil people in the world and other wrongs committed, both by us and by others, does not make one man less evil or his acts less wrong.
And please, no one come here and point out to me that we propped up Saddam, or gave him weapons and support, and all the rest of it. I know it, believe me.
Doesn't make the man any less evil. Just means there's a lot of twisted, sick fucks out there in the world.
And please, no one come here
[b][i]And please, no one come here and point out to me that we propped up Saddam, or gave him weapons and support, and all the rest of it. I know it, believe me.[/i][/b]
This makes us even MORE responsible for taking him out. We created the monster, we must destroy it......too bad we did it in a half-assed fashion.
I'm not sure what hanging
I'm not sure what hanging him was supposed to accomplish.
We took over his country, kicked him out of power, and now it's a huge fucking mess.
What else could we do?
Oh, and I won't believe his dead until I see the body. My faith in the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army is little to none. There are a lot of good people in those organizations; but there's a lot of corrupt bitches as well.
as I said above: too bad we
as I said above:
[b]too bad we did it in a half-assed fashion.[/b]
The US doesn't fight real wars anymore....we just get involved in clusterfu*k$.
I'm not in on the whole conspiracy thing....if I was, I'd believe Hitler and Elvis are still alive too. What could possibly be accomplished by FAKING Saddam's death?
well... I reckon we should
well... I reckon we should get our troops out of there.... along with the oil drillers. Bush should feel guilty for turning Iraq in on itself though!
[url=http://www.911pressfortruth.com][img]http://www.911pressfortruth.com/images/7.gif[/img][/url]
So we pull out tomorrow and
So we pull out tomorrow and leave these people to slaughter each other (something we're having a pretty hard time preventing right now) and leave a power vaccum for other nations in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, etc) to fill.
...
Because that'll produce good results.
Will staying help? I dunno
Will staying help? I dunno whether we can ever stop these people fighting each other, and the more time we stay there, the more time that their anger is projected towards us the "invaders"... no permanent bases, bring those to trial that are in custody without staying captive for years on end, get those oil drillers out of there.
I know there is no simple solution, just wish there was! Why can't we all just get along???!!!
[url=http://www.911pressfortruth.com][img]http://www.911pressfortruth.com/images/7.gif[/img][/url]
You keep saying oil
You keep saying oil drillers.
I certainly don't have any oil drillers on my FOB. I know there's none of the big airbase that I just convoyed to and back from today. I know there's none on the FOBs to the north and the east and the west and the south of us.
Where are they hiding, do you think? Because I have yet to see a single one of them.
And keep in mind, I'm actually in the fucking country. Right now.
what do you mean by "oil
what do you mean by "oil drillers" and why would they be on a forward operating base?
Oil drillers/pumpers...
Oil drillers/pumpers... whatever they are. I was lead to believe Halliburton and other associated companies had a few over there. Some even got kidnapped! but that is here nor there
[url=http://www.911pressfortruth.com][img]http://www.911pressfortruth.com/images/7.gif[/img][/url]
That's what I was asking.
That's what I was asking. Who are these "oil drillers?"
All I'm saying is that I haven't seen any. Nor any missions or anything related to oil.
I have no doubt that oil played a role in this war. But it isn't our main focus right now; that's an ignorant statement.
I know it may not be from
I know it may not be from where you are sitting, and why should it be. I just wish that you didn't have to be out there putting yourself in danger. Will this war on terror ever end?
[url=http://www.911pressfortruth.com][img]http://www.911pressfortruth.com/images/7.gif[/img][/url]
No, because a "War on
No, because a "War on Terror" is as retarded as a "War on Drugs."
But it makes a really great scare tactic.