And, just how is this 'oil' thing working out?
On Jun 16, 12:57 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ok, I do remember talk about terrorism against the citizens of Iraq
> and evidence was shown that Saddam had used chemical weopons on his
> own people and the thuggery of his rule could certainly be considered
> terrorism. I mean we weren't worried about him bombing our malls so
> much as, like you said, keeping the flow of oil secure and freeing the
> Iraqi people.
>
> dj
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Don Johnson<[email protected]> wrote:
> > iam, about the only thing I agree with you on this post is the last
> > sentence. Oil was the best reason for invading. The Bush
> > administration felt they needed to stabilize the area so the flow of
> > the black stuff would keep coming. They also thought soldiers would
> > be greeted by the citizens throwing rose petals under their feet
> > entering Baghdad. Thus the whole 'liberation' theme. Ooops.
>
> > The only people I heard crying about Bush saying the Iraq war was
> > about terrorism or 9/11 was Democrats. I never heard him or anyone in
> > the administration use that argument until well after congress agreed
> > to military intervention. If you have evidence otherwise I'd like to
> > be corrected and I'll admit I was wrong.
>
> > Your response to my comment about Saddam's role in ignoring or
> > outright breaking UN rules confuses me. Yes, the US has a veto. So
> > do other nations and they use theirs as well. I wasn't talking about
> > them or us and those vetos don't break the rules they are a part of
> > the process. I'm talking about throwing out weapons inspectors among
> > other things. I can only surmise that you weren't paying attention
> > during these occurrences or you've been fed a lot of disinformation.
> > If you can prove me wrong I'll man up and admit it but until then
> > we'll just have to disagree on the facts.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:52 AM, iam deheretic<[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I don't understand Don
>
> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I see your point, Fran. I happen to agree more with SD, however.
>
> >>> I have never connected the invasion of Iraq with 9/11 or radical
> >>> Islam.
>
> >> that is what the world is fighting.
>
> >>> I saw it as a response to Sadddam's belligerence to UN
> >>> resolutions
>
> >> and George Bush is not belligerant to UN resolutions. veto here veto
> >> there,
> >> Iseral the naughty step child of the US can not be held accountable
> >> because of this automatic veto..
>
> >>> and, of course, his active pursuit of WMD's.
>
> >> What weapons of mass destruction? People around the world knew they didn't
> >> exist and it was retoric coming from the Bush administration and his
> >> cronies
> >> who don't count the cost of war ,, just the profit.
>
> >>> Right or wrong, this is why we invaded.
>
> >> No Iraq was invaded to satisfy Bush's ego to go down in the history books
> >> as
> >> a great war time president,, being a coward that abandoned his post durning
> >> the vietnam war and the only thing that saved his but was his daddy.
>
> >>> Hindsight of course tells us we should
> >>> have stayed out of Iraq.
>
> >> What i don't understand is why in the first place. There is an old saying
> >> that goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It was common knowledge
> >> Saddam and Ben Laudin hated each others guts and there is no way he was
> >> going to be allowed on saddam's territory and in starting the Bush/Iraq war
> >> they gaveBen Laudin free access to the rest of the world..
>
> >> The other thing the war was over was for the Oil..
> >> Allan
>
> >>> (or fought it more harshly to win, ala SD's
> >>> premise) I can't disagree with that. However, sanctions weren't
> >>> working(they only cause the poor to suffer more) and massive fraud at
> >>> the UN and in countries all over the world with the Oil for Food
> >>> debacle negated any effect they might have had. No one knows what
> >>> would have happened if we hadn't invaded but I suspect it would have
> >>> led to another war between Iraq and Iran. Good for us, really bad for
> >>> the both of them. As it is, we've enabled Iran's recent success.
> >>> Their economy is in the shitter(just like the rest of us) but, as you
> >>> pointed out, patriotism is quite high. Citizens like a belligerent
> >>> cowboy as a leader, even if he is just a figure head in this case.
> >>> *my God, did I just compare I'mADinnerJacket to Reagan?-somebody slap
> >>> me!*
>
> >>> I don't see a resolution to the 'War on Terror' ever. I'd rather
> >>> fight them then pay them off like Saudi Arabia. Turning the other
> >>> cheek I also have a problem with. It tends to get bitten off. Like I
> >>> said earlier, if it was easy we'd of fixed it already.
>
> >>> dj
>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM, frantheman<[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> > To use military language, the current position in what Bush called the
> >>> > "War on Terror" (more correctly, the war on radical Islam) is SNAFU,
> >>> > or Charlie Foxtrot. It didn't have to be that way; in the aftermath of
> >>> > 9/11 there was overwhelming international support for the US, general
> >>> > agreement that the Taliban (who offered succour and support to bin
> >>> > Ladin and Al Khaida) had to be removed, a subsequent UN resolution and
> >>> > a broadly-backed invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq and the
> >>> > conflation of both conflicts blew all that and fatally poisoned the
> >>> > whole issue. Saddam Hussein was many things, but never an Islamicist.
>
> >>> > Justin is right all the way on this. The pursual of the so-called "War
> >>> > on Terror" contains so many contradictions that it is acting as a
> >>> > first-class recruiting sergeant for radical Islamicism - Gitmo is only
> >>> > one instance of this. The results are becoming daily more apparent in
> >>> > Afpakhistan. The real battle, that for hearts and minds, is being lost
> >>> > (and "getting them by the balls" isn't going to change this). The high
> >>> > moral ground resulting from 9/11 has been lost - probably irrevocably.
> >>> > Watching the "development" of Obama's position since his inauguration
> >>> > makes me suspect that various military arguments are succeeding in
> >>> > scaring him off truly courageous strategies which might offer some
> >>> > hope of actually doing something about the situation.
>
> >>> > As much as I abhor radical Islamicism and all that it stands for,
> >>> > dehumanising its adherents and active agents is not going to solve the
> >>> > problems. Leaving aside the question as to whether he actually won the
> >>> > election, it remains undeniable that millions of Iranians freely and
> >>> > enthusiastically voted for Ahmadinejad. As a first step to actually
> >>> > understanding some of the motivations of these people (and they are
> >>> > people, not just crazed fanatics), I would recommend watching Abu-
> >>> > Assad's "Paradise Now."
>
> >>> > In the end, Justin's position can be defined by the saying; "Love your
> >>> > enemy, it will drive him crazy!" Trying it would be novel, and it
> >>> > might just achieve something. However, I have to say that I'm not
> >>> > holding my breath.
>
> >>> > Francis
>
> >>> > On 15 Jun., 12:21, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >> The answer is simple. We do not kill them because it will negatively
> >>> >> affect our efforts on the battlefield to achieve superiority. It
> >>> >> motivates the enemy, hardens and destroys our own morale, and all for
> >>> >> no strategic purpose. Ultimately, it is a political objective that we
> >>> >> are trying to reach. Moving it farther out of our hands make no sense.
>
> >>> >> On Jun 14, 11:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> >> > I think you are losing the context of the thread. Perhaps lining
> >>> >> > them
> >>> >> > up for a firing squad veers the thread intent off track. I thought
> >>> >> > there would be a psychological discussion but instead it is turning
> >>> >> > out to be everything else but.
>
> >>> >> > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the
> >>> >> > "innocent
> >>> >> > bystander" are co-located. <JT
>
> >>> >> > Sure they are, no kidding? I'm not suggesting now nor did I suggest
> >>> >> > at any time that we bomb the whole place, killing innocent people in
> >>> >> > the process. My only suggestion was that we just eliminate the enemy
> >>> >> > combatants during ground wars of any kind.
> >>> >> > The context of the thread is pertaining to all wars, any wars,
> >>> >> > fighting over anything. Like the civil war!
> >>> >> > Again!!
> >>> >> > There is a change that takes place. Soldier A is shooting at
> >>> >> > soldier
> >>> >> > B with all the intention of killing him. Soldier B for whatever
> >>> >> > reason gets caught by soldier A. Soldier B, who killed several of
> >>> >> > soldier A's friends and claims he will kill more if given the
> >>> >> > opportunity, is taken by soldier A and treated very well. Why?
>
> >>> >> > SO!! I am simply saying that If I were soldier A, I would just kill
> >>> >> > soldier B (the enemy) instead of wasting my time catering to his
> >>> >> > needs.
>
> >>> >> > If we are going to kill then lets kill otherwise let's put out a huge
> >>> >> > picnic table and have Soldiers A and Soldiers B sit down and treat
> >>> >> > each other nicely while they eat!!
>
> >>> >> > On Jun 14, 12:25 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> >> > > You seem to have no awareness of the context of what is happening.
> >>> >> > > You
> >>> >> > > seem not to see the context at all.
>
> >>> >> > > First, the term "war". If we are in a war then we are in a severely
> >>> >> > > asymetrical one. There is no government that has "declared" war on
> >>> >> > > us
> >>> >> > > in this thing. Nor is there a society, working together in an
> >>> >> > > organized manner- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
