Well, since you asked, the freeing of the Iraqi people worked out rather well. Too much blood and treasure expended in my opinion but mission accomplished.
O wait. That's NOT what you asked. Here ya go. http://article.wn.com/view/2009/06/02/Oil_from_Kurdish_region_begins_to_flow_out_of_Iraq/ Of course, it wasn't just oil from Iraq we were concerned about. We were concerned Saddam would disrupt the flow from the entire region of the Middle East with his weapons buildup. That's how I remember it anyway. Never did understand the 'no blood for oil' mantra of the left. I can't think of another resource more important to our economy. Of course it's worth fighting for. dj On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:05 PM, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
