If that is what you want to believe, fine,,,, Allan On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 ยป > > > > > > > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
