Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: Mr. Intenseone on November 01, 2006, 01:19:13 PM
-
;D
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
-
Yeah, i saw that on drudge.........
Why did you post it twice?
-
Poor guys. They're worried about something some windbag in DC said about them, when they should be worried about why they're still being parked on street corners in Baghdad instead of pulled to the city limits so that the Iraqi police can learn to do their job.
Monster priorities.
-
;D
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
lol! That's classic. ;D
-
Yeah, i saw that on drudge.........
Why did you post it twice?
I posted it once on the G&O and once on here. I had a feeling they would move it!!
-
Poor guys. They're worried about something some windbag in DC said about them, when they should be worried about why they're still being parked on street corners in Baghdad instead of pulled to the city limits so that the Iraqi police can learn to do their job.
Monster priorities.
Stop bringing logic into this.
John Kerry is a douchebag but what's he got to do with this ridiculous war? The last thing the White House needs to be doing is focusing on what that tool said.
Take care of this stupid war and then you can bash Kerry all you want. Of course why deal with the real issues when you can shift the focus to someone else?
By the way, starting two threads based on that picture is pathetic, even for a right wing zealot.
-
Stop bringing logic into this.
John Kerry is a douchebag but what's he got to do with this ridiculous war?
He has nothing to do with it ::)..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq :-\!!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
-
He has nothing to do with it ::)..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq :-\!!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?
Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.
-
He has nothing to do with it ::)..............exept for being one of the unanimous voters in congress to go to Iraq :-\!!
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
-
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
Try and think before you post. Not everything is left versus right. I realize that's difficult for you but do try at least for the sake of your kids.
When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?
Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.
-
A lot of people voted for the war before:
1) They found out that Sadaam's monster WMD were pre-1991 bunkers with 15-year old munitions
2) They found out 9/11 reeks to high heaven and Iraq is stop #2 of 5 in US oil domination
3) They saw us declare mission accomplished, then decide NOT to turn things over to the UN to manage when they offered. The UN would happily be doing the fighting on the streets right now, but that would have removed the no-bid contracts for US firms.
So yes, at that time, given that info, nearly everyone voted for the war. But WE WON THE FUCKING THING. Sadaam is gone. They had elections and have their own new govt. We did it! We're done!
Um, so, if it's not the oil, why are we still there?
-
A lot of people voted for the war before:
1) They found out that Sadaam's monster WMD were pre-1991 bunkers with 15-year old munitions
2) They found out 9/11 reeks to high heaven and Iraq is stop #2 of 5 in US oil domination
3) They saw us declare mission accomplished, then decide NOT to turn things over to the UN to manage when they offered. The UN would happily be doing the fighting on the streets right now, but that would have removed the no-bid contracts for US firms.
So yes, at that time, given that info, nearly everyone voted for the war. But WE WON THE FUCKING THING. Sadaam is gone. They had elections and have their own new govt. We did it! We're done!
Um, so, if it's not the oil, why are we still there?
Why bring logic and reason into this? Don't you realize it's left against right? Nothing else matters.
Oh, and I thought the WMD's were 65 year old cans of baked beans from WWII?
-
When was that vote exactly? And you do realize of course that a lot has changed since that vote don't you? You're intelligent enough to understand that right?
Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.
Gee, If I recall the vote was made right after the last and SEVENTEENTH resolution, and yes, alot has changed and we did underestimate the insurgency which all the more reason stay and finish what we set out to do, get you can get off of the Liberal bandwagon you might be able to see this...we can't leave now and you definatly can't leave just because things have changed......you're sounding like any bandwagon Democrat!
-
Everyone believed what we were told. but WE WON!
There are 1000 foreign militants in iraq, and a bunch of pissed off ex-military. Independent polls show the iraqi people resent the US troops more than they resent the insurgents.
The minute we leave, the gloves come off, the iraqi police do their job and they kill for a month and it's all solved. Period.
The war is over. Bush should ask congress for a bill authorizing long-term iraqi occupation. We achieved our war goals. Policing civil affairs is the JOB of the govt there, not us. We were their liberators and we helped them build a govt. That is done.
Thing is, the Crazy CTers believe that we will stay forever. The minute we're wrong, please let us know. But the battle is over, we achieved our objectives, yet we're still losing 4 men a day. Explain, please.
-
YES :) We CAN leave now!
We achieved our goals! WMD are gone. Sadaam is gone. iraq has democracy :) :) :)
They elected their own govt. They have a police force. The US has achieved our pre-war stated objectives. At this point, all we are doing is preventing the Iraqi police force from doing their job- civil unrest issues.
Why are we still there?
-
they're way to unstable right now. if we left iran would take over.
-
Try and think before you post. Not everything is left versus right. I realize that's difficult for you but do try at least for the sake of your kids.
You're absolutely right. A bipartisan Congress passed more than one resolution supporting the war.
-
YES :) We CAN leave now!
We achieved our goals! WMD are gone. Sadaam is gone. iraq has democracy :) :) :)
They elected their own govt. They have a police force. The US has achieved our pre-war stated objectives. At this point, all we are doing is preventing the Iraqi police force from doing their job- civil unrest issues.
Why are we still there?
We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!
-
You're absolutely right. A bipartisan Congress passed more than one resolution supporting the war.
If it was bipartisan, then why do Dems shoot down every proposal the President makes??
-
We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!
No. Not the facts again. . . . .
-
If it was bipartisan, then why do Dems shoot down every proposal the President makes??
Because they are attempting to use the war for political gain. It is hypocritical and just flat out wrong.
-
We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!
The region will never be stable. There are always going to be warlords in villages and local militias. History has shown that is how they live and that is what they want. It would seriously take 15 years of presence to instill an entire generation of people who don't believe in that system, and that would take many more troops than we have there now. Their learned religious fundamentals state they are a three-vision nation, and they have been for a thousand years. We will not change that. not possible.
The Iraqi military and police force - they are dying to take back some of the old guys who were dismissed when we disbanded their military. Those guys running around with IEDs are former military men - it's all they know. Suddenly hungry and jobless, they're going to blow shit up until they die, or until they are rehired to do that for a living. And they are too far embedded in the population to kill every one- we simply cannot do it, and given the last 3 years of occupation, we're no closer to doing that then when we started.
The moment we leave, they will stabilize out of necessity. They will clash violently- what they all want - then the winner will absorb the remnants of the loser. Their sense of nationalism is sitll there. Once we leave - at least scoot to the borders and give them their cities back - they will re-unite into their individual regions, and find a working relationship.
That's the thing which many are not separating. We all supported the liberation of Iraq, the ousting of Sadaam, and the clearing of WMD. that is what we did! Nowhere in that initial war charge did Bush say "we will also be occupying longterm as we rebuild their social structure over 1 or 2 generations". Many were shocked when we turned down a heavily-Muslim Euro/UN offering to take over. The perfect out! We would hae left after a year and been clear winners and heroes!
The only possible reason for us not accepting UN assistance (troops and money) is that we wanted to reap the windfall of the newly freed resources. And suddenly, that moves us form liberators, to plunderers.
We accomplished the goals endorsed by the congress. If Bush wants an Occupation Bill, by all means, put it before Congress and let them vote. Anyone wanna put money on the outcome? ;)
-
240 - The troops can't worry about why they are still there. Once you're there you have to do your job and do as you're told. If they're having a little fun with Kerry more power to them.
-
240 - The troops can't worry about why they are still there. Once you're there you have to do your job and do as you're told. If they're having a little fun with Kerry more power to them.
I agree, MONSTER stress relief
-
The region will never be stable. There are always going to be warlords in villages and local militias. History has shown that is how they live and that is what they want. It would seriously take 15 years of presence to instill an entire generation of people who don't believe in that system, and that would take many more troops than we have there now. Their learned religious fundamentals state they are a three-vision nation, and they have been for a thousand years. We will not change that. not possible.
The Iraqi military and police force - they are dying to take back some of the old guys who were dismissed when we disbanded their military. Those guys running around with IEDs are former military men - it's all they know. Suddenly hungry and jobless, they're going to blow shit up until they die, or until they are rehired to do that for a living. And they are too far embedded in the population to kill every one- we simply cannot do it, and given the last 3 years of occupation, we're no closer to doing that then when we started.
The moment we leave, they will stabilize out of necessity. They will clash violently- what they all want - then the winner will absorb the remnants of the loser. Their sense of nationalism is sitll there. Once we leave - at least scoot to the borders and give them their cities back - they will re-unite into their individual regions, and find a working relationship.
That's the thing which many are not separating. We all supported the liberation of Iraq, the ousting of Sadaam, and the clearing of WMD. that is what we did! Nowhere in that initial war charge did Bush say "we will also be occupying longterm as we rebuild their social structure over 1 or 2 generations". Many were shocked when we turned down a heavily-Muslim Euro/UN offering to take over. The perfect out! We would hae left after a year and been clear winners and heroes!
The only possible reason for us not accepting UN assistance (troops and money) is that we wanted to reap the windfall of the newly freed resources. And suddenly, that moves us form liberators, to plunderers.
We accomplished the goals endorsed by the congress. If Bush wants an Occupation Bill, by all means, put it before Congress and let them vote. Anyone wanna put money on the outcome? ;)
awesome post.
-
We can't leave until the region is stable and the iraqi military and Government is stable!!
So never.
-
No. Not the facts again. . . . .
::)
Here's a fact you and you're zealot brethren can't seem to comprehend.
It will NEVER be stable over there. We will never be able to change it. This seems to be lost on all of you Bush supporters. I even remember one of your brethren talking about a 10 year exit strategy. LOL. Now that's a sound strategy if I've ever heard one.
The most amazing part of your stance is that if a Democrat were in the White House you'd be crying about how ridiculous the war is. Everything is right versus left with you idiots.
If a Democrat were in the White House I'd still be railing against this war.
Because they are attempting to use the war for political gain. It is hypocritical and just flat out wrong.
Here's another winner of a bullschit post that has no truth in it. If a Democrat were in the White House the Republicans would be using the war for political purposes against the Democrats. You act like the Republicans are different in that regard. Here's a news flash, they're not.
Here's another newsflash for all you zealots. The only reason Bush is talking about what Kerry said is to use it for political gain. He's using Kerry's big mouth to bolster the sagging Republicans image and dirty the image of Democrats. Is that hypocritical and just flat out wrong? ::)
Kerry is and idiot and so is Bush. Two idiots, one's a Democrat and one's a Republican. Same thing in different clothes.
-
::)
Here's a fact you and you're zealot brethren can't seem to comprehend.
It will NEVER be stable over there. We will never be able to change it. This seems to be lost on all of you Bush supporters. I even remember one of your brethren talking about a 10 year exit strategy. LOL. Now that's a sound strategy if I've ever heard one.
The most amazing part of your stance is that if a Democrat were in the White House you'd be crying about how ridiculous the war is. Everything is right versus left with you idiots.
If a Democrat were in the White House I'd still be railing against this war.
Yea, because of religions with stubborn followers they will never compromise and will always be at war with each other just like Palestine and Israel. This could be worse than Vietnam for the US because of morons like Bush who don't know when to quit.
-
Everybody compares Iraq to Vietnam, but that is the wrong comparison. Everybody tries to frame this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue but both parties have made giant mistakes in past wars and occupations. Just a quick history for comparison:
The Spanish-American War was the first attempt to "nation build." After defeating Spain, we attempted to stabilize the Philippines and that went horribly wrong. It was so bad that in 1903 Teddy Roosevelt, a Democrat, finally just gave up and left the Philippines to fend for themselves.
After World War II, President Truman, a Democrat, endorsed the Marshall Plan but only for countries in Western Europe and that did not "appease" the Soviet Union during World War II. The Marshall plan basically left Eastern Europe, Austria, China, and southeast Asia to rebuild after war. We helped those countries against the Nazis and Japanese, but then determined they were outside our "sphere of influence" for aid.
After the Korean War, we had very limited success building up South Korea. President Eisenhower, a Republican, largely let South Korea run rampant with corruption and lawlessness. We were in South Korea for at least 25 years after the end of the Korean War helping maintain some semblence of law and order. South Korea only started functioning as a democratic state with a capitalist economy in the late 1970's.
These three cases illustrate that we are good at winning a war, but can't figure out how to build a nation. Additionally, just three years in Iraq is short compared to occupations/assistance after any other war.
240 mentioned that we should be out of Iraq because we accomplished our initial objectives. The problem is that our initial objectives did not address post-conflict nation building. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, mentioned that prior to hostilities. War is fast moving and objectives change based on the situation. I bet that, behind closed doors, the Middle East governments are glad that the US is still in Iraq because it does actually provide stability. If we pull out, chaos will ensue and the entire region would probably end in war.
-
The problem is that our initial objectives did not address post-conflict nation building.
Then the writers of the war bill fucked up. They need to put fwd a bill to Congress for longterm Iraqi occupation.
Nobody, Democrat or Republican, mentioned that prior to hostilities.
This was by design - no one would have approved the war.
I bet that, behind closed doors, the Middle East governments are glad that the US is still in Iraq because it does actually provide stability. If we pull out, chaos will ensue and the entire region would probably end in war.
I pray you take these words seriously: Behind closed doors, they know we are using lies to enter their country, installing puppet regimes rife with no-bid contracts on oil pipeline infrastructure, and building permanent military bases along future oil pipeline paths.
In your lifetime, you will see an oil pipeline, managed by US firms, on the map below. it is the truth. You will spend 2001 to 2006 talking about terrorists, 911, and WMD. Then you will spend 2010 to 2020 observing the following, as the US asserts control of 1/2 of the Middle East's oil:
-
whos denying that were not also in it for oil? of course we are. our nation depends on it. what do you want us to do, forget about the middle east oil, can you imagine if this country didnt have gas. it wouldnt function.
-
whos denying that were not also in it for oil? of course we are. our nation depends on it. what do you want us to do, forget about the middle east oil, can you imagine if this country didnt have gas. it wouldnt function.
Brazil is way poorer and way dumber than us. And they are completely fuel independent.
it's my belief that the US should bring our men home, put the dumb half on the borders to guard against illegals, and the smart half in the lab/famrs to perfect ethanol fuel in 18 month. It would be solved.
also kh300, is it RIGHT for the US to just invade and take oil from people? I mean, isn't that, very simply, stealing?
-
it probably isn't right.but could you go without oil?
-
it probably isn't right.but could you go without oil?
I could ride a bike around while our very resourceful people quickly developed non-petroleum fuel sources.
I could deal with a tad bit more pollution while we go thru the 250 years of coal we have in alaska.
-
::)
Here's a fact you and you're zealot brethren can't seem to comprehend.
It will NEVER be stable over there. We will never be able to change it. This seems to be lost on all of you Bush supporters. I even remember one of your brethren talking about a 10 year exit strategy. LOL. Now that's a sound strategy if I've ever heard one.
The most amazing part of your stance is that if a Democrat were in the White House you'd be crying about how ridiculous the war is. Everything is right versus left with you idiots.
If a Democrat were in the White House I'd still be railing against this war.
Here's another winner of a bullschit post that has no truth in it. If a Democrat were in the White House the Republicans would be using the war for political purposes against the Democrats. You act like the Republicans are different in that regard. Here's a news flash, they're not.
Here's another newsflash for all you zealots. The only reason Bush is talking about what Kerry said is to use it for political gain. He's using Kerry's big mouth to bolster the sagging Republicans image and dirty the image of Democrats. Is that hypocritical and just flat out wrong? ::)
Kerry is and idiot and so is Bush. Two idiots, one's a Democrat and one's a Republican. Same thing in different clothes.
YAWN. ::)
-
YAWN. ::)
I know, the truth is tiresome and boring for zealots.
-
Last I checked Kerry wasn't running this war, it was Bush that was Commander in Chief. In fact for all intents and purposes Kerry has nothing to do with the running of the war. Of course your right wing zealotry can't comprehend that, all you see is a liberal said something stupid so you have to pounce rather than looking at the bigger issues involved.
Haha, good point. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but John Kerry is hurting the Democratic party more than anything.
-
I know, the truth is tiresome and boring for zealots.
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Proverbs 26:4.
-
Then the writers of the war bill fucked up. They need to put fwd a bill to Congress for longterm Iraqi occupation.
This was by design - no one would have approved the war.
I pray you take these words seriously: Behind closed doors, they know we are using lies to enter their country, installing puppet regimes rife with no-bid contracts on oil pipeline infrastructure, and building permanent military bases along future oil pipeline paths.
In your lifetime, you will see an oil pipeline, managed by US firms, on the map below. it is the truth. You will spend 2001 to 2006 talking about terrorists, 911, and WMD. Then you will spend 2010 to 2020 observing the following, as the US asserts control of 1/2 of the Middle East's oil:
A bill for long-term occupation is a good idea. My intent was to provide a little history that Iraq was not the first attempt by the US to build a nation. We, as a country, need to start learning from past experience.
Reference comments made by Middle Eastern diplomats and rulers. They think our policy is "questionable" but they recognize that our involvement in Iraq creates stability- probably because all the revolutionaries leave their country and go to Iraq! Comments by Saudi and Jordanian officials confirm this. How many interstate wars were in the Middle East while Saddam was in power? How many in the three years since he was ousted?
Your maps seem contradictory. Which company is attempting to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkeministan (areas where there is no oil)? Why would we not build a pipeline from the Capian sea to the Med? Cheaper, more politically stable, and closer to the oil dependent countries. I have been in that area and there is no way a pipeline could be built. It would be cheaper to refine oil from Canadian shale.
-
;D
(http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e196/Intenseone/irak.jpg)
Those troops probably know that Kerry wasn't insulting them. Yet they're so in denial about the Iraq war, they want to take what Kerry said out of context purposely to motivate themselves.
-
i wonder what will happen when many of these iraqi vets finally do get home and watch Loose Change, do some reading on the WMD and the dollar, and discover that the fight they had, the friends and limbs they lost over the years, were all based upon lies.
They can't speak now because of peer pressure. but a lot of those 9/11 signups are going to be ending their tours pretty soon.
-
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Proverbs 26:4.
Then shouldn't you have ignored my post all together and not quoted it?
Fantastic logic, now I can see why your pro-war ideology is so well reasoned. ::)
-
Then shouldn't you have ignored my post all together and not quoted it?
Fantastic logic, now I can see why your pro-war ideology is so well reasoned. ::)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5. Difficult balance. :-\
-
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5. Difficult balance. :-\
There you go again with quoting my post even though you're supposed to ignore it.
Ignoring my post would follow your proverb, quoting my post doesn't. Apparently you missed the day in school where logic was taught. ::)
-
There you go again with quoting my post even though you're supposed to ignore it.
Ignoring my post would follow your proverb, quoting my post doesn't. Apparently you missed the day in school where logic was taught. ::)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5.
::)
-
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5.
::)
LOL, you did it again. LOL
Highlighting the word answer is answering. LOL
As I said, apparently you missed the day in school where they taught logic.
-
LOL, you did it again. LOL
Highlighting the word answer is answering. LOL
As I said, apparently you missed the day in school where they taught logic.
::)
-
::)
And again. I'm assuming at this point you just can't help yourself.
At least in that other thread you admitted Bush was a draft dodger. I give you credit for that.
-
And again. I'm assuming at this point you just can't help yourself.
At least in that other thread you admitted Bush was a draft dodger. I give you credit for that.
::)
-
::)
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Proverbs 26:4.
-
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him." Proverbs 26:4.
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5.
::)
-
"Answer a fool according to his folly, Lest he be wise in his own eyes." Proverbs 26:5.
::)
"Do not answer a right wing zealot according to his folly, lest you be like him." Proverbs 26:4.
-
I've had enough laughs with this one. You're boring me.
-
I've had enough laughs with this one. I'm boring you.
I agree, this one has run it's course.