Discussion in 'Members' Lounge' started by 94RedSiGal, Jan 12, 2005.
Well it's official... fucking Bush. <_<
no now bush will find a report saying the weapons were moved to some new country then he will invade it
Who didn't see this coming?
The little bastards wouldn't be blowing everything up had we not invaded over non existant WMDs.
then why is it they are blowing up IRAQI military and IRAQI police? Could it be that they want to cling to the power they enjoyed under the corrupt regime that no longer exists? Could it be that they are afraid of getting their asses, make that heads, handed to them by the same people they have stepped all over for the last 20+ years? Or is that they hate Americans and understand the pressure bleeding heart liberals will exert on the government if the body count gets high enough?
any of the above reasons is enough to stay and finish what we started if they newly elected government wants us to.
Now, if they ask us to leave and George doesn't pull out then I'll be screaming too.
Why Iraq? Why did we invade a country that was not a threat to us while several other nations are a direct threat to the States? Reguardless of who is blowing up who, we should not be in this war. There are who knows how many corrupt governments in the world, so many other countries building nukes and POINTING THEM AT US, and we simply ignore them and went after Iraq.
Because the two major driving forces for the neocon strategy is the need to control Middle East oil supply and the protection of Israel.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
Neocons believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power â€“ forcefully if necessary â€“ to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI â€“ the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy â€“ had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
(Taken from Christian Science Monitor)
General Schwarzkopf said during Daddy Bush's term in office that invading Iraq and taking Baghdad would create a horrible mess that we simply could not get out of. Damn, he was right.
Neocons have been wanting this for AGES. They are using 9/11 as justification to put this into action. Remember, we were supposed to capture Bin Laden and wipe out the terror cells in Afghanistan. What happened? Binny is still on the run, terrorists are everywhere, but we got a kickass natural gas and oil pipeline through Afghanistan through to the Caspian Sea!
<sabz5150>hello! my sources are Michael Moore...</sabz5150>
Who said I got that from Mikey? I cited my source, the Christian Science Monitor.
fact is, that they are in a civil war. the militia vs the iraqui gov't and the us troops.
there's nothing civil about war, but it has nothing to do with us..... just bush's investments and money in the pipelines and oil.
if you voted for bush, congraulations, you're an idiot.
please get your facts straight...
an unbiased read about Afghan pipeline
Russia, Iran, Pakistan and the U.S. have been trying to get to this oil for 30+ years. As documented here, we would have built this pipeline under the previous administration if not for the Taliban's tolerance of Osoma and their attitude towards women.
And why are you upset that Afghanistan might become an industrialized nation with a major export? What? Do you think they're going to give it to us for free?!!
Once again, not from Mikey although he did cite that in F911. That data has been around long before F911 was released. If you do a little digging you will find quite a bit.
The proposed pipeline maps were freely available for quite some time. Hell, I knew about the pipeline long before F911 came out.
nope... sorry B
they're not insurgents...
me too. I read about it in the Weekly World News as a part of my "Foriegn Relations" class as a senior in H.S.
I was part of the Isreali delagation at the mock U.N. in 1988 when no one was a friend of Isreal except the U.S. At the time they were gunning down Palestinians and bulldozing houses on the West Bank to beat the band.
At the same time, Russia was trying to regain some respect after getting their asses handed to them by the Afghan Freedom Fighters (a.k.a. The Taliban) after their failed quest to gain a warm water port and the same oil reserves we're refering to today.
Don't preach to me about history, I'm old enough to have lived it.
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld
"Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush
â€œThere is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks
Theyâ€™re not Insurgents â€“ They're Terrorist Cockroaches!
THE RANT.US ^ | DECEMBER 28, 2004 | J. MATT BARBER
Posted on 12/28/2004 11:02:15 AM PST by CHARLITE
yup. cuz thats a reliable source. sounds more like an opinion/blog aticle than anything
Didn't preach, though it raises the question that if you know about this and knew what happened, why do you now dismiss it as one of Mikey's crazy ideas? Is it not true that the first thing that the leader we assigned to Afghanistan did was sign the contract to create the pipeline?
Didn't we support those freedom fighters back in the 80's? Didn't we also help Osama back then? If you're old enough to have lived it, then you would see the irony in all of this. Fighting against the same terrorists that we assisted in pushing back Russia back in the 80's.
Don't be so quick to use the age card either. Doesn't work.
Oh yeah, we've wanted that pipeline for quite some time, but do you remember the quote made to the Taliban along thre lines of "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"? We wanted that pipeline like a crackhead wants a big ol rock.
are we now ignoring the thread-jack topic and bringing up quotes? I can get you some from Kerry and other prominent liberals if you want me to but isn't that really digressing?
yeah, the article is an opinion piece but the fact is the folks inciting the turmoil today, the ones that are trying to keep democracy out of Iraq, are not fighting a civil war and they're not insurgents. They are part of a religeous minoirty that enjoyed great power and are bent on maintaining the status quo of the prior regime.
yeah, I've often found that ironic.
I site MM because you seem to buy his theory that the Afghan war is solely about oil and not about terrorism.
Do I see a conspiracy in that Afghanistan wants to become an industrialized nation and SELL a product that the WORLD wants? No. Not when so may nations and so many U.S. administrations have tried to make this happen before now.
Do I think it was the primary reason for going into Afghanistan? I'm not that gullible or ignorant. Ever see the bumper sticker," Ruin a liberal's day, quote historical fact" its applicable here.
Do I have a problem supporting Bin Laden as a fighter against the Soviet Union but then wanting to kill him after he masterminded or at least financed 9/11, the Cole attack, the first WTC bombing and the countless other aggressions towards the U.S.? do you?!!!
We also supported Russia during WWII but no one was crying foul during the Cold War.
We kicked Japan's ass in WWII and even occupied that country. It is strange to you that we support them now?
Separate names with a comma.