Iraq's security 'remarkably better'

VTXDave said:
Not trueZen. In Obama's very own "Blueprint for America" (it's available on his website and I've read all his docs which is precisely why I'd rather eat a bullet than vote for the worthless fuck)he outlines an increase of 100,000 additional troops to go to the US Army and Marine Corp. And just this week he publicly declared that he intends on redeploying troops to Afghanistan. Obama is far from a "dove" as many would like to think he is. The people voting for Obama solely on the premise of hoping he ends the war, I have just one thing to say...

Wish in one hand and shit in the other. See which one fills up faster...:lol:
Click to expand...

Well...

YouTube - IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA WON'T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION
 
GoodbyeFreedom said:
Sure, no problem.

While not explicitly declaring Iraqi culpability in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, administration officials did, at various times, imply a link. In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
Transcript for Sept. 14 - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com (almost halfway down the page)

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001"
-George W. Bush, May 1st, 2003
President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended


When you add all this shit together, you see that the Bush Administration used 9/11 and key words like freedom (propaganda) to sell the war. Oil production has picked up since then, but Iraqis, the ones we were SUPPOSED to be liberating, still aren't seeing any revenue from oil. AMERICAN TAXPAYERS have been paying for reconstruction, not Iraqi oil money. So the question is, wheres the oil money going?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html
Senators: Where is Iraq's oil money going? - CNN.com
Iraq’s Oil Money Not Buying Health Care, When Millions From Oil Flow Out Of Iraq Every Day, Why Are So Many Citizens Suffering? - CBS News


Oh... and Rumsfield did sell Iraq anthrax and bubonic plague, along with other weapons in the early 80s. So i guess its true that Iraq did posses WMDs. Lol. Kinda hypocritical dont ya think? bongsmilie
Click to expand...

I don't care what little phrases people have taken out of context that Bush has said about terrorism and Iraq. We declared war for different reasons, read the 9/11 commission and it was approved by Congress. Get over it.

Do people forget that we are still currently in Afghanistan? We are combating terrorism there, would you rather it here?

Iraq is just now starting to start producing oil and yes, it is helping to reconstruct their infrastructure. The money we tax payers donate is going mainly to our military, not theirs. Until you have proof otherwise, quit posting these speculations.

Hypocritical in the 80's? We did a lot of things to combat communism back then, hell, we gave Afghanistan stinger missiles and weapons. They weren't our enemy then.
 
Maliki is handing money out to random people in the street. That's where a chunk of their oil money is going, giveaways. While we pay for the reconstruction. Heck, there are billions of American dollars that are just missing, supposedly used to buy stuff, but no one can find the stuff the money supposedly bought. Iraq is a very corrupt place. (Not unusual among Muslim communities -- I was in Turkey for a bit over a year, and it's just as corrupt.) I'm sure lots of our money is just disappearing into peoples' pockets.

And of course we're paying buttloads for all our mercenaries, which has gotta be demoralizing for our troops. We pay our troops X to perform job A, but we pay the mercs 10X or 20X to do the exact same job when there are no soldiers available. How would you like to know you're making 20 grand a year and the guy across from you, doing the same job, while enduring fewer hardships, is making 200 grand a year.

And Congress never declared war, so there is no war, just a non-war conflict that's gonna cost two trillion dollars, and growing. That's around $14,000 for each and every taxpayer in the US. That's a hell of a lot of money to basically get one guy. Would have been way more cost effective to just put a billion dollar bounty on Saddam's head; he'd have been dead within a month if we'd gone that route, and that would've saved us taxpayers $1,999,000,000,000. We'd also have a few thousand fewer dead, Al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't even exist, and we'd be well on our way to defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their home turf.

Iraq was a two trillion dollar error in judgment, the most expensive error in judgment in the history of this planet. I'm glad I don't have any children, because the younger generation is going to be paying for this, probably for the rest of their lives.
 
ZenMaster said:
I don't care what little phrases people have taken out of context that Bush has said about terrorism and Iraq. We declared war for different reasons, read the 9/11 commission and it was approved by Congress. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Ok then. Well the burden of proof is on you. Why did we go into Iraq? To liberate the people? lmao! Hell with your logic the president has done nothing wrong!

ZenMaster said:
Do people forget that we are still currently in Afghanistan? We are combating terrorism there, would you rather it here?
Click to expand...
The war in Afghanistan is ILLEGAL. An act of war is a military attack by one state against another state. There is no evidence produced that the state of Afghanistan, at the time, either attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack. There have been no specific charges by the United States regarding any direct Afghan support for international terrorism. Hell 15 of the 19 Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Should we invade them too? Thats a hell of a lot of oil...

Attacking Afghanistan (one of the world's poorest countries) and hugely aggravating starvation dangers for its population with the possible loss of tens of thousands, or more lives, is terrorism. We are attacking civilians with the aim of attaining political goals unrelated to them - in this case hounding Bin Laden and toppling the Taliban.

Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

Bin Laden isnt even charged with 9/11...
 
ZenMaster said:
I don't care what little phrases people have taken out of context that Bush has said about terrorism and Iraq. We declared war for different reasons, read the 9/11 commission and it was approved by Congress. Get over it.

Do people forget that we are still currently in Afghanistan? We are combating terrorism there, would you rather it here?

Iraq is just now starting to start producing oil and yes, it is helping to reconstruct their infrastructure. The money we tax payers donate is going mainly to our military, not theirs. Until you have proof otherwise, quit posting these speculations.

Hypocritical in the 80's? We did a lot of things to combat communism back then, hell, we gave Afghanistan stinger missiles and weapons. They weren't our enemy then.
Click to expand...
I think your wrong about the flow of oil from Iraq bubba...this is a report from Mannaa al-Ubaidi, Mr. Ubaidi, a 33-year veteran of Northern Oil and its current chief executive...this a report from 2004...
"The good news is that the oil is flowing again. Oil-well fires have been extinguished, looted spare parts replaced, and some pipelines reopened. In October, Iraq exported a daily average of 1.14 million barrels of crude, worth about $24 million. It's a promising amount when compared with the coalition's goal for the end of 2004, 1.6 million barrels per day (b.p.d.). But it falls far short of the goal of 2.4 million b.p.d. by the end of 2005". $24 million dollars a day seems like a lot to me....
 
That was then, when oil was much cheaper too. They're really raking it in now, with current oil prices. That doesn't mean we should get either that oil or that money though. They've got an entire nation to repair with their money. *We* have an entire nation to repair with *our* money too, now that I think about it.

The Taliban was protecting Osama, that's why we invaded Afghanistan. Nobody (except the Taliban and Osama) bears us any ill will for Afghanistan; everyone understood the reasoning for that. 'Anyone who harbors terrorists is a terrorist' or whatever the phrasing was. That's the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan: the Saudis aren't shielding the terrorists, they're cracking down the best they can. You hear about them rounding up people plotting to sabotage their oil pipes every few months (in an effort to hurt us indirectly).
 
GoodbyeFreedom said:
Why did we go into Iraq? To liberate the people?
Click to expand...
in a manner of speaking, yes. however, one man's liberation is another man's slavery. terrorism and wmds were just excuses for spreading the ideology of american style democracy (a seemingly noble concept, but still a shitty reason to go around blowing things up). the danger posed to american business and military interests in the middle east by a distinctly anti-american regime was the other major reason for our involvement in iraq, but that is closely tied to the first reason. in the battle of ideologies our erstwhile allies in europe have been largely lost to the concepts of socialism, asia has already learned that sorry lesson and is becoming more and more capitalistic every day, and south america is a playground for both sides.
 
Bongulator said:
The Taliban was protecting Osama, that's why we invaded Afghanistan. Nobody (except the Taliban and Osama) bears us any ill will for Afghanistan; everyone understood the reasoning for that. 'Anyone who harbors terrorists is a terrorist' or whatever the phrasing was. That's the difference between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan: the Saudis aren't shielding the terrorists, they're cracking down the best they can. You hear about them rounding up people plotting to sabotage their oil pipes every few months (in an effort to hurt us indirectly).
Click to expand...
Im sorry, but i dont agree with killing innocent men women and children, all in the name of "looking for" a guy who has been sleeping with the CIA since the late 70s. And like i said before, the FBI doesnt even have enough evidence to CHARGE Bin Laden with 9/11! So why did we go to war???

Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden
 
undertheice said:
in a manner of speaking, yes. however, one man's liberation is another man's slavery. terrorism and wmds were just excuses for spreading the ideology of american style democracy (a seemingly noble concept, but still a shitty reason to go around blowing things up). the danger posed to american business and military interests in the middle east by a distinctly anti-american regime was the other major reason for our involvement in iraq, but that is closely tied to the first reason. in the battle of ideologies our erstwhile allies in europe have been largely lost to the concepts of socialism, asia has already learned that sorry lesson and is becoming more and more capitalistic every day, and south america is a playground for both sides.
Click to expand...
My point is, there should have never been a war in Afghanistan or in Iraq. I have seen too many people die in the name of our country for what? corporate interests?
 
GoodbyeFreedom said:
Im sorry, but i dont agree with killing innocent men women and children, all in the name of "looking for" a guy who has been sleeping with the CIA since the late 70s.
Click to expand...
The bad guys target civilians. Our forces bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage.

There is no evidence of any association between bin Laden and any Western intelligence agency since the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989.
 
Johnnyorganic said:
The bad guys target civilians. Our forces bend over backwards to avoid collateral damage.
Click to expand...
My rage is not directed towards our troops, hell i have witnessed first hand the shit that they go through. I know the vast majority of our troops are protecting lives. I do not agree however when we go to war, using 9/11 as a pretext, just to find out we were lied to. Like there was no concern for peoples lives, civilians and soldiers alike.


Johnnyorganic said:
There is no evidence of any association between bin Laden and any Western intelligence agency since the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan in 1989.
Click to expand...
Excuse me i did jump the gun. I was thinking of Brzenzinski and his involvement with the mujahideen in the late 70s. Bin Laden didnt come until later.
 
From the AP?.....it must be going REALLY good, if they say it is going good. And that "seemed lost" bit, just covering their asses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hanimmal
Lloyd Austin -Biden's pick for Secretary of Defense.
Replies
4
Views
284
Dr.Amber Trichome
Dr.Amber Trichome
Jimdamick
Israel bombs Iraq
Replies
1
Views
222
abandonconflict
abandonconflict
hanimmal
Biden's Cabinet and administration picks.
2
Replies
24
Views
2K
schuylaar
S
DIY-HP-LED
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’
6 7 8
Replies
142
Views
5K
Fogdog
Fogdog
Greenthumbskunk
Neocons Love Trump's New Afghanistan Plan, Blackwater Calls It "Obama-Lite"
Replies
4
Views
274
Heil Tweetler
Heil Tweetler
Back
Top