PDA

View Full Version : USA occupation of Iraq: When should it end?


Volcana
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:40 AM
The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The president and one of the vice presidents of Iraq (jalal Talabani and Tariq al-Hashimi specifically) have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?

controlfreak
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:01 AM
They are probably being kept there because of Iran's ongoing uppitiness.

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:10 AM
i think the original plan was that the us troops stay in iraq for a long time, so they can bully other nations in the region from there. i'm not sure they have given up on that idea yet.

fifiricci
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:24 AM
It should never have started and who knows when it will ever end?

And in relation to Volcana's last point, here's an interesting article from the UK Independent Newspaper today. If Bush is lying - will the American media ever have the guts to come out and say it?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1093512.ece

Veteran critic of White House turns on 'gullible' press pack

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

Published: 21 June 2006



For almost five decades, White House reporter Helen Thomas has been covering America's leaders with a healthy dose of scepticism and an endless string of pointed questions.

Along the way she has ruffled presidential feathers and, since becoming a columnist in 2003, she has made clear her views on some of those incumbents - including George W Bush who she has described as the "worst president in all of American history".

Now, 85-year-old Thomas has focused attention on her fellow reporters, accusing them of failing in their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war. "I ask myself every day why the media have become so complacent, complicit and gullible," she writes in Watchdogs of Democracy?, a book published this week. "It all comes down to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to fear among reporters of being considered 'unpatriotic' or 'unAmerican'."

Thomas, who has covered every president since John F Kennedy, said she believed the press corps had recently recovered some of its spine and, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, had been asking more searching questions. But she said when it really mattered - when, in her opinion, the media could have perhaps prevented the invasion of Iraq - the press failed to do its public service.

She said: "When this war was obviously coming on, for two years we heard 'Saddam Hussein and 9/11'. Every reporter, rather than challenging it and saying [the 9/11 hijackers] were not Iraqis they were Saudis ... The press rolled over and printed it when they knew we were going to war and it could have been challenged."

She added: "Reporters have a duty to follow the truth wherever it leads them, regardless of politics. But people do worry about their jobs."

Until 2003, Thomas sat at the front of presidential press conferences, though for three years Mr Bush failed to call on her. In March, he asked her for a question and she said: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war?"

The President would only say he did not accept the premise of her question.

Critics have long highlighted the failure of much of the media to thoroughly challenge the claims of the US and British governments in the run-up to the invasion. The New York Times has been one of the few to examine its own performance.

In a "mea culpa" it wrote: "We have found a number of instances of coverage that were not as rigorous as they should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims."

Other reporters have highlighted how, in the aftermath of 9/11, the media was less probing, at a time when the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was warning all Americans "need to watch what they say". In 2002, Dan Rather, an anchor with CBS news, said: "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."


For almost five decades, White House reporter Helen Thomas has been covering America's leaders with a healthy dose of scepticism and an endless string of pointed questions.

Along the way she has ruffled presidential feathers and, since becoming a columnist in 2003, she has made clear her views on some of those incumbents - including George W Bush who she has described as the "worst president in all of American history".

Now, 85-year-old Thomas has focused attention on her fellow reporters, accusing them of failing in their duties in the run-up to the Iraq war. "I ask myself every day why the media have become so complacent, complicit and gullible," she writes in Watchdogs of Democracy?, a book published this week. "It all comes down to the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to fear among reporters of being considered 'unpatriotic' or 'unAmerican'."

Thomas, who has covered every president since John F Kennedy, said she believed the press corps had recently recovered some of its spine and, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, had been asking more searching questions. But she said when it really mattered - when, in her opinion, the media could have perhaps prevented the invasion of Iraq - the press failed to do its public service.

She said: "When this war was obviously coming on, for two years we heard 'Saddam Hussein and 9/11'. Every reporter, rather than challenging it and saying [the 9/11 hijackers] were not Iraqis they were Saudis ... The press rolled over and printed it when they knew we were going to war and it could have been challenged."


She added: "Reporters have a duty to follow the truth wherever it leads them, regardless of politics. But people do worry about their jobs."

Until 2003, Thomas sat at the front of presidential press conferences, though for three years Mr Bush failed to call on her. In March, he asked her for a question and she said: "Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war?"

The President would only say he did not accept the premise of her question.

Critics have long highlighted the failure of much of the media to thoroughly challenge the claims of the US and British governments in the run-up to the invasion. The New York Times has been one of the few to examine its own performance.

In a "mea culpa" it wrote: "We have found a number of instances of coverage that were not as rigorous as they should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims."

Other reporters have highlighted how, in the aftermath of 9/11, the media was less probing, at a time when the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was warning all Americans "need to watch what they say". In 2002, Dan Rather, an anchor with CBS news, said: "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."

wta_zuperfann
Jun 21st, 2006, 01:24 PM
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0606g.asp

www fff.org

Killing Iraqi Children
by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 19, 2006

In a short editorial, the Detroit News asked an interesting question:

“Some war critics are suggesting Iraq terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi should have been arrested and prosecuted rather than bombed into oblivion. Why expose American troops to the danger of an arrest, when bombs work so well?”

Here’s one possible answer: In order not to send a five-year-old Iraqi girl into oblivion with the same 500-pound bombs that sent al-Zarqawi into oblivion.

Of course, I don’t know whether the Detroit News editorial board, if pressed, would say that the death of that little Iraqi girl was “worth it.” Maybe the board wasn’t even aware that that little girl had been killed by the bombs that killed Zarqawi when it published its editorial. But I do know one thing: killing Iraqi children and other such “collateral damage” has long been acceptable and even “worth it” to U.S. officials as part of their long-time foreign policy toward Iraq.

This U.S. government mindset was expressed perfectly by former U.S. official Madeleine Albright when she stated that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the U.S. and UN sanctions against Iraq had, in fact, been “worth it.” By “it” she was referring to the U.S. attempt to oust Saddam Hussein from power through the use of the sanctions. Even though that attempt did not succeed, U.S. officials still felt that the deaths of the Iraqi children had been worth trying to get rid of Saddam.

It’s no different with respect to President Bush’s war on Iraq and the resulting occupation, which has killed or maimed tens of thousands of Iraqi people, including countless children. (The Pentagon has long had a policy of not keeping count of the number of Iraqi people, including children, it kills.) In the minds of U.S. officials, the deaths and maiming of all those Iraqi people, including the children, while perhaps unfortunate “collateral damage,” have, in fact, been worth it.

That’s why U.S. officials gave nary a thought to the death of that five-year-old girl who was bombed into oblivion with the bomb that did the same to Zarqawi. The child’s death was “worth it” because the bomb also killed a terrorist, which U.S. officials believe, brings the Middle East another step closer to peace and freedom.


Wars of aggression versus defensive wars

Some would argue that such “collateral damage” is just an unfortunate byproduct of war. War is brutal. People get killed in war. Compared with the two world wars, not that many people have been killed in Iraq, proponents of the Iraq war and occupation would claim.

Such claims, however, miss an important point: U.S. military forces have no right, legal or moral, even to be in Iraq killing anyone. Why? Because neither the Iraqi people nor their government ever attacked the United States. The Iraqi people had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Thus, this was an optional war against Iraq, one that President Bush and his military forces did not have to wage.

The attack on Iraq was akin to, say, attacking Bolivia or Uruguay or Mongolia, after 9/11. Those countries also had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and so it would have been illegal and immoral for President Bush to have ordered an invasion and occupation of those countries as well. To belabor the obvious, the fact that some people attacked the United States on 9/11 didn’t give the United States the right to attack countries that didn’t have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.

That made the United States the aggressor nation and Iraq the defending nation in this conflict. That incontrovertible fact holds deep moral implications, as well as legal ones, for U.S. soldiers who kill people in Iraq, including people who are simply trying to oust the occupiers from Iraq. Don’t forget that aggressive war was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg.

Suppose an armed robber enters a person’s home and the owner’s neighbor comes over to help him. The homeowner and his neighbor fire at the robber who fires back, killing both the homeowner and his neighbor.

Can the robber claim self-defense? No, because he had no right to be in the home in the first place. The intruder is guilty of murder, both morally and legally, because he doesn’t have the right to be where he is when he shoots the homeowner and his friend.

The situation is no different in Iraq because U.S. soldiers don’t have any right to be there. “But they were ordered to invade Iraq by their commander in chief.” They could have refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, just as Lt. Ehren Watada has done. Watada refused to loyally obey the orders of his commander in chief. Instead, he chose to obey his conscience and also to fulfill the oath he took to support and defend the Constitution.

Many Americans have a difficult time processing this because they simply want to block out of their minds that their own federal government — the paternalistic government that takes care of them with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and education and protects them from drug dealers, immigrants, terrorists, and big oil — would ever do anything gravely wrong.

Let’s put the situation this way. Suppose a coalition of Muslim countries successfully invaded the United States to overthrow the Bush regime and that foreign troops were now occupying the country and supervising new elections. Suppose some Americans began violently resisting the occupation and that British citizens came over to help them. While there undoubtedly would be some Americans supporting the foreign occupation of America and cooperating with it, my hunch is that most Americans would support the resistance.

Or put it this way: Suppose it was the Soviet Union that had done everything to Iraq that the U.S. government has done: imposed brutal sanctions that contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, invaded Iraq, and then had Soviet troops occupying the country while organizing elections, killing insurgents and resisters, censoring the press, confiscating guns, conducting warrantless searches, detaining people without trials, and torturing and sexually abusing detainees.

Is there any doubt that a large segment of the American people, especially conservatives and neo-conservatives, would be railing like banshees against the Soviet communist forces in Iraq?

War versus occupation

Moreover, what people often forget is that the United States is no longer at war in Iraq. This is an occupation, not a war. The war ended when Saddam Hussein’s government fell. At that point, U.S. forces could have exited the country. (Or they could have exited the country when it became obvious that Saddam’s infamous WMDs were nonexistent.) Instead, the president opted to have the troops remain in Iraq to “rebuild” the country and to establish “democracy,” and the troops opted to obey his orders to do so. Occupying Iraq, like invading Iraq, was an optional course of action.

As an occupation force serving a sovereign regime, U.S. forces are not engaged in a war but instead are simply serving as a domestic police force for the sovereign Iraqi regime. The problem, however, is that they’ve been trained as soldiers, not policemen.

The military mindset is totally different from the police mindset. Assume that there is a suspected terrorist hiding among 10 innocent people. How would the military and the police deal with that situation?

The military would not chance the suspected terrorist’s escaping or his killing a soldier in a gun battle. As we have seen in the al-Zarqawi killing, the military would simply drop a bomb on the suspect, even knowing that the innocent people around him would also be killed. In the mind of the military, the “collateral damage” would be worth it, even if it included children.

This military mindset was put on display a few years ago by a CIA paramilitary operation in Yemen. Convinced that an automobile in Yemen was being driven by an al-Qaeda terrorist, the CIA fired a missile into the car, killing all six people in the car, including an American citizen. As the Detroit News would ask, why bother with trying to capture the suspects and then go through all the hassles associated with extradition and trial when one missile can do the trick? And how exactly do we know that everyone in the car was guilty of terrorism and deserving of the death penalty? Because the CIA (which claimed that there were WMDs in Iraq) said so.

Consider another real-world example. A few years ago, the Washington, D.C., area was terrorized by two gunmen who were sporadically shooting and killing people at random. The police were having a very difficult time capturing them. One day, someone spotted the suspected snipers parked at a highway roadside park where lots of other cars were parked.

Taking the chance that the suspected snipers could escape to kill again, the cops slowly surrounded the roadside park. They then approached the car and took both of the suspects into custody, after which they were tried and convicted.

What would have been the military response? Drop a couple of 500-pound bombs on them, just as they did with the terrorist Zarqawi. After all, in the words of the Detroit News, why take the chance that the suspects could escape and kill even more people? So what if the bystanders, including children, would be also killed in the process? That collateral damage would be worth it because the suspects would very likely have gone on to kill more people than the bombs did. Of course, the dead would include American children, rather than Iraqi children, but certainly that wouldn’t be an important distinction to the Pentagon, or would it?

That raises another distinction between the military and the police. It’s not difficult to see that the military holds the Bill of Rights in contempt, which is precisely why the Pentagon established its torture and sex abuse camps in Cuba and former Soviet-bloc countries — so as to avoid the constraints of the U.S. Constitution and any interference by our country’s federal judiciary.

It is not a coincidence that in the Pentagon’s three-year effort to “rebuild” Iraq it has done nothing to construct a judicial system that would have independent judges issuing search and arrest warrants or that would protect due process, habeas corpus, jury trials, and the right to counsel. To the military, all that is anathema, not only because it would presumably enable lots of guilty people to go free but also because it might inhibit the ability of the military to take out people without having to go through all those legal and technical niceties.

Several months ago, a U.S. attorney told a federal court of appeals that the United States is as much a battleground in the war on terrorism as other countries in the world, including Iraq. Heaven forbid that the American people ever permit the U.S. military to expand to the United States the war-on-terrorism tactics it has employed overseas.

More important, all too many Americans have yet to confront the moral implications of invading and occupying Iraq. U.S. officials continue to exhort the American people to judge the war and occupation on whether it proves to be “successful” in establishing “stability” and “democracy” in Iraq. If so, the idea will be that the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, including countless Iraqi children, will have been worth it. It would be difficult to find a more morally repugnant position than that.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Scotso
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:17 PM
People don't seem to understand that the US leaving Iraq now would create a power vaccuum. At best, a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein would come to power... at worst they would have years and years of bloody civil war. I was against the invasion, but now that we're there we need to stay until Iraq has a viable government that can maintain control after we leave.

fifiricci
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:41 PM
People don't seem to understand that the US leaving Iraq now would create a power vaccuum. At best, a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein would come to power... at worst they would have years and years of bloody civil war. I was against the invasion, but now that we're there we need to stay until Iraq has a viable government that can maintain control after we leave.

And what do you do when that just is not possible? The US will be there for years to come if it thinks that a presence in the ME will avoid civil war :lol:

Some countries just aren't suited to democracy you know and there are sometimes very good reasons why they have tyrannies, distasteful as countries like ours sometimes find them. :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Jun 21st, 2006, 02:56 PM
The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The prime minister and deputy pime minister of Iraq have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?
why are you sooooo concerned about Iraq? Is it the most important country in the world. How about Sudan where arab militias are exterminating the people or Congo which has seem around 3 million people die as a result form a 4 year old conflict.

So Iraq was no threat. I suppose the Gulf war was just a recreation thing for you. I much prefer iraq now then under Saddam. The shiites have a right to power as do the Kurds in their now autonomous region. They will eventually get Kirkurk back. So dream on about your Sunni arab nostalgia. :lol:

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:09 PM
When should the occupation of Iraq end? Beats me... why don't you ask Bush and his cronies?

PointBlank
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:19 PM
And what do you do when that just is not possible? The US will be there for years to come if it thinks that a presence in the ME will avoid civil war :lol:

Some countries just aren't suited to democracy you know and there are sometimes very good reasons why they have tyrannies, distasteful as countries like ours sometimes find them. :rolleyes:

Well why shouldnt they stay there for years if thats what it will take to avoid a civil war? :shrug:.

And stop being an asshole. He said he didnt agree with the war, so no reason to through your anti-USA comments out there. Most this country disagrees with the war, but we cant really walk up to Bush and tell him to stop and it will be done. Not so easy. Also, we really just care now about the soilders. Its very possible to not support the war but support the troops.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:27 PM
When the Iraqi's are able to defend themselves. It takes time, and I think people are just to impatient. I know people want their families to come home, but you shouldn't sign up to join the military if you didn't want to take the responsibilty that war is always a possibilty. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Iraq won't be either. I guess this generation isn't used to wars and after-war effects taking a considerable amount of time, considering the Persian Gulf war took less than a year. I don't understand why people are expecting this to be over quickly. You can't just rebuild a government and it's military in three years. It's just not possible.

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 04:36 PM
there already is a civil war in iraq and the whole mess was created and is probably exacerbated by the presence of the us troops. besides, such arguments were used during the vietnam war as well.

when the soviets pulled out of afghanistan a power vacuum was indeed created and the taliban were able to fill it in. i still think it's good that soviets pulled out because they had no business being there in the first place. once the americans leave we can wonder what can we do to support the development of a better society in iraq. but they need to leave the country first because they are not wanted there.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:03 PM
but they need to leave the country first because they are not wanted there.

of course they aren't wanted there.... the terrorists don't want them there :lol:

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:13 PM
of course they aren't wanted there.... the terrorists don't want them there :lol:
the iraqi people don't want them there, but a lot of delusional americans will never understand that so there's no point in discussing that with them.

there are also people who dislike america (some of the terrorists, for example) and they actually want the americans to stay in iraq longer because it's hurting the american power in the same way that the afghanistan war hurt the soviet power.

Philbo
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:28 PM
When the Iraqi's are able to defend themselves. It takes time, and I think people are just to impatient. I know people want their families to come home, but you shouldn't sign up to join the military if you didn't want to take the responsibilty that war is always a possibilty.

Point taken, but when you do sign up for the military, you have the right to expect your government to only go to war when ABSOLUTELY neccessary. You do NOT expect to go to war on totally false pretences!! (WOMD's!!!)

Rome wasn't built in a day, and Iraq won't be either. I guess this generation isn't used to wars and after-war effects taking a considerable amount of time, considering the Persian Gulf war took less than a year. I don't understand why people are expecting this to be over quickly. You can't just rebuild a government and it's military in three years. It's just not possible.

Maybe people expect it to be over because Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' a couple of months after it started LOL.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:37 PM
Maybe people expect it to be over because Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' a couple of months after it started LOL.

yes, the overthrow of the dictatorship was accomplished. now we are in the next phase, making sure the new iraqi government can defend themselves.

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:38 PM
yes, the overthrow of the dictatorship was accomplished. now we are in the next phase, making sure the new iraqi government can defend themselves.
:lol:

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:41 PM
:lol:

another liberal that resorts to name-calling and teasing because they have nothing rational to say :wavey:

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:45 PM
another liberal that resorts to name-calling and teasing because they have nothing rational to say :wavey:
a) i am not a liberal
b) i'm not resorting to name-calling, i'm actually really laughing in front of my computer
c) there can be no rational reply to anything you or that samsung person say other than ignoring it
d) your posts are more amusing that his because, as some people already said, he writes poems

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:47 PM
honey, you are a complete liberal. liberal is not a party, democrat is the US party that has liberals :lol:

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 05:53 PM
honey, you are a complete liberal. liberal is not a party, democrat is the US party that has liberals :lol:
have you ever heard of anything other than "liberals" and "conservatives"? :p

but anyway, i'm not discussing things with people who have this binary view of the world :p

vogus
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:05 PM
The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The prime minister and deputy pime minister of Iraq have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?




This is drivel.

Iraq was never a threat to the US, everybody knows that - it wasn't the reason we went over there. Of course the Bush administration was lying when it said Iraq was a threat. That is a point so obvious it is not even worth debating.

The real reason we went into Iraq to get rid of a very nasty dictatorship and establish a viable secular Arab democracy in its place, and that's what Bush should have said publicly when the war was launched.

The biggest beneficiaries of the US troop presence in Iraq are liberal, secular, humanist, Western-minded Iraqis. These people would be much worse off without the American military presence. As long as that is the case, the troops ought to stay. Oil is not the issue.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:13 PM
have you ever heard of anything other than "liberals" and "conservatives"? :p

but anyway, i'm not discussing things with people who have this binary view of the world :p

of course you're not going to discuss it with me, because you know you'll get your ass handed to you six ways to sunday!

azdaja
Jun 21st, 2006, 06:45 PM
of course you're not going to discuss it with me, because you know you'll get your ass handed to you six ways to sunday!
yeah, totally.

Lord Nelson
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:54 PM
This is drivel.

Iraq was never a threat to the US, everybody knows that - it wasn't the reason we went over there. Of course the Bush administration was lying when it said Iraq was a threat. That is a point so obvious it is not even worth debating.

The real reason we went into Iraq to get rid of a very nasty dictatorship and establish a viable secular Arab democracy in its place, and that's what Bush should have said publicly when the war was launched.

The biggest beneficiaries of the US troop presence in Iraq are liberal, secular, humanist, Western-minded Iraqis. These people would be much worse off without the American military presence. As long as that is the case, the troops ought to stay. Oil is not the issue.
Indeed the Kurds, Shiites and even Christians are better off thanks to the Americans. The U.S. should think about converting some of the Sunni Arabs to Christianity. They are a lost cause.

dementieva's fan
Jun 21st, 2006, 07:58 PM
Indeed the Kurds, Shiites and even Christians are better off thanks to the Americans. The U.S. should think about converting some of the Sunni Arabs to Christianity. They are a lost cause.

Talk about stirring the pot. :rolleyes:

fifiricci
Jun 21st, 2006, 09:25 PM
This is drivel.

Oil is not the issue.

And the moon is made of cheese :lol:

vogus
Jun 21st, 2006, 10:38 PM
And the moon is made of cheese :lol:


do you really think Americans are that stupid that we'd have thousands of our soldiers killed in a foreign country just to save 25 or 50 cents a gallon on gas prices? Oil is not the issue here.

Danči Dementia
Jun 21st, 2006, 10:46 PM
For me it should end since they cougth up Hussein and less people would die.

Scotso
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:28 PM
there already is a civil war in iraq and the whole mess was created and is probably exacerbated by the presence of the us troops. besides, such arguments were used during the vietnam war as well.

when the soviets pulled out of afghanistan a power vacuum was indeed created and the taliban were able to fill it in. i still think it's good that soviets pulled out because they had no business being there in the first place. once the americans leave we can wonder what can we do to support the development of a better society in iraq. but they need to leave the country first because they are not wanted there.

that's ridiculous. they're better off with the taliban because the soviets shouldn't have been there? uh, right.

Iraq would fall into chaos if the US left now.

Scotso
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:30 PM
honey, you are a complete liberal. liberal is not a party, democrat is the US party that has liberals :lol:

There aren't many true liberals that are Democrats.

!<blocparty>!
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:47 PM
This is drivel.

The real reason we went into Iraq to get rid of a very nasty dictatorship and establish a viable secular Arab democracy in its place, and that's what Bush should have said publicly when the war was launched.

The biggest beneficiaries of the US troop presence in Iraq are liberal, secular, humanist, Western-minded Iraqis. These people would be much worse off without the American military presence. As long as that is the case, the troops ought to stay. Oil is not the issue.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

iPatty
Jun 21st, 2006, 11:49 PM
Hmmm, I don't know...right now maybe?

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and now we're regretting it. :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Jun 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM
do you really think Americans are that stupid that we'd have thousands of our soldiers killed in a foreign country just to save 25 or 50 cents a gallon on gas prices? Oil is not the issue here.
Indeed it was to ensure that country does not become a hotbed for Islamic terrorism. Some people like to say it is for oil which is not the case. Iraqi oil has done no good for U.S. consumers and even companies due to violence and instability. U.S. attacked Iraq for same reasons as they attacked Afghanistan which is to get rid of terrorists and dictators.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 02:55 AM
Indeed it was to ensure that country does not become a hotbed for Islamic terrorism. Some people like to say it is for oil which is not the case. Iraqi oil has done no good for U.S. consumers and even companies due to violence and instability. U.S. attacked Iraq for same reasons as they attacked Afghanistan which is to get rid of terrorists and dictators.

As usual, great post! You are one of the few voices of reason on this board.

It's so idiotic for people to claim that the US is "stealing" oil. The US has been over there for 3 years, and the price of oil has gone up over that time period. :rolleyes:

PointBlank
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:20 AM
Hmmm, I don't know...right now maybe?

We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and now we're regretting it. :rolleyes:

I thought the same way at first, but the only way to look at it now is to support the soilders and the end of the war. I think its very possible to support the soilders and not the war.

StarDuvallGrant
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:24 AM
I thought the same way at first, but the only way to look at it now is to support the soilders and the end of the war. I think its very possible to support the soilders and not the war.

To an extent. The problem being that the soldiers are a part of the war and do the bidding of the leaders. I can't support the soldiers yet be against the war - don't wish any of them dead but that's about it.

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:40 AM
As usual, great post! You are one of the few voices of reason on this board.
TRANSLATION:
As usual, great post! You are one of the few people who agree with me on this board.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:42 AM
FYI....

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq : US intelligence

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:52 AM
Indeed it was to ensure that country does not become a hotbed for Islamic terrorism.
How about to ensure that it doesn't become a hotbed for terrorism, period?
U.S. attacked Iraq for same reasons as they attacked Afghanistan which is to get rid of terrorists and dictators.
So if we don't like the way another government treats its people, we have the right to force another type of government on them? That's why so many countries around the world hate us.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:06 AM
TRANSLATION:
As usual, great post! You are one of the few people who agree with me on this board.

Bitter much? :rolleyes:

Or do you just like me so much that you need to find and (snidely) respond to every one of my posts? :rolleyes:

wta_zuperfann
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:08 AM
Your Breitbart article makes reference to the reported 2004 sarin gas finding as if it had been authentic. Recall how Fox and other right wingers had a field day celebrating this disclosure as if it validated Bush's war. However, just a day later it was discovered that this "finding" was just another hoax:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407080007


Most likely this will be the same scenario because your article also makes reference to pre-1991 technology which was the same as that initial 2004 report.

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:25 AM
FYI....

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq : US intelligence

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/21/060622014432.acs11f38.html
I searched Yahoo for this story; it wasn't there. I searched Reuters for this story; it wasn't there. I searched CNN, Fox News, the BBC; I still couldn't find it. Then it hit me: why not go to the original source? So I clicked on www.breitbart.com, and guess what? I couldn't find it there, either. For the life of me, I just can't figure out why Cheesestix and ONLY Cheesestix could find such a big news item. Could someone please explain that to me?

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:31 AM
Bitter much? :rolleyes:

Or do you just like me so much that you need to find and (snidely) respond to every one of my posts? :rolleyes:
First of all, I don't respond to every one of your posts, only the ones that amuse me. Besides, from what I see, if I didn't, no one else would. ;)

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:32 AM
I searched Yahoo for this story; it wasn't there. I searched Reuters for this story; it wasn't there. I searched CNN, Fox News, the BBC; I still couldn't find it. Then it hit me: why not go to the original source? So I clicked on www.breitbart.com, and guess what? I couldn't find it there, either.

Never heard of Drudge Report? :rolleyes: It's right there at the top, currently.

Furthermore, if you click on the link that I posted, it takes you right to the article. :rolleyes: So why would you go to www.breitbart.com and search for it when the direct link is right there in front of you? :retard:

Oh, and since you mention Fox News, here's a direct link to a similar story on their site too: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html And guess where I found that one too? Ever heard of Drudge Report?

For the life of me, I just can't figure out why Cheesestix and ONLY Cheesestix could find such a big news item. Could someone please explain that to me?

Because what you just said is BS. :wavey:

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:40 AM
First of all, I don't respond to every one of your posts, only the ones that amuse me. Besides, from what I see, if I didn't, no one else would. ;)

Man, I rarely post here. But almost every one of my posts gets a snide remark from you. It's like you seek them out or something. I pretty much ignore you (unless replying to one of your attacks...which, half the time, I don't even bother), but you can't say the same. You seem bitter. And actually, it's kinda creepy.

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:41 AM
Never heard of Drudge Report? :rolleyes: It's right there at the top, currently.

Furthermore, if you click on the link that I posted, it takes you right to the article. :rolleyes: So why would you go to www.breitbart.com and search for it when the direct link is right there in front of you? :retard:

Because you posted the link, that's why.
Oh, and since you mention Fox News, here's a direct link to a similar story on their site too: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html And guess where I found that one too? Ever heard of Drudge Report?
Thank you for the correction. I still wouldn't believe you if you said that two plus two equals four, however.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:48 AM
I searched Yahoo for this story; it wasn't there.

BTW, with this, you're either lying, or you're dumb. Although, technically, I think it's both.

1. Go to www.yahoo.com
2. Click on "News"
3. Search for "chemical weapons iraq" in "All News & Blogs" (right at the top)

Well, whaddya know? What's the first link that's returned?

Why...it would be this one right here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/pl_afp/uscongressiraqweapons_060622014432

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:50 AM
I still wouldn't believe you if you said that two plus two equals four, however.

And you're supposed to be an accountant? :rolleyes:

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:00 AM
BTW, with this, you're either lying, or you're dumb. Although, technically, I think it's both.

1. Go to www.yahoo.com
2. Click on "News"
3. Search for "chemical weapons iraq" in "All News & Blogs" (right at the top)

Well, whaddya know? What's the first link that's returned?

Why...it would be this one right here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/pl_afp/uscongressiraqweapons_060622014432
OK, you got me this one time. ;)

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:35 AM
http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gifUSA occupation of Iraq:... (http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?p=8361853#post8361853) Jun 22nd, 2006 01:58 AM Lord Nelson (http://www.wtaworld.com/member.php?u=33282)
it will end when we convert you people to Christianity. Long live Crusades!

WTF ARE YOU SAYING HERE???:mad: :mad: :mad:

You already crossed the line when you make such comment like that. And if you think I am an infidel or Muslim, you're wrong - I'm a Chinese Christian, and I'm REALLY ASHAMED you as a Christian say something like this!!!

Please, get a life!!! :fiery:

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:46 AM
[QUOTE=cheesestix]FYI....

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq : US intelligence[/QU'OTE]Uh cheese... what they found were shells, with chemical residue, left over from when Saddam destroed his stockpiles of chemical weapons in 1991. Repeat, they did NOT find 'chemical weapons'. They found non-functional delivery systems for chemical weapons. This is the conclusion of Bush's own inspectors.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:49 AM
The biggest beneficiaries of the US troop presence in Iraq are ..... oil companies stealing Iraq's oil wealth with US troops protecting them.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:56 AM
why are you sooooo concerned about Iraq?My primary concern is the lives and health of my relatives in IRaq. Secondarily, I'm concerned about the USA becoming a country that respects the rights of no one, instead of being a country that at least aspires to respecting the rights of everyone.

I DO realize that means absolutely nothing to you.

fifiricci
Jun 22nd, 2006, 09:18 AM
do you really think Americans are that stupid that we'd have thousands of our soldiers killed in a foreign country just to save 25 or 50 cents a gallon on gas prices? Oil is not the issue here.

Ordinary Americans might not be that stupid, but your government probably is. ;)

Can I just say to the person who PMed me with accusations of being "anti American" (God Forbid! :eek: ) that I was in Texas on holiday in 2002 and almost without exception - the exception being a "red neck" cab driver with views borne out of simplistic propaganda - every American I met was completely charming. I have no problem with you on a one to one basis, but some of your policies stink and you have to accept that for the time being, most of the rest of the civilised world despises your government's actions in Iraq.

:D

-Ph51-
Jun 22nd, 2006, 10:25 AM
Ordinary Americans might not be that stupid, but your government probably is. ;)

Can I just say to the person who PMed me with accusations of being "anti American" (God Forbid! :eek: ) that I was in Texas on holiday in 2002 and almost without exception - the exception being a "red neck" cab driver with views borne out of simplistic propaganda - every American I met was completely charming. I have no problem with you on a one to one basis, but some of your policies stink and you have to accept that for the time being, most of the rest of the civilised world despises your government's actions in Iraq.

:D
So true, cara :kiss: :lol:

Philbo
Jun 22nd, 2006, 12:12 PM
[QUOTE=cheesestix]FYI....

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq : US intelligence[/QU'OTE]Uh cheese... what they found were shells, with chemical residue, left over from when Saddam destroed his stockpiles of chemical weapons in 1991. Repeat, they did NOT find 'chemical weapons'. They found non-functional delivery systems for chemical weapons. This is the conclusion of Bush's own inspectors.


SO VERY OWNED CHEESeSTIX!!!

LOL

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=cheesestix]FYI....

Hundreds of chemical weapons found in Iraq : US intelligence[/QU'OTE]Uh cheese... what they found were shells, with chemical residue, left over from when Saddam destroed his stockpiles of chemical weapons in 1991. Repeat, they did NOT find 'chemical weapons'. They found non-functional delivery systems for chemical weapons. This is the conclusion of Bush's own inspectors.

First off, I didn't write the article or the title. I just posted the title and the link. Their title says "chemical weapons". But I guess you know better than breitbart, eh?

But if you bothered to read the article, you'd notice that it said:

"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," it says.

That sounds like more than just "residue".

And yes it says:

A Pentagon official who confirmed the findings said that all the weapons were pre-1991 vintage munitions "in such a degraded state they couldn't be used for what they are designed for."

But if you'd bother to read (and comprehend) further, you would have noticed this:

Asked just how dangerous the weapons are, Hoekstra said: "One or two of these shells, the materials inside of these, transferred outside of the country, can be very, very deadly."

The report said that the purity of the chemical agents -- and thus their potency -- depends on "many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions."

"While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," it said.

So, what it's saying (since you obviously couldn't understand) is that although the shells may not be functional, the chemicals inside of them can still be used.

You were saying?

wta_zuperfann
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:01 PM
In defiance of logic and common sense, Bush's defenders continue to pretend that his war on Iraq is not about oil profits and hegemony in the Middle East. For those who continue to believe in that myth, they need to read Kevin Phillips' book AMERICAN THEOCRACY - The Peril & Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money. In that book Republican Phillips categorically states that Bush's war IS about oil and hegemony in the Middle East.

And for those who don't know it, Phillips is the GREATEST political strategist in Republican Party history. When that party was in terrible decline because of Nixon and Watergate in the 1970s, it was he who formulated the strategy that caused it to re-merge as it did under Reagan and the ultra right.

As my old baseball hero Casey Stengel used to say, "you can look it up".

iPatty
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:05 PM
I thought the same way at first, but the only way to look at it now is to support the soilders and the end of the war. I think its very possible to support the soilders and not the war.

That's true, but I'm not in agreement with/don't support anyone associated with the cause.

Someone on here put up a video on YouTube that asked, "What have YOU lost, George?" that really puts things in perspective.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:13 PM
.. oil companies stealing Iraq's oil wealth with US troops protecting them.


make up random, un-substantiated bullshit much?

oh, that's right, you didn't make it up, you saw it at your local multiplex. So it MUST be true.

iPatty
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:13 PM
Indeed the Kurds, Shiites and even Christians are better off thanks to the Americans. The U.S. should think about converting some of the Sunni Arabs to Christianity. They are a lost cause.

What is it with you people converting people to Christianity. I am a Christian, so don't judge me on that, but you should just let people believe what they want to. Stop trying to control other people's lives.

George W. Bush, along with people like you, are further ruining America's image to the rest of the world. Bush started it, invading Iraq for "weapons of mass detruction" that, mind you, were never found.

wta_zuperfann
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:45 PM
myth: "Shiites and Christians are better off thanks to the Americans"


the facts show the precise opposite:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usrefugeesiraq


"Over 40 percent of Iraqi professionals have fled the insurgency-wracked nation since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, it said.

Syria now hosts 351,000 Iraqi refugees and has the largest population of Iraqi Shiite Muslims outside Iraq, while Jordan hosts 450,000 Iraqi refugees, many of whom are Christian minorities, according to the report."


Yes, once again, another right wing myth exposed for the lie that it is.

cheesestix
Jun 22nd, 2006, 01:56 PM
In defiance of logic and common sense, Bush's defenders continue to pretend that his war on Iraq is not about oil profits and hegemony in the Middle East.

Logic and common sense would tell you that IF the US invaded Iraq for oil, then oil prices would have gone down instead of going up so much over the past 3 years, right?

Furthermore, anything bad that happens in Iraq makes headlines. So, if the US was stealing oil (as a lot of you claim), wouldn't it be all over the news?

And you speak of profits. But, I've seen at least one oil exec on TV saying that IF they made ZERO profit (i.e. if they were to lower prices at the pump so that they can just break even), then the price of gas would only drop by 10 cents. Care to disprove that?

And for those who don't know it, Phillips is the GREATEST political strategist in Republican Party history. When that party was in terrible decline because of Nixon and Watergate in the 1970s, it was he who formulated the strategy that caused it to re-merge as it did under Reagan and the ultra right.

Dick Morris was the campaign manager/consultant that helped Clinton become governor of Arkansas and win presidential re-election. Does that mean that you've read (or believe) any of his books?

Lord Nelson
Jun 22nd, 2006, 02:32 PM
What is it with you people converting people to Christianity. I am a Christian, so don't judge me on that, but you should just let people believe what they want to. Stop trying to control other people's lives.

George W. Bush, along with people like you, are further ruining America's image to the rest of the world. Bush started it, invading Iraq for "weapons of mass detruction" that, mind you, were never found.
Ok fine they should then convert them to Buddhism. Look I am agnostic but each religion includes cultural values and so on.

Oh zeroinfinity I stand by what I say. Many in the muslim world talk about Christians propogating crusades so why can't I talk like that too. They also go on about jihads. :Look I don't hate Muslims but I don't like the extremism that is linked with the religion. Yeah yeah I know all other religions have their bad side too but not like this religion.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 02:40 PM
"Over 40 percent of Iraqi professionals have fled the insurgency-wracked nation since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, it said.




right, because these Iraqi professionals were living so well under Saddam Hussein's government prior to March 2003. Good logic there.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:04 PM
Oh zeroinfinity I stand by what I say. Many in the muslim world talk about Christians propogating crusades so why can't I talk like that too. They also go on about jihads. :Look I don't hate Muslims but I don't like the extremism that is linked with the religion. Yeah yeah I know all other religions have their bad side too but not like this religion.

LAME. JUST LAME EXCUSE :rolleyes:

So why the **** do you badrep me? You think I was a Muslim from where I come from, isn't it? You think that when I mock Bush and his guys, it was an insult to Christianity? Well, bad news for ya.... I ain't a Muslim. :fiery:

And by the way, if you think that Muslims go jihad jihad all the way, please remember that there are Muslims who don't share the same sentiment as them. Those guys are fanatics and terrorists. It is because of these guys that Muslims get a bad name.

And with you saying this:-
It will end when we convert you people to Christianity. Long live Crusades!

.... you are in the same league as the fanatics and terrorists.

So think before you say something like this. Or, you can STFU! :tape:

Infiniti2001
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:15 PM
Yes, once again, another right wing myth exposed for the lie that it is.



You can pretty much count on ANYTHING they say being inaccurate :shrug:

roarke
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:33 PM
Here s an outrageous thought.. pull out now and leave them there to kill each themselves. They have been doing so for centuries so leave them to it. Plus they don't need help anyway, they have said it over and over. They don't value their lives so it wouldn't really matter if they are left to kill each other, after all there is always the dream of the 79 virgins at death to sustain them. Also withdraw from Afghanistan. Offer no help at all to any European country that are now needing helped, or will require help in the future. Use some of that money they would be freeing up and help with global poverty and diseases starting in countries like Sudan, Darfur in particular, and Indian. Use the rest of the money to shore up their own varying defense systems.

dementieva's fan
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:33 PM
Indeed it was to ensure that country does not become a hotbed for Islamic terrorism. Some people like to say it is for oil which is not the case. Iraqi oil has done no good for U.S. consumers and even companies due to violence and instability. U.S. attacked Iraq for same reasons as they attacked Afghanistan which is to get rid of terrorists and dictators.
As usual, great post! You are one of the few voices of reason on this board.

It's so idiotic for people to claim that the US is "stealing" oil. The US has been over there for 3 years, and the price of oil has gone up over that time period. :rolleyes:

LMAO @ cheesetix backing up LN. :haha: Lord Nelson, when you have Cheesetix, Seles Fan70 and samsung101 as the only people who agree with you, you should know how much you are losing it. :tape:

Sam L
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:43 PM
The "war' against Iraq, per se, is over. The Iraqi has been totally defeated, and the government overthrown, replaced with puppets leaders loyal to the USA, at least nominally.

SO why do we have over 100,000 troops there?

Cynics would say that the American military is there to protect multi-national oil companies while they steal Iraq's oil. Come to think of it, almost any non-biased observer would reach the same conclusion. However, some things simply can't e admitted.

So...

Given that Iraq turns out to have never been a threat to the USA, and certainly is no threat now, isn't it about time my cousins American troops come back to America? The prime minister and deputy pime minister of Iraq have both asked for a time table on when the Americans would get out.

Is Iraq a sovereign nation or not?

If it is, when are we bringing our siblings and children and parents home?

If it's not, why is the Bsh administration lying to the American people? Not to the mention, the world?
:yawn:

Sam L
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:47 PM
why are you sooooo concerned about Iraq? Is it the most important country in the world. How about Sudan where arab militias are exterminating the people or Congo which has seem around 3 million people die as a result form a 4 year old conflict.

So Iraq was no threat. I suppose the Gulf war was just a recreation thing for you. I much prefer iraq now then under Saddam. The shiites have a right to power as do the Kurds in their now autonomous region. They will eventually get Kirkurk back. So dream on about your Sunni arab nostalgia. :lol:

You need to keep in mind that Volcana is an ultra bleeding heart liberal. Any kind of objectivity is lost when he's talking about politics. He's the type that gives liberals a bad name. He's the type that sings Kumbaya around a camp fire and thinks he has the solutions to every world problem.

darrinbaker00
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:47 PM
LMAO @ cheesetix backing up LN. :haha: Lord Nelson, when you have Cheesetix, Seles Fan70 and samsung101 as the only people who agree with you, you should know how much you are losing it. :tape:
LOSING it? That ship sailed a long time ago, my friend. ;)

Back on topic...if anyone thinks our occupation/invasion of Iraq will ultimately change anything, he or she is mistaken. As soon as we leave, whenever that is, they'll go back to doing what they've been doing, because that's what they know. Real change in that or any nation will only come about when the people want it so badly, they're willing to die for it. Unfortunately, we're in it too deep to pull out now, so whatever our job is over there, let's stop messing around and finish it as soon as possible.

VeeDaQueen
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:49 PM
My primary concern is the lives and health of my relatives in IRaq.

then you should at least support that they want to defend their country and iraq, or else, you should tell your relatives that are about to be 18 that they shouldn't sign up if they don't want to think of the possibilty of going to war.

Sam L
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:50 PM
then you should at least support that they want to defend their country and iraq, or else, you should tell your relatives that are about to be 18 that they shouldn't sign up if they don't want to think of the possibilty of going to war.
Well said, Evalina.

meyerpl
Jun 22nd, 2006, 03:58 PM
How about to ensure that it doesn't become a hotbed for terrorism, period?

Since the U.S.'s "liberation" of Iraq, the country has become a hotbed for terrorism. The presence of terrorist groups, the number of insurgents, the number of foreign fighters, have exploded since the U.S. occupation began and they continue to grow.

Q. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq during the ten-year period prior to the U.S. invasion?
A. Zero. It's food for thought.

Oh yeah, we Americans can throw our chests out with pride when we take a good, unvarnished look at what our 380 billion dollars and 2500 dead U.S. troops have accomplished in terms of the situation in Iraq and our reputation around the world.

iPatty
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:00 PM
Since the U.S.'s "liberation" of Iraq, the country has become a hotbed for terrorism. The presence of terrorist groups, the number of insurgents, the number of foreign fighters, have exploded since the U.S. occupation began and they continue to grow.

Q. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq during the ten-year period prior to the U.S. invasion?
A. Zero. It's food for thought.

Oh yeah, we Americans can throw our chests out with pride when we take a good, unvarnished look at what our 380 billion dollars and 2500 dead U.S. troops have accomplished in terms of the situation in Iraq and our reputation around the world.

Extremely well said.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:06 PM
You need to keep in mind that Volcana is an ultra bleeding heart liberal. Any kind of objectivity is lost when he's talking about politics. He's the type that gives liberals a bad name. He's the type that sings Kumbaya around a camp fire and thinks he has the solutions to every world problem.


Volcana is not a true liberal. From what i gather of his views he is a mainstream Democrat. There's a big difference.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:11 PM
Since the U.S.'s "liberation" of Iraq, the country has become a hotbed for terrorism. The presence of terrorist groups, the number of insurgents, the number of foreign fighters, have exploded since the U.S. occupation began and they continue to grow.

Q. How many suicide bombings were there in Iraq during the ten-year period prior to the U.S. invasion?
A. Zero. It's food for thought.

Oh yeah, we Americans can throw our chests out with pride when we take a good, unvarnished look at what our 380 billion dollars and 2500 dead U.S. troops have accomplished in terms of the situation in Iraq and our reputation around the world.


has it occured to you that it is the freedom from Hussein's oppression - provided by the US - that has made the current Shiite-Sunni insurgency fighting possible? That conflict was there before, but it was covered up by the dictatorship. Which is worse, the Hussein dictatorship or the current situation? I think most people would answer the former.

Philbo
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:35 PM
then you should at least support that they want to defend their country and iraq, or else, you should tell your relatives that are about to be 18 that they shouldn't sign up if they don't want to think of the possibilty of going to war.

You think the marines that are there WANT to be there? that they give a shit about Iraq?

Every single one of them would prefer to be at home. Doesn’t mean they arent good serviceman and women, just means that they want the wars they fight to be legal and just, not on totally false pretences and lies such as the occupation of Iraq.

meyerpl
Jun 22nd, 2006, 04:44 PM
has it occured to you that it is the freedom from Hussein's oppression - provided by the US - that has made the current Shiite-Sunni insurgency fighting possible? That conflict was there before, but it was covered up by the dictatorship. Which is worse, the Hussein dictatorship or the current situation? I think most people would answer the former.
The current Shiite-Sunni fifghting? Then, how come the liberators; the U.S. troops, or anything/anybody American are primary targets for attack?

Make no mistake about it, we've created a nightmare over there and nobody appreciates it. I take that back. Do you know who LOVES the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Osama Bin Laden loves it. It's the greatest gift the U.S. could have given him.

meyerpl
Jun 22nd, 2006, 05:52 PM
has it occured to you that it is the freedom from Hussein's oppression - provided by the US - that has made the current Shiite-Sunni insurgency fighting possible? That conflict was there before, but it was covered up by the dictatorship. Which is worse, the Hussein dictatorship or the current situation? I think most people would answer the former.
Has it occured to you that what people want is not the freedom to live in the midst of an endless war? Peole want a safe place to live and raise a family with reasonable economic opportunity and relative freedom to carry on with their lives.
I wonder what the reaction would have been if, prior to the American revolution, a foreign military force had invaded the U.S., ousted the British, established themselves as an occupying presence, herded up Americans, thrown them into prison without due process, used white phospherous and other horrible weapons on the civilian population, burst into homes murdering men, women and children, tortured detainees, began construction of an "embasy" larger than Vatican City and decided what kind of government we should have?

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:00 PM
U.S. attacked Iraq for same reasons as they attacked Afghanistan which is to get rid of terrorists and dictators.The USA attacked Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda, an organization that had just attacked the USA. In other words, the invasion of Afghanistan was in response to an attack. Al Qaeda attacked the USA, not the other way around. We had no interest in getting 'rid of terrorists and dictators.' We ARMED the organizations that became the Taliban. And we showed ZERO interest in removing them before 9/11. And now, when they are regaining political and military power in Afghanistan, we aren't taking any increased steps to stop them.

Indeed it was to ensure that country does not become a hotbed for Islamic terrorism.Lord Nelson, you are one clueless dude, but you aren't useless. You will write down some fairly popular myths, giving others the opportunity to debunk them. Thus, you have a use.

Putting the US military in Iraq was what MADE it a 'hotbed for Islamic terrorism'. THey didn't have terrorist attacks in that country before we invaded. And of course, as Bush himself said, the Iraqis fighting to expel the US military are NOT terrorists. I suppose the most appropriate term, ironically enough, would be 'freedom fighter'. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling.:)

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:41 PM
You were saying?Well, for one thing, I'm saying I consider the CIA a better source than Breitbart. The link will take you directly to the report of the Iraq Survey Group, a group Bush organized specifically to rebut accusations that he was lying about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html)

Bush's own, handpicked, politically connected boys.

Their conclusion...

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.


So I think that Breitbart, like you, is full of it.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:43 PM
make up random, un-substantiated bullshit much?No. I talk to soliders and marines who served over there.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:49 PM
Logic and common sense would tell you that IF the US invaded Iraq for oil, then oil prices would have gone down instead of going up so much over the past 3 years, right?No. For three reasons.

1) The idea is to make oil companies MORE money, not bring down gas prices here. Oil companies make money off of HIGH gas prices.

2) Iraqi oil production is still significantly lowere than it was when the Iraqis themselves were pumping the oil, and Iraq got the money. There's LESS total oil coming out of Iraq.

3) China and India have both significantly stepped up demand, which causes prices to rise.

cheese - You're not that simplistic. I'm sure you knew those three things before I wrote them. So why even make a ridiculous claim like 'IF the US invaded Iraq for oil, then oil prices would have gone down instead of going up'. You know better than that.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:53 PM
right, because these Iraqi professionals were living so well under Saddam Hussein's government prior to March 2003. Good logic there.Actually, they WERE living well. Iraq was NOT a third world country. It was quite modern. It in no way resembled Afghanistan, a country with a life expectancy of 40.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 06:55 PM
You need to keep in mind that Volcana is an ultra bleeding heart liberal. Any kind of objectivity is lost when he's talking about politics. He's the type that gives liberals a bad name. He's the type that sings Kumbaya around a camp fire and thinks he has the solutions to every world problem. :devil:

borisy
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:02 PM
yes, the overthrow of the dictatorship was accomplished. now we are in the next phase, making sure the new iraqi government can defend themselves.

The number 1 :retard: poster on this message board - award given according to both tennis and non-tennis contributions of this member.

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:04 PM
then you should at least support that they want to defend their country and iraqIf they felt they were there to defend Iraq, and they said they wanted to do that, I would support it. However, their reports are that the whole thing is one massive rip-off. Hell, I interveiwed with an Air Force colonel last month who dismissed the whole thing with, 'I got back from that debacle six months ago'.
or else, you should tell your relatives that are about to be 18 that they shouldn't sign up if they don't want to think of the possibilty of going to war.You GOTTA know I did/do that.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:10 PM
Has it occured to you that what people want is not the freedom to live in the midst of an endless war? Peole want a safe place to live and raise a family with reasonable economic opportunity and relative freedom to carry on with their lives.




so what you're really saying is, you think the Iraqi people would have been better off, both in the short and long runs, under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein than under the current democratically elected government.

Why don't you and Volcana just say that straight out instead of beating around the bush? Are you afraid it's not a credible assertion?

Volcana
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:10 PM
My apologies for posting some many times in a row. I had no idea how much there actually was to respond to. Some of it quite ridiculous. Toward the end, I expect cheesestix or Lord Nelson to claim Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

vogus
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:14 PM
2) Iraqi oil production is still significantly lowere than it was when the Iraqis themselves were pumping the oil, and Iraq got the money. There's LESS total oil coming out of Iraq.




you mean, when Saddam Hussein and his sons and cronies stole the money, right?

Lord Nelson
Jun 22nd, 2006, 07:14 PM
The USA attacked Afghanistan because they were harboring Al Qaeda, an organization that had just attacked the USA. In other words, the invasion of Afghanistan was in response to an attack. Al Qaeda attacked the USA, not the other way around. We had no interest in getting 'rid of terrorists and dictators.' We ARMED the organizations that became the Taliban. And we showed ZERO interest in removing them before 9/11. And now, when they are regaining political and military power in Afghanistan, we aren't taking any increased steps to stop them.

Lord Nelson, you are one clueless dude, but you aren't useless. You will write down some fairly popular myths, giving others the opportunity to debunk them. Thus, you have a use.

Putting the US military in Iraq was what MADE it a 'hotbed for Islamic terrorism'. THey didn't have terrorist attacks in that country before we invaded. And of course, as Bush himself said, the Iraqis fighting to expel the US military are NOT terrorists. I suppose the most appropriate term, ironically enough, would be 'freedom fighter'. Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling.:)
Actually the Taliban is the creation of Pakistan. The ISI (Pakistani intelligence services) as well as Pashtun groups and government officals helped in the creation of the group. The U.S. had absolutely no involvement in its creation. I think that you are confusing the mujahedin who fought the Soviets with the Taliban. Taliban was created in 1994, around 7 years after U.S. stopped funding the mujahedin after the end of the civil war. Those who benefitted from U.S. aid were militia leaders like Massoud and radical extremists like my friend Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. None of these were Taliban leaders.

As for Saddam, he openly funded Hamas which is a terrorist group labeled as such by most European nations as well as U.S. I have good news to tell. Saddam currently is on hunger strike to protest the killing of his lawyer. That really made my day. :lol:

wta_zuperfann
Jun 22nd, 2006, 10:19 PM
Just as I predicted above, it took less than 1 day for NotSoBrightBart's myth making about WMD to be thoroughly debunked once again:


http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum




Hot topics: Iraq ThinkFast Global Warming Media Energy Administration
Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum. Watch it:

Transcript:

COLMES: Congressman, Senator, it’s Alan Colmes. Senator, the Iraq Survey Group — let me go to the Duelfer Report — says that Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there. And Jim Angle reported this for Fox News quotes a defense official who says these were pre-1991 weapons that could not have been fired as designed because they already been degraded. And the official went on to say these are not the WMD’s this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had and not the WMD’s for which this country went to war. So the chest beating at this Republicans are doing tonight thinking this is a justification is not confirmed by the defense department.

SANTORUM: I’d like to know who that is. The fact of the matter is, I’ll wait and see what the actual Defense Department formally says or more important what the administration formally says.






WILL THESE RIGHT WINGERS EVER LEARN TO SPEAK THE TRUTH???

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 12:02 AM
I expect cheesestix or Lord Nelson to claim Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

That's because you're NARROWMINDED and you stereotype anyone right of far-left!

I never said Hussein was behind 9/11, nor have I even thought it.

And while I'm at it, let me clear up a couple more of what I'm sure are your misconceptions:

1) On abortion: I'm pro-choice.

2) On homosexuality: I have nothing against it. Not sure I support gay "marriage"....I would describe myself as "on-the-fence" about that one.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. :lol:

darrinbaker00
Jun 23rd, 2006, 12:36 AM
That's because you're NARROWMINDED and you stereotype anyone right of far-left!

I never said Hussein was behind 9/11, nor have I even thought it.

And while I'm at it, let me clear up a couple more of what I'm sure are your misconceptions:

1) On abortion: I'm pro-choice.

2) On homosexuality: I have nothing against it. Not sure I support gay "marriage"....I would describe myself as "on-the-fence" about that one.

So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. :lol:
I drew June 22 in the "Day Cheesestix Finally Learns How to Take a Joke" pool. DRAT!

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 01:16 AM
I drew June 22 in the "Day Cheesestix Finally Learns How to Take a Joke" pool. DRAT!

Well, I drew June 22 in the "Day darrinbaker00 Finally Quits Following Me Around and Attacking All of My Posts to Further Show his Bitterness" pool. Drat to that!

Seriously, you're creepy. :tape:

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 01:23 AM
No. For three reasons.

1) The idea is to make oil companies MORE money, not bring down gas prices here. Oil companies make money off of HIGH gas prices.

2) Iraqi oil production is still significantly lowere than it was when the Iraqis themselves were pumping the oil, and Iraq got the money. There's LESS total oil coming out of Iraq.

3) China and India have both significantly stepped up demand, which causes prices to rise.

cheese - You're not that simplistic. I'm sure you knew those three things before I wrote them. So why even make a ridiculous claim like 'IF the US invaded Iraq for oil, then oil prices would have gone down instead of going up'. You know better than that.

So why don't you PROVE that oil companies are making more money than before the war? (Not revenues, but profit.)

Like I said, according to at least one exec (on national tv), they only make about 10 cents profit on each gallon of gas.

C'mon now, "you're not that simplistic", are you? I'm sure you knew that higher revenues DOES NOT always mean higher profit, right? :confused:

And while you're at it, why don't you PROVE that US oil companies are stealing oil from Iraq? :rolleyes:

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:11 AM
so what you're really saying is, you think the Iraqi people would have been better off, both in the short and long runs, under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein than under the current democratically elected government.

Why don't you and Volcana just say that straight out instead of beating around the bush? Are you afraid it's not a credible assertion?Actually, it an extremely credible assertion. well, the 'sort-term' part. It's just that it IS short-sighted. They peope of Iraq WERE better off under Saddam Hussein than they RIGHT NOW. But most of them had no future. Life in Iraq today is FAR worse than under Saddam Hussein. Even in Baghdad, some neighborhoods on get two hours of electrictity a day. In 120 degree heat. But what the Iraqi people have now is the HOPE that things will improve. But 'improve' covers a lot of ground.

The Kurds have a future known as war. Because Turkey is going to violently oppose a reconstitution of Kurdistan. and it's kinda difficult to call on NATO to attack a member state.

The Shiites face a future of living in a mini-Iran.

The Sunnis, they face poverty, or a protracted battle to keep together a state that is going to be VERY difficult to hold together without strong leadership. (Like Saddam Hussein provided, albeit in a perversely criminal manner.)

But were the Iraqi people better off materially under Saddam Hussein than they are now? Definitely. They still have rape rooms. Just different people run them. They still have thousands of political prisoners. Only the politics of the prisoners have changed. And as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, the did NOT have suicide bombers and IEDs before.

Hope is a difficult thing to measure. But the ONLY thing that makes the invasion of Iraq even possibly a success, is the existence of that hope. If Iraq breaks into three parts, one poverty-stricken, one a war involving Turley, and a mini-Iran, then the invasion of Iraq has been an abjest failure.

you mean, when Saddam Hussein and his sons and cronies stole the money, right?No, I don't mean that. They took the money quite legally. Morally, ethically corrupt? Certainly. But Slavery was legal inthe UNited States. It was just wrong. So too the legal system under Hussein's Iraq.

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:17 AM
Actually the Taliban is the creation of Pakistan. The ISI (Pakistani intelligence services) as well as Pashtun groups and government officals helped in the creation of the group. The U.S. had absolutely no involvement in its creation. I think that you are confusing the mujahedin who fought the Soviets with the Taliban. Taliban was created in 1994, around 7 years after U.S. stopped funding the mujahedin after the end of the civil war. Those who benefitted from U.S. aid were militia leaders like Massoud and radical extremists like my friend Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. None of these were Taliban leaders.Do you actually think the mujahedin all died or left the country or something. Sam guys, same weapons (provided by the USA) just a different source of current funding. The USA provided a hell of a lot of the weapons the Taliban had. The USA povided a lot of Saddam Hussein's weapons too. When your country is the biggest arms dealer in the world, sometimes you wind up fighting an opponent armed with the same weapons as you.

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:24 AM
And while I'm at it, let me clear up a couple more of what I'm sure are your misconceptions:

1) On abortion: I'm pro-choice.

2) On homosexuality: I have nothing against it. Not sure I support gay "marriage"....I would describe myself as "on-the-fence" about that one.Neither one of those topics have anything to do with this thread, so let me just chalk that up to you tossing in diversions for an arguement you're not doing too well in.

Now then, back to ending the Occupation of Iraq, as the premier and vice-premier of Iraq have both requested.

Sam L
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:27 AM
No. I talk to soliders and marines who served over there.
LMFAO. :haha:

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:35 AM
Neither one of those topics have anything to do with this thread, so let me just chalk that up to you tossing in diversions for an arguement you're not doing too well in.

That was actually in response to your post assuming that I believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. :rolleyes: So, who's the one tossing in diversions? :wavey:

Furthermore, I replied to your post about oil companies and money, but I guess you don't want to address that one? :confused: (You know, since you're all about staying on topic.)

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:36 AM
So why don't you PROVE that oil companies are making more money than before the war? (Not revenues, but profit.)Actuallym that's not that tough.

I invite everyone to Google "2005 profits" and "Exxon". These are a few of the results

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/01/31/Worldandnation/Exxon_s_record_profit.shtml

http://www.monitordaily.com/Story_Page.asp?News_ID=16104&Type=AlsoToday

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002772953_exxon31.html

Exxon just posted the largest profits of any company in recorded history. Let's call that 'proof'.

And while you're at it, why don't you PROVE that US oil companies are stealing oil from Iraq? :rolleyes:Not tough either. 'stealing' is a legal term.

According to international law, an Occupying Power can not legally profit from the national resources of an occupied country. Every single contract the Coalition Provisional Authority signed that involved a payoff in Iraqi Oil is legally a theft. And the American oil companies currently operating in Iraq got those contracts from the Coalition Provisional Authority, NOT the Iraqi government. ANY money they currently get from Iraqi oil is legally theft. An Occupying Power does not have the legal right to allocate the natural resources of an armed country.

So why don't the Iraqis complain about this? They do. And they get the same results as when they ask for a time table for the exit of US troops from their 'sovereign' country.

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:37 AM
That was actually in response to your post assuming that I believe Saddam was involved in 9/11. :rolleyes: So, who's the one tossing in diversions?You really DON'T have a sense of humor, do you?

Furthermore, I replied to your post about oil companies and money, but I guess you don't want to address that one? :confused: (You know, since you're all about staying on topic.)I believe I did get to that. It took time to write is all.

The Occupation of Iraq is often justified with 'better over there than over here'.

Suppose a violent gang was terrorizing your neighborhood, and a few others. And someone decided that the best way to fight them was to draw them all to YOUR home, so YOUR house would be destroyed, and YOUR relatives would die, and they justified all this with 'better at your house than my house'. But they did kill your abusive father in the process of destroying your home, and killing a bunch of your relatives.

That's the situation in Iraq, in a nutshell.

How grateful would YOU be?

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:48 AM
You really DON'T have a sense of humor, do you?

Look who's talking. :cool:

Some of you really do generalize and make crazy accusations. So how am I to know what's a "joke" and what's the normal "whacko" talk? :lol:

Some of you really do believe that anyone right of far-left is right-wing. And I'm sure some of you really do believe that anyone right of far-left believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. And if it was a joke, it was still probably tongue-in-cheek.

I believe I did get to that. It took time to write is all.

Ooooh, my bad. :eek:

Volcana
Jun 23rd, 2006, 04:57 AM
Waste of time posting the whole article. Here's the link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

darrinbaker00
Jun 23rd, 2006, 05:15 AM
Well, I drew June 22 in the "Day darrinbaker00 Finally Quits Following Me Around and Attacking All of My Posts to Further Show his Bitterness" pool. Drat to that!

Seriously, you're creepy. :tape:
Thank you so much! ;)

I'm working my dream job, my tennis game is improving, and I'm getting married next month. Meanwhile, you're...you. Anyone who has read this or any of our exchanges can easily tell which of us is bitter and which of us isn't. However, if you need to believe that I am bitter so that you can feel better about yourself, go right ahead. If you're happy, I'm happy.

darrinbaker00
Jun 23rd, 2006, 06:47 AM
Who are you trying to convince? Me? Or yourself?

Anyone that's read our exchanges knows that we never really got along.

But who follows who around?

As of several months ago, I rarely even post here anymore, and I never engage you in conversation.

But, damn, you must really have a bug up your ass or something, because you just don't quit. You take every opportunity to find my posts and reply to them.

And you wanna say you're not bitter? Geez, let it go.

And for someone with such a great life, you sure do spend a lot of time here.
Once again, I must admit I was wrong. You DO have a sense of humor, because that was one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this board. On more than one occasion, I told you why I respond to your posts; to have a laugh or two at your expense (I was also trying to show you the folly of attempting serious political discourse on an Internet message board created by and for tennis fans, but that's obviously a lost cause). Incredibly enough, you fall for it each and every time. We never really got along, you say? WE DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER. Unfortunately, you can't understand how silly that sounds, and that's why I pick on you so much. The only time I'm semi-serious on this board is when I'm talking tennis; after all, this is WTAworld, not GEOPOLITICSworld. I post here because it's fun, and if I do spend a lot of time here in your opinion, so what? You spend your time the way you see fit, and I'll do the same with mine.

cheesestix
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:13 AM
Once again, I must admit I was wrong. You DO have a sense of humor, because that was one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this board. On more than one occasion, I told you why I respond to your posts; to have a laugh or two at your expense (I was also trying to show you the folly of attempting serious political discourse on an Internet message board created by and for tennis fans, but that's obviously a lost cause). Incredibly enough, you fall for it each and every time. We never really got along, you say? WE DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER. Unfortunately, you can't understand how silly that sounds, and that's why I pick on you so much. The only time I'm semi-serious on this board is when I'm talking tennis; after all, this is WTAworld, not GEOPOLITICSworld. I post here because it's fun, and if I do spend a lot of time here in your opinion, so what? You spend your time the way you see fit, and I'll do the same with mine.

Typical faux-smug drivel...."I'm only poking fun at your expense...blah blah blah...". Yeah, whatever.

I guess it was real fun yesterday having to repeatedly say "You're right" when I caught you making stuff up, eh? Bitter. :lol:

darrinbaker00
Jun 23rd, 2006, 07:49 AM
Typical faux-smug drivel...."I'm only poking fun at your expense...blah blah blah...". Yeah, whatever.

I guess it was real fun yesterday having to repeatedly say "You're right" when I caught you making stuff up, eh? Bitter. :lol:
See, this is what I'm talking about. The mere fact that you felt the need to prove yourself right to a stranger on an Internet message board (as well as using phrases like "faux-smug drivel") should show you that you take this stuff too seriously. By the way, I did think yesterday was fun.

wta_zuperfann
Jun 23rd, 2006, 01:02 PM
for those delusionals who believe that nobody is profiting from Bush's imperialistic war, see:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/


by the way, it's good to see that other delusionals have now dropped the crazed idea that there were WMD in Iraq -- told ya so!