Absolute Must Read

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel
conjur:

I'm not talking about the 9/11 commission report.

I'm talking about the Senate Select Committee Report on the Intelligence Community released July of 2004.

And you're still ignoring many other sources because it doesn't fit your apologist viewpoint.

So then I assume you have never read the report.


Also, I did not ignore your sources. I read them. Then I critiqued them. Can you not do the same?

 

[conjur]

You ASSume wrongly.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur
You ASSume wrongly.

Cute....real cute.

I think this conversation is done.

 

[jpeyton]

I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.

The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.

Iraq's oil was never worth all this.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.

The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.

Iraq's oil was never worth all this.

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I'm crossing my fingers that we lose horribly in Iraq.

The motives behind this war are so blatantly obvious now, it's digusting.

Iraq's oil was never worth all this.

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

I agree wishing failure in Iraq is, at the least, in very poor taste. However, the soldiers there are NOT dying for our right to say anything or anything else that benefits us. This war is being fought over lies and egos.

 

[Centinel]

That is your opinion conjur. You are entitled to it. However, it is still just OPINION.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
That is your opinion conjur. You are entitled to it. However, it is still just OPINION.

Show me the WMDs then.

Until then, it's all based on a lie.

 

[jpeyton]

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

Say what? Our free speech here was threatened by Iraqi Freedom Fighters, or even Saddam? Quit lying to yourself. The only thing Saddam did wrong was that he pissed off Bush by selling oil for Euros instead of dollars.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

The status quo in Iraq won't change AT ALL while we half-ass it there. AFAIK, Bush has NO plan to provide the security or infrastructure needed for success, only more of the same.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

See previous comment. We owe our troops and the Iraqis a real solid plan to secure and rebuild. The administration either realizes that on their own, or through trial by fire as the current military force fails in Iraq.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Nice of you to thank of all the soldiers that will die defending your right to say what you just did so that your dream may come true.

Say what? Our free speech here was threatened by Iraqi Freedom Fighters, or even Saddam? Quit lying to yourself. The only thing Saddam did wrong was that he pissed off Bush by selling oil for Euros instead of dollars.

.....and that doesnt even count all the Iraqi lives that would be lost as well.

The status quo in Iraq won't change AT ALL while we half-ass it there. AFAIK, Bush has NO plan to provide the security or infrastructure needed for success, only more of the same.

Comments like this are sickening. The US going into Iraq was wrong, i'll admit that. But we are there NOW and we owe it to our troops and the Iraqi people to finish the job, regardless of your feelings about the war.

See previous comment. We owe our troops and the Iraqis a real solid plan to secure and rebuild.

Ok, so since we dont have a solid plan out in public YET, you think the US just needs to lose. I'd like you to share that sentiment with some of the troops over there. I'm sure they'd be highly amused.

 

[Centinel]

Conjur, for someone with a supposed honor's degree in political science, the fact that you can state we went into Iraq just for WMDs is laughable.

You of all people should know better.

....but then again you proved just what kind of an intellect you really have by your response in that other post didnt you?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Conjur, for someone with a supposed honor's degree in political science, the fact that you can state we went into Iraq just for WMDs is laughable.

You of all people should know better.

....but then again you proved just what kind of an intellect you really have by your response in that other post didnt you?

Where did I claim I have an honor's degree in political science? For a two-week old n00b you claim to know a lot about me. Again, it makes me wonder if you're not a previous poster returning.

And, yes, WMDs were the sole justification for the invasion. It's in the words of Sec. Powell in his testimony before the Senate and even in the words of Paul Wolfowitz, one of the head PNAC neocons.

 

[Centinel]

Sorry, got you confused with perknose it seems.

You both pretty much think alike.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Sorry, got you confused with perknose it seems.

You both pretty much think alike.

Ah, well, at least you finally agree WMD were the sole reason for the invasion and the lack of any evidence of their existence proves the OSP and the DIA falsified intelligence to justify an invasion.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond
What do you call it when an invader decides to liberate you without your approval?

Plain old fashioned naked aggression.

Once we crossed the threshold in Iraq, using false evidence to excuse this unprovoked invasion, our fate was sealed. We cannot win. The actions described in OP only serve to prove that point.

We have become a nation which can no longer differentiate between simple right and wrong. The more lies we believe, the more atrocities, committed in our name, that we excuse, the worse this situation will become. Until the day we admit these lies to ourselves and hold the people who are responsible for these sins accountable.

Yeah, I bet the slaves in the South felt that way, huh?

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: her209
I like the hypocrisy here... remember all these war hawks were just saying exactly the opposite (when speaking about Vietnam) and they were blasting Kerry for it. Burning villages and shooting civilians?

Is all perfectly typical of war. You think for a minute it didn't happen in WWII as well? I can remember my grandfather telling stories of how they had to shoot CHILDREN because the Germans would send them toward US soldiers with grenades and bombs.

War is hell, and those who expect it to be clean and bloodless are foolish, immature people at best.

Jason

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
What do you call it when an invader decides to liberate you without your approval?

Plain old fashioned naked aggression.

Once we crossed the threshold in Iraq, using false evidence to excuse this unprovoked invasion, our fate was sealed. We cannot win. The actions described in OP only serve to prove that point.

We have become a nation which can no longer differentiate between simple right and wrong. The more lies we believe, the more atrocities, committed in our name, that we excuse, the worse this situation will become. Until the day we admit these lies to ourselves and hold the people who are responsible for these sins accountable.

Yeah, I bet the slaves in the South felt that way, huh?

Jason

Are you now suggesting the reason we invaded Iraq was slavery?

LOL

Comparing the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq with slavery is almost as ridiculous as the comparisons with WWII.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: her209
I like the hypocrisy here... remember all these war hawks were just saying exactly the opposite (when speaking about Vietnam) and they were blasting Kerry for it. Burning villages and shooting civilians?

Is all perfectly typical of war. You think for a minute it didn't happen in WWII as well? I can remember my grandfather telling stories of how they had to shoot CHILDREN because the Germans would send them toward US soldiers with grenades and bombs.

War is hell, and those who expect it to be clean and bloodless are foolish, immature people at best.

Jason

We didn't expect it to be clean and bloodless. That's why we opposed a war without good cause.

Failure in Iraq is the only way our administration will listen and reconfigure their policies.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: her209
I like the hypocrisy here... remember all these war hawks were just saying exactly the opposite (when speaking about Vietnam) and they were blasting Kerry for it. Burning villages and shooting civilians?

Is all perfectly typical of war. You think for a minute it didn't happen in WWII as well? I can remember my grandfather telling stories of how they had to shoot CHILDREN because the Germans would send them toward US soldiers with grenades and bombs.

War is hell, and those who expect it to be clean and bloodless are foolish, immature people at best.

Jason

We didn't expect it to be clean and bloodless. That's why we opposed a war without good cause.

Failure in Iraq is the only way our administration will listen and reconfigure their policies.

It's not a good cause to help a repressed people get out from under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship, try to implement democracy in the ME, and address the issue of Islamic fundamentalism that is threatening our country?

I have to wonder what your definition of a "good cause" is.

 

[jpeyton]

A little excerpt from Howard Zinn last night:

Chistopher Columbus came to the New World under the pretense of bringing Christianity to the savages (Indians).

His real motive: gold. He used his forces to slaughter countless Indians in the process.

Now we have Bush, who has come with his forces to Iraq to bring Democracy to the savages (Iraqis).

His real motive: oil. And his forces are racking up the bodies in the process.

IMO, Columbus was a better man. Why? Because he was actually WITH his forces when raped and pillaged the Indians.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
A little excerpt from Howard Zinn last night:

Chistopher Columbus came to the New World under the pretense of bringing Christianity to the savages (Indians).

His real motive: gold. He used his forces to slaughter countless Indians in the process.

Now we have Bush, who has come with his forces to Iraq to bring Democracy to the savages (Iraqis).

His real motive: oil. And his forces are racking up the bodies in the process.

IMO, Columbus was a better man. Why? Because he was actually WITH his forces when raped and pillaged the Indians.

You are on crack, when Did Columbus every say he had religious purposes??, he was pretty clear in his mission to make it to India for its riches.

He slaughtered Indians with his forces? im starting to believe you are 13, with the crap you beleive, and even worse, regurgitate. Columbus had 3 TINY ships, have you ever seen the scale replica of the Santa Maria? (the biggest of the 3) its half the size of a long island ferry. Columbus had maybe 30-40 people in his group, most of which 15 year old sailors. they were hardly "forces" Columbus was a busniess man looking for a quicker trade route. Nothing more. The so called "slaughter" brought on by European germs being introduced to a new civilization was not intentional. They didnt even know what germs or viruses were back then.

 

[jpeyton]

The slaughter of natives in the Indies by Spanish forces is well documented.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel1113
As I said before, if our current military was allowed to fight the war correctly, this war would be going much smoother. The military doesn't need more men, it needs politicians to get off of its back and let it fight.

For example?

Abu Ghraib.

W-T-F ?

I seriously hope I'm just misunderstanding you. You just have to clarify this answer for me.

C'mon Dan. Tell us what you meant.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: BBond
What do you call it when an invader decides to liberate you without your approval?

Plain old fashioned naked aggression.

Once we crossed the threshold in Iraq, using false evidence to excuse this unprovoked invasion, our fate was sealed. We cannot win. The actions described in OP only serve to prove that point.

We have become a nation which can no longer differentiate between simple right and wrong. The more lies we believe, the more atrocities, committed in our name, that we excuse, the worse this situation will become. Until the day we admit these lies to ourselves and hold the people who are responsible for these sins accountable.

Yeah, I bet the slaves in the South felt that way, huh?

Jason

Are you now suggesting the reason we invaded Iraq was slavery?

LOL

Comparing the unprovoked U.S. attack on Iraq with slavery is almost as ridiculous as the comparisons with WWII.

Not at all. I'm just saying that whether the oppressed people ASKED for help or not is irrelevant. A free nation ALWAYS has the right, though not the obligation, to intervene on the behalf of the oppressed. I am well aware that the liberation of the Iraqi people was not the sole reason for going in, though it was certainly and clearly ONE of the reasons from day one.

The comparisons with WWII are in NO WAY ridiculous. In wars, innocent people die, PERIOD. In wars, soldiers commit horrible acts, PERIOD. These are the FACTS, and you can't skirt around them by twisting words and pretending that war has ever been anything but a brutal and barbarous scenario.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It's not a good cause to help a repressed people get out from under the thumb of a brutal dictatorship, try to implement democracy in the ME, and address the issue of Islamic fundamentalism that is threatening our country?

I have to wonder what your definition of a "good cause" is.

Probably some Robin Hood derived scheme to steal from some people and give to others in the name of "fairness".

Jason