Mongers,
Just more right wing reactionary scare tactics from our in-house Fox News analyst, Punter 127.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
Printable View
Mongers,
Just more right wing reactionary scare tactics from our in-house Fox News analyst, Punter 127.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]And which facts would that be? Other than the conversation you had with your mirror about Bush's "secret plan" to draw in all the bad guys like a late night be movie Western I haven't noticed any "facts", just your own words which on this subject have become pretty laughable I'm sorry to say.[/QUOTE]Hi,
The "facts" are that we liberated Iraq, and as a result of our presence there, Al Qaeda was inexorabily drawn into a fight with our military there.
Which of these "facts" do you believe was the result of a "conversation" I had with my "mirror"?
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"[i]It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.[/i]"
Jackson,
I do not think any reasonable examination of the situation in Iraq would deem the Iraqi people to be either free or united; therefore no liberation ever took place. Free? Meaning freedom of religion? Before long there will be a Shiite theocracy in place, with Iran pulling the strings. You can forget freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from self-incrimination; in those parts, vigilante justice takes care of the people who want those freedoms. There is no freedom in Iraq.
United? The Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds have been battling it out for over a thousand years; modern day Iraq is not a unified nation-state, but a conglomerate of convenience created post-WWI to ease the administration by the UK; think Raj India, which degenerated into Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Someday, the US military will leave Iraq (just like the UK army left Raj India) and the three components will split apart into separate entities.
So in reality, what are the results of the Iraq war? First we have an beefed-up and more confident Iran, who will someday in the near future run Iraq just as Syria ran Lebanon for so many years; we have a bankrupted US Treasury, along with damaged US prestige abroad, and trillions of dollars in pissed-away resources. Not to forget, we have over 4100 dead US servicemen, who died for nothing as part of a grand money making scheme by the neo-cons in power.
Suerte,
Rock Harders
[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi,
BTW, I don't see anyone else laughing at this.[/QUOTE]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.[/QUOTE]I laughed, but then I realize it wasn't a joke. It's hard enough to imagine that someone would consider us liberators before the invasion. But now, after all that has happened, it's almost unbelievable that someone could still hold that opinion.
What's the latest on Annie Oakley?
[QUOTE=Doggboy]What's the latest on Annie Oakley?[/QUOTE]I don’t know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin’s out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from “BO”.
[QUOTE=Doggboy]What's the latest on Annie Oakley?[/QUOTE]The pitbull with lipstick is still out there with her dad trying to lie their way into the White House. The press is actually starting to pull the curtain back on the lies and phony claims of stewardship and her unremarkable and pedestrian career in government.
[QUOTE=Punter 127]I don't know about Annie Oakley but Sarah Palin's out winning the hearts (and votes) of the American people, and stealing the limelight from "BO".[/QUOTE]Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.
I have no interest in converting you or anyone else to my way of thinking (one that is generally based on facts and reality rather than synthetic angst and injustice, fabricated in soft minds by pop media and academia)
I respect your right to say what want. However, I will take issue with some of your most egregious misstatements and point out some inaccuracies and falsehoods.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]Innocent states pay the prices when the big bully's like UK in 1947 in India & US in 2008 Iraq leave after looting all the wealth, oil, gold.[/QUOTE]So too do innocents pay the price under tyrannical dictators (please don't bother responding that Bush is a dictator or any of your other campus-sit-in slogans) However, any rational, objective view will tell you that fewer live under tyranny in Iraq today than in 2002. The facts are that of a population of approximately 29 million, under Saddam, about 28,999,900 lived under constant fear of his rule. You may cling to whatever misconceived notions you have about Iraq today, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that parts of the country and populace are thriving. It is not to say that the place is perfect but it is better and getting better all the time. To postulate that life under Saddam wasn't so bad is just plain stupid.
The Human Rights Watch (not your everyday Neo-Con source) states, 'Since the overthrow of the Iraqi government in April 2003 by the U. S.-led coalition forces, over 250 mass graves have been located across Iraq. Some are believed to contain the remains of thousands of victims, including entire families.' Many hundreds of thousands of murders are directly attributable to Saddam. For example, in Anfal alone, he was responsible for killing 182,000 people.
As far as looting wealth, oil and gold, you could not be more wrong. This is just plain false. In the history of warfare, the ethos was 'to the victor goes the spoils.' However, since the Marshall Plan, America has done the exact opposite. While as the victor we stand in a position to repay ourselves for the cost of the war, through seizing oil revenues, however we do not. We will not. The fact is that US has not taken any material war booty or ill-gotten gains in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]You are fretting for your 4100 dead service men[/QUOTE]Your slight to our armed forces and indifference to the sacrifice that they have made exposes you ignorance of the reality of our world. The contribution to mankind of the US and Allied forces, since 1917, is evidenced in the facts that 1) you posted your comments in English rather than Russian, German or Chinese, 2) you are free to make such statements, and 3) you appear to be free to move about the world mongering and pursuing other forms of happiness.
[QUOTE=Bank Note]spare a thought or two for the millions of Iraqis who have been injured, killed, raped by the US servicemen.[/QUOTE]Please back up your statements with facts. Even if we take the June 2006 Lancet study – which has had much criticism and produced a number far higher than any developed by other non-US Govt sources including Iraq Body Count project, the United Nations, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health—you can't get remotely close to your wildly erroneous claim. The study's estimate for violent deaths occurring in Iraq for the period 2003-2006 isf 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) This credits the Coalition with those deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, in addition to those killed by Coalition actions. Of those deaths, 31% (or 186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition.
The incidence rate of US abuses is extremely low and in all cases under investigation are limited to individuals and small groups of individuals. There are, as always with large groups of human beings, bad people among them. From the materials I could find, there are fewer than 50 allegations of rape by US servicemen in Iraq for the period 2003-2008 (in a country with 13 million female citizens)
"The Iraqi Government uses rape and sexual assault of women to achieve the following goals: to extract information and forced confessions from detained family members; to intimidate Iraqi oppositionists by sending videotapes showing the rape of female family members; and to blackmail Iraqi men into future cooperation with the regime. Some Iraqi authorities even carry personnel cards identifying their official "activity" as the "violation of women's honor."" (U. S. Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices-2001, March 2002; Iraq Research and Documentation Project, Harvard University)
Each murder, rape, torture and death of innocents and of our service men is a tragedy.
Your glib dismissal of the sacrifices made for your freedom and intentional regurgitation and dissemination of erroneous information reveals your ignorance and dogmatic worship and adherence to a hollow ideology. I am sure there is a steady stream of this drivel coming out of your mouth 24/7, so please don't feel the need to respond just wipe the spooge off your chin.
[QUOTE=Gato Hunter]Just wait until Sarah has to start answering questions from a non vetted reporter. I think some of the shine will rub off.[/QUOTE]I've been saying that about The Messiah for months.
[QUOTE=Bacchus9]I know, some others actually try to reason with you and go into considerable well documented detail explaining why your idea (s) are without merit. I'm just incredulous and not bothered to do much more than make fun. But either way we won't be appeasing your ideas.[/QUOTE]Let's consider your theory from another perspective:
You would have us believe that of all the educated and experienced military minds working in the Pentagon, as well as all the dedicated professionals employed in the CIA, the NSA, etc, that NONE of them had the slightest idea, not the slightest inkling, that by the process of liberating Iraq that the possibility existed that Al Qaeda would subsequently migrate to Iraq and begin fighting our military there?
It's amazing that you think so poorly of our military and our intelligence agencies that you willingly believe that they could not and did not anticipate this phenomenon.
Frankly, accepting your primary counter-argument requires no less than the willing suspension of disbelief.
Thanks,
Jackson
=========================================
"[i]It must be nice being an appeaser. You get to muddle along with your head in the sand while other good people, in the process of keeping the world safe for themselves, will inadvertently keep it safe for you too.[/i]"